In general, the media tows the PC line, so it wouldn't be surprising that they would be in favor of a Democratic candidate. This year they have a double chance to be even more PC because they have the chance to support both a minority and another minority. They should be in their glory.
And so I find it curious that the story they want is that Hillary cries or shows emotion. Do they find that so amazing, that she's a woman and a person to boot? I mean, headlines because her voice quavers? Give me a break! Would they do this to a man?
So, they want her, but they don't want her to show her feelings. They want her to act like a man because she's tough. Sure she's tough, but think of the pressure she's under. Most of us would crack. I would. Of course, I'd be running for the other side.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think the reason is that when women cry, it reinforces the "emotional, unstable" stereotype. When men cry, they are going against type and showing their sensitive side; thus it's seen as a positive.
ReplyDeleteI also think people find it amazing that Hillary showed some emotion (other than anger) because she generally has come across as pretty much a robot. So, Hillary showing a human side is big news, indeed!
Oh, and one last reason that it's big news: It seems ... phony. Staged. But that shouldn't be surprising, should it?
Actually I think women slightly outnumber men. But even if they don't I think it is silly to consider women as a minority.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the under a lot of pressure for an excuse. All presidential candidates pretty much are under a lot of pressure and they didn't cry. Though Al Gore did wine a lot after losing. It just seems Hillary is crying because the promised coronation didn't happen and she actually believed all the media hype about herself.
I really don't but the whole crying bit either. It seems like a lasat-minute and last-ditch effort to appear human and womanly to the women in New Hampshire. Hillary has been unable to win the women vote for a long time, and I guess with polls the way they were, she figured she had nothing to lose.
ReplyDeleteAs for the media, they're showing it to hedge their bets: If Obama's the winner, they can say it was a display of weakness. If Hillary does better this time around, they can say that it was a display of humanity and emotion on the campaign trail. But I think the main reason it's getting so much hype is that (although they can't say it) it looks so fake to everybody. She burst into tears because the campaign is personal for her.
Right.
Although I don't doubt that, it was tangential to a totally unrelated question. Further, there were more reporters and photographers in the room than voters.
The media is favoring Obama, and they're taking Hillary down. And she gave them a great weapon with this little stunt. Remember the way Howard Dean went down? It was because he showed off the "primal manly" side.
How do you take down a woman? Show that she's too weak to do the job. That is, after all, the argument that's kept women out of politics for years. And the people of New Hampshire require somebody tough on politics, somebody willing to be serious. Not somebody who cries. Or thinks that crying is a good image to project.
'Would they do that to a man?'
ReplyDeleteActually, they did -- to Edmund Muskie, during the New Hampshire primary, back in 1968.
OK, they do it to men, but somehow, it feels different. For men, it's like, look how we made him crack! and for women it's like, look how she cracked under pressure, that woman!.
ReplyDeleteAnd I meant women are a minority in the political world, just as people of color are still a minority in the political world. Not that it matters. I believe, as Dr. MLK said, that people should be judged on the content of their character, and not the color of their skin (or their gender). May the best man win (and I say man to mean mankind here, and that includes women, if they would be the best, which I don't believe Hillary is, but that's just me ;-))
And what I said kind of echoes ME above, the difference between the genders crying.
ReplyDeleteI think either can be taken down by crying. Cracking under pressure shows that people aren't balanced, not enough rest, too much travel, too intense a schedule, no down time, no prayer time, etc. It isn't healthy.
I wish there were a link to some article. I don't know if we are discussing Ms. Clinton's reaction to her loss in Iowa or her win in New Hampshire.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the media is concerned with this at all.
It is not news, that most women are more emotive than most men.
It is not news, that Ms. Clinton is less emotive than most people.
Still, following Ms. Clinton around to see if she cries is not newsworthy.
Del
Found this Dinocrat post today, via The Anchoress; it backs up, pretty convincingly, my point above about Mrs. Clinton's fake and phony tears. I am saddened to think that perhaps women voters in New Hampshire fell for that. Do you think we've all been Oprahized?
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that the Wild Goose isn't welcome, it couldn't help it but reply. Obviously, there is a desperate need to make some real sense of the complex mess that the modern politics has become. (Like "I wish there were a link to some article.")
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to politics it pays to be cynical. The whole crying thing was an orchestrated ruse to turn around Hillary Clinton's campaign. Perhaps you had a chance to hear an interview with the woman, Marianne Pernold Young, who asked the question "How do you do it? How do you keep up?" These undecided women were selected and invited specifically and the campaign handlers knew there would be a good chance that one of the women would ask a question like that to which Clinton would cry her crocodile tears. Don't be fooled, psychologically she is as strong and cool and calculating as lady Macbeth, and it would take a lot more to make her tears sincere.
The whole problem goes deeper. Before he got sick, (in one of the previous threads), Chestertonian quipped that Chesterton, being a liberal, resented being called a conservative. (BTW, the Search function doesn't seem to find things. And I hope and pray that Chestertonian is OK now.) However, if Chesterton lived today, he would certainly attack the notion of modern liberalism. Here is a good book and a revealing interview with Jonah Goldberg:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/013336.php
http://politicscentral.com/2007/12/27/the_glenn_and_helen_show_jonah.php
The premise of Goldberg's book is that modern liberalism is an outgrowth of Mussolini's totalitarianism and fascism, which smashes the sanctity of the family. The two party system analogy is also very good -- the mommy and daddy kind of child and citizen nurturing. The options we are presented with is either a right wing national socialism, or the left wing international socialism, with the evolutionary assumption that the "nation" is doomed to extinction and will one day disappear. So that leaves us with some kind of world government in the future. This fits in well with what Belloc and Chesterton believed. (BTW, it also fits wells with the Christian apocalyptic vision of history.) Those who wish to dig deeper into this, should read Francis Fukuayma's "The End of History and the Last Man".
This also explains how the global warming hoax fits in. If you haven't seen the BBC Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", definitely watch it. It is available on the Internet, for example here:
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
Wild Goose
Dear Wildy,
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome here. Everyone is. But everyone is subject to the same editorial possibility: you may be edited. That's what a blogmistress is for. Like a magazine, when you submit something, it may or may not be published, and if published, it may be edited for clarity or charity. ;-)
I don't know if I agree with you. It seems pretty cynical to assume that Hilary's emotions are an act. You say one should be cynical.
The dictionary says cynical is "scornful of the motives or virtue of others; bitterly mocking; sneering"
I don't know that one should pass the whole of this year with a cynical attitude. That seems very un-Chestertonian.
I wonder if we can pass the year rather in a humorous way.
Hilary is a human being after all. Maybe the whole thing was set up, but how can you know for sure that it was?
Contest:
Write a Clerihew about Hilary that's funny.
How to enter:
put it in this combox
What you'll win:
Something I haven't though of yet, but if it's funny enough, you'll get your own post out of it.
May the best poem win!
Perhaps what Wild Goose meant to say (if I may suggest this, W.G.!) was that we should be somewhat skeptical, not necessarily cynical. A healthy skepticism is a very important thing to maintain regarding politicians, otherwise one veers into naivete.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Nancy is right in that we'll never know for sure if the tears were pre-planned or genuine, but based on the Clintons' past history, and the evidence cited above, I'll stick with "staged".
Now, to see if I can come up with a Clerihew....!
Actually I said that it pays to be "cynical about politics". Chesterton also learned it the hard way, for example he became quite cynical about his friend Masterman who sold out his integrity.
ReplyDeleteThe word cynical originated with the Greek Cynical philosophers, meaning contempt for excessive pleasure, and rejecting all conventions, not unlike Chesterton -- Isn't this one of the main motto's of the American Chesterton Society? (Break the Conventions, Keep the Commandments!) The cynics advocated the pursuit of simple virtue, living in harmony with nature. Not a bad suggestion even for a modern Christian and distributist.
Today, in better dictionaries, the word 'cynicism' mainly means believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity, and in this sense it is quite appropriate to sneer at such politicians.
Here is one:
Hillary Clinton,
put a nice act on.
Crying crocodile tears,
Getting many loud cheers.
Here is another sneer:
ReplyDeleteLady Hillary Clinton,
Didn't need a stage to act on.
She was as sincere as death,
Imitating lady Macbeth.
In the context of Shakespeare's Macbeth, of course, as well as Oscar Wilde:
"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal."
Wild Goose
I should get some work done too, but I can't help it, here is another one:
ReplyDeleteLady Hillary Clinton,
Staged a cunning put-on.
Her candid femininity was a gem,
Which impressed even Gloria Steinem.
Of course referring to Gloria Steinem's response I heard in a radio interview, but here it is from the horse's mouth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html
Wild Goose