Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary Clinton is at her best when she's counted out, campaigning her heart out
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/06/hillary-clinton-campaigning-new-hampshire-jill-abramsonThe Anointed One may be gone, but so are ‘dem good old days’ of the boys on the bus. There’s no crying in New Hampshire anymore
There is a picture on the wall of the Espresso Café here in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in a corner near the exit. Hillary Clinton is talking to voters, but it doesn’t show the famous “Hillary cried” moment from eight years ago, when the senator teared up on the eve of the presidential primary.
She was exhausted, and a loss to Barack Obama was predicted. Some pundits believed the unusual display of emotion was a turning point that helped show Clinton had a human side.
That was sexism. Why do powerful women need to show their softer side or shed tears to be considered fully human?
The whole issue of Clinton’s likeability – now, on the verge of a potential defeat to Bernie Sanders, as then against Obama – rests on a long established, sexist double standard that many sociologists and business-school professors have studied: power and likeability have a negative corollary with powerful women. With men, that is not the case. If Clinton is judged too powerful and aggressive, she’s dinged for being unlikeable. If she’s too soft, she’s dismissed. Women, unlike men, are rarely perceived as warm and competent. This locks them in a classic double-bind. Certainly, I’ve seen it at points in my own career.
She was exhausted, and a loss to Barack Obama was predicted. Some pundits believed the unusual display of emotion was a turning point that helped show Clinton had a human side.
That was sexism. Why do powerful women need to show their softer side or shed tears to be considered fully human?
The whole issue of Clinton’s likeability – now, on the verge of a potential defeat to Bernie Sanders, as then against Obama – rests on a long established, sexist double standard that many sociologists and business-school professors have studied: power and likeability have a negative corollary with powerful women. With men, that is not the case. If Clinton is judged too powerful and aggressive, she’s dinged for being unlikeable. If she’s too soft, she’s dismissed. Women, unlike men, are rarely perceived as warm and competent. This locks them in a classic double-bind. Certainly, I’ve seen it at points in my own career.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thank you!
