Hillary's "woman" problem

She was the best (and she was not my first choice, Biden and Edwards were).

She answered the questions clearly and concisely. She did not try to weasel out of the question - the way Edwards did when asked about his Senate accomplishment; did not try to digress - the way Richardson and Edwards did; did not paraphrase others' comments as her own - the way Obama did about her observation that we did not pursue Bin Laden because we went to Iraq.

But she did not try to charm the audience and the viewers. The men did and got away with it. Probably added to their score. Had she tried to do the same, she would have been dismissed as light weight as... a woman.

Yes, she mentioned that people liked Bush, said they could have a beer with him, even those that oppose his policies. And, of course, Bill Clinton is the master of charm. We like our politicians to be personable. This is why, in 1996, Forbes with his goofy smile won NH instead of sour and dour Dole and Buchanan.

But women cannot be that, not yet.

And we have seen this in the work place. Men can stop working, shoot the breeze, talk about last night's football game or NASCAR race and be admired as being "one of the guys."

But let a professional woman sit and shoot the breeze - on any topic - and she would be dismissed as "not serious."

I do hope that voters of New Hampshire, and other states, can see beyond the charm into substance.

their gender to get ahead. I was very impressed that Obama didn't make any comments like " him being the first black president as change" because its better to leave things like race and gender out of our daily decisions. I am pretty sure every American understands that the first woman or black person being president would be change and it was a bad move for Clinton to use that to try and get more votes with gender instead of issues. Lately it seems that she is being called out on things more and she is responding in defensive ways instead of just sticking to who she is and where she stands on the issues. I hope they will all leave gender and race out of the rest of the campaign because I feel it hurts us all.

and winning the Presidency would represent a big change; he is seen as a "change candidate" in a positive way. Clinton WAS being challenged on this. She was absolutely correct to say what she did. Besides being factually correct, she was probably also trying to reach out to some of the younger women. Obama is not losing the young African American vote to other candidates. So their positions are not parallel.
(b) when our society gets to the point where certain demographic groups do not hold most of the best, highest-paying, and most powerful positions, maybe then we can get to the kumbaya position of "leaving out" gender and race, etc. from the conversation.

just because they want to see a woman get the job and I have begged my mother to do her research on all of the candidates before she makes that important vote. I don't think anyone should get a job just on race or gender, not because it should be given to the best person but because you may just give the job to a dangerous person. Until things are right in America we need a way to help minorities (which I am) get equal opportunities but we MUST always consider the candidates pros and cons when it comes to the job or position.

If we don't educate ourselves on the potential candidates, we may just give a child molester a job caring for our children because we based our decision on physical attributes and didn't research the candidate.

When I read some people’s negative comments about Hillary I am aware that gender is the issue

and that those making the negative comments are threatened by a strong and capable woman candidate.

I also think it is not popular to acknowledge this.

I respect Hillary

and welcome to DU DDQ!

:toast: :bounce:

:D

rules:party:

We ladies know how tough it is to be in a male dominated field. And, to suceed is even harder. She is to be admired for what she's done and what she's trying to accomplish.

MKJ

I totally agree.

According to DUers, she's just a nasty bitch who will be throwing dishes around the Oval Office, should she manage to overcome her shrill shriek in the debate and become president.

And, no, I'm not exaggerating. Those exact sentiments reside in Greatest Page threads at this very moment.

or they wouldn't be snarking :)

I thought that she did fine. I find it kind of ironic (or hypocritical) that some of the same people who so adamantly objected to the mischaracterization of the "Dean scream" four years ago seem to be the first to label Hillary's "anger" as a campaign-ending moment.

I mean, really! :scared:














:sarcasm:

You know...some of the stuff I've seen tonight is nearly that bad.

Admittedly, I cam to DU after the debate was over. Everyone is praising Edwards for going after Clinton, but this was in the beginning of the debate and she just left his comment behind.

I don't know why everyone is praising Edwards who could not answer a single straight answer - like what he accomplished in the Senate.

She gave specific examples of the Children Health that she managed to work behind the scene when she was First Lady.

I'm an independent, and I've never been a fan of Hillary's - but she won me over tonight. I really hope people can get pass their prejudices. BTW - did anyone catch the look on Chelsea's face when her mom was speaking? In a short instant, the admiration, respect, and love for her mother was so incredibly apparent. Very, very powerful.

H. Clinton doesn't do that tho. She's more concerned about other issues. That's what I don't like about her. The men running are more concerned about the suffering than she is. I find that odd.

You shouldn't expect that any more of her than of a male candidate.

There is a ton of research in the social science literature that shows how women are expected to be sensitive, nice, empathic, etc., but get no credit when they behave that way--just penalties when they don't. People don't expect that of men, so it is a bonus if they do behave that way. It places added pressure on women who aspire to male-dominated positions--they have to be "better" to be treated as well as the men.

.. when it comes to concern about the least able and most helpless. It's not a mystery to science and there's no reason we should be hiding it or pretending it's not true, or calling it "sexist." However, it's the men in this primary race that are more concerned than the woman. That REALLY concerns me, as you can imagine. I can't even fathom that.

for the same position, that is the very definition of sexist.

And no, any non-sexist scientist who's read the literature will NOT admit that, because it is not true. Individuals vary, and many "gender differences" have been shown to result from different social pressures and expectations. Go to the research literature and read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Sexism is discrimination based on pure, unreasonable hatred. This woman is not showing any sort of compassion, whereas the men running against her, are. That alone explains the difference in the voting. Apparently she hasn't opened her eyes yet about it, and neither have you.

However, the real point I'm trying to make is not that she needs to change. I want her to be exactly as she is in real life. If she's compassionate, she should be compassionate. If she's not, she should not be.

I don't support her for that reason. There are two awesome candidates who *ARE* compassionate towards the helpless, the poor, the ones who suffer, the peoople dying in this war-for-profit. I prefer one of those compassionate candidates over the other, and that one is Edwards, however, the other one is not uncool at all.

Clinton, however, does not speak to me or for me at all.

READ THE RESEARCH IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME--trying to diss me is a very lame response. It's available in any public library and you can find some of it online.

The DEFINITION of sexism includes having a stereotypical expectation of someone BASED ON HIS OR HER GENDER. That is exactly what you said. That is a sexist thing to do, whether you like it or not, and it is just as bad when women do it as when men do it. You need to change that expectation if you don't want to be called on it.

There is nothing wrong with expecting ANY candidate to have and show compassion and to evaluate their records or behaviors fairly, as to who best meets that standard for you.

Please stop being silly. Science has shown that women are more COMPASSIONATE. There have been countless studies in the matter. Let's not get into a mud-slinging contest over something that has been already proven scientifically. This woman for whatever reasons she may have, or maybe because she is that way herself, is not showing any compassion towards the most helpless. The two men running against her, are. For that alone, I would vote for either of these two men and not for her. Perhaps her advisers are to blame for how she is behaving. Who knows. Either way, it's affecting the votes, as you can see. This country is SUFFERING. We are no longer interested in free market bullshit. We now want candidates that are compassionate. Whoever shows compassion, will have a better change at being elected. I can already see who isn't going to be.

more than 20 years. You are simply wrong about what the research says.

And your pregnancy analogy is what is silly here. Compassion is a quality both women and men can have; pregnancy is not.

If you insist on having the last word, be my guest.

.... as well as the financial suffering of so many.

but in a time when our planet is literally falling to pieces, I thought it appalling that the other candidates were focused on the "helpless" issue almost to the exclusion of everything else.

.. as a result, we've had scumbags in office who have made the lives of the less fortunate here, a living hell. It's high time we focused almost exclusively on them. Once we do that, the rest will fall into place. The rich and corporations have had the focus and the goodies for decades now. Time to close the spigot on them.

she is behind the Children Health bill that passed when she was a First Lady.

When a man shows passion, it's called "wow, was he ever kicking ass!"

..and I will do it again. Women don't DARE display ANY emotion or passion or animation AT ALL (except in bed of course) - or they're "angry bitches" or "shrill" or "over-sensitive".

When men do it, that's OK and admirable that they're "kicking ass".

Humph. Hillary isn't my candidate, but I think she's undoubtedly gotten enough of that crap. I know I have and I'm not even running for President!

are more supportive of Clinton than some other groups are; they can identify with what she's going through.

Astonishing.

When Hillary does it, she's a shrill bitch.

When Edwards does it, he's fighting for America!

Disclaimer: I like all four of the candidates in tonight's debate. It is not my intent to pick on Edwards, only use him and his supporters as an example of the disparity.

I finally saw the clip that people here are referring to her "Dean scream," or being angry and passionate.

This is the clip that I admired when she specifically said what she has accomplished.

None of the others came any close to her. Except Richardson in telling of his experience.

But when Edwards was showing passion, talking about how caring is in his blood - he is being hailed.

"Buchanan Wins Granite State"

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9602/20/nh.results/

calling herself a girl for so long that I have lost all respect for her. Girl,,,go figure.

made me be convinced you are right. At first I thought it was merely the loyalty to other candidates - but what was said is so infuriating, I may end voting for her - much as I disagree with a lot of her record.(if I read posts like those 5 minutes before going to the poll that is)

What she has is a Mark Penn problem and a Begala and Carville problem. I despise her advisers, and have way less problems with her aside from them.

Instead of letting her be herself, she's had these clueless men "grooming" her. Leads me to wonder if it would be better for her to have mostly female advisors.

Or Beltway parasites

On top of that she's been asked questions before, just like this one that she doesn't answer...she dances around. I absolutely cannot stand that. If you're asked a direct question, answer it. Don't tap around the subject. And for the record, I am a woman and wanted a woman in office. Just not this one. She's Bush-lite

This post should win some kind of award.

and are congratulated for being deep thinkers and real do'ers and the woman in the same contest speaks in complete sentences and coherent paragraphs gets knocked for doing it and reminded by the pundits that she has somehow managed to get out of her place?

Ah well, at least Obama and Edwards didn't go so far as to discuss football.

Essentially Hillary and Edwards tied in Iowa. In order for Obama to be successful, one of the two has to go. This is the scheme that we are seeing operating at this point.

sound bytes are always better than saying something of substance.

I liked that it was quite obvious who were the two most experienced people on stage and who were the two who prefer to talk about touching personal stories than specifics. I actually liked that she asked for a reality check. It was refreshing for someone to point out that a) Edwards' bill was vetoed by Bush and b) that Obama has in his staff someone who takes money from lobbyists.

In Victorian times women who were passionate about issues that were not considered "feminine" were routinely labeled "hysterical" and placed in mental institutions. Suffragettes were arrested and force fed by having tubes shoved down their throats. Women have been told for centuries that they were not equal to men. Even with the civil rights movement of the 60s, women still make less than men. The most powerful nation in the world has only 16 women in the senate, far less than any other industrialized nation. So, I take deep offense when we finally have a viable woman as a presidential candidate and I have to see her referred as "shrill", her laughter called a "cackle" and there are endless discussions about her hair, makeup, age, weight and even breasts. I particularly find it disappointing when I see young women repeating that sexist crap. Disagree with her on the issues, but do not perpetuate the sexist labels that have been attached to all women who challenge the system.

to describe women as catty..bitchy..and shrill..
Let the good times roll..

I agree with your comments.

I also thnk the media is very uncomfortable when dicussing gender as an issue.

I think they are biasing their reporting because of it.


I read that IOWA was one of 2 states (along with Mississippi)

that had never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress.

Yet I didn't hear this much in their analysis.


I was very impressed with Hillary during the debates last night.

Obama and Edwards acted like they were entitled to the presidency.

It is uncomfortable to watch their sense of entitlement

I respect Hillary

She stands up for those who need advocacy and I trust her

All this ragging on Hillary is bothering me. Attack her on the issues and her political relationships. And on her record. But going after her on the extraneous stuff is out of bounds.

I know several older women who are distraught by the Iowa results and the NH stories. They have pinned so much of their very being on her star. They are from a time that younger women never will know firsthand. Alienating them by attacking their standardbearer is stupid. Democrats should handle her fall from grace with a gentle touch.

Hillary herself will be a trooper, and back the eventual nominee. So far the primary battle has been pretty civil among the candidates, relatively speaking. The rank/file should follow their example. We're going to need the votes of the female 50- and 60-somethings in the general. Crapping on their idol is irresponsible.

Watching the Hillary bashing in this campaign sickens me.

It reminds me that as women we are discounted.

I am also sickened by many of the comments about dismissing a woman who is 60 years old.


Given the issues I am debating how I will or will not vote if Hillary is not the choice.

And up until now I have always voted for "the man" who received the democratic nomination for president even when I felt disenfranchised from some of these candidates and disenfranchised from the process in general.

I don't think I am willing to do it anymore. And I certainly don't want to further discount women by having other candidates just assume they will get my woman vote because they are the democrat.

(And I am not quite yet a 50 something year old woman)

I fully agree with your comments!!! I still can't get around the idea of voting for Obama if he's the eventual nominee (I hope not). I don't know what I will do next November if that is the case. I have always voted for the party nominee, but this time around I'll wait and see if he rises above the fluff and puts some meat in that empty pie.