Tears & Fears

"It's the tears. She pretended to cry, the women felt sorry for her, and she won," said Bill Kristol. So did his page-mate Maureen Dowd, that fierce feminist. So did many of my friends.

Why is it ok for men to get misty and not for women? Why is it assumed everything HRC does is scripted? Why is she seen as bloody Lady Macbeth while Obama is seen as darling Cordelia? Why is a man more sincere than a woman? Why?

Gloria Steinem says we'll do anything not to elect a woman.

"Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy."

That has been my experience as a writer. Whether I have written about women or men, the present or the past, the USA or other countries, politics or poetry, I have been assailed by both genders as self-involved, narcissistic, shrill -- buzz words for women who try to change the status quo.

There's a t-shirt that says: "Women Who Change the World Are Rarely Polite" -- but do we believe it? We buy the t-shirt. We wear the t-shirt. But what do we really believe? Do we allow women the same emotional latitude as men? I doubt it.

But perhaps my experience is skewed. Perhaps the world has changed. I hope so. I want Gloria Steinem to be proven wrong, but I question it. When I think of the way Eleanor Roosevelt was attacked, Geraldine Ferraro was attacked, Bella Abzug was attacked, Nancy Pelosi is attacked, Hillary is attacked, I wonder. I hope like hell to be mistaken. I hope gender doesn't matter. I hope race doesn't matter, but I wonder.

So this will be the election in which we discover how much has changed. Will the politics of fear be upended? Will gender matter? Will race? Will experience? Will the needs of children? Will the crashing economy?

Will we repudiate the values of the military industrial complex or will General Electric, Murdoch's News Corp, Redstone's Viacom Cheney's Halliburton and Bush's beloved Blackwater still find a way to prevail? Will Obama get nominated and then be shot like Dr. King? God forbid -- but America has gone this way before. Will Hillary be nominated and then smeared like Al Gore and John Kerry? Will John McCain's affection for the "surge" affect the fearful as they ponder their choices?

I believe that what we do in the voting booth is scripted in childhood. I vote Democratic because my parents loved Franklin D.Roosevelt. Some of my pals vote Republican because their parents believed in fiscal probity. They have forgotten that the GOP no longer believes in it. Perhaps I can't know how independents feel. But we will find out.

Let's just learn patience and try not to predict the outcomes in this amazing year. Yes, pundits have to pund. Columnists need to fill up columns. TV newsreaders need to seem prescient. But maybe we can't predict the changes that have surged in America as we watched rich, old, white men lie and cheat and steal elections, as we watched them enrich their cronies while

impoverishing average Americans, as we saw their hunger for oil and their disdain for our lovely green planet, as we watched, horrified, as Mr. Kerry and Ms. Pelosi feared changing course more than they feared the Repugnicans.

So now we have to do the hardest thing of all: not rush to judgment, wait, cultivate watchfulness not opinion mongering. Can we do it?

Our democracy may depend on it.

Kafka had this word over his desk: WARTEN (WAIT). Every writer must learn to do that while the unconscious works and underground forces prevail. Maybe countries have to do that too.

The eternal judgmentalism of our crappy news media makes that very hard. But this time we have to learn it so as not to foul up the chance of change. The chance of change is precious. It is also fragile. Let's give change a chance.

Comments

[renewableenergy2]

Hillary Clinton's Investment Debate
Did Hillary take investment help in exchange for favors from Bill Clinton?
On October 11, 1978, while Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton opened a futures account with a broker named Robert L. "Red" Bone. She traded the account under the guidance of James Blair. Blair was then an attorney working as outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., a large Arkansas food chicken-processing firm. Bone had formerly worked for Tyson Foods. She put $1,000 into the account and apparently gave Blair authority to manage it. Over the next year, profits from the account were just under $100,000.

[Ventura212]

It isn't THAT she cried, it's WHEN she cried. Tearing up while delivering a blistering political attack that amazingly just happens to cover all your talking points against someone that just beat you and right when it'll do you the most political good, is what everyone has a problem with. If she was winning and she teared up then, fine. While admitting defeat, fine. Using it to advance your political career, WRONG.

[dam1r]

Erica THANKS A BUNCH for speaking up!

Love your article and agree 100% with it.

And yes, you should definitely speak up more often :)

[PawHealer]

I was shocked when I happened to read a fellow female bloggers post...and she was hailing the Obama Iowa win as "history making"...She wrote "I am thrilled that tonight black history was made"...

Say what woman?

She applauds the progress of the black community, but she has no pride for the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton.

Go figure...but that's a woman for ya.

[QueenCeleste]

Erica, most of what you say is true. But I can't help wondering how you can support Hillary with her hawkish votes and position on Iraq? Does gender trump any negative qualities in (Democratic) female candidates? Are you willing to overlook her questionable positions just because she is a woman? Isn't that a tad bit, well, sexist?

While I grew up on Ms. magazine and would love to see a female president, I am supporting Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate whose views almost completely reflect mine. I look forward to seeing a woman president; Hillary is simply not that one. (Of course, if she is the Democratic nominee I will vote for her, unless the Republicans come up with someone more suitable--a doubtful prospect!)

[cloudy]

Race and racism are a huge issue in the US, both pervasive in consciousness and in politics. The same is true of sex and sexism. But do you see or has ANYONE plausibly suggested any sort of patterned gender STRATEGY -- as seen by what one reporter on Huffpo described as HRC's "aides", of bringing white voters to HRC by stirring the pot of race politics -- in the Obama campaign? Is this notion even plausible?

Yes there is pervasive sexism in society and the media. Yes the 'tears' issue brings that to the fore (no fault of Obama or his campaign). But let's get REAL and look at the REAL world of politics and what issues are shaping this election and its significance.

Once upon a time, many feminists were reluctant to support some of the post-Civil War reforms as they failed to address gender concerns. That is a mistake NEVER to repeat.....

[wedgie]

Rupert Murdoch did a fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.

That's all I need to know.

**

[wedgie]

Oh, great. Now we are finally having the real debate about Hillary. "How wet did her eyes get?"

Glad we've begun to focus on what matters.

I'd hate to keep talking about her moderate right wing voting record or her chummy relationship with Rupert Murdoch.

My issues with Hillary has nothing to do with gender. My issues have to do with where she stands on the political spectrum. Yet, here we are, talking about saline and "iron my shirts" taunts. And she starts winning primaries in part because people don't want to see her "picked on" or treated unfairly by the press.

What's next? Every time Obama or Edwards, attacks her deplorable, triangulating, polling focused voting record, are the women of America going to think of the eye dampness issue and react in her defense?

Its a deeply troubling development.

**

[W i l l]

Contemporary women do not get it. They do not understand why it is society barks at women that women insist
are 'strong'...'assertive' 'intelligent'...that's bull. Society, men in particular...are hella-attracted to strong assertive intelligent women. What we do not like are control-freak suzy-bitch cake type, who, like Senator Clinton, are in need of vast amounts of therapy to fix what was broken in them in their youth.
Men and women alike, each have a common ground as to why 'strong' 'assertive' women set us off so severely...

Here's HRC's problem....too many Americans suffered the madness of being in the home of a twisted bitch control freak of a mother...HRC reminds those people all too much about traits they know all too well.

Every time that woman opens her mouth...I'm practically over-run with reactions that began in me well before I found my first pimple, let alone had had any inklings about women and mens roles in society. These are old reactions...Post Traumatic Stress Disorder reactions.

Maybe if enough people banded together and shared their experience of living with a harsh, hostile, verbally abusive mother...maybe then this society would begin to understand why, and what sort of woman it is that sets people off.

[kardwell]

This will be an amazing year, and we have to keep faith, but I do not forget that we have the same vicious media and good ol' boys in power who hated HRC so much during the Clinton administration, that they attacked Chelsea's physical appearance when she was a girl of 12, maybe 13.
We still live live in a sick, demented misogynist culture. They won't be happy until they destroy HRC, and if they can't have her head on a plate, they will settle for second best if they can drive Brittny to offing herself.

[kardwell]

This will be an amazing year, and we have to keep faith, but I do not forget that we have the same vicious media and good ol' boys in power who hated HRC so much during the Clinton administration, that they attacked Chelsea's physical appearance when she was a girl of 12, maybe 13.

We still live live in a sick, demented misogynist culture. They won't be happy until they destroy HRC, and if they can't have her head on a plate, they will settle for second best if they can drive Brittny to offing herself.

[RileyD]

I find that it is more difficult to be recognized as a leader when you are a woman. If you get teary then you are just like a woman, weak! and if you are assertive, smart, has a mind of your own, then you are a bitch.

Like professor Higgins in My Fair Lady, he asked in a song, "why can't a woman be like a man?" Yeah right, when we behave like men, then we have monikers like nut cracker, bitch, she man, etc. Men are not only the guilty ones, women are as guilty. Women are socialized to think that if they have a sense of themselves, are independent, smart, then there is something wrong with us because we are not feminine to support our men, our family, our countries. I am frustrated that sexism is still very real in our society but most would not own up to it and pretend that we are over it. It is really sad and it makes me mad too. I know Hillary is a politician and she is probably scripted all the time. God forbids if a strong woman expresses herself! All the rest are politicians too and they too are scripted like her. Why aren't they scrutinized like Hillary? She needs a hall pass in the form of a penis to do what the boys are doing? We, American women should really pay attention, look to the other parts of the world even in Muslim Countries where the so called "Islamic Sexism" they have women leaders, Indonesia for example.

It depresses me that even if Hillary won the majority of vote to the White House with a convincing margin, there will be still more criticism of her as a leader, as a person, as a human. Look at what Kucinich is doing, if Edwards had pulled an upset, he wouldn't be asking for a recount.

[Tigerella]

It's interesting how people are constantly picking on the sole female Presidential candidate. For goodness sake, nobody running is perfect. But why is Hillary so hated... simply because she is not coming across as the weak, and emotionally cuddly woman? Should she be punished for having stayed with her cheating husband or should she have dumped him and been equal to others running. Which is/was harder to do?

And what does that have to do with us... and running the country? Hillary has been involved with the Children's Defense Fund since the 60's and she has been working on the behalf of women since her school days as well. She has been a driven woman... and people call her a bitch for it. It's not fair... Long-time friends of hers say that she is very personable, loving and fun in private.. Why is she blamed for being so guarded? It simply stinks of hypocrisy. She is not better than this or that person... each has their own strong points. I am just disgusted by the display and treatment of both male and female pundits this past week. Disgusted! I have friends who have a strong dislike/hate for her... but why? I don't get it. Some people say that women don't support other strong women. Is this really true and if so... how pathetic. After all, the last men getting the right to vote were black men in 1870... however, this does not mean they all had an easy time to vote... we know the Civil Rights struggle had to happen to help that along. But women... white, black and whatever background were not able to vote until another 50 years passed by. Women, if married, could not even make decisions until the late 60's if they could have their 'tubes tied' or not... they needed 'the head of the households' permission. Puulease! Young women today do not remember the past and who made their lives better and what it is today. Gloria, Erica and Hillary are simply three of many to thank. So why the hate?

[thedudeabides]

erica baby-it's not about "women" generically, it's about THIS woman...this rattlesnake called hillary...that's what people can't stand-it's the PERSON not her gender...

[Abo]

Sorry, but as a woman, I am not supporting role models for women in leadership who emulate the most blundering machismo of the good old boys as the path forward.
That seems like a step backwards as opposed to progress.

[YWC]

How can anyone vote for this: http://www.xpress4me.com/images/08/01/09/hillary_01_5.jpg

[Taratrue]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1659032,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

President Bush told the author of a new book on his presidency, "I try not to wear my worries on my sleeve" or show anything less than steadfastness in public, especially in a time of war.

"I fully understand that the enemy watches me, the Iraqis are watching me, the troops watch me, and the people watch me," he said. Yet, he said, "I do tears."

"I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as President. I'll shed some tomorrow."

[VivaZapata]

Jong asks why is it alright for a man to "get misty" but not a woman? In retort, two words: Ed Muskie. The difference being that she won New Hampshire; he got buried, suggesting that it might even be worse politically for a man to openly weep. BTW There never was a question of his sincerity because at that time there was no ambiguity that crying for a potential commander-in-chief was a negative.

[bkman666]

"Why is it assumed everything HRC does is scripted?" you ask. Well, because most of what she says and does is scripted. You could also ask, "why is it that it is assumed everything Cheney does is to make money for himself and his friends?" And again, the answer would be because that seems to be the main drive for most of what he does. You could call me an ageist for saying that about Cheney, but then you would be wrong, just as you would be wrong for automatically assuming that someone is sexist for saying that Hillary is a scripted candidate. Ferraro is a good person and was a worthy candidate. While were on it, I would be happy if Steinem were to run for a political office. But Hillary is a person that happens to be a woman, not just a woman. To blow off any criticism of her as sexist is not only a form of prejudice in its own right, but it diminishes the real difficulties that both women and men face when confronted with sexism on a daily basis. Granted, the societal pressure of, let's say, being a stay at home father is a bit different than the lack of opportunities from never being promoted beyond a certain position. One is emotionally difficult, and the other is emotionally difficult and futile.
But about the crying thing. Big deal! Crying is an expression of emotion, just like smiling. What really matters is the trigger behind the emotion. Crying because a bad vote lead to the deaths of 150,000 plus Iraqis and 3,000 plus US soldiers for no rational is a respectable cry. Crying because a voting population is too stupid to realize that you're the best person is bad in that it confirms what we already know, the candidate is arrogant and narcissistic.
And to confess, the last time I cried, Bush had just given his re-election victory speech after several months of a national GOP gay-bashing campaign. Go ahead, call me "sexualist."

[GeorgiaOrwell]

About Hillary: Who knows if she's being sincere or not - I think she's simply borrowing a page out of hubby Bill's playbook in being emotive to draw votes so she can appear, as he does, to be 'one of the people'. I don't fault her for her ambition. I just think she comes across as being so desperate for power, just look at her voting record and her obsession with polls, that it makes her untrustworthy in my eyes. And, yes, her laugh grates on my very last nerve. I find equally offensive, however, those who refer to her as 'old lady'. That characterization is both irrelevant, ageist, and offensive; my goodness, she's a youngster next to John McCain. What she keeps repeating is her 'experience' mantra. What exactly is her experience anyway? She has only been a Senator for a few years. Being married to a President is NOT the same as being President. I might add that it is also fairly widely accepted that during as reign as First Lady, she was known as having a nasty, vindictive temper by those with whom she worked. I seriously question her ability to be a tolerant, wise leader, mired in good common sense and able to work as a team player. It's absurd to make her candidacy all about gender even though the majority of posters have reiterated that they would love to see a female Pres - just not her in that role. The worst problem I see with Hillary is that she is so controversial and polarizing that I don't feel she is the answer to what I think America needs at this time in its history. I am not a fan, but it's not because she's a woman - it's because of the woman she is.

I would be much more likely to support John Edwards,who is truly running an independently supported campaign, but I think Obama shows a great deal of promise - I see Obama more as a vice- pres candidate would would then run as President. As far as the Republicans running - what a joke!

[FreeThought]

"¦Change, change, change," an opportunist once said.
I for one, believe that change can be a very good thing. However, it"s change for the better, which is what really matters. And in order to make a change for the better you have to weigh in all aspects and make the efforts to do what is right, not what is easy.
I believe that one of the biggest problems with the whole gender issue is the question of where feminism supposedly stands today. And a large reason for this difficulty is because in 1990"s, the feminist groups seem to have sold their souls to the democrats and paid the price.
The fact that they never came forward in the Paula Jones scandal or the Monica Lewinski scandal is a disgrace to their purpose. At the time, my mother had made constant attempts to call different Women's Lib party headquarters, receiving nothing more than a pre-recorded message that no one was available. In other words, they had waved their little white flag.
The biggest problem with Hillary is that you really can"t believe anything from her anymore. I don"t believe she has ever stopped campaigning since 1992. In two weeks, she may well deny that she ever cried. Unlike Hillary, I AM from New York State. I believe that if she truly believed in going into politics to help her fellow citizens, she would have run for senator in her home state, rather than just moving to one she thought might serve as an easier campaign strategy for the White House.
If anything should give her a true reason to cry, it should be dragging her cold, loveless marriage back into the limelight so that it may continue to serve some political purpose.

[mccrea1]

Hillary attacked because she's a woman showing emotion? I seem to recall a male Democratic Presidential hopeful named Edwin Muskie who got decimated after shedding tears in 1972. His campaign was finished because of it and Hillary's gets a boost. She ought to be thankful for double standards.

[Jeffersonian1]

Certainly, tears are not indicia of weakness of character or lack of intestinal fortitude.

Winston Churchill cried frequently and with gusto when emotion moved him. The triggering events could range in magnitude from the death of one of the menagerie of animals at Chartwell to the suffering and death of children in London during the blitz.

During the years between WWI and WWII, Churchill was a political outcast whose Parliamentary career had faltered from great height to such a nadir that he was a anathema even to the vast majority of his own political party. Yet with his dream of the Prime Minister's office a seeming impossibility, Churchill never cried about his bleak political prospects.

Seems to me there's a contrast and a lesson to be learned there.

[ebbtide]

AHH, we are back to the old feminists.

Like we have no youg feminists?

Err, isn't this like going back instead of forward?

Are we to take as wisdom that coming from feminists of the past?

[Alleycat2]

Bottom line? Hillary doesn't have a sincere bone in her out of shape body. Her "tears" were for show and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Further to that, she thinks the country is "heading in the wrong direction"...hmmm...seems to me any sitting President has to build on the former President's work, which wasn't much. PLUS, people are tired of the Clintons when you come down to it. Bill sucks the air out of a room in a heartbeat cuz his ego is so huge. I'm an Independent...neither Dem or Repub...actually?? I am not fond of ANY candidates at this time...but NO WAY will I vote for Hillary EVER.