a35362: But what if she faints in the Oval Office?

The BBQ Pit
1

a35362, I’d really appreciate it if you would at least attempt to hide your misogyny when discussing Hillary Clinton.

Let me be clear, I have absolutely no dog in the Hillary Clinton fight. I don’t know a lot about her and don’t particularly need to. However, I have definitely not seen anything like this criticism of her in any of her actions:

Of course! We can’t have a woman as a president! Everyone knows they’re all just controlled by their emotions and can’t make rational decisions! That sure sounds to me like a lot of the original arguments against women’s suffrage. And as if that wasn’t enough, he adds:

Indeed. Another woman disqualified on the same grounds. Colour me shocked.

I could be wrong. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way. Maybe you’ve never tought about exactly what this implies. Maybe you have evidence that Hillary Clinton, more than other politicians, is prey to her emotions. This is your chance to sort me out.

2

Seems to have done a bang job hiding it from me, at least, because I really don’t see where you’re getting this from.

Was there another post where he posted the fainting thing?

3

The title of this thread is in no way shape or form meant to be a quote by a35362.

The criticism that women are too controlled by their emotions was (and apparently still is) used as a reason that women should not be involved in politics. I see no reason to assume this is true of Hillary Clinton, and therefore can only attribute his or her belief in this to the very fact of her being a woman. I would love to be corrected and shown some other reasoning for Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole being assumed to be emotionally off-kilter.

4

Hey a35362, how do you explain Margaret Thatcher, or any of the other numerous lady leaders world wide? :dubious:

5

What you’re pitting is a weird post. I’m not sure if a35632 feels that way about Hillary because Hillary is a woman. Even if that’s true, the post doesn’t seem to say women are incapable of being leaders - just that people felt the same way about Liddy Dole. I’d like a35632 to explain what gives, though.

6

Carter was a control freak too, and we know what a disaster his presidency was. BTW isn’t a35632 female?

7

No, you’re thinking of a35631. The a35 line after 600 alternates between female and male with odds being female and evens being male.

…

That was mildly funny in my head.

Anyways re: the OP - I also thought this was a weird response towards Hillary Clinton. Like LaurAnge, I also suspected that this was a sexist argument, but was open to clarification. I mean, “too emotional?” I was waiting for someone to say “Yeah, and you think the Iraq War was bad? Just wait and see what Hillary does every 28 days!” or something idiotic like that.

But perhaps there is some legitimate analysis behind the Hillary = too emotional idea. I hope that a35632 pops in to discuss this.

  • Peter Wiggen
8

Of course, I meant a35632. No disrespect intended.

9

How is a criticism of two female politicians a declaration that no woman is fit for the role of head of state?

10

Ah, but that’s reframing the issue. The real issue is how criticism of two female politicians can be a declaration that women are less capable than men of fitting the role of head of state.

In my opinion, it’s because, absent an explanation of some sort, this appears to be an insidious form of stereotyping. It’s similar to saying that a black politician wouldn’t make a good President because the high-level politics are just too complicated for him. The implication being that blacks are “simpler” intellectually than whites.

In this case, the statement was “I just don’t think she can handle the job emotionally. I may be completely wrong here, but I have an image of her as being someone who is way too angry and controlling and generally controlled by her own emotional responses to ever be anything like a good president.” Now - and I understand that people might differ in their interpretation - to me, the implication is that Hillary Clinton is more controlled by her emotions because she is a woman.

Yes - it’s unspoken. But the real question that is being asked is why a35632 has this perception of Sen. Clinton as being emotional, other than the fact she is a woman?

The other statement made was “She reminds me of when Elizabeth Dole was running for president and everyone said the poor woman could never do the job because she’s a control freak and would just implode.” Again, the implication here is that Elizabeth Dole would “just implode” if she was President because she couldn’t handle the day-to-day affairs as well as a man could.

Again - it’s unspoken. The question though is whether this perception of Elizabeth Dole as someone who would implode under the pressure of being President stems from the fact that she is a woman?

…

Now, I tend to give Dopers a lot of leeway when it comes to issues like sexism and racism, because I believe that we are a pretty enlightened bunch. But a comment to the effect that Hillary Clinton can’t handle being President because she’s too emotional, with no qualifying statements, seems to be clearly linked to her sex. It sounds like something I’d hear bandied about at the tire store or the corner pub. If a35632 didn’t mean anything by it, then please let him/her say so. If a35632 arrived at the conclusion that Clinton is too emotional based on some evidence or observations, then let’s hear it.

(Also FTR - not a Hillary supporter, not a woman, and hold no ill will/animosity towards a35632).

11

While i agree that it’s not completely clear from the comments themselves what the person in question was trying to say, i will say that the criticisms made of Clinton in that thread fall into what seems to be a larger pattern that is often applied to women in the public sphere—the same sort of behavior that is seen as positive in a man is often seen as some sort of drawback in a woman. The first quote given in the OP of this thread describes Clinton as “angry” and “controlling.” But it seems to me that, when properly directed, there is nothing wrong with either of those qualities, especially in a president.

Sometimes, the double-standard goes further than this. While certain behaviors cause people to label a a man “tough” or “uncompromising” or “forthright” or “decisive,” those same behaviors when undertaken by a woman often lead to labels such as “emotional” or “impulsive” or “strident,” or just “a bitch.” I don’t think this double-standard is universal by any means, but i think that it is still common when discussing women in positions of authority.

12

I’m with the OP. This is straightforward misogyny. What would be seen as positive, no-nonsense attributes in a male politician are something to worry about in a female.

13

Thing is, of all the criticisms I ever heard about Liddy Dole (and they were varied and many) that was never, ever, ever one of them.

Not ever.

I was also wondering what was up with the “they’re too emotional” post. They came from far left field and did sound like the “women are emotional and can’t lead” thing that crops up from the subtly sexist sources every so often.

14

From the quotes in the OP, it sounds as if a8373288 was pulling stuff outta his or her ass. First, Hilary Clinton is too emotional and then she’s too controlled. Pick a bitch and stick with it.

15

Maybe all the misogyny is “unspoken” because it doesn’t exist.

While I see nothing wrong with Hillary and would likely vote for her, the issue here is that the poster quoted in the OP criticized the emotional makeup of two political figures. They happened to be women.

Now, I haven’t read the OP and don’t particularly care to do so, but, absent any context other than the OP, I’m not seeing what all the fuss is about.
And it’s not a35362’s burden to prove he/she/it is not a misogynist. It’s LaurAnge’s burden to prove that a35362 is a misogynist. Let’s not be so quick to jump on the “I’m not either” bandwagon that we forget this.

16

Funny, I thought a35362 was female, too. :confused:

I don’t see anything more from a35362 than a poor argument with no supporting evidence. To me, it almost sounds more like a partisan comment than a mysoginistic one, being one of those non sequiturs that Republicans love to engage in (i.e., “gay marriage will set a precedent for people to marry their pets,” or “Hillary does a fine job in the Senate, but her skull will implode and her particles will vaporize the moment she steps into the Oval Office.”)

A weak pitting, but the OP was pitting an equally weak post.

Adam

17

Nope, “emotional”, “controlling” and “controlled by her emotions” were what I read. I don’t find those inherently self-contradictory. They may or may not be true - all I know about HRC I learned from the tabloids - but they can perfectly well be attributes of the same bitch. Because she’s a woman? ::shrug:: Not proven: because she’s Hillary, is a valid alternative interpretation.

18

I agree with Scrappy, I see no specific mysogynist statements there, a35362 was a bit ambiguous but the burden of proof against him rests with the OP, who has only accused with conjecture and assumption.

19

Two points:

  1. I have no idea and don’t particularly care if the subject of the OP is female or not. You don’t have to be male to be a misogynist.

  2. The burden of proof is not on me. It absolutely would be if this were a court trial, or an out-of-hand condemnation. It’s not. I’m just as happy to get clarification from the subject of the OP as anyone else.

20

Either you are contolled by your emotions or you are controlled. One implies the exact opposite of the other. You cannot have it both ways.