Print This Post
Jan
6
It’s like manna to me when this happens.
I watched an exchange during the Dem debate last night between Edwards and Clinton and I thought, good for her. Then, I saw the clip this morning on a talking heads show and I thought, “Uh – oh – bad for her.” Because women still walk the line when they show anger: they get labeled as shrill or inappropriate or, too angry.
Sure enough, here at The Chief Source, Kyle perceived Clinton that way. And I left a comment asking that he try to imagine if the speakers were switched – would he feel that Edwards was too angry?
But then, I watched this excellent BlogHer video from the debate itself (posted below too) of Mary Katharine Ham and Morra Aarons reporting for BlogHer on the debate and Morra suggests that Clinton actually would do better to be angrier and more fierce.
I tend to agree – except for the fact that Kyle isn’t alone: a lot of people will perceive Clinton as being too angry, when in fact she is just as angry as anyone else on the podium.
What’s the problem? People continue not to like women who look and sound angry and who are angry, the way they appreciate it when men look and sound angry and are angry.
This is a terrible, terrible double-standard I know about from personal experience. There is severe social pressure on women to not get, be or appear angry. And when it comes to political battles like we’re seeing, it places the female candidate at a terrible and unfair disadvantage.
I’m not sure what the answer is, other than for every viewer, listener and voter to try to not apply this double standard. But we’re really asking for serious social and cultural change to achieve that.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:45 am January 6th, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Media, Politics, Social Issues, WH2008, Women
Comments
10 Responses to “Is Clinton too angry, or does she need to be angrier still?”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Shalom Jill,
That’s true. You’re absolutely right.
The only solution I know of is for Clinton, and every other woman, when she thinks it’s called for, to get angry. And let the world know it.
As long as women play the game, the game will be played. Yes, there will be losers early on, just as there were in the first wave of feminism. But to quote one of my favorite maxims:
Well behaved women seldom make history.
What will you teach your daughter?
B’shalom,
Jeff
[...] Is Clinton too angry, or does she need to be angrier still? digg_url=”http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=6180″; digg_skin = [...]
“Because women still walk the line when they show anger: they get labeled as shrill or inappropriate or, too angry.”
I think this is an unfair judgment of the publics’ perception of female candidates.
The next thing you’ll tell us is that white America could never support a black candidate as Obama takes lily white Iowa.
The fact is, it’s not “women” who come off as shrill,inappropriate or too angry, it’s Hillary.
Why do you think her handlers haven’t allowed her to answer questions from the media? Why did she turn down a request to appear on Meet the Press this morning when her poll numbers in NH are so horrible?
The answer… She’s truly not a likable person. She comes off as a know it all and her people know it.
Your analysis is a disservice to “tough” female candidates who the public would have no problem supporting. We’ve got way too many successful female politicians to prove it otherwise.
I don’t think the anger issue is the problem with Hillary. Her problem is Bill and appearing to represent an era that most people are not looking back on fondly. The animosity is generational rather than gender-driven. Along with a strong perception that Hillary is part of the reason for the war in Iraq.
That said, I have deep sympathy for Hillary. She is one of those women who were born into the transitional era when women who wanted a career for themselves were not the norm. The team thing with Bill worked fine in the 90s. Not so much now. I’ve been sporadically blogging about Hillary and my mixed feelings about her campaign.
I do think we need to promote more women candidates at all levels. Here in Akron, it is a male-driven political society. Gives me the creeps sometimes.
They are all angry. I dont see a difference between the 3 of them
HDNet ran a Dan Rather interview with Benazir Bhutto this week, shot shortly before her assassination. Granted a one-on-one interview is not a debate, but this was a woman who could make her point persuasively and in a statesmanlike manner, without having to resort to anger.
I used to enjoy clips of Margaret Thatcher during “Prime Minister’s Questions” in the House of Commons. There’s another woman who could smack any man around with her intelligence, knowledge and wit.
I tend to agree with Gordon’s point – don’t broaden dislike for Hillary to imply dislike for all women as politicians.
By the way, my short take on the Dems last night:
Edwards: I think he might get my vote if the election were tomorrow. Still need to find out more about him, but he said two things I believe are absolutely true: a) the erosion of the middle class is killing our country; and, b) take back control of our government from lobbyists and PACs. Is it true that he has never taken money from these folks?
Obama: I usually like the way he talks, but he seemed weak last night. He’s going to attract a lot of the African-American vote even though his heritage is not that at all (African father, white American mother).
Richardson: Blue version of GW. Not in the same league as the other three.
Clinton: I’ve never understood her “35 years of results” assertion. She’s held public office for only seven years. Is she embracing the “two-for-one” notion about her role in the Clinton administrations as Governor and President?
This is all rhetorical for me as I’ll be voting in the other column in the primary. It will be interesting to see who shows up in Nov.
I’m still rooting for Mike Bloomberg.
I agree with the last poster and basically I just can’t wrap my mind around her. Yeah she’s a woman but I just don’t think she’s my candidate. Now if she winds up being the Dem nominee, well, we’ll see. In the meantime I am starting to like Obama more. I still get a bit uneasy about his lack of experience in foreign policy but if he’s really a person willing to cross the isle and be creative and get things done, then he can appoint foreign policy people.
Back to anger. Jill you are right about perception in general. Remember the flip side with Howard Dean? I mean, I to this day don’t think he did anything wrong but that uncontrolled laughter did him in? It makes me crazy.
Jill, you might enjoy “The Political Consequences of Being a Woman” by Kim Fridkin Kahn which looks at the electability of women. The research shows that policy issues matter much less when women are running for office; media and voters tend to focus much more on character issues and a female candidate’s personality.
Still though, I think we all (political nerds) watch these debates from a very different perspective. If Senator Clinton, or any of the other candidates, lose their cool (or in my mind, act passionately)– we tend to predict how it will play in the polls or how the campaign will spin it in the next tv ad.
The media is focused on her anger b/c, in part, and fair or not, it’s legendary. Any flashes of it on stage are immediately noted b/c the folks with pens are primed for it.
It’s not about gender; it’s about that.
For where I’m sitting [and remember, I'm no fan], outside of her occasional flashes, she’s rather collected. Edwards, for his part, is frequently unhinged. He just sounds my Uncle Len, makes it all sweet sounding, but you know when he’s ready to pop. Edwards rides that line everyday.
My teenage son saw the anger as a positive thing. He is a fine observer of human nature. He said: “It shows she will stand up for herself and the country if the wrong thing happens.”