From the Mind of Meegs

The idea that Hillary won because she cried is problematic to me. It seems to pander to these antiquated notions we have about gender and emotion.

First, let me back up and admit that this might make me a hypocrite. The whole RoboHillary thing is a big part of the reason why I'm an Obama backer. The best leaders are leaders because people want to follow them, not because people follow them out of a sense of obligation. So how do you get people to want to follow you? I think it's a mix of tangible things (e.g., the leader has a clear, measurable plan) and intangible things (e.g., the wide-net charisma that Hillary lacks but Obama undeniably has). Yes, a certain degree of personal warmth and relatability is important.

Now, I'm sure that Hillary possesses that warmth one-on-one. In interviews, she often seems personable. If we got together for coffee, I'm sure we'd have a lovely time. But she's no good at projecting that warmth on the big stage, and the US presidency is just about the biggest stage in the world. That doesn't make her a bad person or a cold-hearted bitch. It just means she lacks some very particular skills needed for this very particular position. But it doesn't help that pollsters use words such as "likeable" when they measure these sorts of things. I can see why she gets miffed about it.

So yes, part of the reason I'm not voting for Hillary is because of her lack of emotion, in a manner of speaking. But I don't tie that to her gender. I'm also not really a fan of RoboRomney, and all his look-at-me-I'm-from-Massachusetts-ism.

Traditionally, crying or other displays of outsized emotion have been trouble for a campaign. I mean, we all know what happened to Howard Dean when he got a little too enthusiastic. History is littered with crybabies who drowned their own chances with their tears. So why did Hillary get the reverse effect? Well, one simple and rather immediate explanation is that all those past crybabies were men, while Hillary is a woman. We don't want our big, strong men to cry. The governor of our most populous state made a name for himself by decrying "girlie men." Clearly, a man who shows emotion is a weak-willed fool unfit to lead--obviously. Duh!

But at the same time, we demand that women show cuddly emotions. We demand that they appear weepy during schlocky movies, weddings, and trying presidential campaigns. Of course, that same weepiness that we demand also means that woman might not be fit to govern anyway. There's the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" double-edged sword that we have to deal with. If we don't get all sappy, then we're cold, heartless and removed. If we do get all sappy, then we're possibly unhinged. It's the reverse of that other gender-emotion phenomenon we're all familiar with. If a man behaves in an aggressive manner, particularly in the workplace, he's a good leader. If a woman behaves in an aggressive manner, she's seen as unstable, and unstable people don't make good leaders. But if the woman isn't aggressive, then she gets trampled over by men being applauded for their aggressiveness. Either way, the glass ceiling remains unbroken.

Plus, it's possible to take this whole relatability aspect too far. Four years ago, Bush's relatability was seen as a big part of the reason he won. Kerry was the tightly clenched, uppity New Englander. Bush was the down-home, workaday Texan. It got to the point that one of Bush's most oft remarked upon faults--all those grammatical gaffes--actually became a strength, because they made him seem just that much more folksy.

Yeah, how's that working out for us now?