Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumOur impossible expectations of Hillary Clinton and all women in authority
Missouri for Hillary
?@MO4Hillary
Sunday Morning read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-impossible-expectations-of-hillary-clinton-and-all-women-in-authority/2016/02/19/35e416d0-d5ba-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?postshare=1731456075332824&tid=ss_tw
Opinions
Our impossible expectations of Hillary Clinton and all women in authority
?uuid=G2CcoNZmEeW-VSzDweS3aw
Hillary Clinton in Chicago on Wednesday. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
By Deborah Tannen February 19
Deborah Tannen is a linguistics professor at Georgetown University.
Now we know that Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright dont actually think that anyone should vote for Hillary Clinton simply because shes a woman. Does that mean we can forget about Clintons gender? I dont think so. But the question we face is subtler, more complicated and harder to address than Do I vote for her because shes a woman? Rather, its Can I be sure Im judging this candidate accurately, given the double bind that confronts all women in positions of authority?
A double bind is far worse than a straightforward damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont dilemma. It requires you to obey two mutually exclusive commands: Anything you do to fulfill one violates the other. Women running for office, as with all women in authority, are subject to these two demands: Be a good leader! Be a good woman! While the qualities expected of a good leader (be forceful, confident and, at times, angry) are similar to those we expect of a good man, they are the opposite of what we expect of a good woman (be gentle, self-deprecating and emotional, but not angry). Hence the double bind: If a candidate or manager talks or acts in ways expected of women, she risks being seen as underconfident or even incompetent. But if she talks or acts in ways expected of leaders, she is likely to be seen as too aggressive and will be subject to innumerable other negative judgments and epithets that apply only to women.
An example: Anyone who seeks public office, especially the highest one, must be ambitious, yet that word is rarely applied to male candidates because it goes without saying. And ambition is admirable in a man, but unacceptable in fact, downright scary in a woman. Google Bernie Sanders ambitious, and you get headlines about the candidates ambitious plans. Try it with Donald Trump, and you find references to his ambitious deportation plan and ambitious real estate developments. When the word is used to describe Trump himself, its positive, as in Trump is proud and ambitious, and he strives to excel.
But pair the word with Hillary Clinton, and a search spews headlines accusing her of naked ambition, unbridled ambition, ruthless ambitions even of being pathologically ambitious. In a spoof, the satirical website the Onion exposed the injustice and absurdity of demonizing a candidate for this requisite quality through its own version of such headlines: Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious to Be the First Female President...............................................
Robin Lakoff, the linguist who first identified the double bind as it applies to women in her 1975 book Language and Womans Place, has pointed out that it accounts for the persistent impressions of Clinton as inauthentic and untrustworthy. We develop these impressions, Lakoff notes, when people dont talk and act as we think they should, given who they are and what we know about them. In Clintons case, she explains, they come precisely from the fact that she has characteristics, such as toughness, that we require of a candidate but that just dont feel right in a woman...............................
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)I am voting for her because she has the breadth and depth of experience...she is evolution not revolution and because the rest of the world is misogynist
Ellen Forradalom
(16,160 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)and have heard her speak in person. She is wonderful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Tannen
Her writings on language and gender are excellent.
Thanks for your post, rivers! I'm phone-banking for Hillary again tomorrow night.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)women, in Louisiana there was a law women could not work over 9 hours a day and there fore could not accept positions where over 9 hours may be required. A law suit was filed and the law was overturned because it was discrimination. Once I acquired one of these positions we had to continuously "prove" ourselves, was not required of men in the same position. Lots of issues came up, I worked through all of them and still had problems from time to time.
If a person was looking at the candidates without a face, name, Hillary is the most qualified candidate running based on qualifications but since she is female those qualifications are many time pushed to the back. We will work through this.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)I hold Cruz accountable for his viciousness, I hold Clinton accountable for her lies and negativity.
Ellen Forradalom
(16,160 posts)a central experience of the oppressed. Yes, even Hillary can be oppressed. Although she seems to be doing an admirable job of navigating that to reach her goal.