Why can't a woman be more like a man?

The annual Classical Association conference, as everyone knows, is currently in full swing at Liverpool University. It is of course a hotbed of political debate.

One paper this morning addressed the topical issue of tears, reminding us that when Hillary Clinton wept during her New Hampshire campaign, her ratings went through the roof. But those with longer political memories, pointed out lecturer Dana Munteanu, will recall that in 1972 Edmund Muskie, then the front-runner for Democratic nomination, was so hurt by articles in the Manchester Union Leader during the his New Hampshire campaign, that he wept publicly. He was perceived as weak and lost the nomination.

Weeping, in Greek tragedy and now, is gender-specific. Here in the West, at least, a weeping woman is compassionate, but a weeping man is losing it.

The reason for this is hotly debated but it would seem to be partly social conditioning and partly hardwired gender difference. But for the moment the question remains: why can't a woman be more like a man? The answer is that it is not to her political advantage.

Alice Fordham

Comments

[Brian Pawley]

One of the most outstanding features of the 2008 Presidential primaries is the different approaches by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Mrs Clinton is not averse to using feminine wiles, the occasional catch in the voice, a frequent whine about unfair treatment by the opposition campaign supporters and complaints about media bias. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has consistently displayed statesmanlike control and great calm in answering criticism by the media and his opponents. Throughout all the bickering and diversionary tactics he has remained resolute in addressing the issues and promoting his message of unifying the country through fair and workable solutions. Mrs Clinton has similar views on major policies but lacks persuasion and perceived strength of commitment.
Some of the bigger states that went to Mrs Clinton (a fact that she uses as part of her argument for superiority in the race) may have shown quite different results if their primaries had been held later, when the voters had had the chance to hear and see more of Mr Obama. We must remember that Mrs Clinton and John Edwards went into the race with established personae which makes the achievement of Mr Obama in taking so many states all the more remarkable.

[charleschaplin]

Mr. David Brooks points out in his Tuesday's (3-25-08) column in The New York Times “Obama lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan.” This important statement was buried in otherwise as usual pro Obama piece that sees things for Sen. Obama’s favor in an obviously stalemated Democratic primary contest. But what disturbed me was the fact that David Brooks seemed to have little regard for democratic process? I amazed that the preventing Michigan and Florida vote thus disfranchising millions of Democratic voters didn't seem to bother Mr. brooks and in the whole media establishment one bit, which reminds me of the Supreme Court Handing over Florida vote to George Bush. In this new era of new politics that's promised by Sen. Obama, can this really happen, or is this politics as usual-- circa Florida 2000? The more Sen. Obama strains to speak of his new era of politics in America, less and less of it seemed real. Sen. Obama should practice what he preaches so blatantly and the presidential primary campaign is a good place to start…