Tuesday, March 20 , 2018, 8:45 am | Overcast 53º


Lois Phillips: Why John Can Get Emotional But Hillary Can’t

It's a crying shame that standards aren't the same for men and women

It’s no surprise to women today that men in public life have greater choices about the way they present themselves on camera and to the media.

Lois Phillips
Lois Phillips

You may recall that many leaders have been captured on camera displaying what used to be called feminine displays of emotion with no negative consequences. For example, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf cried at a Christmas Eve ceremony in front of his troops. Jon Stewart and David Letterman choked up with impunity just after 9/11. Have you noticed that, ironically, a few U.S. presidents considered to be among the best speakers — Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — tend(ed) to get emotional in public? And now, the new House speaker-elect, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, tends to cry early and often during policy debates.

How do we make sense of Boehner’s emotional outbursts? A statesman is thought of as quiet, reserved, an experienced politician, especially one who is respected for making good judgments. Do statesmen (or stateswomen) cry uncontrollably when debating a policy? Notice that unsuccessful Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle is nowhere in sight chastising one of her own with a “Man Up!” retort as she did to outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

UC Riverside professor Tom Lutz challenges myths about crying when he writes that “all the research suggests that we cry, in fact, because we don’t know what we’re feeling.”

Boehner’s tears may be confusing to the listener and/or viewer because of the inconsistency between his words and his deeds; i.e., he says he gets emotional about wanting everyone to have a piece of the American Dream, and yet he votes against the economic stimulus bill, increasing financial aid to college students and the minimum wage, and for retaining $120 billion in bonus tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. What’s a voter to think (or not)?

But Boehner can get away with uncontrollable weeping because both men and women tend to feel for a big guy who doesn’t care what people think about seeing him express his emotions. Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute explains:

“When men cry, we shrug it off or we say isn’t it nice that he’s able to show his sensitive emotional side,” he said. “When women cry, we go, oops, there go those emotions again, they can’t serve in top public office; they’re not tough enough.”

Taking the behavior at face value, which most of us do, the double standard works in men’s favor (again). So what else is new?

The classic film Adam’s Rib (1949) captured the stereotype well as when Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn, “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

Except for Lutz, nobody questions the motives of men who shed a tear, but they do question women’s sincerity when they do, and even when they don’t or might have. For example, 60 years after Adam’s Rib, when Hillary Clinton teared up during her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, the media focused on whether it was sincere or merely a manipulative device to gain public sympathy. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote:

“There was poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up.”

Mindreader Dowd interpreted a tear in Hillary’s eye to mean that:

“What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.”

Self-pity. Narcissism. Crack up. Breakdowns. Sore loser! Sheesh! What a nasty list of adjectives in a piece that helped to undermine the candidate and her campaign.

A young business or professional woman in today’s modern world thinks she can have it all and be anything she wants to be, and maybe she can, until she sticks her neck out in a campaign and her ambition becomes visible. Picture a giraffe seeking the leaves at the top of the tree. The rhetorical tradition reflects women’s place in a “man’s world.” After all, Quintilian’s depiction of the ideal orator is someone who is “above all a good man” (sic) with a “consummate ability in speaking.” When women want to take power by seeking the highest levels of office, the critics of her presentation style will be harsh, particularly when women show vulnerability.

As scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson points out, “only a person whose credibility is firm can risk adopting a style traditionally considered weak.” Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., commented: “If I cry, it’s about the personal loss of a friend or something like that,” she said. “But when it comes to politics, no, I don’t cry.” As a recipient of harsh criticisms of her speaking style, she would know about the ugly caricatures that the media and the public — with the help of the Internet and Saturday Night Live — can level at a women leader.

Everyone gets only one chance to make a first impression, but when the speaker is a woman, she must also seize public attention as an opportunity to gain credibility as “the voice of authority.” As long as people are skeptical about their ability to be leaders in the first place, I would advise women speakers that crying in public is best left to those incapable of speech — namely, infants.

Lois Phillips Ph.D. — Santa Barbara author, speaker, executive coach and management consultant — blogs at Women Seen and Heard. Follow her on Twitter: @LoisPhillipsPhD.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click here to get started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >