For Crying Out Loud! Boehner’s Tears Provoke Double Standard Debate
We should all thank House Speaker-elect John Boehner for crying because his interview on 60 Minutes has ignited debate over a sexist double standard in politics. On ABC’s The View, Barbara Walters criticized Boehner for having “an emotional problem,” and Emily’s List questioned whether it would affect his power as a politician. Among a host of others, Ruth Marcus argued for “gender equity” and contemplated the paradox of crying in public, saying,
As a general matter, it is considered more acceptable for girls to cry than for boys, less humiliating for women than for men. For public figures, though, the situation is reversed… Tears are humanizing. I defy you to watch Boehner struggling to hold in his sobs and not like him better for it. If anything, Barack Obama could benefit from a bit more crying…So I thought the ladies of "The View" had it wrong - and did women a disservice when they lit into Boehner. They should have celebrated his tearfulness and argued for gender equity in crying.
The problem with Marcus’ argument is that it is not socially acceptable for a woman in politics to cry. Competing issues are at work here—the construction of masculinity, the projection of such onto the political space, the necessity of sincerity and the requirements of being taken seriously as a woman in politics. Showing some emotion in public is socially acceptable, crying is not. Hillary Clinton, for example, appeared slightly emotional once in New Hampshire during the 2008 presidential race—an instance that seemed to garner a few political points. Pat Schroeder, on the other hand, received harsh criticism for tearfully discontinuing a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1987. One critic explained that “her inability to command her emotions when she was making an announcement about the presidency only served to reinforce some basic stereotypes about women running for office – those stereotypes being lack of composure, [and] inability to make tough decisions.” These stereotypes still exist in 2010.
The Name It. Change It. campaign uses the tool of reversibility to assess potential cases of sexism in media against women candidates. In this instance, there has been an absence of questioning over whether or not emotion will affect Boehner’s ability to run the House. Politico, however, just opened a forum on whether “Boehner’s Tears [are] a Sign of Strength?” It is extremely difficult to imagine the same headline describing a woman. In the forum, former Rep. Mickey Edwards, a Republican, even criticized Boehner’s female counterpart, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for not showing enough emotion. He wrote that,
It's sad if Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't find in politics, with each vote and policy affecting the lives of so many, moments that touch deeply. Friendships, transitions, all these things reach inside us and make us better people; I hope not to be governed by men or women who are immune to those emotions that make us truly human.
Massachusetts State Rep. Denise Provost responded that, “Tears may “humanize” some male politicians; [but] they serve to diminish and marginalize female ones.” We agree and send our thanks to Speaker-elect Boehner for inadvertantly raising this important issue.
Published by Kate McCarthy on 12/15/2010