A woman will be president when tearduct-removal surgery is perfected

shereads

Sloganless
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Posts
19,242
I was just reminded of Nancy Pelosi's interview on Meet the Press this Sunday. (She's the congresswoman who drew the short straw when the Democrats were choosing someone to take the flack for calling the president "incompetent."

She came across as a reasonable, calm, determined woman, and I was thinking how - dare I say it? - presidential she seemed. Until the host played a video of Tom DeLay saying that Pelosi's statement endangers the lives of our troops.

I saw her eyes tear up and thought, "No no no no please don't cry please don't...arrggghhhhh!"

Next thing you know, she was dabbing at her eyes with a hankie. Damn our tear ducts!

She tried not to seem rattled by the audacity of the accusation; in fact, she'd been expecting the replay because she had a perfectly sane, unemotional reply. But she couldn't stop that one tear that gave men all over America permission to roll their eyes and say, "Must be that time of the month."

I felt for her, I really did. How many times, in the business world, have I seen men lose their tempers, pound desks, quit in protest and later have to ask for their jobs back - But never once have I seen one cry.

How is it that men control their tear ducts so much better than we do? And why is shedding a tear the one thing we can't forgive in an authority figure?
 
:( Men do cry but usually not as much as women, and not as easily. I cried at my first wife's funeral and at other times after that. Usually it takes something as extreme as that. Men do NOT cry in anger or humiliation or physical pain and it is actually seen as a sign of weakness. Crying is never seen as an appropriate response.

I expect to see a woman president in the next 20 years or so. She will probably be a VP who takes office on the death of the president or who serves as VP and then is elected after the president terms out.

As for Nancy Pelosi, her problem in advancement is that both California senators are women and Democrats from San Francisco districts, which reduces her chances for running for senator.

Edited to add: If Nancy Pelosi was the one to make the statement, it's because she is one of the main leaders of the Democratic Party.
 
Last edited:
What box said.

I could probably cry at poignant moments (in real life, or at the movies) although I tend not to.

I've never cried at a funeral, not even my own mother's. Grief is apparently a word that only has meaning for other people.
 
Men lack — or consciously suppress — their ability to empathise.

I for one would feel far happier believing that the commander-in-chief got a little teary-eyed over the thought of our troops endangered.

Much more than him being so stupidly insensitive as to accept more than 300 fatalities and still have the chutzpah to make-believe he’s Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne, and say “bring’em on” to another 300 plus — so far.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Men lack — or consciously suppress — their ability to empathise.

Just because we're not crying, it doesn't mean we're not empathizing. A good actor can cry crocodile tears on demand, that doesn't mean the emotions are there to back it up.

I would suggest that in many cases, the reverse is also true.
 
raphy said:
Just because we're not crying, it doesn't mean we're not empathizing...

The “Method” requires an empathic connection to remembered or observed events, to recreate “remembered” emotional states.

I left actors out of my statement — only authentic people.

You needn’t cry to empathise, merely share emotional responses. Something I feel certain W was not doing when he made that statement. Rather, he was basking in the glow he imagined he felt coming from his own effulgence.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:

You needn’t cry to empathise, merely share emotional responses. Something I feel certain W was not doing when he made that statement. Rather, he was basking in the glow he imagined he felt coming from his own effulgence.

Oh, I agree with your comment about the esteemed Mr Bush. I was just saying that just because men don't shed tears, it doesn't mean they're not emotionally empathizing (even if you'd never get any o them to admit it)
 
Boxlicker101 said:
:( Men do cry but usually not as much as women, and not as easily. I cried at my first wife's funeral and at other times after that. Usually it takes something as extreme as that. Men do NOT cry in anger or humiliation or physical pain and it is actually seen as a sign of weakness. Crying is never seen as an appropriate response.

I expect to see a woman president in the next 20 years or so. She will probably be a VP who takes office on the death of the president or who serves as VP and then is elected after the president terms out.

As for Nancy Pelosi, her problem in advancement is that both California senators are women and Democrats from San Francisco districts, which reduces her chances for running for senator.

Thanks for your reply, Box. I didn't mean that I've never seen a man cry. Only that I haven't seen it in a business situation, where in some cases it might have been preferable to the behavior that took its place. I've trained myself over the years to set that impulse aside in almost any confrontation at the office - until I get in the car for the drive home. Even if I think I've forgotten the event, the tears come. It isnt just men who perceive it as weakness; women are always embarrassed for other women and even a little angry, because their weakness reflects on all of us.

I think Hillary would be better liked if she cried in public, but I don't think she'd have been elected to the Senate from NY.

I don't think a woman will be president for at least another half-century. Even as a V.P. candidate, we judge women by their husbands' positions, business ethics, etc. Remember Geraldine Ferraro? She had high positives in polls until someone dug up something on her husband, some violation of business ethics.

Remember her running mate: Walter Mondale, who instantly became unelectable when he cried in anger over a reporter's question about his wife, who had been hospitalized for depression.
 
raphy said:
What box said.

I could probably cry at poignant moments (in real life, or at the movies) although I tend not to.

I've never cried at a funeral, not even my own mother's. Grief is apparently a word that only has meaning for other people.

If you cry at poignant moments, maybe you're releasing pent-up grief.

I never cry at funerals. I cry later, when I'm alone and there's no need to be strong for anyone. When my dad died, it took two weeks to be able to do that.
 
?K
0iginally posted by Virtual_Burlesque [/i]
Men lack — or consciously suppress — their ability to empathise.

I for one would feel far happier believing that the commander-in-chief got a little teary-eyed over the thought of our troops endangered.

Much more than him being so stupidly insensitive as to accept more than 300 fatalities and still have the chutzpah to make-believe he’s Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne, and say “bring’em on” to another 300 plus — so far.
[/QUOTE]

I really thought he was on the verge of tears during his press conference last month, when the questions began to hit too close to home and his rehearsed answers sounded so hollow. Then he remembered to blame God, and instantly felt better.

I'm going to try that next time I'm caught in a lie.

:rolleyes:
 
shereads said:
I really thought he was on the verge of tears during his press conference last month... Then he remembered to blame God, and instantly felt better.

You can only get away with ‘Blaming God’ if you have confessed to being a BornAgain (TM) Christian, have a television audience, and have either embezzled many millions of dollars, or started an unnecessary war which has destroyed a few hundred thousand infidels.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Men lack — or consciously suppress — their ability to empathise.

I for one would feel far happier believing that the commander-in-chief got a little teary-eyed over the thought of our troops endangered.

Much more than him being so stupidly insensitive as to accept more than 300 fatalities and still have the chutzpah to make-believe he’s Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne, and say “bring’em on” to another 300 plus — so far.


If I made such a generalization as that, I would probably get into a lot of trouble with most of the women on the forum, especially Perdita. I believe most men can empathise with some other persons over some things. These may represent distorted values such as somebody who can empathise over a new car being destroyed in an accident but not over a wife dying in the same accident, but they can at leas tmpathise over something.

As for W, if he had cried over the loss of life, it would have been seen as weakness and encouraged many more acts of terror. Terrorists will only go after the weak.

Keep in mind that if FDR had said, when hearing about Pearl Harbor, something like "Oh, dear. We have lost hundreds of men from this attack. We had better surrender quickly before we lose more.", we would be writing these posts in either German or Japanese. Instead, he rallied Americans to the cause, to the degree that they needed to be rallied, and we write in English.

That's not to compare FDR and W but it is to say. when you are in a fight, whether it is of your own making or not, the best thing to do is to fight. Maybe we should never have gotten involved in Iraq, but we die, and cutting and running now is the worst thing we could do.
 
I forget that oft' enough a majority of opinions here are from white Americans (from which I exclude Jews). I only say that as a bit of a preface as I just now recalled that most Mexican and other Latino men cry openly, despite their ingrained machismo. It's a cultural thing that gringos are ignorant of (generally). I've witnessed each of my brothers (as grown men) cry like babies. I recall men crying thoughout my life, out of sorrow and joy.

One of my own greatest sorrows was watching my sons learn to repress their tears not long after they entered school with a majority of white children. I had to beg them to cry at those times I knew they wanted and needed to.

I also do not want to generalize (lest Box rebuke me ;) ), but I think of Italian and Greek men as openly empathetic. Don't know that much about men in other cultures.

Perdita
 
perdita said:
I forget that oft' enough a majority of opinions here are from white Americans (from which I exclude Jews). I only say that as a bit of a preface as I just now recalled that most Mexican and other Latino men cry openly, despite their ingrained machismo. It's a cultural thing that gringos are ignorant of (generally). I've witnessed each of my brothers (as grown men) cry like babies. I recall men crying thoughout my life, out of sorrow and joy.

One of my own greatest sorrows was watching my sons learn to repress their tears not long after they entered school with a majority of white children. I had to beg them to cry at those times I knew they wanted and needed to.

I also do not want to generalize (lest Box rebuke me ;) ), but I think of Italian and Greek men as openly empathetic. Don't know that much about men in other cultures.

Perdita

As far back as I remember, I was told something like: "You're a big boy and big boys don't cry." I was tole this at least from the time I was in kindergarten, and posssibly even before that. Sometimes the speaker added something "Only girls and sissies cry." Presumably, most other boys, at least of my ethnicity, which is Northern European, were told the same thing. Since we didn't want to be thought of as either girls or sissies, we suppressed crying.
 
Box, what you say is common. The difference with my brothers was that even though they heard this among their friends, they had their fathers and uncles about who let them know it was OK for men to cry. With my sons there was no extended family and so they only had a frustrated mom telling them to act in a way that would make them outcasts. Their father is Chinese and he never showed any emotion but anger.

Perdita
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Men lack — or consciously suppress — their ability to empathise.

I for one would feel far happier believing that the commander-in-chief got a little teary-eyed over the thought of our troops endangered.

Much more than him being so stupidly insensitive as to accept more than 300 fatalities and still have the chutzpah to make-believe he’s Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne, and say “bring’em on” to another 300 plus — so far.
Yea, that's right. Sometimes, 8 looks like 3.
 
perdita said:
I forget that oft' enough a majority of opinions here are from white Americans (from which I exclude Jews). I only say that as a bit of a preface as I just now recalled that most Mexican and other Latino men cry openly, despite their ingrained machismo.
Isn't it kind of a part of their machismo to wear their emotions on their sleeves? Be it pride and passion, or anger, or sorrow. It's probably a bit of a latino stereotype I have, but isn't there a grain of truth in that?

I know that I come from a pretty weird culture in the tear-department. We Scandinavians are both raised to be politically correct softies who weep at the drop of a hat, and die hard macho men who are supposed to shoot, flog and eat a living elk without as much as whimper. The confussion of those two demands alone has on occation been enough to make me shed a tear.

When noone is watching, of course.

#L
 
Liar said:
Isn't it kind of a part of their machismo to wear their emotions on their sleeves? Be it pride and passion, or anger, or sorrow. It's probably a bit of a latino stereotype I have, but isn't there a grain of truth in that?
That is a really good question, Liar, but you're wrong :) . Machismo is the practice and preservation of virility to the extent that men flaunt the excision of female 'virtues' from their persona, e.g., selflessness, compassion, forthrightness, truthfulness. Un hombre can have no compunction about acting on envy, jealousy, possessiveness, vindictiveness, brutality and violence in order to protect his "manly" image. This begins in the home and is passed along from father to son.

That's a simplistic and negative definition. I know it from life, but there is a different history for each Latin culture so I cannot say more.

Perdita
 
A woman will be president on the day all women look around and realize, we are the majority. And if we vote together, we don't have to put up with these miserable clods both parties keep fostering upon us.

As it is, we are divided, putting the issue of our womanhood second to many other considerations. One day, some intelligent and moderate woman is going to step forward, put her hat in the ring and run not as a member of any political party, but as a woman. She will not, perhpas win the first time, but her message will be clear.

"How much worse could a woman do that these buffons?"

She will not have to win, merely do well enough to force both parties to see that women, voting in a bolc, can make the difference. When that happens, the major parites will be scrabbling to find a woman candidate they can run as VP.

Far fetched? Probably. But it's a very fun dreamland to walk in :)

-Colly
 
If Nancy Pelosi hadn't cried they just would have called her a cold-hearted castrating bitch. You can't win.

I don't think men's inability to cry is all necessarily cultural and that we're all repressed emotional cretins. I've read some things that implicate testosterone with an inability to cry and some musings about the group-survival benefits of not bursting into tears when things get rough. Boys generally stop crying about the age of puberty (in my experience), so maybe there's something to it.

I get teary and choked up pretty easily, but it's impossible for me to just break down and weep the way I could when I was a little kid, and I don't think it's because I'm repressing anything. I just don't have access to that emotional mechanism anymore. Telling me I'm repressing my need to cry is like telling me I'm repressing my need to speak French. I just don't know how to speak French.

---dr.M.
 
perdita said:
That is a really good question, Liar, but you're wrong :) .
Ah, had to happen sooner or later, I guess.

Thanks for the lession, P. :rose:
 
Colleen Thomas said:
A woman will be president on the day all women look around and realize, we are the majority. And if we vote together, we don't have to put up with these miserable clods both parties keep fostering upon us.

As it is, we are divided, putting the issue of our womanhood second to many other considerations. One day, some intelligent and moderate woman is going to step forward, put her hat in the ring and run not as a member of any political party, but as a woman. She will not, perhpas win the first time, but her message will be clear.

"How much worse could a woman do that these buffons?"

She will not have to win, merely do well enough to force both parties to see that women, voting in a bolc, can make the difference. When that happens, the major parites will be scrabbling to find a woman candidate they can run as VP.

Far fetched? Probably. But it's a very fun dreamland to walk in :)

-Colly

A few women have run for the presidential nomination of major parties, going back to Senator Margaret Smith in 1964 but none of them has ever come close to being nominated. Eventually, one will but I still think it will be as VP first and then either succeeding to the presidency or running as a seated VP and winning.

I was very impressed with Geraldine Ferraro when she ran for VP in 1984 and, if she had been running for the presidency, I would have voted for her but I couldn't bring myself to run for the chucklehead who was her running mate so I voted for the other chucklehead. It's a shame she dropped out of the national scene because she probably could have gone a long way.

The idea of a woman, even a moderate and competent one, coming from nowhere and saying, in effect, "Okay, women, even though you never heard of me and I have no real qualifications at all, I am a woman, so vote for me," is ludicrous. I like to think that practically everybody, men and women, have sense enough that they don't vote on the basis of gender, although that might be a consideration.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
A few women have run for the presidential nomination of major parties, going back to Senator Margaret Smith in 1964 but none of them has ever come close to being nominated. Eventually, one will but I still think it will be as VP first and then either succeeding to the presidency or running as a seated VP and winning.

I was very impressed with Geraldine Ferraro when she ran for VP in 1984 and, if she had been running for the presidency, I would have voted for her but I couldn't bring myself to run for the chucklehead who was her running mate so I voted for the other chucklehead. It's a shame she dropped out of the national scene because she probably could have gone a long way.

The idea of a woman, even a moderate and competent one, coming from nowhere and saying, in effect, "Okay, women, even though you never heard of me and I have no real qualifications at all, I am a woman, so vote for me," is ludicrous. I like to think that practically everybody, men and women, have sense enough that they don't vote on the basis of gender, although that might be a consideration.

It would seem that way. Gender shouldn't be the main issue, but, and it's a serious but, Another four years of GW and it might become far less a humerous proposition.

Gw & his ass buddies on the far Christian right are pushing a program that is, at it's core, misogynistic in the extreme. Everyone is aware of things like the partial birth abortion ban, which at the least is going to reopen the metaphorically bloody battles pre Roe v Wade. What you probably are not aware of is little tidbits, suffed into this bill and that, that are aimed at women.

As a personal example the Federal government shot down a piece of legislation that would allow liscencing of social workers. It seems very trivial, until you realize that social workers are predominantly women, and federal liscenceing would allow them to not only make more, but allow them to move from state to state in search of better pay without having to re-liscence in each state.

It is not by the major pieces of legislation that recieve so much atttention that Bush Co. is working to return women to the home, it's in minor things, here and there, that are stiffeling employment, educational, and other opportunites and aide for women.

It has not been enough so far to make gender a major issue, but given a second term, with no worries of being re elected, controling both houses of congress, one has to wonder how hard this hidden agenda is going to get pushed.

My post, if you couldn't tell from the last line was intended in jest. I live in NY and didn't vote for Hil. If however GW gets his second term and this hidden agenda becomes a more open one, you may very well find women of all political viewpoints taking a very hard look at just what being a woman means. It should not be a political issue, but if the far right continues to push it could become one. If it does, a large proportion of us may decide a male dominated congress and male dominated executive, is dangerous to us, simply because there is no one to defend us.

So while it was meant in jest, you just might see a pussy party spring up, in the not too distant future :)

-Colly
 
Boxlicker101 said:
:( Men do cry but usually not as much as women, and not as easily. I cried at my first wife's funeral and at other times after that. Usually it takes something as extreme as that. Men do NOT cry in anger or humiliation or physical pain and it is actually seen as a sign of weakness. Crying is never seen as an appropriate response.

It is seen as a sign of weakness when women cry in anger or humiliation or pain, too. Personally, I cry in anger which just pisses me off more. There's no quicker way to lose an argument than bursting into tears.
 
minsue said:
It is seen as a sign of weakness when women cry in anger or humiliation or pain, too. Personally, I cry in anger which just pisses me off more. There's no quicker way to lose an argument than bursting into tears.

I'm quicker to cry when I'm angry, too. Maybe it's the frustration element, I'm not sure.
 
Back
Top