Prof. Tannen: "Hillary Clinton, Through a Lens Wrongly"

[spooky3]

My comments: Prof. Tannen is a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University and has written several best-selling books, such as "You Just Don't Understand!" I am posting this here rather than GD: P because I can't stand all the childish replies typically posted to similar articles. I thought here the piece was more likely to get the reading it deserves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702844.html

"This isn't about Hillary. Well, okay, it is. But it isn't only about her. It's also about every woman who has ever been underestimated, failed to get credit for work she did or been denied opportunities to do work at which she would have excelled.

With Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential primary victories in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island last week, Democratic voters continue to evaluate her abilities and her chances of winning in a general election -- and are confronting the double bind that women in authority, including Clinton, face: If they speak in ways expected of leaders, they're seen as too aggressive, but if they speak in ways expected of women, they're seen as less confident and competent than they really are.

(snip)

On the morning after the Feb. 21 debate in Texas between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, I was speaking to a group of women in managerial positions who were being groomed to advance beyond the levels where women tend to plateau. And I realized that everything I was saying about women in professional environments applies to Clinton.

(snip)

Women's status as wives is such a huge part of our image of them that it tends to obscure other roles, while a man's marital status is left in the background. This might explain why we hear so many references to Clinton's position as first lady rather than her eight years in the Senate, where, as political scientist Norman Ornstein put it to me, "she has been without question one of the most effective senators." For example, he noted, "on Armed Services, she dug in, developed relationships with all the best generals and other brass, and learned defense inside out." And why do we keep hearing about her efforts to ensure universal health care in 1993, rather than her many senatorial successes on the issue, such as a bill she introduced in 2003 to make sure that drugs marketed for children have been tested on children, or her success in securing health benefits for National Guard and Reserve members who served in Iraq?"

(snip)

[JohnnyLib2]

1. Fine article. Thanks.

That "through a lens wrongly" is so fitting and true. Darn it. :kick:

[Mark Twain Girl]

2. Oh thank god, I was afraid to click on this thread because I'm reading a book

edited by Tannen for class tomorrow night, and my pile-on threshold is so low at this point, I don't think it would be easy for me to face discussion on the book if Tannen had participated. That's a sad statement, I realize, but I guess that's where we are. In any case, this was a good article, thanks for posting. This paragraph made me think about the coverage I'm seeing on google news today... and interpretation:

At the end of the debate, Clinton said, "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama" and shook hands with her rival for the Democratic nomination. This struck me as the gracious inclusion of her fellow candidate in acknowledging the public trust and regard that had brought them both so far in the race. But her words were widely interpreted as something tantamount to surrender. That interpretation rang in my ears as I spoke of the many ways that women's expressions of connection are interpreted in the workplace as self-abasement: A manager invites her subordinates' input and they think she's asking them to make decisions for her. A woman says "I'm sorry," meaning "I'm sorry that happened" and is told, "Don't apologize, it's not your fault." She phrases instructions to a subordinate politely ("Would you do me a favor and type this?") and her own boss, overhearing, thinks that she lacks confidence.

It's funny, the chapter I'm looking at now from the Tannen book? It's about the function and form of apologies. It talks briefly about women using apologies differently than men, and the consequences.

[spooky3]

3. Hi, I'm sorry to put you in that position; I wouldn't post an anti-Clinton

thread in this forum. I guess there have been so MANY attacks on Clinton and her supporters here at DU that it's understandable that people are prepared for anything.

Hope you interpret my apology as intended :-) (in keeping with Tannen's advice :-))!

[Mark Twain Girl]

5. Heh, yes, I know you wouldn't -- it was an automatic

thing. Isn't that sad? It's like you expect it... sigh.

Anyway, great read and thanks again. Her edited book is a great read too -- the funny part, out of nowhere, the chapter I'm working on uses the extended example of apologizing for eating a friend's hamster. :D

[spooky3]

8. Yes, she's a very good writer and must make a fortune speaking

I just wish more corps. would actually implement her advice!

Glad you're studying her work.

[kikiek]

4. This does deserve to be in GDP. What really hit me is "or denied opportunities to do work at which

she would have excelled." That is exactly how I feel about Hillary. They are trying to deny her an opportunity to do the job she will excel at. The whole article is excellent. Thanks for posting it. Everyone should read this. It is so true it hurts.

[spooky3]

7. Thanks, if you feel like posting the same article there, please do.

I just don't care to read all the "the reason I am not voting for her has NOTHING to do with her gender; it's her IWR vote" etc. replies, usually complete with misspellings.

[kikiek]

9. You're right. I feel like I'm losing my temper there. It is tunnel vision and nothing will

change that. But this truly is a wonderful article that really explains a lot of the frustration I'm feeling. We see it happening, but it is difficult to put into words. Now someone has explained it.

[kikiek]

6. Kicking it because everyone needs the opportunity to read it.

[libbygurl]

10. Thank you for posting this here!

I recall reading Deborah Tannen's late 80s book about the different conversational styles and language between men and women, and how that can cause confusion and misunderstanding. I remember nodding my head in agreement with practically everything she'd written.

Well, two decades later, nothing's changed.

Take, for instance, Hillary's comment about being 'honored to be onstage with BO' that Ms Tannen mentions - like Ms Tannen, I found that gracious of her. So I was hugely surprised the next day to read about how this was interpreted by many in the media (males, of course) as a code for surrender, that Hillary was ready to concede the fight! That was the last thing I thought she meant!

And therein lies the bind in which Hillary finds herself - every action she takes is seen as a negative, seen through the obfuscating lens of society's role expectations of her gender. I thought about what's so different about the US culture that this remains a problem for women in positions of leadership and authority - could it largely be due to the deeply patriarchal nature of this society, so everything that women do and say gets interpreted through the ill-fitting dominant male model. My ex-SO, a Spaniard, said the US is still a sexist society and it might sound ironic to hear him say that, since he's from a 'machismo' culture. But, coming from a former Spanish colony , I know whereof he speaks - although 'machismo' reigns in Latino societies, the men are actually just all about bluster, and they really respect their mothers and wives (I come from the Philippines - people don't really have a problem with women senators, presidents, etc. there) No wonder women in power here just can't seem do anything right in that situation. I mean, really - for Tucker Carlson to actually express a fear of being castrated when he sees Hillary!!! What the hell is that about?! (Okay, will stop rambling now!)

[spooky3]

13. very interesting

I think you make an excellent point about your friends and family from Spanish-influenced cultures (and other things). Your stories reminded me that the other night I was walking out of the gym with a long-married couple who I know pretty well. She was commenting on how their three sons (all under 30) supported Barack Obama and it was great that they were showing political interest. Then her husband, who is from an Arabic culture, said "I disagree with them, though; I support Clinton" and went on to explain why. I realized that my own stereotypes made me very surprised that he was so supportive of the female candidate. He just simply does not feel threatened by smart, assertive women - he likes them, he likes problem-solvers and doesn't care what package they come in - and he loves his wife.

I also recall returning from France after an extended stay and feeling hit in the face with the perception that many men in the US were much more hostile to women than were French men, who, if they were sexist (and many did not seem to be), were rather sweet and gentle about it, rather than hostile--it seemed to be coming from a conflict of romantic feelings rather than feeling threatened or a need to put women in their place. I think it's very similar to what you described. Of course, I don't intend any of this not to take into account individual differences.

[JohnnyLib2]

11. I'm afraid the article would just be trashed on GD-P.

Pretty darn sure, sadly. I'm going to work in a few comments from it here and there. Those questions and contrasts in the last paragraph really bring the message home.

[BlackVelvet04]

12. thanks for the article.....

it definitely would be trashed in GD: P.

[libbygurl]

14. Kickety-koo! nt