About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times' Jennifer Harper in Clinton article: Assertiveness is "masculine"

January 17, 2008 5:50 pm ET

12 Comments

In a January 17 Washington Times article -- headlined "Strong leader or likable advocate?" -- Jennifer Harper wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-IL) acted with "masculine flair" when she said: "Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign," during the January 15 Democratic presidential debate. Harper wrote:

Mrs. Clinton then displayed some chameleonlike dynamics.

"Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign," she said during Tuesday's Democratic debate, firmly setting ground rules with masculine flair.

As Media Matters for America documented, a January 7 New York Post column similarly asserted that Clinton "has long been accused of androgyny -- trying to sound like a man, flexing her rhetorical muscle."

Harper also described Clinton as a "sob sister" and asserted that "[b]y the time New Hampshire held its primaries last week, Mrs. Clinton saw fit to cry in public." At a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Clinton's voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency.

The January 17 Washington Times article in its entirety:

She weeps delicately, then debates with gusto. She guffaws with the fellows and giggles with the gals -- strident one moment, soft-spoken the next.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be in touch with both her masculine and feminine sides on the campaign trail. The New York Democrat is seeking a tenable balance that could play in Peoria, Ill., and beyond.

Good luck.

"In times of peril, people prefer a leader with masculine traits more often found in men," said Crystal L. Hoyt, a social psychologist at the University of Richmond. "These traits include assertiveness, aggressiveness and dominance versus caring concern and care for others."

Mrs. Clinton is walking a "treacherous" tightrope.

"This double bind results from the need for women to demonstrate masculine, leaderlike characteristics to be perceived as effective, but they can't be too masculine or people won't like them," Ms. Hoyt said.

They can't get too girly, either.

"Women leaders also need to show a certain level of femininity to be liked, but if they show too much, they will be perceived as an ineffective leader," she added.

Mrs. Clinton herself has weaved through roles as feminist, sob sister and lawmaker -- and back again.

"In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me compete in the all-boys' club of presidential politics," she told a Wellesley College audience in November.

By the time New Hampshire held its primaries last week, Mrs. Clinton saw fit to cry in public, prompting partisan bloggers to proclaim "four more tears" as her new campaign slogan.

"Are we serious people, if someone can cry and the next day people go, 'Well, she finally cried, she's got my vote?" asked HBO comic Bill Maher.

Mrs. Clinton then displayed some chameleonlike dynamics.

"Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign," she said during Tuesday's Democratic debate, firmly setting ground rules with masculine flair.

Mrs. Clinton quickly went on to make peacemaking gestures to her opponents Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

"Clinton is asked to achieve the impossible: perfection. But the way to solve that problem is fairly simple: Get more women onto that stage. When we have larger numbers of women running for office, we'll be able to get past perfection and past gender," said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, a nonpartisan group promoting women's leadership issues.

Emotional underpinnings are part of the political process, however. The very act of voting might be driven by drama and "the effects of conscious and unconscious attitudes toward gender and race," said Drew Westen, an Emory University psychology professor.

"Voters tend to choose their favorite candidates by emotion, and then rationalize those gut feelings," he said.

Mr. Westen will describe the "emotional way" we cast our ballots at the American Psychoanalytic Association's annual meeting tomorrow.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by sportsguydave (January 17, 2008 5:56 pm ET)
         

      Typical right-wing crap on a stick from the Moonie paper.

      This article flunks Journalism 101. It contains blatant opinion, and as such it should be labeled as "analysis" or put on the opinion page.

      But then again,  nobody ever accused the Washington Times of practicing journalism. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by finarfin (January 17, 2008 9:43 pm ET)
           
        As if the liberal reporters have never engaged in opinion in their articles.  but you are right in that all opinionated articles should be categorized as such.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solonswine (January 17, 2008 10:02 pm ET)
           

        SGD, it's a COLUMN!!! NOT A REPORT! The writer is a COLUMNIST! NOT a REPORTER!! Of course it's infused with opinion. But like the typical leftie, your solution to opinion that you disagree with is to govern it into silence.

        And since when is "blatant opinion" a bad thing?

        Would you rather everyone else just think like you and never disagree? (There's really no need to answer that one.)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (January 17, 2008 11:41 pm ET)
             

          "Govern it into silence"...what poetry, Mr. swollenswine, and only you knew that sportsman dave had this hidden agenda?! 

          Meanwhile, the moonie paper is experiencing a revolt from the trees it was made from.  The trees are claiming that its pulp was better used to grow leaves.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solonswine (January 18, 2008 3:44 am ET)
               

            Quite frankly, it's not a hidden agenda. It's a crystal clear agenda by the loony left and the democrat party. Governing dissent (read: opinions that are not in lock-step with the democrat party) into silence has manifested itself in the latest and greatest revival of the "Fairness" doctrine. Give it a good read, and then tell me that I'm wrong.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by ConstanceRifleII (January 18, 2008 10:18 am ET)
                 

              You're wrong.

               

              Was dissent stifled before Reagan came to power?  Hardly.  Was dissent stifled once Bush was in power? most definitely.  In fact, I've been called a traitor more times than I can count.  Why? because I didn't support the war in Iraq. 

               

              Am I channeling the speech patterns of Donald Rumsfeld? perhaps.  Should I stop now? I think so. 

              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (January 17, 2008 6:39 pm ET)
         

      Drew Westen's still active, good. His Book "The Political Brain" is excellent.

      If their only going to allow certain behaviors depending on orthodox sexual identity, I'd like to see further information from them.

      Sexual identity politics, ain't it grand.

      8~P

      Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (January 17, 2008 6:39 pm ET)
         

      What a bunch of tripe !

       

      "In times of peril, people prefer a leader with masculine traits more often found in men," said Crystal L. Hoyt, a social psychologist at the University of Richmond. 

      Has this ever been verified ?  WHEN HAVE WE HAD A CHOICE ??? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by achrispage6992 (January 17, 2008 6:53 pm ET)
           
        "Neither race or gender should be apart of this campaign" Now that is the real tripe; coming from a woman who has formed a campaign strategy to beat Obama using both race and gender to her advantage. I almost feel sorry for her as she wallows and stumbles over herself to win this nomination which she felt entitled to from the beginning. Almost.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (January 17, 2008 7:22 pm ET)
         
      i first saw a really in depth interview with hillary about 2 to 3? years ago on meet the press, and thought she came off reasonable, intelligent, and yes, likable.  i thought if she did run that the republicans would make a big mistake by painting her as the dragon lady, because she belies that perception the more she's seen. look at it this way, she's already charmed one former hillary hater on this site into saying he would consider voting  for her. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by finarfin (January 17, 2008 9:52 pm ET)
           

        And who is this Cobra, so easily charmed?

        Personally, she is a likeable enough person but i find that amazingly it is her views and policies that do not attract me. Go figure.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (January 18, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
             
          personally i agree with you.  i do not vote for anyone based on anything but their views.  if i like them, that is a bonus.  that's really how bush got in.  he was portrayed as the likable centrist good ol boy, when he was a unqualified right wing ideologue.  it was there for all to see.  but my point was that the republicans have painted this picture of the dragon lady, and people see another side of her.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.