As he oftentimes does, Razvan’s inspired me today. Namely to write some thoughts on the American electoral campaign. Initially, I wanted to make a more comprehensive analysis. But this article from Hotnews.ro struck me. It basically makes a comparison between Segolene Royal’s nervousness in a public debate with Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton’s recent outburst on Saturday’s debate with Barack Obama, when she made a fuss because the moderator asked her first – instead of her opponent – a rather delicate question about NAFTA. Granted, “she snapped” – as American commentators put it.
And then I came to wonder… are women politicians bound “to snap” at their opponents? Or to be more nervous in general than their male counterparts? To put things bluntly, women do tend to think with their ovaries, i.e. to lose temper easier than men do. And yes, exceptional women (and I think we can all agree that making it to the finals in the electoral confrontation in both France and the US, less than a century after the very introduction of the universal suffrage is simply outstanding) also tend to snap easier than men.
But is that necessarily bad? Honestly speaking, I’d rather believe in a woman that can show me emotions (and I do believe the emotions displayed by both Segolene and Hillary were not terribly misplaced) than in a man that sweeps me off my feet with his perfectly cool composure. In politics, and in life in general. I’ll blog more about women in politics… the subject is fascinating.
The infamous clips (with Sego and Hillary losing their temper):
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_VmKcgYaIU&eurl=http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-international-2495225-video-hillary-clinton-segolene-royal-doua-candidate-acelasi-comportament.htm[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ka4Z9I-6Y&eurl=http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-international-2495225-video-hillary-clinton-segolene-royal-doua-candidate-acelasi-comportament.htm[/video]
Hehe.
I really don’t think the snapping, and generally emotions in politics are characteristics to be sought after. Especially when there are red buttons involved. The emotional Arabs, Africans, Southern and Eastern Europeans don’t quite have exemplary politics and politicians. Sure there are other forces at play there, but it would be a stretch to say emotions don’t play a role.
But seriously now. WHO would blame HC for being emotional?? When I think of her or I see her speeches “robot” rather than emotional is what comes to my mind. Her particular problem (and perhaps coincidentally, Segolene’s — not something characteristic to all women in politics) is that her swings are not emotional… they are personality swings. What you consider to be a woman showing emotions, I see as a potential leader that is willing to alter who she is too easily. Emotions are good as long as they reveal sincerity staying true to one’s values; does HC achieve this through her behavior?
It would be a leap of faith to believe so, don’t you think?
I think emotions ARE characteristics to be sought in politics. Personality swings are a totally different issues and this is why I agree with your assessment of Hillary. But that’s also because I like Obama… emotionally speaking, I like Obama. And my preference for him is just 30, maybe 40% rational… in fact, I think rational legitimacy in politics is just a catch-phrase. First we love our politicians and only later we come to appreciate them as politicians… see Ion Iliescu’s evolution in Romania. The rational voter is an ideal, but that’s not necessarily bad… I mean this is why I appreciate women, who are more prone in showing emotions and empathy in general than men. With Hillary the story’s a bit different (her reaction was simply mean and profoundly disturbed, and it added to a very rational picture of herself she created), but Sego’s reaction… I don’t find it that disturbing… she cared deeply about the issue they were debating and Mr. Sarkozy was very aggressive. Bottom line is that political analysts themselves will tell you – albeit, in different words – that politics is like love
Corina, cred ca scrii acest post de pe premise gresite. Ma refer la faptul ca privesti emotia ca pe un rezultat fie al sinceritatii, fie al altui atribut declansator. Cand, asa cum sigur sti din proprie experienta, femeile sunt pur si simplu in touch cu sentimentele lor, le este usor sa vorbeasca despre ele si sa le arate, pe cand barbatii sunt fortat cerebrali (baietii nu plang niciodata, right?); femeile sunt orientate spre a discuta/dezbate, pe cand barbatii spre a gasi solutii. Aminteste-ti de cate ori, povestindu-i unui barbat despre cum ti-a mers intr-o zi, doar de dragul de a impartasi asta si de a fi ascultata, reactia a fost “Pai, poate ar trebui aici sa….” cand de fapt o solutie era ultima chestie pe care o cautai. Dar na, frumusetea diferentelor dintre sexe. Ca sa inchei, emotia nu are legatura cu politica decat daca vrei sa o gandesti asa; emotia are legatura cu oamenii si cu femeia, in mod special. Si femeia implicata in orice inseamna emotie…:-)
Partial de acord cu tine. Insa mi se pare ca privesti lucrurile prea in alb si negru. “Femeia implicata in orice inseamna emotie”… not always true. In cazul de fata, femeia implicata in politica = nervi (si emotie, insa in cazul francez emotia la care te referi tu mi-a transmis-o o femeie, iar in cazul american – un barbat, anume Obama). In acelasi timp insa, politica inseamna emotii. Votam cu cel mai carismatic politician, we fall pentru speaker-ul pe care il percepem ca fiind cel mai emotional. Pe bune ca “politics is like love”
Si afirmatia ta “emotia n-are legatura cu politica, ci cu oamenii” e un truism… activitate mai esential umana decat politica (impartitul puterii) nu exista. Politica fara oameni e un concept gol. Si de cand cu votul universal, chiar ca politica inseamna numai oameni. Cat am vrea noi sa ne pacalim cu structura institutionala, etc.
De aceea ma gandeam ca in mod normal femeile ar trebui sa aiba mai mult succes in politica, pentru ca stiu sa transmita mai bine emotiile (dar si nervii, watch out)… de-asta imi plac unele femei politician… pentru ca le percep ca fiind mai sincere si mai implicate decat colegii lor barbati. In acelasi timp insa, iata ca femeile in politica aduc cu ele si un intreg arsenal de slabiciuni ancestrale…
I dig cu ceea ce spui. O sa mai discutam despre asta. Nu consider un truism faptul ca ‘emotia are legatura cu oamenii’ si am sa-ti explic de ce. Cat despre faptul ca activitate mai esential umana decat impartirea puterii nu exista, iar nu sunt de acord. Un exemplu as fi eu. Pentru mine esential uman este sa convietuiesc armonios cu cei din jurul meu si tot ce fac, in acest sens fac – pentru o comunicare care sa-mi aduca satisfactia intelegerii cu cei de langa mine, nu sa acumulez putere. Si sunt sigura ca esential uman pentru altii sunt alte lucruri. Sic!