Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    In terms of future candidacy, I suspect the display of sorrow
    will play against her as it did for Ed Muskie.  I have a feeling
    that a large segment of the voting public equates tears with
    weakness and we must not have a "weak" president.  If anything,
    I think the voters might well be more forgiving of a woman 
    candidate for crying than a man (the old jive about women
    crying = o.k.; men crying = not o.k. . .please pass the bag
    from the "Good Ads/Bad Ads" note).
    
    As far as this bozo is concerned, the whole thing is kind of a
    sad commentary.  It's o.k. for the president to display happiness,
    anger, concern, etc. but Lord forbid he should cry, unless he is
    a she, in which case it might be o.k. except that that displays
    "weakness", yak, yak, blah, blah.
    
    Though I didn't have time to do more than glance at the article,
    I got the definite impression that her reasons had to do with 
    not being able to figure a way to stay in touch with people and
    be a candidate at the same time.  If she's right (and I strongly
    suspect she is), it's a real indictment of the political system.
    
    What a surprise, eh?
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    I am sorry she is not running.
    
    As for crying in public - it does not effect how I view
    a person - if they don't cry I wonder why - don't they
    feel anything?
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	It takes strength to be able to 
    				let tears fall in public.
    
    

    
    
    Patty said at the outset she would need about two million dollars
    raised in contributions to run a "credible campaign".
    
    She raised approx=one million
    
    If I was her I might cry, too
    

    
    I'm confused.
    
    ("HA!" they say.  Tell us something we don't know)
    
    She can't figure out how to be a candidate and stay in touch with
    people at the same time?  I don't get it.  Does she mean her current
    congressional constituency, or all those people she wants to vote
    for her.  It can't be the latter.  That would be babble on an almost
    Nixonian scale.  After all, the whole point of that circus is to
    meet people.
    
    If it's the former, then her concern is laudable, but I don't see
    it as an indictment of the political system.  Doing too many things
    at once is hard on anybody, in any area of endeavor.  The complaint
    about the degeneration of performance when someone holding one office
    becomes an active cadidate for another is legitimate, but I think
    it ought to be leveled at politicians, not political systems.
    
    Or perhaps it was her family, people she was close to?
    
    Hmmmm.  Anyone got any clearer statement from her?
    
    The money issue give me an idea for a SOAPBOX topic.
    
    DFW

    re .5:
    
    > She can't figure out how to be a candidate and stay in touch with
    > people at the same time?  I don't get it. 
      
    I think the context in which that statement was made is the key.
    She promised that she would not run a "token" campaign. That she
    would run only if she thought that she had a credible chance of
    winning. Upon examining her progress, she concluded that to continue
    _would_ be a token campaign and that it would be unfair to her
    constituents to devote all her time to a race she knew she would
    lose. 
    
    Sounds like she will be a contender in '92.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    
    

    Our political system and culture seems to guarantee that 'Plastic'
    people jump out and run for the money.....  while deeply rooted
    people are unable to compromise their integrity and be a part of
    the web of politics that Pat S. is decrying in her way.
    
    She steps aside because of her value system..... we are the losers.
    
    Dukakis claims to be able to be a sitting Governor, 'Run' for
    president, and maintain his integrity............  Time [ not the
    magazine .. ] will tell ..........  But, where are the leaders of
    the future ?
    
    

    Can we get back to the issue of whether her crying in public
    might become a negative factor if she does decide to run again
    for the Presidency?
    
    One of the earlier replies mentioned the Muskie campaign, where
    he had tears running down his cheeks after his wife had been maligned.
    The tears created a negative perception of his "strength" on the
    part of the public. After that episode, his chances were doomed.
    
    And again, will the public, both male and female, have fresh ammunition
    to support feelings that "women are too emotional to be President"?
    
    I suppose what I'm really asking is whether the readers of this
    Note would have wished, in their heart of hearts, that Pat Schroeder
    had *not* cried in public, particularly over dropping out of the
    race for the Presidency? 
    
    There's no question that her crying proves that she's human and
    has feeling. But does her crying publicly somehow demonstrate a
    perceived weakness, and would this perception carry over to other
    women seeking the Presidency?
    
       Alan
    

    As to wishing she hadn't cried, yes I wish she had been able not to do,
    not because it demonstrates anything negative...as has already been
    said, it's rather the reverse if anything...but because "arsasiety"
    will PERCEIVE weakness in her tears.  
    
    						=maggie

    Dunno, Alan.  Seems to me that tears are no big deal, but the men
    I know disagree strongly with me on that point.  So do some of the
    women.
    
    Once I had a huge fight with my boss at a staff meeting over an
    issue that meant a lot to both of us.  I was tired on top of it
    all, and finally had to leave to "wash my face."  A man followed
    me out, found me crying (BEFORE I made it to the bathroom...), and
    went back to blast my boss for "making Lee cry."  My boss was confused,
    and I couldn't figure out who I was madder at -- my boss or the
    guy who made a huge deal about my crying.  A woman later came by
    and chided me saying "what will they (men) think of it?  Have you
    ever seen a person in power cry?"
    
    I cried.  I got over it.  Big deal.  Just meant that I was caught
    up in the fight, that I cared a lot about the outcome.  
    
    Pat Shroeder (sp?) cried.  She'll get over it.  Big deal.  She cared
    a lot about her responsibilities and the outcome of the campain.
    It's refreshing to see strong emotions come out without accusations
    and hostility in the political arena.
    
    Wish we were ALL a bit more free to care about our work and show
    it.
    
    Probably will hurt her chances, the same way my tears were a "disgrace"
    but I think that is rotton, and hope it will change.
    
    Lee

    I'm embarrassed to admit that I really wish she hadn't cried, and
    for exactly the reason that a goodly-enough portion of the "masses"
    will percieve it as "weakness". However, this is exactly the kind
    of  "elitist" reasoning that caused many of the founding (ahem)
    fathers to object to the U.S.COnsitiution, on the grounds that the
    hoi polloi weren't capable of making their own decisions in government.
    
    I think, however, that the effect on Muskie was more immediate because
    he *was* in the middle of a campaign, so it really deep-6'd him
    on the spot. Since Ms.S will now be out of the national "eye" for
    a while, I think it may be a matter of curiosity when (if) she *does*
    run again ("Oh yeah, remember when she cried - uhm..when was it..
    last time she ran, or something...uh - I don't remember exactly...oh
    well..") I don't think it will affect her campaigning years from
    now.
    
    And who knows, by years from now, maybe we hoi polloi will haveour
    collective act together regarding human emotions and the expression
    thereof. (Well, I can dream, can't I?)
    
    RE: Jeanne Kirkpatrick - now *there's* a woman who won't embarrass
    us by crying in public!
    
    RE: The toll campaigning.politics takes on an individual. A friend
    of mine who's been active in civil rights-type politics said that
    Barbara Jordan got out just because of that reason. THe game playing,
    the physical stresses (I believe she has a chronic ailment -
    arthritis?), mental/emotional stress, etc.
    
    Dawn
    

    
    Given the current political climate, and my own assessment of what
    turns I think it is likely to take, it didn't do her career any
    good to give the media tears.
    
    I feel funny answering this, as I am unsure whether I would have
    voted for her.  I was not in agreement with her on several issues.
    
    DFW

    Heard a radio editorial early this morning commenting on Pat's
    outstanding record in Congress, the fact that she was not shy and
    had perhaps irritated some people in power - he alluded to the fact
    that perhaps "she was being politically blackmailed"...who said
    there aren't smoke-filled rooms??
    
    
    

	The audience of this notesfile is probably more politically
	informed than most American noters, and certainly more
	interested in a candidate like Pat Schroeder... I think the
	average reaction is "Oh, another of those Democrats nobody
	ever heard of quit...". Nobody will remember the circumstances
	(she'll be lucky if anyone remembers her name)...
	
	until/unless she appears to be making a strong run for the
	nomination in '90, at which point you won't be able to turn a
	news show on without seeing the video tape from this week...
	
	Mike

    
    	I find this hard to accept, but for once I agree with a
    	news editorial on this subject. It dealt with the fact
    	that there are just too many people that can not/will not
    	accept a woman or a black in office. They said they did a
    	study and found there are plenty of voters that wouldn't
    	care anything about issues, all they would see is a woman
    	or a black and vote for whoever ran against them. They also
    	said there are plenty of voters that might say they would
    	support a woman or black in office, but when it came to
    	the voting booth would not vote that way.
    
    	It's a shame as I think she'd be better for the job than
    	anyone we'll be stuck with...
    
    	GB

 Statistics:
    
 The  survey  showed  that  Nationwide  25%  of  voters  would  not vote for a 
 candidate if she was a woman.
    
 In the "Super-Tuesday" states the percentage was 29%.
    
 Surprisingly the highest negative figure was in women aged 60 or more.
    
    ---                                                                       
    
 Back to the point.  I don't find  anything  negative  in  a  politico crying. 
 Churchill was seen to cry once... big deal.
    
 She  didn't  run  because  (a) she couldn't raise the money to enter the race 
 seriously this near the primaries, and (b) she [claimed she had to]  put  her 
 constituents  first.    I  find  this  highly  laudable,  but have a sense of 
 political cynicism that says that if she had raised the money she'd have  run 
 and to h**l with the constituents.
    
 But  in the circumstances I think she'll be a candidate in '96 (note not '92) 
 I like the idea of a campaign slogan of:-
    
          "A woman President to take America into the 21st Century!"
                                        
 
 /. Ian .\

    It is a shame that a Pat Schroeder decided not to run for president.
    It certainly shows that Americans are not as "liberated" in their
    views when it comes to women, even though we boast that we do.
    
    However, display of emotions of any kind on the part of a public
    figure who is considered the leader of the USA, is not befitting
    such an official. A person who has to make decisions of participate
    in making decisions during crisis of any kind, must be a rational,
    collected and "cool" person. A emotional outburst implies that the
    person has not been able to remain logical about the situation.
    
    Anyway, to make a long story short, I am against public emotional
    display and I wish we became more supportive of our women candidates.

	RE: .18

>                      A person who has to make decisions of participate
>    in making decisions during crisis of any kind, must be a rational,
>    collected and "cool" person. A emotional outburst implies that the
>    person has not been able to remain logical about the situation.
    
	I agree that sometimes emotions can hinder a person's judgement,
	however I disagree that they *always* cause a lack of judgement.
	You show emotions when you really care about something.  It
	doesn't mean that you can't look at all sides of a decision and
	make a logical decision.  In fact, you often wind up making
	a decision counter to what your emotions would like (which makes
	you even more upset and likely to cry).  I would be more worried
	about people who show rage, than those who cry.  Rage is a very
	strong emotion that could cloud judgement (rage and quick decisions
	tend to go together more than sadness and quick decisions).

	When you show emotion is also another factor.  It is often after
	a decision is made that emotion is displayed.  Thus the emotion
	had no impact on the decision-making process.  You often see
	people get very emotional after a crises situation, yet during
	the situation they were able to handle it.

	...Karen

    I must admit that I was disappointed when I saw her cry.  My first
    thought was "oh, great, I can imagine what "they" are going to have
    to say about this..."
    
    Some thoughts:
    
    It's so frustrating that emotions displayed by a woman are are analyzed
    to death for their "appropriateness" and those displayed by men
    are just accepted.  I am reading Sam Donaldson's book, "Hold on,
    Mr. President," and he mentions numerous instances when Reagan and
    other world leaders demonstrate emotion (expletives, fist-banging,
    yelling, even obscene gestures).  These are the emotions that cause
    wars.  But they're not considered newsworthy.
    
    Pat Schroeder said she would decide by a certain date whether she
    
    would run, depending on how much financial (and other) support she
    had received.  She did not receive enough.  I wish she had just
    said that, rather than (overly simplified, I admit) "I just can't
    do it all."
    
    I saw a "man on the street" interview the night of her announcement.
    The interviewee said "no, I don't think a woman should be president...
    I don't think they could handle the pressure...I guess they should
    be able to have careers if they want...they can be secretaries or
    raise families..."  I wish I had a fairy godmother who could, for
    just one month, make this man a single mother working as an underpaid
    secretary (or is "underpaid secretary" redundant?).  These are the
    people I imagined saying "see...they can't handle the pressure"
    when Schroeder cried.
    
    -Tracy
    
    
    
    
    

    re. 18 Since when has emotional outbursts been linked to logical
    thinking?  Give me a break!
    
    If I cry when I get married does this mean I haven't thought logically
    about getting married?
    
    When Pat Shroeder cried because she was disappointed at not having
    the chance to run for president I think it was because she had thought
    very *logically* about the situation and made a very logical and
    practical decision.
    
                                             - Sue

    FWIW, we have had a president who was known to have cried while
    in office.  That was President Wilson.  He cried when signing the
    declaration of war that got us into WWI.
    
    I think more highly of a president who would cry on an occasion
    like this than a more rational one who says "Gee, think of what
    this will mean for the defense contractors".
    
    Elizabeth
    

Pat Schroeder was the only candidate I thought I could get excited about
at all.  She's been a strong, principled, articulate member of Congress.

I don't care that she cried.  It made me feel that she was a real, honest
human being...unlike those lying, cheating, corrupt, "normal" politicians
who take the fate of the world in their hands and toss their hands up.

How much does Reagan and his buddies care that they are poisening our
earth, increasing the danger of destroying human life forever and ever,
causing people to be homeless, etc. etc.?  Give me a decent candidate with
real values and real emotions any day.  

As for what "they" will make of it--what values the press and the mass of 
American voters hold is beyond me.   The issues that seem to me to be important
and those that seem to be brushed under the table in favor of TV image and
some strange Price-is-Right type of elections--well, I'm very, very sad for
our great country.  We seem to be reducing our great national issues to the 
level of People magazine.

Nina

    re: .0
    
    I'm not sure what crying has to do with competancy, but if thats
    reason for her to drop out "perceptual weakness", then we have a
    lot of work to do to overcome this feebleness in the American Public.
    
    I'd like to add more, but it'd be more appropriates to a note 
    on "Tears and emotions" than here.
    
    Bob+3