I hardly ever write about politics. Mostly, it's because I'm not all that interested in it and I'm very uninformed. Tonight I was watching the New Hampshire primaries with the Mister (I have no idea why) and something struck me. Why would the nation presume that American women want or need an emotional woman to run the country? I don't want a wishy, washy, emotional woman as my husband's boss. I just don't. I want a strong, thoughtful, upstanding citizen running America. If that person happens to be a woman, then so be it. A person's ability to cry isn't going to make me more inclined to vote for them regardless of their gender. I find the notion insulting. As if tears make a person more appealing to me simply because I'm a woman. It's ludicrous.
Sheesh.
I agree. That's why I don't watch that crap and I make my decision based on my own independent research.
ReplyDeleteCrap. Good word for it.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if the woman got teary-eyed or not. Or if any of the men do, for that matter. I've been hearing it said that crying is a sign of weakness, which is plain bull pucky. And others are saying that Hilary has shown a more human side. I'm much more concerned about the issues and hope this particular news story dies down soon.
ReplyDeleteI so agree with you. I was watching the Today Show this morning and Matt was interviewing Obama. He was questioning Obama on wheather he thought he lost NH because Hillary "got misty". What a crock question. Who cares...stick with the ISSUES! the media is so running with that whole charade.
ReplyDeleteLF~~I don't see tears as a sign of weakness either. Neither do I see them as a sign of strength or of one's ability to be more human.
ReplyDeletePam~~They were still talking about it on the Today show yesterday (Thursday) as well. I changed the channel.