She’s Come Undone

This post is not about Hillary Clinton and the fact I would like to see her become president of the United States.

This post is about what it means to be construed as harsh, cold, even intimidating, when you’re a woman in leadership, and how folks are likely to continue to hate you even when you finally show the emotion they’ve been dying to see.

For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about. Evidently Clinton choked up last night when at the end of a grueling day of campaigning there in New Hampshire and after an even more grueling evening of policy talk with a roundtable of undecided voters, mostly women, one of the women asked Clinton how in the world did she pull herself together each day to go out and face the rigours of the campaign. Word on the street is that one of the reasons why a lot of Americans have not connected with Hillary Clinton is because of what they perceive as her icy, stoic, emotionless persona.

Mind you, everything is not personal. But this is personal to me.

I don’t know a woman in leadership (not one, doggone it) who has not been accused – by supervisors or by fellow employees, but subordinates, if she’s in the military, by students if she’s a teacher, by church members, if she’s a minister — of being hard, cold, unfeeling, and intimidating. Make a decision, and stick by it. Grade the paper, and stand by your grade. Refuse to laugh at jokes that aren’t funny. End your sentence without a lilt in your voice. Look people in the eye when you talk to them. Have a firm handshake. Don’t show any cleavage. Be candid and forthright in your dealings with people. Be darn good at what you do.


Folks don’t like to see a woman get too powerful, too fast, and be too smart.

Everything is not personal. But this is personal to me.

It’s the story of my life and every woman I know who has ever done anything others thought she could not and should not be doing. 

Of course, choking up in public can cut both ways. The American public is uncomfortable with a woman who refuses to show emotion. But cry in public, whether you’re male or female, and you’re apt to be seen as weak. People in this country have made it clear that they dislike emotion in their leaders.

Remember the most famous presidential tears of all time which ended a campaign right there in New Hampshire when Edmund Muskie wept over a newspaper attack on his wife during the 1972 campaign?

Oh yeah, let’s not forget back in 1987 when then Democratic Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder choked up when she announced she would not run for president. Says Shroeder twenty years later, she’s still paying for that gaffe. Of course, no one ever thought of Pat Shroeder, who kept an annoying smile forever plastered across her face, as intimidating and harsh.

Now, now Hillary, I know what makes you choke up at the end of a day of holding it so beautifully together. It’s called exhaustion. Not a campaign season of exhaustion. But decades of exhaustion. Exhausted from an accumulation of nicks, bruises, and blows to the solar plexus that come with being the object of everyone’s fantasies, mythologies, and deepest fears. Exhausted from being the brunt of every conservative man’s fear and every liberal man’s joke. Exhausted from being the brunt of every conservative woman’s hatred and every liberal woman’s scorn.

Out of nowhere, at the end of a day of campaigning when your feet hurt, your throat is sore, your mind has turned to oatmeal, you can smell the fumes from your own body, and despite the fact that you’ve just finished doing what you thought was a pretty good job explaining your platform to a group of undecided voters and despite the fact that what you’re really thinking is how wonderful soaking in a nice warm tub would be right about now, surrounded by candles and quiet music, a little wine nearby (for the stomach sake) – and out of nowhere someone asks a question you didn’t need to be asked. Not at that moment. A question no one ever thinks to ask your male colleagues. If they are asked, no one will penalize a man for not offering a straightforward answer. 

No matter how good you are at what you do, no matter how well you’ve just answered the questions about the economy, war, healthcare, taxes, education, and the price of tea in China – what the public  really wants to know about you as a woman at the end of the day is, “How do you keep it together?” How do you balance it all? How do you get up and face the day knowing that millions of us American still think you’re a b—-?”

You’re apt to come undone. It’s happened to the best of us.  

21 Responses to “She’s Come Undone”

  1. Becca Says:

    Thank you for that post, Dr. Weems. It makes me sad to see what people say about this courageous and talented woman, and as happy as I would be to vote for Obama (or Edwards) if he’s the nominee–to have Democrats I can beleive in again, what a thing!– I really want to see Hillary Clinton as President. I think she’ll do an amazing job, and have the power and skill needed to actualize her positions and some of her goals.

    As a pastor I have definitely felt that way, too, and feel like the double standard alone is enough to make me cry some days. just the simple fact that people expect me to do everything my male counterparts do, and look good while I do it– I get far more commets on my clothing, hair, etc than I bet a clergyman does. And I need to be strong and supportive, but emotionally avaiable for everyone, too. that doesn’t work out so well!

  2. kellybelle Says:

    As I drove home from work, I thought about what I wrote in a previous comment about this topic. I had a very visceral reaction to it and posted from that gut feeling. I’d said previously that no one has ever told me I couldn’t do something because I was a woman. And I think that because of my race, it seems that I am not thought of as a woman. It doesn’t occur to me not to speak up at a meeting, or use upspeak when I do. As part of the “intergration generation,” I grew up, more often than not, the only Black in the room, but not the only woman. And I felt anger when I would get the job done and save my tears to cry at home, while my female counterparts let their mascara run freely and received special treatment. I still get angry when I’m on a business trip and my male co-workers reach for my white female counterpart’s luggage, but leave me to carry mine. So, as a woman who has hidden in the bathroom stall, sobbing, with my feet up on the toilet and my fist in my mouth, I am wary of public tears cried on a political campaign. Hope that sheds some light on my feelings.

  3. Fal Says:

    What worries me about this whole competition is that people do not see the gender dynamics at play in this situation.

    I was talking with one of white political science professors and he nearly argued me down that New Hampshire debate is gender neutral and that there are certain norms and behaviors given a debate and that gender has nothing to do with it. I was upset and politely said to the contrary and left it alone because he still need to grant my PhD.

    In general, I love that people so inspired by Obama, but lets be “real” Obama has privilege. Yes the black man got “him” some privilege. I question his electability for white people if he was a “darker” skin black person, if his politics were “really radical” (i.e. something similar to Jess of ‘84 and ‘88), and if he really had a message of change outside of his words (don’t get me wrong I think words are powerful followed up by actions).

    Okay, let me be honest too. This is not to say that I did not feel glee when he won the Iowa Causus because I did, but I will not be fooled into thinking that his message is different from all other candidates including Hillary’s. And I won’t be fooled to think that race is the only issue at play . . . . GENDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sorry for the rant, but the all news media outlets and my black brother blowing up my Facebook page with their incoherent messages all because I called how Obama’s and Edwards’ “third arm” gives them their male privilege. Okay, I am finished and I feel like weeping for Senator Clinton.

    I challenge someone to call me weak!!!

  4. admin Says:

    Yeah, KB, the previous comment you sent was pretty visceral, and I decided against posting it because I wasn’t quite sure how it related to the blog post. I did know, and at the same time I didn’t know.

    Thanks for returning to the blog and trying again. We may disagree on who’s the better candidate, but that’s NOT the point. Let’s keep the dialogue going.

    Believe me, I’m pretty surprised at my own self for supporting Clinton given my own very painful, angry, scorching history with white women in general. Lord help. LOL. I too am typically turned off by certain women’s tears and have felt the brunt of certain types of discrimination because I refused to play into certain stereotypes. One of the things I admire about Clinton is that she has done everythng but let them see her weep. I think her response last night was genuine and understandable.

    Race trumps sex in this race, as Fallon has pointed out so well. That said, if Clinton bows out of the race I vow to throw my full support behind Obama (gulp).

    Now, if Colin Powell were to throw his hat in the race, I would abandon Hillary in a heartbeat and run over Obama in the street to get to whereever it is that you register as a Republican. LOL

  5. Georgia's Angels Says:

    Dr. Weems;

    I just had what started as a discussion and turned into a arguement regarding Hillary for president. This person has been a life long friend and were in business together. I guess I started it when she said she didn’t trust Hillary after the whole President and Monica incident. I couldn’t believe she said that, all the women we know including ourselves that have stayed with rottin, low down men and only some of our friends and family members knew what we were living with and these rats would never become president of anything let alone the United States.

    This woman stood in the face of the whole world and held her own. I’m sure as my friend stated that this was on her agenda all the time. Well if that’s true then she certainly has proven that she will not be move by anything other than what she believes and for that alone I stand with her. I had a friend who quit a good job and relocated because her husband was a rat and she could not face the people at work,church and our small community because they all knew what he had done. If Hillary could stand in the face of the whole world and not be moved by anything other than what she wanted, then I’m sure the boys on Capital Hill are in for a surprise. Hillary didn’t cry or fall apart in the wake of the President’s mess, she didn’t appear to want our pity, she had done nothing wrong. I guess like you said Dr. Weems & Fal there just times when your cup runs over. I don’t cry anymore but if you ever come to Newark and I’m mentioned in certain political circles of men they’ll say she cussed me out. I’m not proud of that but it’s where I’ve been forced to be. Pray for me I’m working on it.

  6. Ruby Sales Says:

    My friend Renita,
    If this is too long, please cut to the chase!
    I agree that at the end of the day,pundits and m,any voters reduce Hillary’s role in the presidential election to the sidelines of gender branding and second classness.

    Unlike you, dear friend I do not want Hillary to win. Having said this, I think the issues of race and gender call for a more nuanced analysis. To be a woman in a white supremacist, yes and even patriarchal society requires us to deconstruct the false assumption that women comprise a monolithic group. Although I am woman and so is Hillary, she avoids gender issues of women of color as much as Barack ignores racial issues. She does not stand up for women of color or poor women. Despite the support of Black women, she refuses to address and hold up gender and racial issues that we face. She does however speak sometimes on behalf of middle class white women and their families.

    Hillary does not question the meaning of America’s preemptive strike on millions of women and girls in Iraq. What about rape, economic starvation and babies being born with multiple deformities because of the chemical fall out from US bombs. Instead, she feeds us dribble about terrorists in Iraq and Homeland Security.

    Does she mean homeland security for women who are victims of domestic violence.? What about the security of their homes for them and their children. Does she mean homeland security for communities of color that are routinely invaded by the police ? Does she mean homeland security for the hundreds of women that are raped daily in America?

    I suppose not.

    Hillary follows the party line that public discussions on gender or race divide the nation. This position obscures important truths: the nation is already divided, and there is a great gender divide in this country along race and class lines. (2) she is the typical politician that is pandering to white and male voters who use their power to dismiss the significance of our of our lives (3) she participates in maintaining the status quo of white male supremacy by silencing a discussion on gender and the interlocking connections between gender and race. Has she told the nation that the white man and women tortured and raped Megan Williams because she is a Black woman.

    Where is she on Hillary’s agenda? The majority of Black women in the Black Belt South lives on less than $10.000 a year, and they are poorer than all other women. Where are they in Hillary’s presidential campaign rhetoric and slogans?

    It seems to me that both Barack and Hillary think that the needs of millions of people of color and women are less important than their careers. Fannie Lou Hamer met this same attitude at the Mississippi Democratic Party’s challenge to the nation on issues that President Johnson and Hubert Humphrey wanted to avoid for fear of losing white votes.

    She would not be silent. Nor did she allow them to run on an agenda that appeased southern Dixiecracts and northern Republican conservatives. Fanny Lou Hamer looked Hubert Humphrey in the eyes and said, surely Mr Humphrey you do not think that your career means more than the lives of ten million suffering African Americans?

    Her question still lingers on the table today. Do Barack or Hillary think that their careers are more important than the oppression that women of color and our communities color endure everyday.

    Hillary might be a woman, but she does not speak for me any more than Barack speaks for me. We have come too far and paid too many dues to believe that a black or female presidential candidate simply by being women or black will change the status quo. Only we can do that by unleashing the power of our voices by defining national issues and shaping the presidential discourse.

    The power is in our hands not theirs.

    Ruby Sales

  7. Fal Says:

    Ashe, Ms. Sales, I agree with your analysis.

    To be honest, I am tired and confused by gender and race!

  8. Fal Says:

    Also, not to mention all the other “isms” that have yet to make their way into this conversation.

  9. admin Says:

    Ruby, the perfect candidate for the job probably isn’t running in this year’s presidential race. Nor is the candidate with the best chance for winning and the best chance of leading the country in radical social change in the running right now.

    In the meantime we cut deals as black women voters. We make candidates win our support and court us for our vote. We make our voices heard. We blog. We enter the public debate. We make out a list of what we expect. We take sides. We cut deals. We demand that candidates take us seriously. We choose between the lesser of evils. We vote and persuade others to do the same.

    I refuse to let folks make me think I’m unevolved because gender matters to me in this race. I’ve voted for a black man in the past because he was black. I’ve voted for plenty of Democrats in the past because they were Democrats. And no one protested, not much anyway. But now everyone wants to take me (and other black women) to task for voting for a woman this time. Gender is divisive, whereas race is visionary. Never mind that Clinton is the best qualified. I’m somehow placing too much faith in gender. Who said anything about faith?

    Personally I prefer Clinton who is working double time to win black women’s support to Obama who seems only to have to be black, male, and smile for black women to run off the cliff for him.

  10. Tamecia Says:

    Hmmm….Hilary’s breakdown was a hot topic in my young women’s group last night. There’s multiple reactions to it, but most seemed to agree that it is more acceptable to cry in admitting to being overwhelmed that to get emotional over the issues and the lost potential of the country. And that the question should never have been asked.

    I haven’t decided yet, but I have always been told about the “One Cry” Rule. You can do it once. Make it good and don’t waste it. After that, you’re a whiner. Suck it up. It could be a different rule for White women. (Surely it is.) I’ve seen women with the privilege (not the guts and the sweaty win) cry, and my reaction is different. Everybody needs a good cry, but timing and location are crucial to what happens after the cry.

    So, I wonder in my conspiratorial lens…Funny how she lost in Iowa…Polls said she was behind in NH…She cries on camera…Then she wins and one media report says she has is a “Comeback Kid.” (Like it is the last round in a Rocky movie, and not primary number 2.) More women showed up for the primary and she won them the time. Did the women show up for their sister? What difference does crying make and are we getting sucked in to the gender game with it as a political strategy?

    Let’s see what happens…

  11. RevMamaAfrika Says:

    Well, I agree for the most part with Dr. Ruby Sales.

    I now, more than ever, greatly appreciate the fact that radical lesbian feminist women of color first taught us back in the day, to “connect the dots.” Race, gender, CLASS, sexuality, able-bodyness, etc., are all interconnected, in motion all the time, whether we are aware of it or not. And all of this informs our political analysis (or lack thereof).

    Yes, I saw the (Driving) Miz Hillary spot where she either teared up or got choked up, “emotional” or whatever it was. I do think the sexist media and other not so nice folks have made more out of it than it should have been, but I had two seconds of glee at her lost in Iowa, BUT ONLY TWO SECONDS. She (and her husband Slick Willie) took things for granted, she got a you-know-what whoopin’. Now, back to what’s important, the class interests of her and Pretty Brotha Obama are the same, especially as it relates to u.s. foreign policy, i.e., the war against the people of Iraq. To quote Bro. Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report, “It seems our problem is not the Siamese Twins, Obama and Clinton, but Siamese Triplets, Hillary, Barack and Bush.” It saddens me to see so many “progressive” people having fits for Pretty Brotha Obama, but have not the courage to “read the fine print” of his voting history, i.e., voted to confirm war criminal Condoleezza Rice as Sec. of State, supported zionist right winger Joe Lieberman and chose him to be his Senate mentor, accepted huge campaign contributions from investment/insurance firms that actively engage in advocating for the privitization of Social Security, etc.

    Ok, (Driving) Miz Hillary cried or whatever. I have decided to reserve my sympathy for the women of Iraq who saw the blown up bodies of their children scattered around the city of Fallujah and watched dogs nibble at their flesh, the women of Afghanistan who have witnessed and/or suffered similiar atrocities, the women of Lebanon that had to literally dig through the rubble of their homes to find the dead bodies of family members, the women and children who were kicked off AFDC, the women of Arkansas (and the rest of this country) who lost a family member to the death penalty, etc. I do not want (Driving) Miz Hillary, a woman or Pretty Brotha Obama, a “brother” to send my daughter or son to another immoral and illegal war sponsored by the u.s. government and financially backed no bid contracting firms.

    Thank you very much for listening.

    :) :)

  12. Fal Says:

    Okay last night I was tired and commented my tiredness.

    Hm, I think we are conflating two different issues. There is the issue of misogyny evident in the competition and then there is the issue of Hillary’s whiteness and her past policies (that do not embody social justice for all).

    I think it is good that we recognize and acknowledge the misogyny in the campaign as black women. This does not mean I support Hillary because I do not. Its just a matter of being honest about how gender dynamics on one level restrict Hillary, but while on another level helps her win New Hampshire.

    I have received a several emails from black feminist from around the country about all of this. They chastise me for speaking on how gender afflicts Hillary when Hillary as a white woman who has power and influence and how she has PAST history of militarism and anti-poor women and children doctrine (both nationally and globally). Do I disagree with them on these many points, no I do not because I agree with them.

    But, is it wrong or am I less of black feminist when I say that Barack and Edwards benefit from his maleness? or that Barack has a certain type of privilege as a light skinned black man who is a moderate at best and who can make MLK sermonize appeals and be seen as inspirational, while any woman running against him could not be emotional, etc? Am I less critical for saying this?

    Once again, I think people are conflating my analysis of misogyny in the campaign as a testament of my support for Hillary’s polices, this is not true. I think it is important to acknowledge BOTH the racism and sexism evident in the campaign.

    I think Audre Lorde said it best that what is most important to her must spoken even at the cost of having it be misunderstood.

  13. Leslie Callahan Says:

    On this one, I am 99.9% in agreement with Renita Weems. (That’s not counting the part about Colin Powell, on whom the Iraq war simply has to stick.) I feel better about this set of Dems than I have felt for a long time. I could actually be excited about the candidacies of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

    My principal question for Clinton is how will she resist the impulse to be hawkish in order to prove that she is not wimpy when President?

    She and Edwards were both wrong on Iraq, I agree. But Obama was not actually in the Senate and so didn’t have to face that vote. All of us idealists can say we hope and believe we would have said no to Bush who had the votes to win the question anyway, but we were not sitting in that chamber with all eyes on us.

    With respect to the crying, what I am concerned about is Hillary appearing petulant. “Some of us are right”

  14. Woman in Transition Says:

    I had to put a friend in his place not too long ago when we were discussing the candidates - well, he called it “discussing”; I told him he was “discussing”, I was “defending” Hillary’s right to run for president - and he, in bad taste, mentioned Hillary, PMS and hysteria in the same sentence (HYSTERia, HYSTERectomy = female). I don’t remember everything that happened after that statement but I realized that someone in the room was screaming and cursing at him (it was ME). When I calmed down, we were able to have a reasonable discussion about men, power and their idea of who should have that power. My friend is still not completely convinced; there’s a line drawn in the sand for him as to how far women should go. But at the very least, he knows never to go there with me again.

  15. Valencia Says:

    Hi Renita:

    I just wanted to congratulate you on your new beautiful site. It looks wonderful.

    Happy New Year,


  16. Kesha Says:

    Rev. Renita!

    Your new blog looks great! This race and gender debate/call to consciousness is very interesting within 08 race to the White House.

    While I understand a woman’s tears in the face of struggle, stress, exhaustion, frustration, anger and anticipation all to well, I do not believe those tears by Senator H.R. Clinton were genuine.

    Almost every T.V. commentator and newspaper columnist said she could not lose the N.H. primary and guess what? she did what she needed to to make sure she didn’t lose. The tears worked in her favor.

    One primary down, a lot more to go. Women in Leadership? I think there are a lot of women in leadership on all sides.

  17. Pinktea Says:

    Many of us have the aptitude to understand what we see and feel, but you are one of the few who can most often find the right words to express what we are all are thinking.
    Thank You.

  18. crt Says:

    This past weekend I watched a wonderful movie on the rise to power/position and the first couple of years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I titled “Elizabeth” starring Kate Winslet. I saw it on Dr. Weem’s wish list and one click on the netflix queue later and in the dvd player it went. The movie was phenomenal and painful and frustrating and angering all at the same time. I didn’t remember a lot about the life of the Queen taught during years of history so it was a quick semi-refresher course.

    There was much that struck me: the compromises, the fight to balance professional image and personal realities & relationships, the strain to determine which voices of counsel are genuine or most genuine and those that are simply veiled attempts to further other agendas, the fear in coming against institutions whose power and reach seem to be unyielding and whose track record in maintaining their position is undeniable, the struggle to find one’s own voice in new contexts, the fear of losing oneself and one’s center in the pull of new roles and responsibilities even when they have been that which was desired, and the pain of betrayal that comes from the closest and most unexpected places. Yet, Queen Elizabeth was not the first, nor the last to struggle with these very issues. She is not the first woman in leadership (nor the last) whose life was/will be in danger because of the stances she takes, or because her place in the position alone angers men and women who see her as an affront to what they deem holy and true. She was not the first nor the last woman whose compromises to serve the people or cause may seem to often take more than it gives in terms of support, satisfaction, and appreciation. She was not the first woman whose firm decisions will earn her choice expletives from those who are intimidated by her power and whose most tender moments will be seen as an admission of weakness and emotional inferiority. Benazir Bhutto, Hillary Clinton, and the countless women that have been written about and the countless women who have written on this very blog continue to remind me that by no means was Queen Elizabeth I the first or the last.

  19. Holton Says:

    I am choosing to not dabble in the Obama vs. Clinton discussion but rather to the “choking” of Senator Clinton. I am struck by the fact that essentially pausing while answering a question and the slight cracking of a voice to hold back emotion has been deemed as choking, a breakdown, meltdown or losing it. I mean the publicity this “occurrence” has received is nauseating. I was certain before seeing it on MSNBC that she had actual tears rolling down her cheeks, reached for tissue or for Bill himself for that matter. Running for president, is a pressure filled and stressful process. I believe the wrong question in the heat of the day hit a cord in her. Public crying, at least in this setting, is just inappropriate and unfortunately viewed as either weak or manipulative. Neither of which is appealing. As many of you, I am against over emotional women and MEN, to be honest. But I won’t crucify her either for showing a tinge of emotion. I would have to walk in her shoes before I could begin to understand her journey or her response. However, I am actually more outraged that political commentators seem to think that this episode would solidify my female vote as they have indicated of the New Hampshire female voters. The notion that this could be or was the deciding factor to differentiate between presidential candidates is simply insulting. If any of the male candidates had “choked” would we then say that the increase in male voter turnout was do to his display of emotion, please! Anyway you slice it the double standard exists, we have come far but we still have a long way to go…

  20. Something Within » Listen Up White Girl, You And I Are Different Says:

    […] She’s Come Undone […]

  21. Sharon Says:

    Brilliant post, Dr. Weems. Your writing prowess continues to inspire me.

    I find it interesting that the media is obsessed with her crying, and what that means - did it connect her with women voters? Did it win her New Hampshire? Did she have a breakdown? Blah blah blah…

    A huge deal is being made about the ‘emotionalism’ of women because for 2 seconds on TV, Hillary’s fatigue (as you point out, for YEARS of having to ‘take it like a man’) showed openly.

    And yet, in an interesting parallelism that I’ve not yet seen drawn, no one’s looked at the over-emotionalism of Bush. For a man, he’s completely over-reactive as he dreams of terrorists on every corner, while torturing captives mercilessly in Guantanamo. At any airport nowadays, if you look the wrong way at a TSA agent, even if you are a petite, elder, polite British gentleman, as my father is, you can be pulled out of line, questioned, arrested, and pretty much ‘disappeared’ without due process and daren’t say anything about it.

    If that’s not mass hysteria, if that’s not over-reactiveness, if that’s not over-emotionalism emanating from one male leader to a country of people who used to be able to think fairly straight…well what is?

    How crazy we are to go berzerk over one female political leader’s fatigue for 2 seconds on television, and not even stop to think how one man’s severely emotional over-reactions are taking a fantastic country and making it a marshal state?

    Still think there is no gender polarity?

    When a woman displays a feminine trait, she’s damned for it publicly. When a man displays the most negative feminine traits in the most exaggerated manner….it’s not even seen.

    Think about that for a second.

    Not even seen.

    There’s a lot of power, and danger in doing something that passes most people’s radar completely undetected.

    The man makes speeches of wild enthusiasm over the mid-East peace process. Or at least what he thinks that process is. A region continually at war can hardly be actively engaged in any sort of peace process, but hey, there’s some of that masculine logic for you. But that wild enthusiasm, displayed by a woman, would be seen as hopelessly naive, ridiculously feminine, and not nearly ‘tough enough’ for the job at hand.

    He also convinced the nation that Iraq was fundamentally behind 9/11, when there was zero evidence to support this. And the nation, fully ensconced in an emotional rage over 9/11, said, ‘OK! Let’s get them!’

    Euripides ancient play “the Bacchae’ was all about how women went off into madness because of the god Dionysus, and set up the inherent fear in men everywhere that enraged, emotional women will indeed go berzerk, devour and behead them when possessed by a god.

    Yet when men display just as much emotional madness, people don’t even see it. We must rigidly control this sort of thing in women, lest they go mad and start beheading innocent men. But men who go mad and behead innocent women and children (in Iraq and Afghanistan), well, hey, that’s war. That’s man’s business.

    Think about that for a moment. Think about the frame women have been pushed into there.

    We must continually open our eyes and push at the edges of these frames we’re operating with. The nation’s heightened hysteria over Hillary’s 2 second moment of just-plain-had-enough-with-it-all is categorically insane when compared to its inability to even register our male fearless leader’s complete lack of logic, hysteria, and insistence on running the country driven from a state of intense emotional fear.

Leave a Reply