You know, if I was being questioned by someone who wasn’t happy with me I would consider all of them to be hysterical. :)
I am not making any judgement on Harris. As a Californian I am aware of who she is and some of what she has done. I am merely commenting on the rush to judgement on someone because they chose a word that 90% of the voting public doesn’t care about.
Well if you had watched the hearing you would know that Kamala Harris was clearly not hysterical, and her line of questioning not notably more forceful than others.
In the CNN segment, Miller declines to label anyone but Harris hysterical, so it does appear to me that in his mind, a woman being as aggressive as a man is unacceptable.
Harris is already being talked about as a possible presidential name. I wouldn’t be surprised if republicans treated anyone in that position differently.
They treat every woman who disagrees with them that way.
When they aren’t just interrupting them because they don’t have a penis.
She ain’t gonna run for President.
Because I saw him do it on live TV.
He had literally no reason for saying it. Her expression was not hysterical by any reasonable interpretation. He wasn’t more (or even equally) aggressive compared to her male counterparts during the hearing.
When pressed on why he used that description, he had no explanation at all.
Also, it’s perhaps relevant here that the woman who pressed him on this is in fact a conservative.
This isn’t a leading question at all, but I’m curious if you watched the hearing and/or when Harris was referred to as ‘hysterical’? I do think that the “uproar” (that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but you know what I mean) over the use of hysteria is a little overdone. Watching it live, though, it really came out of left field. I could see no other reason that he was really singling out Harris other than her gender. His usage of the word then lent weight to that perception that I had.
It’d be like someone referring to then-Senator Obama, and only Obama, as lazy and shiftless during a hearing. “Lazy” and “shiftless” aren’t trigger words, but if someone was specifically calling out Obama in those terms, despite the fact that he wasn’t acting any different than the other senators, could you see how people might take some offense?
I think you’d think otherwise if you were a woman. More than that, if you count women in the voting public, I think you’d find your fake stat is completely off base.
I have not seen the video, just read part of story up thread.
Perhaps if I was a woman maybe this would mean more to me, me being a Baby Boomer white guy I am deaf to just about everything. But, in saying that, and to be honest I believe that can be true, I think there is a wide spread belief that certain dog whistle terms are common knowledge among the masses, and they aren’t.
Could this guy have been over reacting and meant to use the word in this way…sure? I don’t doubt anyone on the left in the know wouldn’t have. But I do have a problem with assuming the worst of someone because of a word that is in common usage.
As for the “lazy” and “shiftless”, I would like to see how someone would work that into a comment about a black US Senator. :)
When you label a woman as hysterical, you’re devaluing not just what she’s saying but trying to invalidate her as intelligent or rational person at all. But since you don’t seem to believe anyone about this, why don’t you tell the next woman who expresses any emotion at all to stop being hysterical and see how that turns out for you. Then sit around and wait to see how long before you see someone call a man hysterical. You or I will probably be dead before you encounter that last one because the label is used almost exclusively with women… for a reason.
Even if this were not true, it would not invalidate the core thesis.
That being that a woman is more likely to be singled out, and negatively portrayed, for the same words than a man. There is ample psychological and sociological research and evidence to conclusively state that a woman, speaking assertively and confidently, is going to be labeled as pushy, dominating the conversation, bossy, rude, or any other of a number of negative connotation more than a man would in the exact same situation. Studies of boardrooms and females in executive positions show that, when present, that male colleagues have the impression that their female spoke at a far greater percentage than they really did. If women contribute 25% of the conversation, males perceive it as closer to 50% or more.
Basically the word choice is largely irrelevant. But track coverage, track the way they are perceived. Female politicians, almost universally, get a far stronger negative reaction than male ones do for the same basic action. This is nothing more than another sad example of how bias against women in positions of authority is not only accepted in some circles, but is largely invisible to those who don’t consciously hold negative views of women.
To be honest I can’t remember the last time I saw anyone call anyone hysterical in person. I guess I tend to not be around hysterical people.
You are asking me to believe that you could read this mans mind, or any mans mind, and know with a 100% surety that he meant it purely as a demeaning sexist comment. I am not prepared to believe that of anyone based on one word. I guess that is naive.
Maybe you should watch the source material.
I know what you’re talking about, and I’ve seen the the studies too. A woman acting exactly like her male counterparts can be given negative attributes while the man is consider strong an male. Women in power are given this impossible role to fill that requires them to be strong but not too strong, and to dress nice but not too nice… it’s a long silly and damaging list of does and don’t. I get that.
Hysterical is different though. When was the last time you were told to stop being or acting hysterical?
I do believe this and Hillary’s campaign was a prime example. Her entire political career is a prime example of this. She has been mistreated since her days of trying to reform health care under Bill.
Not me specifically, but I work with an asshole who, anytime liberals/ Democrats protest anything goes off about how they are hysterical. And he absolutely means to include me under that banner. As if caring about politics between elections and voicing them is inherently hysterical.
He’s also the biggest snowflake of all, getting super upset over any time someone criticizes or denounces Trump.
So I’m not a good example ;)
(but I agree with your point, inasmuch as it is more likely leveled at certain demographics)
Well yeah hysteria labeled to a group is pretty different than when being labeled to a specific person. The video is not talking about mass hysteria but a specific woman.
This whole snowflake and emotional thing seems to come from the group that likes to run around and tell everyone to “man up” too, and then suddenly they realize it’s not a men’s locker room and the whole place just gets awkwardly silent.
Women’s Hysteria was a medical diagnosis until a few decades ago
Thank you, I was coming to post that.
You might say, “that happened a long time ago”, but I want to give a little context. My wife goes to the doctor, could be for just about anything. About 80% of the time, the diagnosis is essentially, “You’re just a little stressed out, dear, go home and get some rest.” One doctor in October told her, “don’t follow politics, it’s just going to make you upset.” This was for numbness and tingling in her hands and legs. Also, it was literally the only thing he offered as help and diagnosis, that and “do some yoga and drink some wine with friends.”
What I’m saying is the legacy of this shit lives on. No woman is to be taken seriously, she’s just doing this whole woman thing. It’s infuriating. I would go just so I could yell at these doctors, but really, bringing your husband along to deal with the stress would just fit their world view even more.
She ever consider finding a female doctor. I know just about every woman in my extended family has a female doctor.