"It's so unfortunate because they're both capable people," said William Coblentz, a San Francisco lawyer who has contributed to both their careers and coffers. "I know them both well, and I love them both, but I believe Nancy felt that Jane was abrasive and aggressive, which she can be."Mmmm... don't you want hear more?
ADDED: Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus's analysis Nancy Pelosi is thoroughly gender-based -- and replete with extensive comparison to chimpanzee behavior!
Posts
31 comments:
I'll stick my neck out here and suggest that women do in fact wield power differently than do men.
Is it really anti-woman to note this? As stupid as I am, I can see how women vying for power have an approach distinct from males. So what? Is this news? Is it unfair to say it out loud?
Books on adolescent female power struggles abound, like Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls , Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, and Mean Chicks, Cliques, and Dirty Tricks detailing how things aren't all warm and fuzzy among females.
Men do the same thing, but attack their foes differently. When bloodshed isn't available, other forms of force are used (but couched in terms of violence). For women, competition yields an aggression more indirect (and in ways more vicious), where relationships become a weapon, and bullying is social (silent treatment, exclusion, degrading comments, etc.)
Much for fun to watch, the women.
Nancy felt that Jane was abrasive and aggressive, which she can be.
I think I've seen similar phrases about, say, Tom Delay. Joe thought Tom Delay as abrasive and aggresive, which he can be.
My neck is right out there with pogo's...Women do interact differently than men. Ann, you shoulda had a daughter! Still, the "story" seems all whisper and innuendo with little in the way of facts. I'd rather see a story that Jane is a cleaner candidate for her leadership post...that's what the story really boils down to.
the beauty is in the eye of the reader here..not the actors.
if joe and bob, politicians both, didn't like each other and there was a "hanging piece" written hinting of more to come, most of us would say who gives a damn. now that you have two females at odds..its wow wow wow "more to come!!".
now i am figuring that females have a tougher time with females (hence ann's interest) than men do. frankly, i like powerful women who work at power. specially if they are democrats!
So goes Pelosi, so goes Hillary as the well is poisoned!
Yes, I frequently decide not to vote for Republican White Males because Bob Ney is corrupt. (rolling my eyes).
If the new women in power choose to act like hormonally crazed high school girls instead of responsible, sensible adults, they deserve whatever is written about their immature behavior.
I'm going to make different, rash over generalization. We're been picking on poor Nancy because she's a grandmother, woman etc. Why not blame it on the fact that she's an Italian ;-) This whole thing does sort of have a God Father flavor to it.
I was struck by the main theme of the article. "It's personal", but I sure didn't find any huge reason for it to have happened. No backstabbing support for an opponent, not welshed deal, no stolen spouse, etc.
How would LBJ and Tip O'Neill, legendary male dealmakers and legislative leaders have handled the Hastings matter? I know both could hold a grudge and had long memories, but both seemed to be able to set personal animus aside to make a deal. And unless in LBJ's case the situation required making an example out of someone, I can't help imagining that both, faced with the Hastings matter would say:
"This is too public an issue. I'm going to lose not gain influence if I act in an arbitrary manner in the open right now. I'll be magnanimous now and give Harman the chairmanship, and get her later when things quiet down."
Oooh, a cat fight! Bring it on, baby!
But seriously, Pelosi (she is the Speaker-to-be, so the burden falls on her) has to realize, fair or not, as the first female Speaker she will be scrutinized more than, say, Steny Hoyer. Exacting revenge upon disliked or disfavored rivals has a long pedigree in politics, but doing so after running on an implicit promise to be more ethical than the recently displaced majority smacks of hypocrisy and politics as usual. Add in that the tool she is wielding is the House Intelligence Committee during a time of war and the benefactor of her animus is an impeached federal judge, and it all adds up to Pelosi being slavish to her personal vendettas and anger, country be damned. It isn't fair, but people judge angry women differently than they do angry men.
In short, she is not ready for prime time, regardless of her gender.
For everyone claiming that there is an inherent difference (most have implied "cattiness") in the way women wield power, please provide an illustrative example from Condi Rice. Or how about Margaret Thatcher?
I think it's fairly obvious that both men and women can be extremely petty, and I find it highly annoying and unfair that for women this is looked upon as girls being girls.
Sidenote: It's insulting to paint adult women as being the same as adolescent girls.
I dunno........seeing a 'dignified' name hollarin' session on Capitol Hill step or maybe a real cat fight between the gals in the Capitol Hll parking lot...or better yet a smackdown during a session of the House ...... would be entertaining........
Re: "It's insulting to paint adult women as being the same as adolescent girls."
Not adolescent, but pre-adolescent. The horrible story of adults is that real life politics can be easily understood merely by expanding upon 6th grade schoolyard politics, but adding experience, education, and tactics. The strategies are, i believe, inherent, inborn.
I don't think it's insulting to say so at all. There are tons of books about this kind of behavior. I don't believe that we are determined to behave thus. Instead, adults can and do rise above this. That's what maturity, philosophy, and religion can accomplish.
But whenever little scrapes like this get publicized, the ancient undercurrent shaping social organization is exposed.
It ain't just women. Recall Schumer's dissing of Kerry. Bush's near-irrational loyalty demands. LBJ's and JEHoover's crushing of opponents. Joe Kennedy's methods of winning-at-all costs. Roosevelt's destruction of SCOTUS in the 30s.
Neither gender comes out smelling very good when politics is involved. But Thatcher -and Rice, it appears- are different, and wonderfully so, thank God.
It ain't just women. Recall Schumer's dissing of Kerry. Bush's near-irrational loyalty demands. LBJ's and JEHoover's crushing of opponents. Joe Kennedy's methods of winning-at-all costs. Roosevelt's destruction of SCOTUS in the 30s.
Neither gender comes out smelling very good when politics is involved. But Thatcher -and Rice, it appears- are different, and wonderfully so, thank God.
So we agree that there isn't some special "girlie" power vying inherent to women. Good.
Wolf Blitzer is an idiot. If you're talking to an author about book passages that are embarrassing, and you claim the author you're talking to has a book with such a passage, have the book there so they can read from it. Available from amazon.com -- only $300! (Yikes!)
... competition yields an aggression more indirect (and in ways more vicious), where relationships become a weapon, and bullying is social (silent treatment, exclusion, degrading comments, etc.)
Of all the people I've ever known, the person who most embodied the sentiment above was a male coworker. Second most was yet another male coworker.
The idea that all women engage in power relationships the same way, some specifically female way, is simply wrong.
The Kaus Kidz are back in the house!
Rereading the article, it still looks like this is a Pelosi problem, and not a Harman problem. Pelosi seems to be the one who is maybe acting like the middle schooler.
That said, one must remember that the reason that DeLay was so feared and despised was just that - payback. And, maybe Pelosi is being portrayed the same way - as someone who is willing to engage in vendettas (but the use of that word reinforces what someone above pointed, that this may be more about her being Italian than being a woman - though I think from our experiences in Iraq, that Arabs would be worse).
I will also admit that Pelosi is between a rock and a hard place here. She needs the CBC, and would have to backtrack on promises made, how ever ill advisedly, to them. And, of course, there is the nutso left wing of her party that is also pushing back against Harman. Never mind, that she is only becoming Speaker because of the election of a bunch of new Representatives who are much more likely to prefer Harman to Hastings.
I think what is unfortunate for femanism is that Nancy Pelosi is the woman who is rising to this level of power. I know that there are plenty of women out there who could be a better model for women in power. But she is the one we have.
It is also unfortunate that we have to go through the transition of asking whether a woman can handle this sort of job. But we had to do that with the Supreme Court, the military, medicine, law, space,etc. But we have had to do it with other groups too - for example, JFK's Catholicism was a relatively big issue in his 1960 campaign. But after he showed by his actions that he was not being controlled by the Vatican, etc., being Roman Catholic has ceased to be an issue at the national level. I see African-Americans, and maybe Mormons, still having to overcome this hurdle. Once the threshold has been crossed successfully, it is becomes much less of a hurdle in the future.
Freeman Hunt said...
For everyone claiming that there is an inherent difference (most have implied "cattiness") in the way women wield power, please provide an illustrative example from Condi Rice. Or how about Margaret Thatcher?
Seems to me that the press likes to take fashion shots at both Condi and Margaret.
S&M Black power boots comments come to mind on the one hand and "dowdy shopkeepers wife with a hat and handbag on the other.
since the press generally isn't conservative and both these women aren't liberal, likely both of those comments were from the left of press.
Zeb: "I'm saying that women are armed with an array of tools and resources that they employ, most of which are very different from what men have at their disposal."
I'd love an example of those tools and resources women emply that men don't.
And, maybe Pelosi is being portrayed the same way - as someone who is willing to engage in vendettas (but the use of that word reinforces what someone above pointed, that this may be more about her being Italian than being a woman - though I think from our experiences in Iraq, that Arabs would be worse).
Or maybe both ;-) I remember talking with a Venetian woman once and she scoffed a Sicilians and called them "baptized Arabs". That Venetian Muslim hatred goes back a while as well.
Having said that, I have no idea where the D'Alesandro family hails from in Italy
Re: "The idea that all women engage in power relationships the same way, some specifically female way, is simply wrong."
of course it is. One would be foolish to do so. The stereotype has limited validity. We tend to zero in on examples that endorse the bias, and ignore contrary evidence.
But I don't think it's disputable that women are different than men in seeking and maintaining power. Not all women, not all the time, but I think Shakespeare noticed it. Even I notice it, and as I said, I ain't the brightest porchlight on the block.
Case in point: A middle aged guy, say, me, walks down the street and sees two adolescent males in hip hop gear ahead. I cross the street and adopt a threatening posture. I need to do this far, far less than when there are two women ahead of me. But not never. Second case: My colleague, a female MD, has to pay special attention to the office pesonnel (all women): birthdays, treats, etc. I get off scot free. If she avoids that like I do, there's hell to pay. Not always, not every woman. But often enough to notice, and I'd be foolish not to pay heed. Yet I have had bosses male and female cut from the same cruel cloth, behaving destructively. How they did it seemed gendered.
Nature? Culture? Don't know.
Stereotypes are somewhat useful. But women aren't madonnas, primadonnas, medusas, macbeths, or whores. Men aren't messiahs, bullies, cowboys, god's gift, peter pans, eunuchs, or momma's boys. But the themes recur. It's pretty boring once known. And you hope for more, perhaps vainly. So no one's better or worse. Styles vary. So what?
Coming full circle then, it seems I have refuted my own point. But just like a man, I declare victory and certitude regardless.
It seems to me that it might have touches of the "woman" thing, and perhaps touches of the "Italien" thing, but is mostly about the old school, eastern, Democratic Party, machine politics thing.
Her biggest beef with Harmon is disloyalty, and in machine politics, loyalty is everything.
On the other hand maybe the gals will settle their differences like gentlemen ... maybe .........
Zeb quinn said: "I think Ann needs to accept the facts that men and women are different, that they operate differently, that they rise to power differently, that they wield power differently, that therefore all of those differences will be noted and written about, and that none of that is sexist."
I think Ann might already realize this, but that's not the point of this thread. The point is whether the press uses stereotypes and distortions in their coverage absent any basis in fact.
Re: "...methodically set to work undermining the New Deal with specious, broad interpretations..."
1. The Rosenbergs and Hiss were indeed guilty. Interestingly Hiss worked for Roosevelt while spying for the Soviets. He didn't need to, though. Socialism continued apace.
2. We interpret FDRs meddling into the courts differently. I suggest that it was a direct path from the court-packing threat to "the loose Warren Court's methodology" you describe. The New Deal has been pilloried by folks better than I. Economically, it lengthened the Depression and increased it severity.
3. Regardless, FDR's use of power was my point, not whether or not you agreed with the result.
Elizabeth "I'd love an example of those tools and resources women emply that men don't"
This was definitively proven in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves when Grumpy warned the other six little men that they "gotta watch out for her womany wiles."
Elizabeth said: "I'd love an example of those tools and resources women emply that men don't."
I've had more than a few women say that I should never underestimate the "power of pussy."
Yes, I frequently decide not to vote for Republican White Males because Bob Ney is corrupt. (rolling my eyes).
It isn't rational to think that Pelosi is an indicator of how Hillary would govern. But it also isn't realistic to think that Pelosi won't be *perceived* as an indicator of how Hillary will govern. The reason is that women in power are rare, compared to men.
A male President is nothing unusual, but a female President is unheard-of. Humans, confronted with the strange and unusual, instinctively grasp for parallels and examples to help them understand what's in store for them. They will seize on Pelosi as such a parallel, just as many people seized on Vietnam as a parallel for Iraq despite the two wars having little in common.
Cedarford
At least most of those African-Americans you note were caught red handed. Jefferson, of course, is the Representative who was videotaped taking a $100k bribe, commandeered a National Guard vehicle in order to pick up what now appears to be his bribe money from his house in NOLA, and then took so long that the vehicle got stuck. Shortly thereafter, most of the marked bribe money was found in his freezer wrapped like left-overs.
While there may be White Democrats more corrupt, it is clear that he, and probably the other African-American Democratic Representatives were dirty.
Of course, if Democrats did like Republicans, and resigned when caught red handed at this sort of thing, then whether or not the Democratic caucus was harder or easier on its Black members would be moot. It is only because they typically allow criminals to keep their seats that this is an issue at all.
Revenant, the problem with your argument is that most people have heard of Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Gandhi, or Golda Meir. All female heads of state. All quite successful.
Revenant, the problem with your argument is that most people have heard of Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Gandhi, or Golda Meir. All female heads of state. All quite successful.
All of them non-American. All of them irrelevant to American voters.
The assertion that most Americans are familiar enough with Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi to judge American politicians in relation to them is also more than a little silly. Margaret Thatcher, maybe, but the notion that Clinton might be like Thatcher fails an immediate common sense check; Thatcher is intimately tied to the Reagan-Bush era in the American political mindset.
Post a Comment