![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So as I was browsing around on various forums today, I came across this: “Ten is a wimpy little crying girl.”
Oh let me count the levels on which this is insulting. Let’s start with the obvious, shall we?
Crying is apparently a bad thing. Even when you lose the woman you love. Even when an old friend and the last of your species dies. Crying is bad. It is pathetic, a show of weakness, and it is especially so for men. When a woman cries on television, generally it’s all fine and dandy. That’s what women do. It’s expected, encouraged even. Women just can’t hold themselves together like men can. They’re not tough enough.
But far be it for a man to show his own emotions! No, he must be tough and strong and never show grief. He must suffer quietly, with his head held high. He must never be “soft.” Because that would be bad. That would be a reason to look down on him. That would be undignified and wrong.
Also, “girl” is apparently still an insult. It is, in fact, synonymous with “weak.” Only little girls (and, by extension, women) are allowed to show emotion, because they are, inherently, “weaker” than little boys or men.
Let me tell you something. Little boys cry just as much as little girls. They’re just not usually treated with equal compassion for it, and apparently, this is all right.
So now, the word “girl” continues to carry the stronger connotation of weakness. Sissy, pansy, wuss, girl, wimp—what’s the difference?
The word “girl” is “soft” and, therefore, something lesser. Girls are apparently weaker and, therefore, something lesser.
Well thank you, society. Thank you. I know I want my future children raised here.
Now I’m not saying we have the worst gender stereotypes ever in our dear little Western world. Obviously we don’t. I mean, a woman just won one of the primaries. I’m going to a university. I’m allowed to walk around outside by myself and I’m wearing pants.
But you know what?
I don’t follow politics. I hardly follow the news; I just glance at the headlines and catch thins on TV. But you know what I’ve managed to hear about Hilary Clinton?
She cried.
The media hasn’t reported on how her policies might have appealed to voters, oh no.
The media is simply discussing how she cried. They ask, was this genuine crying or did she fake it? Is she really just a cold heartless bitch? Or is she too weak? Is she too strong? Did she do it to win sympathy? Could she honestly not help it? Do people just pity her now? Do they empathize now?
No, no one asks whether the citizens of New Hampshire might like what she stands for. No one cares about her policies or how well she countered Obama’s points in debates, oh no.
What the media cares about is that she cried.
Males can’t show weakness, little girls are the epitome of silly little somethings, and all we need to know about someone who just won the New Hampshire Primary is that she cried.
*Sigh*
The older I get, the more I feel like society is running itself into a brick wall and doesn’t even notice or care.
(P.S. The quote used as my subject line? It's Shakespeare. Circa 1700, in other words. Good to know we've made progress in 300 years, eh?)
Oh let me count the levels on which this is insulting. Let’s start with the obvious, shall we?
Crying is apparently a bad thing. Even when you lose the woman you love. Even when an old friend and the last of your species dies. Crying is bad. It is pathetic, a show of weakness, and it is especially so for men. When a woman cries on television, generally it’s all fine and dandy. That’s what women do. It’s expected, encouraged even. Women just can’t hold themselves together like men can. They’re not tough enough.
But far be it for a man to show his own emotions! No, he must be tough and strong and never show grief. He must suffer quietly, with his head held high. He must never be “soft.” Because that would be bad. That would be a reason to look down on him. That would be undignified and wrong.
Also, “girl” is apparently still an insult. It is, in fact, synonymous with “weak.” Only little girls (and, by extension, women) are allowed to show emotion, because they are, inherently, “weaker” than little boys or men.
Let me tell you something. Little boys cry just as much as little girls. They’re just not usually treated with equal compassion for it, and apparently, this is all right.
So now, the word “girl” continues to carry the stronger connotation of weakness. Sissy, pansy, wuss, girl, wimp—what’s the difference?
The word “girl” is “soft” and, therefore, something lesser. Girls are apparently weaker and, therefore, something lesser.
Well thank you, society. Thank you. I know I want my future children raised here.
Now I’m not saying we have the worst gender stereotypes ever in our dear little Western world. Obviously we don’t. I mean, a woman just won one of the primaries. I’m going to a university. I’m allowed to walk around outside by myself and I’m wearing pants.
But you know what?
I don’t follow politics. I hardly follow the news; I just glance at the headlines and catch thins on TV. But you know what I’ve managed to hear about Hilary Clinton?
She cried.
The media hasn’t reported on how her policies might have appealed to voters, oh no.
The media is simply discussing how she cried. They ask, was this genuine crying or did she fake it? Is she really just a cold heartless bitch? Or is she too weak? Is she too strong? Did she do it to win sympathy? Could she honestly not help it? Do people just pity her now? Do they empathize now?
No, no one asks whether the citizens of New Hampshire might like what she stands for. No one cares about her policies or how well she countered Obama’s points in debates, oh no.
What the media cares about is that she cried.
Males can’t show weakness, little girls are the epitome of silly little somethings, and all we need to know about someone who just won the New Hampshire Primary is that she cried.
*Sigh*
The older I get, the more I feel like society is running itself into a brick wall and doesn’t even notice or care.
(P.S. The quote used as my subject line? It's Shakespeare. Circa 1700, in other words. Good to know we've made progress in 300 years, eh?)
