The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Can't Be Criticized?

Deborah Tannen, a linguist who writes about the differences between men and women, had a piece in the Washington Post about the double standard Hillary Clinton is subjected to. She cites the fact that when the New York Times endorsed her (how sexist of them!), they noted she was "brilliant if at times harsh-sounding." What is unfair about this? John McCain regularly gets accused of having an out-of-control temper. I've seen his (male) colleagues quoted as wondering if he has the temperament to be president. There is constant speculation as to whether Obama is tough enough. And John Edwards got tagged as a phony pretty boy. Is Tannen saying you can only say Clinton is "brilliant" but it's sexist to mention that she can also be a human threshing machine? Tannen goes on cite references to Clinton's years as first lady as another put-down of her—instead people should spend more time talking about her work as a senator. Well, Clinton explicitly and implicitly makes references to her years in the White House as a way of assuring that she has the experience to be president. That's why this knock on her supposed involvement with the Northern Ireland peace process was so cutting. And Tannen says talking about Clinton's failure to reform health care as first lady is unfair because as a senator she has been able to pass worthy, incremental changes in health-care policy. Again, what is unfair about pointing out that when Clinton had the executive power and the mandate for wholesale reform, she botched it? Surely Tannen does not mean to imply that simply criticizing a woman's personality or record is off limits.