LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Posted January 22, 2020
To our remaining female presidential candidates (and with apologies to Helen Reddy), you are women, we hear you roar, but we’re expecting something more.
This campaign’s female hopefuls have backgrounds as varied as they are impressive. All are tough as nails. Just ask them.
“The American public wants a fighter”, Kamala Harris said in a speech announcing her Presidential run, “and I’m prepared to do that.” Elizabeth Warren promises to fight for the working class. Kirsten Gillibrand pledged to “fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own,” and Amy Klobuchar, who heartily announced her candidacy in a snowstorm proudly touted her “grit”.
Lots of fightin’ words there. Maybe it’s a prerequisite for today’s female candidates. Shrinking violets need not apply.
Some of these women have dropped out of the race, but we get the message. We’ve also noticed that what passes for strength and decisiveness in men is unfairly criticized in women.
My layman’s opinion is based on almost 50 years of voting. I’ve been a man even longer and like to think I know what makes us tick.
To female Presidential hopefuls, no one’s asking you to give up the toughness that got you here. But there’s always been a reasoned, nurturing side of women that sometimes disappears during these campaigns. Let’s see more of it.
Is that even possible in today’s frenetic Twitter-driven world? We know how men campaign and govern. Can you nurture us back to reason?
Better yet, consider this exchange from the 1970’s Mary Tyler Moore TV show between employee Mary Richards and her tough-with-a-heart-of-gold boss Lou Grant:
Lou: “You’ve got spunk.”
Mary: “Thank you.”
Lou: “I hate spunk.”
Ladies, here’s a tip: think of male voters as Lou Grant--with perhaps more spunk tolerance.
Itasca, Ill 60143