"But as a trailblazer can she make you cry?"

Hey, let's talk about this real quick because we're going to be seeing more of it. (thread)

I read Frank Bruni's column just to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and I wasn't. He truly believes that Kamala Harris has failed to emotionally connect with voters, which came as news to me, a woman moved to tears during her VP announcement speech.

But that's not surprising because I truly believe that Frank Bruni isn't so much concerned with seeing voters cry as he is with seeing Kamala Harris cry. Because in this country, we expect far more vulnerability of women elected officials while also punishing them for it.

Let's get that point across immediately: women running for office can't win the emotion game with people like this (mostly men). Not enough tears? Frigid. Too many tears? Emotionally unstable and unprepared to stand toe-to-toe with men. There's no winning.

Men in politics are NOT expected to cry and show emotion, but when they DO, it's almost always seen as powerful. When male politicians shed tears, it is seen as a reflection of the national mood. Relatable. Honest. Strong. "He feels our pain."

Not since Ed Muskie's infamous "snowflakes or tears" incident in his 1972 presidential campaign has a man in politics been notably derailed for crying. Former House Speaker John Boehner, famous for his public crying jags, is all the proof you need of that.

Male politicians crying in public doesn't diminish their strength. This is not equally accessible to women in politics. That's not to say women politicians can't cry but that there's considerable risk in doing so. It's very risky for women. It is hardly ever risky for men.

This is a paradox because it's the inverse of how gender is perceived in broader society: men are expected to refrain from emotion, while women are expected to be emotional. Men crying is traditionally (and cruelly) seen as weakness; women crying is (cruelly) expected.

As this translates into public office, that expectation is beneficial to men. If a male politician is crying and showing emotion, there must be a damn good reason. If a woman politician is crying, it somehow confirms the biases claiming women are emotionally unprepared to lead.

Women in every work environment are conditioned to show restraint in emotional expression. Women are far LESS likely to raise their voice and far MORE likely to rewrite an email to ensure it doesn't come across as too demanding, too brusque, too emotional.

And so, women in politics have developed a thick skin and learned over time to exercise severe control over their emotions. See: every woman in politics ever.

Bruni did kinda recognize that dynamic. Writing of AOC's response to Yoho's sexist comments, he pointed out her assertion that she's NOT deeply hurt: "To be at all emotional, she had to establish that she was unemotional. A male lawmaker wouldn’t have felt that need."

But there's another side of the coin here. A woman who reaches the pinnacle of her profession faces a need by many men to take her down a notch. This a hyper sexism: it's a resentment that the woman is either in charge or asking to be in charge and expressing strength in that.

The most infamous example of this, of course, is Hillary Clinton in 2008. After a surprising loss to Obama in Iowa, most expected her to lose NH, too. The day before the primary, in a rare show of emotion, she choked up while talking to voters. The momentum immediately shifted.

She would win NH by 3%. The discourse has been that it "humanized" her, made her more relatable. I think that's nonsense. I think people, particularly men, needed to see her bleed. It was resentment. Her emotion wasn't perceived as strength; it merely catalyzed collective guilt.

Women in public life, to say nothing of ordinary workplaces, are generally not allowed to be successful, talented, and happy all at the same time. Something has to be wrong. Sometime has to be missing. Women must have a profound weakness in their personal or public life. Always.

This is not the same for men. At all. Any obstacles that men face are almost always automatically eligible for necessary "character moments" in their journey. Got a DUI? Had an affair? Took a heinous political position? We're so glad men evolved and became better leaders.

Kamala Harris has a sterling resume + loyal supporters, is quite brilliant, has a very happy marriage + loving wider family, is as telegenic as anyone of any gender, and is immensely charismatic. Of course there are men (and a few women) who want to see her taken down a notch.

The craving of these people doesn't really feel electoral. It doesn't feel like trying to win an election. It feels personal -- people seeing a woman, particularly a Black and Indian woman, accomplish what she has and needing to see a weakness to feel better about themselves.

Is it any wonder that Kamala Harris waited until after Elizabeth Warren had dropped out to endorse Biden? She knows what it's like to be the woman in the arena and she wasn't about to add to the pile-on Warren was facing, people eager for popular Warren to cry and admit defeat.

This is going to keep happening. Kamala Harris will continue inspiring women across the country, and there will be men who feel she isn't "human" enough to connect with the same voters who are simultaneously cheering her on. Watch out for it. /thread