"History's verdict is all we have left.  And when tomorrow calls today into account, some of us want to say we stood up.  We called out.  We were not silent."
--Leonard Pitts, Jr., "Gestures of Conscience Bring Solace," Baltimore Sun, March 19, 2006

"WHY'S EVER'BODY ALWAYS PICKIN' ON ME?"

Print the article

This entry was posted on 2/27/2008 1:29 PM and is filed under uncategorized.

When a Texas gal reaches adulthood with such role models as Molly Ivins, Ann Richards, Liz Smith, Lady Bird Johnson, and a whole host of frontier women who fought off Indians and Santa Anna's army with babies on their hips as role models, you learn a thing or two about what it takes to be a Tough Broad.

We like Tough Broads in Texas.  Even the men like 'em.  ESPECIALLY the men like 'em.

And if you choose a career, like I did, that was male dominated--(back in the 80's I was riding into urban war zones and viewing autopsies and hanging out at the gun range with cops to research thrillers, and women on the job had to be TOUGHER than the guys if they wanted to earn their respect)--well, the first thing you learn in Tough Broad School is:

DON'T WHINE.

In a man's world, any hint of whining is considered a sign of weakness.  Talk to any of the women who broke barriers in the armed forces, law enforcement, fire fighting or other macho fields, and that's the first thing they'll tell you.

In fact, when women were first breaking into law enforcement--and I expect it's probably still true to some extent--the best, in fact, the ONLY way to earn the respect of their peers was to show that they could and would fight.

By that I mean, in a difficult arrest with a subject that was violent, the women who jumped right in there and gave as good as she got bloody nose be damned were the ones who drew the admiration and support of their male colleagues.  Until she indicated an interest in doing that, then she was likely to find herself alone when the time came that she called for back-up.

Just last Sunday, the NY Times Magazine ran the first part of an amazing series of articles--by a woman reporter, incidentally, named Elizabeth Rudin--documenting what it is like for American soldiers fighting in the worst mountainous areas of Afghanistan, on the border with Pakistan, where the Taliban is holding its ground.  It was a bloody, violent assignment and the fact that they allowed her to go out with them on grueling, dangerous patrols speaks volumes about what a Tough Broad she was herself.

And one of the things Rudin said was that if, say, an Apache helicopter pilot was a woman, the men on the ground were actually reassured by the sound of her voice coming over the radio.  But she also pointed out that the female pilots most admired by the soldiers were the ones most aggressive in going after insurgents who had the Americans under fire.

"We killed two guys together," said one battle-hardened soldier after calling in airfire against two insurgents that had him trapped.  The female pilot had been dogged about pursuing the insurgents through thick brush where they could hide, and didn't quit until they were dead.

I doubt very seriously that this woman whined about how hard her job was.

This week, Hillary Clinton has been making a very big deal about her campaign's assertion that Barack Obama gets a free media pass, while they're always picking on her.

Time and time again, she has brought up the Saturday Night Live skit last weekend as some sort of proof of this bias.  At the debate last night, she actually used it to sarcastically suggest that MSNBC might want to give Obama a pillow to make him more comfortable (one of the jokes on the skit).

Then, in response to a question by Brian Williams by saying, "Well, could I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question?"

And right then, across the nation, every man watching and every Tough Broad watching gave out a collective groan, because what they heard in Hillary's plaintive question was WHINING.

The important thing to remember, here, is that IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS TRUE.

In fact, I have been one of Hillary's long-time admirers.  She is a Tough Broad, no question about that.  And I wrote earlier that the reason she'd won in New Hampshire was the Sistuh-vote--women who'd heard men on T.V. howling about Hillary and were sick of it because they had to put up with the same crap in their lives.  Of course there is a media bias against Hillary--not all mysogynistic, mind you.  Some of it goes back to all kinds of Clinton shut-downs of media access at the White House.

But in a man's world, and let's face it, it still is one--then it doesn't matter whether the injustice is REAL.

What matters is HOW A WOMAN HANDLES IT.

Men--and most women, truth be told--measure strength by how someone stands up to assault, whether real and physical or symbolic.  They look for grace and strength.

Back when I was first trying to prove myself to the law enforcement officers who had agreed to help me research my books, I could see that there were "tests" that they used to judge how tough I was.  (Tough Broad cops did the same thing.)  The thing is, if I had shown any sign of weakness, they would have decided not to trust me with the gritty details of their jobs.  I had to show them that I could take it, that I would not recoil in horror.  They couldn't trust me otherwise.

When I was taken into the Southwest Institute of Forensic Sciences to view autopsies--this was way way before anything like the Discovery channel--I was watched closely to see my reaction, though I didn't realize it at the time.

Lying on the table was a 12-year old boy who had taken a shotgun blast to the head at close range.  The medical examiners were trying to figure out if it was a suicide or homicide.

At the time, I had a 12-year old boy at home, my son, Dustin.

This child's face was intact.  He looked like he was asleep.  But the top of his head, and the back of it, was gone.  Just gone.

I felt my knees go weak, and I remember thinking, "I will be DAMNED if I embarrass myself by hitting the floor of this morgue."

So I reached out quietly and steadied myself against a sink, took deep breaths, and continued questioning the doctor.

I didn't know it then, but the cops who'd taken me there were taking my measure.

I passed.

After that, every door I needed opened to me at the Dallas Police Department swung wide.  Over beers, cops told me things that I know their own spouses didn't know.  They trusted me to understand, and I always tried to honor that trust when I represented their profession in my books.  I'm told some of my biggest fans have been cops.

What I'm saying is that in any kind of field where a woman is trying to prove herself up to the job, IT DOESN'T MATTER how tough she is.

What matters is HOW TOUGH SHE APPEARS.

Like I said, ask any female soldier, cop, or fire-fighter, see what they tell you.

This whole past week, Hillary has been whining.  She's been whining about how the media doesn't like her.  She's been whining about how Obama's mail-outs have been unfair.  She's been whining about how this job should be hers, dammit!

But last night, if you ask me, she slammed shut many doors of undecided voters who wanted to support her but weren't sure.

Because she whined.

Is it fair?  Of course not.  But in the world of the Tough Broad, what the hell difference does THAT make?

The last column Molly Ivins ever wrote, she was dying of cancer.

SHE WAS DYING.

Did she write about that, or whine about how chemotherapy and exhaustion had sapped her strength and muddled her thinking?  Or how it was desperately unfair, that she was only 62 and had so so much more to say?

No.

She called out for all of us to fight against the Iraq war and Bush's so-called "surge:"

"We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

By GOD, that was one Tough Broad!

I would vote for Molly Ivins in a heartbeat.  Nobody raised hell better than her.

But I will not vote for a whiner.



 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

    • 2/29/2008 3:08 PM Nigel wrote:
      >>>when women were first breaking into law enforcement--and I expect it's probably still true to some extent--the best, in fact, the ONLY way to earn the respect of their peers was to show that they could and would fight.<<<

      When I was working I found that there were males of every level. Females tended to be very good or not good. I do not know why this was, it just was. I worked with one lass who was 5'2" and I would rather have her with me in a tight spot than the vast majority of men I knew. She had common sense, knowledge, tact and outright agression when it was needed. All this while still being outstandingly feminine. Moaning is on a par with olympic sports in the military and the police. Whining OTOH is the kiss of death. If one does not know the difference, one is probably a whiner.

      Nigel (2 books sold!)
      Reply to this
      1. 2/29/2008 4:06 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Way to go Nigel!  Keep it up with the books.

        And I totally agree with your comments--for a change ha ha.  Over at TPM Cafe, Hillary supporters have been bashing me pretty hard, but I daresay they're prob'ly civilians who don't get that there really is a difference, like you say, between moaning and whining.  And when Hillary hasn't been pulling theatrical stunts that play well to the cameras this past week, she's been whining.

        Now her campaign threatens to sue Texas, or at least, the Democratic party in the state, for its crazy primary/caucus.  Over in Michigan and Florida, where there was no campaigning by anyone and no one else's name was on the ballot, (the national party was punishing them for insisting on moving up their primary dates) the Clintons are demanding those votes be counted because, of course, since her name WAS on the ballot, she "won."  But in Texas, apparently, with the caucus, since Obama kicks her ass in every caucus, they want THOSE votes suppressed.  (Don't know how much of all that's filtering through British coverage.)

        So, while she whines on-camera about how everybody's being unfair to her, her campaign is pulling every unfair trick in the book.

        I tell ya--if Obama beats the Clintons, he can stand up to anything the Republicans can throw at him!
        Reply to this
    • 3/2/2008 11:50 AM Nigel wrote:
      >>>if Obama beats the Clintons, he can stand up to anything the Republicans can throw at him!<<<

      I hope he does beat the Clintons and I am not bothered if he does become your next prez. But, were it me voting, I would still go with the vet. I've just got this feeling that he would do a better job for your country. At home, I vote for a Conservative because he works hard for the area even though I do not agree with everything he stands for. I suspect that I shall have to form my own political party. The lads at school said they'd vote for me!
      Reply to this
      1. 3/3/2008 11:38 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Well, I like "the vet" as a man, but he is not the "maverick" that the media loves to portray him as--he might have been back before 2000 when he first ran, but in recent years he has wholeheartedly embraced all the worst of Bush's policies, not the least of which is the Iraq war.  Watching him pander to the far right in this campaign has been sickening to me, because I don't think his politics is that far right.  But now, I can't trust what he'd do in office to keep their favor for re-election. 

        We had 12 years of right-wing rule in Congress before the Democrats won a very very slim majority in '06, and we've had the most conservative president in our history in office for 7 years, and the results have been DISASTROUS for our country.  The Iraq war, now going into its sixth year, has cost us nearly 4000 dead and it's running us TEN BILLION dollars a month.  (And that's not even counting Afghanistan, where the Taliban is regaining a foothold.)

        We've lost the respect of the world with Bush's arrogant attitudes; Bush and his veto-free conservative Congress blew through a surplus left by Bill Clinton and now has run up a debt in the trillions; the dollar has fallen so steeply that New York businesses are starting to take Euros from overseas tourists; recession looms; record home foreclosures have demoralized the populace; lax regulatory agencies have allowed all sorts of outrages to take place while Bush encourages "volunteer" regulation (poisoned products from China just one example); unemployment is rising; the Bush administration squandered years pretending that global warning was a hoax before belatedly admitting that it MIGHT be real (political hacks rewrote scientific papers, redacting statements government scientists had made to the contrary so as not to embarrass the Bush administration); and thousands of people left homeless by Katrina are still living in FEMA-provided trailers that contain lethal amounts of formeldyhyde. (not sure on spelling)

        In the meantime, the U.S. military is so strained and worn out by repeated deployments to Iraq and its equipment in such disarray that the Joint Chiefs has been quietly begging Bush to start troop drawdowns before we reach the point of no return.  As always, he ignores them because he doesn't really care about "the troops"; he just cares about looking good for the next election.  He may not be running again, but he wants a Republican to continue his disastrous legacy.

        The American people are just exhausted by all this, and the war in Iraq is such a mess that who knows when we'll be able to get out, realistically.  Meanwhile, war profiteers given an almost obscene free rein by Dick Cheney--Halliburton, KBR, etc.--have fleeced the country out of billions and managed to build a gigantic American embassy in Baghdad that has cost almost a billion dollars and is UNLIVEABLE, while at the same time, finds that nobody in the State Dept. WANTS to go to Baghdad and they can't fill positions.  The U.S. army has been doing a lot of diplomatic duty in the country because not only is the State Dept. understaffed, but they are forbidden to leave the Green Zone for security reasons.

        And don't even get me started into the suffering caused by the fact that the richest country in the world (for now) does not provide health care for its citizens.

        Sen. John McCain may be a decent man, but the thought of his continuing this nightmare of a government is absolutely horrifying to me.  This is a real moment in our history when something has got to change.
        Reply to this
    • 4/9/2008 5:17 PM debbie wrote:
      I'm going to *have* to link to this post on MOMocrats.

      (Even though our Hillary supporters will not be pleased. And while I like the supporters themselves, I must respect that this piece is powerful and ought to make the rounds at least a few times. Because it's true.)

      (I should know. I'm a HUGE whiner.)
      Reply to this
      1. 4/10/2008 5:10 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Thank you so much for that, and I'm so sorry it took me so long to post this.  I've been offline for a day and a half, so that'll teach ME, eh?

        Come see us again sometime, and I'll be quicker to post.

        All my best,
        Deanie
        Reply to this
      2. 4/10/2008 5:10 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Thank you so much for that, and I'm so sorry it took me so long to post this.  I've been offline for a day and a half, so that'll teach ME, eh?

        Come see us again sometime, and I'll be quicker to post.

        All my best,
        Deanie

        P.S.--Your comment about being a huge whiner made me laugh out loud!
        Reply to this
    • 4/10/2008 9:14 AM vbdietz wrote:
      Deanie,

      I know I'm late to this post but someone at TPMCafe just linked to it after Hillary's whining on NPR yesterday afternoon.

      I wanted to let you know that I couldn't agree more. I also worked in a male dominated occupation in the 70's and 80's and you are so right about the 'not whining'. I don't know that I had to be tough in the same way as you did but it was clear that I had to be better than my male colleagues and I was. (Not that that was all that hard some days.)

      Whining doesn't cut it. You either have the qualifications or you don't. And part of those qualifications is how well you manage letting others know you have what it takes. Clearly Hillary missed that lesson in life.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/10/2008 5:18 PM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Wow!  I'm excited that it just got linked to TPM Cafe.  I originally posted it there, and there was quite a debate on it, but I must say I was...shall we say...perturbed?...when a commenter referred to "tough OLD broads" and from then on, that's what people thought I'd said.  Actually, there are some pretty tough YOUNG broads fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak, and they definitely know better than to whine.

        But yeah, exactly.  Some Hillary supporters were so mad at me for picking on their girl that they missed what I was saying, I think, and from then on, whenever I made a legitimate criticism, I was accused of whining...which really does miss the point.

        Working in a male-dominated field, or otherwise working with a lot of men, it's a whole other world.  Men relate to one another differently than women relate to each other, and one of the first things you have to do is learn to relate to men as they relate to each other.  And they never let each other get away with whining, that's for sure.
        Reply to this
    • 4/10/2008 10:51 PM tpartier wrote:
      ahh - so some folks did mosey on over here to see ya - Kewl beans. It was me with the post link.
      Reply to this
    • 4/10/2008 11:08 PM tpartier wrote:
      Deanie,
      Just a suggestion, if you can allow your software to enable unmonitored posts, you should be able to remove those that are ridiculous, too, if you wish at a later time. Crooks and Liars does their moderation that way, quite nicely.

      Immediacy is a pretty big deal for posters, and if you want to foster more participation, it is better if you do. No guarantees, of course, but when people do come over and the comments look fresh because someone an hour before has their comment already displayed, it encourages more. Besides, a post that runs counter to what most people who might come here, may incite another to respond in kind.

      Over at C&L when they remove a stupid comment they just note that they have. John over there makes no bones - if someone objects - about whose blog it is.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/12/2008 10:57 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
        t.p., You are absolutely right and I apologize to  EVERYBODY for the delay while I get this figured out.  When you live a hundred miles from a mall, it means that when you're doing something like we're trying to do right now--buy living room furniture--(last time we did, we used part of my check from my first book, well more than eleven books ago)--and it means that I keep having to be away from the computer for a day at a time.  I can only imagine the frustration of my posters.

        I'll spend some time later today trying to fix that so that posters can post and check back in for comments and all straight away.  Thanks for drawing that to my attention.  You've given me some very excellent free technical advice and you've been patient with my OBVIOUS ignorance, and I do appreciate it.

        When I get this all straightened out, I'll let you guys know by e-mail.
        Reply to this
    • 4/11/2008 12:39 PM Kady wrote:
      Deanie,

      I agree with you on almost everything except one. I actually think that whereas men will judge a woman more favorably for her "toughness", women tend to be the opposite. They are far more approving when a woman shows her "humanity," or "fragility" (whatever that means). If we look at HRC's history, you're right, she's one tough broad, until she needs the public to be on her side. Then suddenly, she's the victim, she's being picked on, it's the world v. Hillary. And uncannily, the (female) troops rally to her side. After the Bill fiasco, it was the vast right wing conspiracy, Kenneth Star's witch hunt. During this election, it was the tears before NH, the media bias before TX and OH, and now, the boys telling her to step down before PA.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/12/2008 11:10 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
        First of all, let me say that I love your name--I had a character in a book, LOVE ME NOT, (not my title, bonehead publisher's title--mine was TRAPDOOR), and the lead character was named Cady.  Her mom had been a feminist and had named her after Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  I also have a a neice named Cadence, and I call her Cady, because the name just makes me think of strength.

        Anyway.  As to your point--you are absolutely right, and I'm glad you brought that up.  I think a fair amount of women kind of embrace the idea of victimhood in their lives.  You find it in some women who seem to keep choosing the same kind of man who is bad for them, and in their tales, they cast themselves as what I like to call a "heroic victim," meaning a longsuffering martyred type who hangs in there for the greater good or whatever. 

        My sister, God bless her, had a pattern like that earlier in her life, and after shall we say more than one marriage, I pointed out that the only thing each of the men had in common was HER.  After some soul-searching and a great deal of personal pain, she pulled herself together in a way I find truly heroic and started a whole new life for herself where she learned to stand alone and be who she was, with or without a man.  I'm very proud of her for that, but I see that same pattern in many women.  Or they have, say, the same sorts of recurring problems, but instead of somehow finding a solution, they just keep complaining because I think that in the female narrative storyline, it is considered somehow brave.

        But it's not!

        So you're right.  When a woman appears most victimized, other sistuh's gather round.  It is at once our most enduring and beloved trait, this being there for one another.  But we have to take care that it not feed itself and leave us weaker than before.

        Thank you for that insight.  And I'll tell you the same thing I told t.p.--I'm going to figure out how to set my blog so that your comments will appear as soon as you post them even if I'm not around to put them up.  Be patient with me and I'll let you know by e-mail when I've got it figured out.
        Reply to this
    • 4/11/2008 4:42 PM debbie wrote:
      I dunno, Deanie - I've spent my share of time as the sole female in a group of rather whiny men, who whined enough to fill several barrels, but the minute there were women present, they sucked it up and played the expected masculine roles. I was able to sort of under-the-radar it enough in those scenarios to witness the full evidence of men-who-whine when they aren't in the company of women, I suspect because I somehow made them forget I was a girl and they proceeded to betray themselves thusly.

      I also recall spending time with male groups who didn't whine much, if at all, and I always especially appreciated being able to sublimate myself within the group as a woman because I AM, as formerly disclosed, a very, VERY big whiner.

      So. It's certainly something we need to discuss, as a society, this silly tag of "whiny woman," but I think Hillary would have been better able to bring that topic up if she had become, not only the nominee, but the president-elect. THEN she could have had this incredible, ground-breaking platform from which to explain that the shirt-ironing nonsense is insufferable, and not to be tolerated.

      Unfortunately, now, as a result of the manner in which she *has* responded to these attacks, by whining about them, I don't think she'll have much of an audience to discuss the issue with. And that's sad, because it certainly doesn't benefit the feminist cause.

      Again, really great post, your writing makes me tremble. (And one of my fellow writers at MOMocrats linked to this post, though I didn't get the chance.)

      Thank you.
      Debbie
      Reply to this
      1. 4/12/2008 11:22 AM Deanie Mills wrote:

        Great comment, Debbie, and you're right.  There is a subset of men who oh lord do the whining--anybody who doubts that should just watch a few Netflix episodes of NORTHERN EXPOSURE--one of my favorite all-time programs--but that Joel, the doctor from New York who was having to work off his medical school loans in the backwoods of Alaska just drove me crazy with the whining.

        In my experience, I've spent a great deal of time in the company of elite warriors--two brothers-in-law and one nephew is or was Army Special Forces, my dad, son, and another nephew Marines, my husband was 101st Airborne, and so on.  And all of them combat vets.  When I was researching thrillers, I spent a lot of time with law enforcement officers, so you just don't hear much whining from those men.  It's more like, "Too bad so sad suck it up." 

        And I've found--and blogged on it--that very strong men actually prefer strong women.  All my older male family members are married to very Tough Broads who don't put up with any crap from them, and have been married to these men anywhere from 34 to 60 years.  Men like that have to have strong women in their lives or they would just roll over the weenie girls.



        But I've seen, say, on popular television programs and in reality shows and in sitcoms and movie comedies, way way more male whining than I'm certainly used to seeing in my narrow little world.

        My sister works in human resources, and I know she's dealt with more than her share of whiners of both genders.

        But your point is absolutely dead-on, in that, when Hillary "whines" or blames others (playing the victim card), it weakens her case and her standing with a certain type of voter.  Still, as Kady pointed out, with women voters, it works.  And that is who she's targeting.


        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name (required)

     Email (will not be published) (required)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.