Avoiding all-or-nothingism discussing female politicians

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had a somewhat tense encounter with some young Green New Deal activists recently. I haven't seen the video of the encounter but I find the headlines of the commentary pieces illuminating. Either Feinstein is a doddering old fool who condescended to passionately idealistic youngsters who would have preferred she help them change the world, or, as the subtitle to an Atlantic piece put it, "Confronted by passionate schoolchildren, the senator held a master class in patience, grace, and asserting her well-earned authority".

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has been accused of abusive behavior by (anonymous) former staffers, first in BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post, then in the New York Times. Again, the commentary has been illuminating (especially since I've read some of it), with opinions split between "there's no excuse for throwing stuff at your staff, no matter your sex" and "isn't it odd that female senators top the Senate's 'bad boss' list?". An example of the latter comes from Laura McGann in Vox; her piece is, "The suspiciously sexist views of Amy Klobuchar's management style, explained".

Yes, it is odd and troubling that, as McGann notes,

Of the top 10 “worst bosses” in the Senate in 2016, seven were women and just three were men. At the time, then, about a third of female senators were worse bosses than nearly 96 percent of all male senators. That could be objectively true. Or maybe there’s something else going on.

The accusation that sexism underlies Klobuchar's former staffers' complaints does not sit well with them since so many of those who spoke to reporters were women. As McGann notes, "Their point is that women can be bad bosses. They should be held accountable for their actions, even if men have gotten a pass for too long."

Then McGann continues:

At an individual level, this makes sense. ...

In aggregate, though, there’s a red flag waving above the Klobuchar narrative. The breadth of complaints extend beyond egregious behavior. The handful of truly bad boss moments from the last decade-and-a-half are dwarfed by more modest complaints that are taken to an extreme. Klobuchar once quipped that she was so thirsty she’d trade three of the staffers next to her for a bottle of water. Is it the nicest thing to say? No. Is it probably a joke? Yes. Is it proof a decade later that she shouldn’t be president? Come on.

That second paragraph is an example of what's wrong with the defenses of Klobuchar I've read.

There are more serious complaints about Klobuchar that merit discussion and consideration. She blocked (however passively) one of her aides' opportunity to work in the Obama Treasury Department, McGann notes. That may, in the end, not be relevant to how she'd do as president, but offhand I can say I'm glad I know that happened. She threw a binder in anger; it hit one of her staffers. She apparently wasn't aiming at the staffer. These things are good to know. Whether binders hit anyone or are intended to hit anyone might not matter: some might wonder whether throwing binders at all is something a president should do.

McGann points out, correctly, that men who are objectively putzes are seen as "strong" leaders, with the famously volatile and abusive Rahm Emanuel being the quintessential example of an asshole who nevertheless hasn't been hurt by his eruptions.

Maybe he should have been.

Maybe we should have been less than happy that Obama chose Emanuel as his chief of staff. Maybe we should have registered our disgust with Emanuel's bothersome track record.

Maybe Congress should have refused to seat Rep. Greg Gianforte after he body-slammed a reporter. You might think he's a man's man (and if so you and I should not socialize) but is that kind of quickness to violence what you really want in the guy supposedly trying to work with other elected reps to get stuff accomplished?

Maybe it's not good enough to give Klobuchar a free pass just because a bunch of men have gotten away with just as bad, or even worse, behavior. Maybe it would be better to stop holding men to a laxer standard.

As to Feinstein, the Atlantic piece by Caitlin Flanagan makes her out to be the patient, wise elder teaching a bunch of ignorant, misbehaving children that the world isn't all unicorns and rainbows.

It’s the most wildly transgressive thing you’ve ever seen. Children are our future! They must be coddled and exalted, their ideas about politics and the environment received as though they are the unpublished thoughts of Bertrand Russell. Seeing their rudeness treated in the measured and unyielding way that adults use to speak to misbehaving children is weirdly thrilling.

The condescension that oozes from every line of Flanagan's piece is difficult to stomach, especially since it emanates from a sense that women past a certain age have a wisdom that does not permit contradiction. In fact, the problem with Flanagan's piece isn't Feinstein's attitude so much as Flanagan's. Feinstein might well have been justified in lecturing these kids, but Flanagan asserts not just that Feinstein has earned her right to be dismissive, but that the kids had it coming to them for being so entitled as to insist on a meeting with their senator.

Flanagan's piece characterizes those who demanded the meeting as "[a] group of jackbooted tots and aggrieved teenagers". Oh, that was your attempt at humor? Ah. Well. It flopped. As did your whole argument.

Maybe it's possible to admit that Feinstein was justified in being exasperated with her very young constituents' stridency, even while admitting that their concern is about as justified as anything can be. Maybe explaining all the reasons she thinks she can't help was less useful than figuring out how she could.

For crying out loud, you don't have to be a raging misogynist to think Klobuchar's and Feinstein's critics might have a point. You also don't have to think Klobuchar or Feinstein is unfit for public office to be one of their critics, either.

It is not an attack on women, or female politicians, or even these female politicians, to admit to being troubled by these stories. Not, anyway, unless you relish ass-kicking and consdescension when perpetrated by a man. Which I don't, and which I'd bet a lot of others don't, either.

Can we get a little nuance, people?

(I have a suggestion that might help, especially with the Klobuchar situation. Can we get a few stories about why the men on the Senate's "bad bosses" list go through staffers so quickly? Do they throw binders, too? Or do they do even worse things, perhaps?)