Human Pride and Being Ladylike

On this day following the surprising victory of Donald Trump in the American presidential election pundits are trying to say why the candidate who seems to be the most prideful of human beings won, and the candidate who seems to be the flawed human being (like most of us) lost. There are lots of interpretations that have meaning: jobs, the economy, change, the winning candidate being a reality figure, the Republicans having a good plan and ground game, etc. But the one that I think makes the most sense, both ethically and otherwise, is the basic sense of pride of all people and the double standard for people of different genders.

As to pride, everyone is entitled to a modicum of pride, especially in terms of feeling that "I am somebody". This is true as much for working class white males as it is for billionaire businessmen. We are told that working class white males turned out in much higher numbers than anyone thought possible. More than anything this may relate to their striving for jobs that are no longer out there. Growing up in a male-dominated world they have often become the caretakers of young children while their wives have become the breadwinners. I see them at the grocery story on my day off. Within the framework in which they grew up, their role is beneath what they feel they should be doing. After all, many parents brought up their sons to achieve great things in the outside world. Now they have "hope for a savior" who will bring their jobs back and give them meaning again. In the best case scenario this script that probably won Trump the White House is about finding significance in a pre-scripted life. In a worst case scenario, it is about the kind of Superhero mentality that is so prevalent in our society today.

Then there is the double standard regarding public discourse and performance today. Donald Trump has said and done things which put him in the camp of immorality, more than morality. His faults have been largely forgiven, or at least considered to be just what a man might do. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has never had her faults looked at in the same way. When she was in charge during a situation in Benghazi that surprised the entire administration, she was crucified. When she used her private e-mail server in a way that her male counterparts in the same office did, she was chastised. When she spoke to a group that has been consistently persecuted and called half of the supporters of Donald Trump a "basket of deplorables," even when she took it back, she became bulletin board material for particularly white non-college educated males. One can only speculate about how she was characterized by them. Meanwhile, many of them, having been brought up on the Budweiser and Miller Lite ads where acceptably beautiful women "sell" beer, forgave or even admired their superhero president and his past exploits.

The conduct of Hillary Clinton has not always been exemplary, but certainly there is a double standard. Even when the language of both males and females has descended to guttural depths, it is still considered unladylike for Ms. Clinton to have even made mistakes. What does this say to the young girls and women today? Where can they find their positive role models? Do they have to be tough and "man-like" to make it in this world? I know some change has happened in my lifetime of sixty-three years. But living in 2016 I hope that soon this last hill to climb for women will be ascended. It is not going to be easy. But I sure do hope and pray that those "far less than perfect" people who bought into a Trump presidency will not hold the women that they encounter in their life to an imperfect double standard of perfectionism. And I hope that they will find their superhero to at least live a decent and respectable presidential life.