It appears there is still a little inequality in what is considered “compassion” and hytserical, irrational crying when it comes to the way crying women are perceived versus men crying.  Many times, according to recent reorts on studies, undoubtedly prompted by they crying of Ellen DeGeneres over her adoption fiasco with a dog named Iggie, women are seen as weak, irrational, and unable to control their emotions if they cry publicly, while with men (with limits of course, a wet eye versus blubbering is obiviously a different story), it’s seen more as a show of morality and being “human”.

Yes, it’s not fair, but it’s a stigma that women still bear to this day.  That stigma is really two fold for women too though.  If they never cry, women tend to be seen as robotic, unfeeling people who have no real emotions, whereas if a woman does shed a couple tears publicly she may be seen as sort of a lunatic that is unable to control herself, or unstable.  It’s hard to find a delicate balance between the two for women in power such as Hillary Clinton, who has often been attacked as being inhuman and unemotional.  So women really can’t win when it comes to the crying game.  No pun intended of course!

I suppose the safest bet for women is to tread the fine line and only shed tears when it is most appropriate, not for, say a dog adoption, which udnerstandably has lead to a lot of ridiculing.  However, this is not to suggest that women should mask their emotions.  They just have to think more about when to express those emotions, which isn’t really fair, but according to the way the general population feels, it’s a real fact of life right now.  Hopefully this stigma can be removed some day, but it is a reality.