Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

Why are women’s tears still condemned as weakness?

Rachel Reeves’ display of emotion in the House of Commons has been met with criticism and a stock market nose-dive. Why is the image of an emotional woman still so controversial? 

The UKs first female Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, cried in the Commons last week. Her tears led to a crash in the pound, attracted widespread criticism from political commentators, and triggered rumours that she was either about to leave her role or be kicked out by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

This dramatic reaction highlights our ongoing disdain for female emotion – and a lack of faith in women who hold positions of power. But as Amelia Gentleman points out for The Guardian, research has shown that women cry more than men. So it’s only natural that as more women take prestigious positions within our country, the more likely we are to witness these kinds of emotional outbursts from time to time.

And that’s not to say that Reeves’ male peers don’t behave emotionally at work, either. Just because they’re not crying doesn’t mean the pressure and strain of political jobs doesn’t trigger outbursts that – should they come from a woman – would be deemed unprofessional, but are often dismissed as valid machismo behaviour in the face of exhaustion and stress.

The day after Reeves cried, she was back to work and intent on moving forward. As was her boss, Keir Starmer, who quickly assured the public that Reeves’ would be staying in her role for the foreseeable future. The stock market soon bounced back.

While it’s not usual to see individuals cry at work – especially in such formal settings as the House of Commons – Reeves’ behaviour has started conversations around public displays of emotion, calling into question the deep-rooted misogyny that often frames are emotional responses, and shedding new light on the ways we interact with one another more generally.

Crying has long been considered a weakness, a view perhaps exacerbated by its association with women rather than men. But Executive coach and success mentor Shereen Hoban says its old-fashioned to think crying at work is unacceptable.

‘We’ve moved beyond the old-school idea that professionalism means leaving emotion at the door,’ Hoban told the BBC. ‘In today’s world, emotional intelligence is a strength, not a liability.’

Members of the public also wrote in to share their own experiences, with many men admitting they’d had tearful reactions to difficult situations at work.

A large number of individuals, like Emma, said they felt the need to keep their emotion hidden because they worked in a ‘tough male-dominated environment’ and would give themselves a hard time ‘for showing emotion or ‘weakness’’.

But as career coach Georgia Blackburn points out, its not unusual for people to feel upset at work. Besides the potential for difficult situations to arise, mounting stress, and difficult social interactions with colleagues and customers, work is also the place where we spend most of our time. It’s inevitable that we’ll feel emotional in this context at some point or another.

Reeves and her colleagues have since insisted that her tears were the result of a personal matter and had nothing to do with the disastrous week the government have had overspending cuts.

Ministers were forced to abandon key parts of welfare reforms to stop a rebellion by Labour MPS, leaving a £5bn black hole in its spending plans.

‘Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job,’ Reeves told reporters the following morning.

Whether or not Reeves is battling a personal issue is somewhat besides the point. But I must admit it’s frustrating that the Chancellor and her colleagues are still acting as though crying in response to professional pressure is such a bad thing.

So long as we deem it a taboo, tears in high-stress situations will be continually repressed, and the women (and men) who shed them will be dismissed as unprofessional, incapable, and weak.

Yet at the same time, men in positions of power who express other forms of emotion – many of them more destructive – are considered strong, macho, and a force to be reckoned with. You could argue that if only leaders of the past had felt they had space to cry from time to time, a number of violent wars (or at the very least, fiery clashes with other world leaders) could have been avoided.

The fact that a woman’s tears can still rattle markets and dominate headlines says far more about our unresolved discomfort with femininity in power than it does about Rachel Reeves’ fitness for office.

Accessibility