I always try to smile, and make light of my show of weakness. Showing emotion to other people makes them feel really uncomfortable sometimes, so that's what I focus on trying to fix.

Just ignore it, acknowledging, let alone apologizing, makes it worse. Ignore it - less memorable.

Quickly on the political question:  I really don't like any of Hillary Clinton's policies.  I think that I disagree with her on just about everything.  Additionally, I really don't like her.  She generally doesn't seem like a nice or caring person.  This clip of her really appeals to me.  I like her like this.  I like that she seems very honest.  It seems like she is speaking from the heart and it shows conviction.  If I voted on personality or likeability, this moment of hers might have made me consider her.  (I don't vote based on those things so she'll never get my vote.)

 Okay, now to Anna's question:  I generally think that leaders can't cry.  In fact I have given speaches on leadership and communication where I argue that very idea.  However, I do think that leaders can show other evidence of their humanity.  Leaders must be caring and understanding of the needs and wants of their subordinates.  I know that these two statements are somewhat contradictory.  I guess, in my head, I draw the line at crying.  Show emotion, but don't cry.  (Also, too much anger and glee are often inappropriate) 

I agree with a previous commenter.  Don't comment on it.  Ignore the incident and hope people forget -- not likely in this scenario but very likely in less public professional situations that I've found myself in. 

Peg, you're right that the yardstick for Senator Clinton's comportment--in this context--is leadership. President Bush teared up speaking about 9/11. Senator Harkin teared up when Senator Wellstone died in a plane crash. I'm sure there are a (few) other examples. But even if leaders should never cry, or even tear up, does that mean lawyers should never show emotion? How close are your models for leader and lawyer? Should lawyers never even tear up?

Re: comparing shows of sorrow and anger, I don't think these are symmetric or comparable. Lawyers, as advocates, can and should show righteous anger sometimes (against tobacco companies, polluters, murderers). And maybe leaders should show anger, too. At any rate, they certainly do--think of the patriotic tones of anger expressed by all sorts of leaders in response to terrorist attacks, or even in response to personal inquiries (e.g. Dick Cheney's response to questions about his lesbian daughter). My guess why is that shows of anger connote strength, something we equate with leadership, so they're acceptable anywhere.

I greatly admire what Senator Clinton said and how she said it. We have all watched as our political system, contaminated by hungry press, has become an endurance contest. The "race" has become comparable to the inappropriate demands of medical eduction--and that is finally being minimally regulated. The political system as it now stands is a waste of human resources, time and money. Senator Clinton can take us far in making this a better country and I hope I get a chance to vote for her.

Good point and you're right that I had veared off topic by talking about leadership vs lawyering.

So, now to get myself back on topic...  I don't think lawyers should cry.  Personally, I don't like criers.  I find it a pitiful when somebody can't keep it together at work.  I'll admit that it takes a lot of mental strength to keep from crying at times.  However, I want the people that I work with to be mentally tough. 

How about the trial scenario.  I think crying is to be avoided there as well.  I think jurors want lawyers to be mentally tough also.  They want the lawyers to present the facts so that they can make a decision, even if that decision is bound to be laced with emotions.  Crying by an attorney may even be unethical.  Afterall you can't give your opinions or tell the jury what you think about something or what you would do if in their shoes.  Crying inevitably shows how you feel about something and well, that just isn't relevant evidence.

A friend called me yesterday and told me that Clinton cried in an interview. I heard about the incident a few other times before actually watching the clip, and I was frankly expecting to witness a breakdown. I was surprised to watch the clip and realize that her voice caught . . . and that was pretty much it. In fact, if she'd cleared her throat after the moment, it probably could have passed for a dry throat. If a man had done the same thing, I can't imagine the press describing him as "crying." I think that women are expected to fall into certain roles and that once they show ANY proclivity to fall into a negative stereotype, they are crucified. I agree with Peg that I actually responded positively to the clip once I actually watched it, but I responded negatively when I heard she cried (of course, in my head, crying meant that there had been real tears and some type of breakdown). In reality, it was a momentary thing and didn't throw her off at all from her speech. I think women have to be really careful about showing emotion as lawyers--partly b/c it will be exaggerated as it was here for Clinton. Of course, it depends on what emotion you show. I think righteous indignation and moral outrage can play well in trial, but I can't really imagine a scenario where shedding actual tears wouldn't cause a lawyer to lose credibility. It indicates a lack of rationality, and lawyers are always supposed to be operating based on their brains and not their emotions.

Lawyers often show emotion (anger, outrage) in court. True, a lawyer's emotion is not relevant evidence. But tones of righteous anger and moral outrage abound anyway, in prosecutions (against the accused) and in defenses (on behalf of the allegedly wrongly accused). So why is okay for a lawyer to express anger on behalf of a wrongly accused client, but not to express passionate fear or sorrow on behalf of a wrongly accused client? The upshot of drawing such a distinction is, I'm afraid, that it's okay for lawyers to intimidate jurists (with the emotional message that "I am angered and disappointed by anyone who does not support my client, so if you side against my client, you will suffer lower esteem in my eyes and the eyes of others"). Yet it is not okay for lawyers merely to appeal to jurists (with an emotional message that "I am saddened by the thought of harm to my client").

The rules for showing emotion in lawyering (or leadership) seem to be:

Sadness (for client)

is not okay by itself, but

Sadness (for client)
+ Aggression (against those opposing client, even jurists)
= Anger

is acceptable, even ubiquitous.

Hmm. Maybe that's as it should be, since we're advocates. (Aggression and advocacy are synonyms in the dictionary.) Maybe crying doesn't sound lawyerly to us because we think of it as the opposite of fighting. When a lawyer chokes up because she's fighting so damn hard, though--to me, that isn't objectionable. In fact, that's the lawyer I'd want on my side.

I think there are plenty of situations that warrant displays of emotion from our leaders. The distinction between balling and welling-up may be a valid one, but I think there are plenty of situations-in negotiations/diplomacy/advocacy- in which sadness and emotion can be effective and beneficial to many public figures.

I once grew very emotional in a 1L class talking about the Violence Against Women Act. I think my personal perspective helped people who had no exposure to the topic better understand the issues involved. But that kind of policy advocacy is really different from the role an attorney fills.

This year I saw a lawyer cry describing the plight of her client to a jury. I don't think her gender played any role in my losing respect for her skill as a litigator. A person's emotions are about them. They reflect the views of the person crying-not the person they're crying for. A lawyer is supposed to represent the client's interest. And the personal emotions of an attorney distract from that I think.

Overnight I was trying to think about why there is a distinction, in my mind, between showing anger in trial and shedding tears.  I think Jessie hit the nail on the head... crying is more about your own feelings and more often than not, your personal feelings rather than your professional feelings.  Anger and frustration are more "professional" emotions.  Perhaps, one would argue, that I only feel that way because anger and frustration are male emotions.  I won't argue with that point.  For better or worse, I do understand that I am socialized by our culture where male personality traits are associated with professional personality traits.  I am not sure that I am articulating it clearly but I do think there is a real difference between crying and shouting. 

Additionally, anger and frustration and just about any emotion (including sadness) are easy to play act.  Crying, while it can be an act, is harder to fake especially if it is spontaneous.

It's sexism, in all 3 reactions to Clinton's mere misty eyes.  Either she's just a weak woman, or she's a conniving bitch, or she's an inhuman robot (most of the time).  Fact is, she's human and she always has been.  "Women are human" is the basis of my feminism.  

My reaction was:  this isn't even news.  Shouldn't be news, anyway.  It certainly didn't warrant breaking-news-wall-to-wall coverage.  Like it was a slow news day or something (eyeroll).

The news coverage of Clinton makes me sick most of the time. 

 As for "getting emotional" in a professional setting - this hasn't happened to me in at least 10 years.  But when it did, it was never sadness.  It was anger.  I'd be angry at something, but not comfortable getting angry, and that made me embarrassed, and that made me more angry...and the whole cycle just got worse.  Tears, runny nose, blushing, red spots on my chest and neck. 

 I found that allowing myself to get angry helped A LOT.  When I lost my fear and embarrassment about my own anger, I was able to take a deep breath, speak slowly and clearly, and maintain my composure.

Okay, I really think she should have kept her mouth shut about it.  That was my opinion when it looked like her "tears" were going to hurt her image and it is my opinion now that it looks like they've helped her image.  The showing of emotion likely helped her win in NH.  She should have just taken the win and moved on.  Instead, when asked, she has commented on the situation and she is back to seeming calculatd and cold to me.  She has actually claimed that she might have liberated women to be human beings in their professional lives!!!!

I clerked at a small firm when just out of law school and was told coming in that I was guaranteed an attorney position once I passed the bar.  I am sure you can guess what is coming - I got called in to the Senior Partner's office shortly after receiving notification that I had passed.  Based on a miscommunication with another Senior Partner (on that Partner's part, not mine), I was told that I would not receive an "offer."  In anger at the situation and feeling that I had been mislead and was misunderstood, I began crying - true tears, not just a choked up voice - and left the office for the day to regain my composure.  Several days later, a female attorney pulled me aside and "advised" me that to succeed in the law, I could never let my emotions show.  I responded that I would prefer to not succeed in the law if that was the case rather than to change who I am as a person.

It was a horrible time event in my life, but also a time of growth.  Looking back on it, I wish I had not broken down, but rather responded with the anger I was truly feeling.  I still am not afraid to show my emotions, however, and have found a great position where I work under a strong female partner who has on occasion let her feelings show, and is highly respected regardless.

However unfortunate it is, there are many legal positions - especially in the cutthroat world of litigation - where crying will be seen as weakness.  I chose to deal with the problem by finding an environment where that is not so, but that may not be possible for other people in the same situation.  I wish them luck.

I was interviewing for a scholarship, and the committee was asking me tough questions about my public service work--trying, I now realize, to get me to concede some utilitarian truth that sometimes expending a lot of resources helping one extremely needy individual is not efficient when the same resources could help 100 less needy people. The topic was very personal to me because as they grilled me with questions (it was an all-male panel of 6 interviewers, and I was sitting in a chair in front of them), I was picturing the face of a real little boy who I thought deserved all the resources in the world, regardless of how many other people could be helped with the same resources. Intellectually, I understood their point, but my personal connection to the topic caused me to react very emotionally in the face of their rather aggressive questions. I started to cry, and it took me several minutes to regain my composure. I did not get the scholarship. I wish I could say that I think it has nothing to do with my emotional outburst, but I truly believe that once I "broke down," I was off the table as a candidate. I don't know that there is anything I could have done to rehabilitate myself in their eyes.  Perhaps the real question is how women can better learn to control their emotions since when I cry, I don't ever feel like I'm making a choice to react in that way; rather, I'm overcome by the intensity of my emotions. I don't like feeling that I'm not in control of my composure, and if someone knows how to avoid crying when you feel tears coming on, I would certainly welcome any tips becuase I never want to cry in a professional setting again.

I agree with most of you about the ramifications and the greater meaning or consequences that come from tears as opposed to anger, but I still can't get past the fact that this is because historically (and not that distantly) lawyers were all male, and the profession is entirely geared toward them.

This argument is really hard to make without at the same time conceding that men are one way and women are another, which irks me to no end and I'm sure is uncomfortable to a lot of people, feminist or not.  

But after three years in law school I certainly can't deny how macho it is.  I also notice that as more women have joined the legal profession, the importance and popularity of ADR has rocketed.  

I'm not sure that this undermines the argument that anger is more professional than tears.  That might still just be true, regardless of its gendered origins.  But it at least gives one pause, I think, to wonder if it is really a necessary reality.  Why are public tears taboo?  Men don't like them.  Women don't like them either, necessarily, but they've only been allowed to have any input on it whatsoever for a few decades.  I can imagine a world where tears are as common as laughter, where they are not seen as the ultimate symbol of weakness, but just as a normal  expression of sadness or disappointment the same as yelling is a sign of frustration.

Lena: I agree with you--I can imagine a world where occasional tears could be a much more routine, less alarming part of public discourse than they are now. I'm still not convinced that crying has to be as unacceptable as it currently is.

Everybody: your thoughtful discussion helped me think about ways to avoid crying in public. FYI, I have drawn on them (and quoted from you) in a new series of posts. So, thanks again!