Sexism and trying to get elected

From the NYT:

In the words of her detractors during the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton was abrasive and shrill. She was aloof. She was unlikable.

It’s not a coincidence that some of these adjectives are now bubbling up in discussions of Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as they campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

Few Americans acknowledge they would hesitate to vote for a woman for president — but they don’t have to, according to researchers and experts on politics and women and extensive research on double standards in campaigns. Reluctance to support female candidates is apparent in the language that voters frequently use to describe men and women running for office; in the qualities that voters say they seek; and in the perceived flaws that voters say they are willing or unwilling to overlook in candidates.

Read on for the rest of the story!

2 thoughts on “Sexism and trying to get elected

  1. I used this story yesterday in my Intro to Feminist Philosophy course, at the end of a lecture on MacKinnon’s “Difference and Dominance” essay. Something about these times makes me appreciate MacKinnon more than ever. On day one there was dominance. On day two there was division. On day three there was gender, brought to you by dominance. After discussing the gender conundrums explained in the NYT piece — such as the more seemingly qualified, the less likable; the need to “be like a man” and the perils of doing so — I asked, could anyone have invented a more diabolical construct?

Comments are closed.