Why women’s representation may suffer when Hillary Clinton is attacked as ‘ambitious’ and ...

[Native]

Why women’s representation may suffer when Hillary Clinton is attacked as ‘ambitious’ and ‘unqualified’ - Washington Post

This discounting of women’s qualifications has several consequences. For one, it discourages women from running for office. They feel less qualified to run than do men with the exact same credentials. This gap in political ambition between men and women is partially responsible for the small fraction of women in elected office.

Women who do run are held to higher standards on the campaign trail. This leads to pressure to project hyper-competence and preparedness. But this can produce a backlash: Women who assert confidence run the risk of provoking negative attitudes toward ambitious women. Extensive research illustrates that double standards about qualifications extend well beyond the political sphere.

Ironically, then, women who run win at rates equal to men and may actually outperform men once elected to office — but only because they are stronger candidates. But even after taking office, women are less likely to advance to a higher level of office partly because of their lower levels of ambition.

Remediating the ambition gap would need to start in childhood. Women, compared with men, report that they engage less in political discussions as children. The political scientists Jen Lawless and Richard Fox argue that this communicates to women that politics is a “man’s game.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/10/why-womens-representation-may-suffer-when-hillary-clinton-is-attacked-as-ambitious-and-unqualified/

[nichomachus]

1. The blame belongs on Hillary

She's a bad candidate, she would be a bad president, and she is the one that will negatively affect other women running for office.

[Native]

6. It makes me very sad to think you really mean this. I would imagine you don't have daughters

and are simply predisposed to never understanding how comments about a woman's ambition can have such negative repercussions. Don't you think it is telling that nothing like this has been said about any of the other candidates? And talk about a display of ambition and ego with the candidates this primary! Please take the time to read the full article. The women who wrote it are political science profs. This isn't about who the better candidate is. This is about being treated as equals.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Being treated as equals means that even though she's a woman, we dont ignore her flaws

Because "we owe it to our daughters"

It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton might actually be a flawed candidate, in addition to being a woman.

[Baobab]

32. Queen Bee Syndrome From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_bee_syndrome

Queen bee syndrome was first defined by G.L. Staines, T.E. Jayaratne, and C. Tavris in 1973.[1] It describes a woman in a position of authority who views or treats subordinates more critically if they are female. This phenomenon has been documented by several studies.[2][3] In another study, scientists from the University of Toronto speculated that the queen bee syndrome may be the reason that women find it more stressful to work for women managers; no difference was found in stress levels for male workers.[4] An alternate, though closely related, definition describes a queen bee as one who has succeeded in her career, but refuses to help other women do the same.[5]

[riversedge]

33. You have no idea of when those words are applied to women-they are sexist and based

on your comments so far-you don't care nor are willing to learn.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. The argument then, is, that since she's a woman, it is impossible for her to have any actual flaws.

That's ridiculous.

[Native]

41. Nope, that's not the argument at all. You are too bent on making this a "who's the better candidate"

issue, and it is keeping you from looking at this properly. Forget about Bernie vs. Hillary for a few moments.

[rachacha]

63. Help me understand exactly where we differ on this.

1. I accept that sexism exists and is a problem.
2. I accept that it is a sexist attitude to decry women, generally, for being ambitious.
3. I don't accept that calling one person out on their particular ambition to do a specific thing is a general statement about all people of their gender to be ambitious in general.

Do you disagree with #3?

Regarding your request to "Forget about Bernie vs. Hillary for a few moments.", it is difficult to forget for very long, as I believe the purpose of the article (and the similar one on the BNR site) is primarily to paint Jeff Weaver as a sexist for calling Hillary out specifically for putting her ambitions to win the nomination, regardless of whether she has to drag her opponent through the mud to do it above the unity of the party.

It's interesting that this specific complaint of Jeff's (Hillary's putting her own ambitions above the unity of the party) is the one that WaPo is glomming on to; The Washington Post, you may recall, is the outfit that published this article a few days earlier, and played a serious role in the whole "disqualified" tit-for-tat, which some are also saying shows sexism on the part of Camp Sanders:

Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

It seems like WaPo is trying awfully hard to paint the Sanders camp as sexist. It's not working. It just looks like they're trying hard to stir things up. I think it's ugly.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I am looking at it properly.

Just because some women have been unfairly criticized as "too ambitious" does not make it impossible for Hillary Clinton's ambition to pose a problem.

Again, there are examples in recent history of people whose desire to obtain and retain the office of POTUS- what the Buddhists would call attachment - led directly, Shakespeare-style - to their own downfall.

[Perogie]

59. I have daughters

I taught them they could achieve anything they put their mind to and that they are never second to any man.

But I still think Hillary is a lousy choice for President.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Hillary Clinton is not all women. She is Hillary Clinton.

She is clearly qualified, however, it is legitimate to ask if her obvious ambition for the office of POTUS has led to lapses on judgment. Specifically, if her reflexive impulses towards obfuscation and secrecy might cause her problems that she otherwise would not have.

There is a historical precedence for this, and its not too hard to see.

[Native]

8. Can you ever imagine any male candidate being asked if they think their ambition

is affecting their judgment? Even with all of Trump's egomania on parade, he has never been asked that question. And no one has ever said this about his ambition, “Don’t destroy the Republican Party to satisfy your ambition to become president of the United States.” It is a given that he has every right to want to run, regardless of what his positions are.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Yes, again, if their reflexive impulse toward secrecy led to actual problems in objective reality.

This email shit didnt arise out of nowhere, and it was a completely avoidable problem.

I understand why the Clintons have a "theyre all out to get us" mentality, but Nixon had one too.

I believe that she has every right to run, and we as voters have every right to evaluate her in terms of not just her accomplishments but her flaws.

That is what equality means.

[Native]

15. If you consider ambition to be a flaw, then every candidate running now is flawed.

Glad that you feel she has a right to run. Sad that you think you have to actually make a statement about that. I would have thought that would be a given for anyone wanting to run who meets the threshold to qualify.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. No, I consider ambition to the point of clouding otherwise good judgment to be a flaw.

And rest assured, I prefer Hillary Clinton to every Presidential candidate out on the field right now, save one.

[Native]

26. I take it you think her decisions have been made with one goal - world domination?

I tend to think that her decisions, the good ones and the bad ones, were made with more thought and deliberation. And I believe every woman, regardless of who they support, would agree with me on that point.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. flag is down. I think that's a 5 yard penalty.

[Fawke Em]

20. Yes because they have been.

Anyone - male or female - who runs for president has ambition. Period.

[Baobab]

34. Elizabeth Warren yes, Hillary Clinton, no - Also LOTS of men have overinflated egos

Women are maybe a bit less prone to it. But Hillary is not that woman.

Nor do I think she would make a good President. I disagree with her stane on almost everything.

ON THE OTHER HAND-

Elizabeth Warren - she I think would make a great President.

[Native]

43. I really don't see Hillary as having an overinflated ego. Donald Trump, yes; Hillary, no.

But again, that's not the point of this article.

[Perogie]

60. You haven't paid attention.

I remember hearing the GOP say that about Kerry.

[awake]

3. BS woman can be just as "‘ambitious’ and ‘unqualified’" as any male politician

This has nothing to do with any other well qualified politician male or female. This is about the Washington Post shilling for Hillary and wanting to keep pushing the ‘unqualified’ issue which they started.

[Native]

17. I disagree. I think the three women who wrote this have a valid point about sexism in politics.

[awake]

21. I will agree as in almost every thing in America there is sexism

I am just saying I do not believe any of Bernie's statements were sexist. I do not like it when sexism is used to explain something which in this case I feel had nothing to do with sexism. Please let us not go to that place where because a man said something about a woman it is sexist.

[PyaarRevolution]

28. It's the same bs with Obama.

They're prepping the machine up so when we have hard criticism towards Hillary, it's called sexism. This is like when people criticized Obama and people, on reflex, called others racist. Maybe you are actually critical towards their policies, not the color of their skin or gender.

[awake]

30. Yes just the same

[Native]

35. I don't believe Bernie's comment about Hillary being unqualified came from a sexist perspective,

and this article isn't saying that he is sexist. Bernie was hitting back because he thought Hillary had said he was unqualified; he didn't say it because she's a woman. However, I do think that Weaver's comment, “Don’t destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambition to become president of the United States" was definitely sexist.

Anyway, the article is about how comments like these, whether they were intended to be sexist or not, do have unintended consequences like discouraging women from running for office and being held to higher standards than male counterparts, which in turn leads to "pressure to project hyper-competence and preparedness. {Which}... can produce a backlash: Women who assert confidence run the risk of provoking negative attitudes toward ambitious women. Extensive research illustrates that double standards about qualifications extend well beyond the political sphere."

[awake]

42. I for one feel that woman can take the heat and that this would not discourage

any of the strong capable woman that I know. It may discourage some others but last I looked Politics is not bean bag. Any one who gets into it needs thick skin.

[Native]

44. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality courses in colleges across the nation teach otherwise.

Thick skin required? Check. But saying that comments like these don't discourage strong, capable women is incorrect. They do, and that is a fact that has been borne out through extensive research. Perhaps the women you know are exceptional.

[awake]

49. The times they are changing when I was in collage (1970s) this was true

But the new young woman of today who I have meet seem different as matter of fact i know that Medical and Law schools are having a hard time finding qualified men to apply. Since most politicians are lawyers I have the confidence that in the not to distance future we will all enjoy the many many woman run our government, but I am an optimist and you may be right for the sake of our would I hope not.

[liberal_at_heart]

52. That research must be old then because young Millennial woman are very strong and do not see things

the same way the older generation of feminists do. They are not afraid to judge or be judged. When they see an injustice they fight it whether that injustice is coming from a man or a woman.

[Uponthegears]

4. I don't believe I have

seen Secretary Clinton criticized for being "ambitious."

I have seen her criticized for being dishonest.

She doesn't get a pass on that too for some reason does she?

[Native]

9. According to the article, it was Jeff Weaver who said her ambition was destroying the party.

On the night of Sanders’s win in the Wisconsin primary, his campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, suggested that Clinton’s ambition was a destructive force: “Don’t destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambition to become president of the United States.”

[PyaarRevolution]

29. Because it is.

I kinda believe Hillary wants this to be in the history books but more than that, so she can charge a higher speaking fee after her term.
Heck, if she gets the nom. and the win I even wonder if she will go for a second term or just immediately quit so she can cash in.

[liberal_at_heart]

50. And he is exactly correct. Her campaign's statement that she would disqualify and destroy Bernie's

campaign and then coming out the very next day and saying Bernie cared more about gun manufacturers than Sandy Hook victims is turning people away from the Democratic Party. Her ambition is a destructive force.

[rachacha]

23. Weaver used the word "ambition", so the WaPo is naturally alleging sexism

...and hoping it sticks. It won't.

Just more crappy journalism from the the Washington Post, the same smear rag that brought us this innocent headline a few days ago:

Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

...and this highly-criticized barrage of attacks in early March:

FAIR: Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. back to the vajayjay argument

IT'S NOT BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN! IT'S BECAUSE SHE MAKES TERRIBLE DECISIONS!

Can you hear me now?

[Native]

13. then leave ambition out of it, stick to the issues, positions, and decisions!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. ok. doesn't change the decisions that she made.

[Fawke Em]

24. But, in the sense Weaver used it, it only means "goal."

am·bi·tion
amˈbiSHən/
noun
noun: ambition; plural noun: ambitions

a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work.
"her ambition was to become a model"
synonyms: aspiration, intention, goal, aim, objective, object, purpose, intent, plan, desire, wish, design, target, dream
"her ambition was to become a diplomat"

BTW, even the dictionary uses a female adjective to give the example. Neither sound particularly sexist.

(BTW, I am a woman and I didn't hear Weaver's comment through my vagina, so I came up with the correct application: "...her goal to become president.&quot

[Warren DeMontague]

25. What issues and positions?

Please, i am all ears.

[Native]

36. I'm not here to debate other issues with you.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. yeah, because from the get-go, her campaign hasn't been about "issues and positions"

It's been about shit like your OP, or her vindication narrative.

[rachacha]

7. More WaPo Hillbullying...we get it, they don't like Bernie

[CharlotteVale]

10. And yet Hillary's campaign denigrates women and denies we even exist!

Remember DWS calling young women complacent?

How about Gloria Steinem claiming that Bernie's young female supporters were only in it for the guys?

And let's not forget Madeleine Albright's statement about there being a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.

But what I find the most offensive in this sexist, offensive campaign is the term Bernie bros which denies the very existence of female Bernie supporters like me.

As a woman I am disgusted by the sexism of Hillary's campaign.

[Native]

22. Every campaign has supporters who make unfortunate comments, but

the ambition comment came from Bernie's campaign manager. I too was upset by the comments that came from Steinem and Albright, but I can't see Hillary ever making such a sexist comment or her campaign manager for that matter. As I said, this isn't about who the better candidate is. This is about how insidious and consequential comments like this can be.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Why should personal ambition be considered as a feature in a president?

Donald Trump is personally ambitious. That in fact is the whole reason he's running.

[Native]

37. Well, it was for Hillary. I think that's the point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. What I'm suggesting is that if it's reasonable to criticize Trump because he wants to be king

Why is it unfair to criticize Clinton in the same way?

Personal ambition and their sense of destiny isn't a good reason to support a presidential candidate.

[onecaliberal]

19. Contrary to popular belief we don't think she's attacked because of her Gender.

Just stop with it already. ITS THE POLICY STUPID.

[Native]

39. Maybe you don't, but obviously women in Poli Sci academia do.

[onecaliberal]

65. If they're all like her I can see why

They refuse to accept they are disliked because of horrendous policy's

[BernieforPres2016]

27. Hillary's campaign started the who is and who isn't qualified thing

They said Tuesday night that they were going to "disqualify" Bernie. Hillary refused to say Bernie was qualified on Wednesday. That's what Bernie was responding to. So enough with the whining by Hillary's crowd (which includes the Washington Post). If she had stuck to the issues (not that she has any beyond it's her turn), this would have never come up.

[Native]

45. Not the point of the article.

[PATRICK]

46. I hope this is not true

when the real issue is that the candidate has created a perfect storm of voter reaction by going the other way in political force to nailing down the party organization, an atomic payload of big money, and obliterating the primary season(paving the way actually for someone like Sanders when it was meant obviously to deflect someone like Biden) in an OPEN ELECTION year when the incumbent and all those other things mostly favored her anyway. But she felt betrayed last time and some of the people at the top doubt and dislike her. She almost pushed those problems like squishing the fat end of a balloon down into the actual voter base. There and especially there the untended garden has sprouted nightmares for her. As bewildering as mixed metaphors.

There are several ways this could have been avoided. NONE of them would have given her more sureness of winning against some other brighter star of any ideological position.But it would have been fair and real instead of this failing attempt to impose victory before the fact. Her fate was sealed in 2008 when she chose the path to 2016.resume building, force demonstration, favors as more ironclad, never really building on the support of the masses.Did GOP unfairness drive her this way? Of course. She was unable or unwilling to fight them on the propaganda grounds. if you want to serve your country and you don't have certain things, which for myself would be an encyclopedic list)you have to consider whether someone else running could serve the task better and work savagely behind the scenes for that.

America is not a battleground for competing aristocracies. At least it shouldn't be. If we don't have talent superior to what seems to be permitted or possible in most primaries through the years now would have been the best time to start. Now, while tiny tent of gold GOP is stuffing their clown car like a cheap sausage. Now when the world needs us most, not for an individual who is simply owed the office.

[Native]

51. Obviously I can't have a discussion about sexism in this forum because it offends men who

are voting for Bernie. I guess I'll have to be consoled in knowing that there are men in academia and positions of power & influence who realize, and have publicly acknowledged, that it is going to take more women engineers, scientists, and politicians, if our planet has any hope of surviving. Many of the comments in this thread were made by men who seem to have a problem seeing the forest for the trees. Let me explain: who the better candidate is was not the point of this thread or article.

Guess I'm back to watching men swing clubs in Augusta.

[liberal_at_heart]

53. Sounds like you are the one dismissing women in this thread. You don't seem to care if there are

women who find it completely reasonable to criticize Hillary's ambition. How many times did you use the word men in your above post? It is not just men who find Hillary too ambitious.

[pdsimdars]

47. I think women's issues suffer every time Clinton's campaign uses "sexism"

whenever someone criticizes her position on an issue.

[liberal_at_heart]

48. So we're not allowed to question anything she does because she's a woman? I call bull on that and I

am a woman. Yes, she is too ambitious just as many men are. We the people have been calling out all 1%ers whether they are men or women. Many of the male bank CEOs that crashed our economy are just as ambitious and just as guilty as Hillary when it comes to damaging our middle class. Many of the male hawks that are pro-war are just as ambitious and just as guilty as Hillary in getting us into war that we have no business being in. We went after George W. Bush for getting us into the Iraq War. Why are we not allowed to criticize Hillary for voting for the war? Just because she is a woman? Bull. We will continue to criticize any politician man or women, Republican or Democrat who continue policies that help the 1% and hurt the 99% and we will continue to criticize any politician man or woman, Republican or Democrat who spends trillions on war and cuts social services.

[CBHagman]

62. No, you can do anything you want, but do read the article...

...which discusses the different standard to which women are held.

Also, the term "we, the people" represents people of varying viewpoints.

[gollygee]

54. She's been a senator and sec'y of state. She is obviously qualified.

And every single person who has ever run for president has been ambitious.

That does not mean she would be the best choice, just that those two comments are unwarranted.

[riderinthestorm]

55. As a feminist woman, I interpreted Weaver's comment as Hillary’s "goal"

I didn't hear it as sexist at all.

Clinton has a powerful goal to be President.

All of the candidates do. And yes, male and female they are ambitious.

FWIW, there's a slew of ambitious women in Congress and on the Supreme Court who'd be the first to call themselves ambitious or do you really believe Duckworth or say Gabbard, are in any way harmed by that phrase?

I'd say they embrace it.

[liberal_at_heart]

56. That's part of the problem. Almost all Congressmen and women are millionaires.

A little too much ambition in politics these days I would say. I wish we could get some more humble people in there that want to serve the people. You can be in a leadership role with a sense of servitude, not ambition. It just doesn't happen as often as it should.

[riderinthestorm]

57. Agreed which is why its doubly strange to think the appellation of "ambitious" is damaging

It takes enormous ego to run for office.

Its almost willful blindness to feign ignorance of that fact.

[CBHagman]

61. Oy, the responses to the article here call for the posting of the logical fallacy list.

There won't be room to respond to each ill-conceived argument, unfortunately, but the straw man has already been trotted out at least once.

[url]http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/[/url]

Abusive Ad Hominem
Accent
Accident
Ad Baculum
Ad Consequentiam
Ad Crumenum
Ad Hoc Rescue
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem, Circumstantial
Ad Ignorantiam
Ad Misericordiam
Ad Novitatem
Ad Numerum
Ad Populum
Ad Verecundiam
Affirming the Consequent
Against the Person
All-or-Nothing
Ambiguity
Amphiboly
Anecdotal Evidence
Anthropomorphism
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Consequence
Appeal to Emotions
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Money
Appeal to Past Practice
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Snobbery
Appeal to the Gallery
Appeal to the Masses
Appeal to the Mob
Appeal to the People
Appeal to the Stick
Appeal to Traditional Wisdom
Appeal to Vanity
Appeal to Unqualified Authority
Argument from Ignorance
Argument from Outrage
Argument from Popularity
Argumentum Ad ....
Argumentum Consensus Gentium
Avoiding the Issue
Avoiding the Question
Bad Seed
Bald Man
Bandwagon
Begging the Question
Beside the Point
Biased Generalizing
Biased Sample
Biased Statistics
Bifurcation
Black-or-White
Cherry-Picking the Evidence
Circular Reasoning
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Clouding the Issue
Common Belief
Common Cause.
Common Practice
Complex Question
Composition
Confirmation Bias
Confusing an Explanation with an Excuse
Consensus Gentium
Consequence
Converse Accident
Cover-up
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Curve Fitting
Definist
Denying the Antecedent
Digression
Disregarding Known Science
Distraction
Division
Domino
Double Standard
Either/Or
Equivocation
Etymological
Every and All
Exaggeration
Excluded Middle
False Analogy
False Cause
False Dichotomy
False Dilemma
Far-Fetched Hypothesis
Faulty Comparison
Faulty Generalization
Faulty Motives
Formal
Four Terms
Gambler's
Genetic
Group Think
Guilt by Association
Hasty Conclusion
Hasty Generalization
Heap
Hedging
Hooded Man
Hyperbolic Discounting
Hypostatization
Ignoratio Elenchi
Ignoring a Common Cause
Ignoring Inconvenient Data
Incomplete Evidence
Inconsistency
Inductive Conversion
Insufficient Statistics
Intensional
Invalid Reasoning
Irrelevant Conclusion
Irrelevant Reason
Is-Ought
Jumping to Conclusions
Lack of Proportion
Line-Drawing
Loaded Language
Logic Chopping
Logical
Lying
Maldistributed Middle
Many Questions
Misconditionalization
Misleading Vividness
Misplaced Concreteness
Misrepresentation
Missing the Point
Mob Appeal
Modal
Monte Carlo
Name Calling
Naturalistic
Neglecting a Common Cause
No Middle Ground
No True Scotsman
Non Causa Pro Causa
Non Sequitur
Obscurum per Obscurius
One-Sidedness
Opposition
Outrage, Argument from
Over-Fitting
Overgeneralization
Oversimplification
Past Practice
Pathetic
Peer Pressure
Perfectionist
Persuasive Definition
Petitio Principii
Poisoning the Well
Popularity, Argument from
Post Hoc
Prejudicial Language
Proof Surrogate
Prosecutor's Fallacy
Quantifier Shift
Question Begging
Questionable Analogy
Questionable Cause
Questionable Premise
Quibbling
Quoting out of Context
Rationalization
Red Herring
Refutation by Caricature
Regression
Reification
Reversing Causation
Scapegoating
Scare Tactic
Scope
Secundum Quid
Selective Attention
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Self-Selection
Sharpshooter's
Slanting
Slippery Slope
Small Sample
Smear Tactic
Smokescreen
Sorites
Special Pleading
Specificity
Stacking the Deck
Stereotyping
Straw Man
Style Over Substance
Subjectivist
Superstitious Thinking
Suppressed Evidence
Sweeping Generalization
Syllogistic
Texas Sharpshooter's
Tokenism
Traditional Wisdom
Tu Quoque
Two Wrongs do not Make a Right
Undistributed Middle
Unfalsifiability
Unrepresentative Sample
Unrepresentative Generalization
Untestability
Vested Interest
Victory by Definition
Willed ignorance
Wishful Thinking
You Too