Why Are We So Hard on Hillary?

[niyad]

Why Are We So Hard on Hillary?


The 2016 presidential election one of the most blatant (and consequential) examples of the double standards applied in the evaluation of women and men—a phenomenon that has been well-documented by social psychologists after decades of research.


Gage Skidmore> / Creative Commons



Women who try to take leadership roles are more subject to harsh judgements, disapproval and dislike than their male counterparts. Women who are viewed as ambitious, assertive and self-promoting make people uncomfortable in ways that ambitious, assertive, self-promoting men do not. That discomfort often plays out in negative judgements of and reactions to the woman in question. Those reactions have defined this election.

. . . .



Across all groups, observers hidden behind two-way mirrors noted that the nonverbal reactions directed toward female leaders and male leaders were different. Women trying to assert leadership received more frowns and fewer smiles and nods to their initiatives than men did—even though both women and men were using the very same leadership scripts. Furthermore, the more the would-be male leaders talked, the more positive reactions they received, but this was not true for female leaders. Group members rated female leaders as more bossy and dominating than male leaders exhibiting the same behaviors and male leaders as having more ability, skill and intelligence than female leaders making the very same scripted statements. All this despite the fact that group members disavowed any gender-based bias and were unaware that they were projecting negative reactions toward the female leaders.

Over the past two decades, a slew of studies by university researchers such as Madeline Heilman, Alice Eagly, Laurie Rudman and Peter Glick have shown that women are judged harshly when they are seen as self-promoting, as exerting assertive leadership or as succeeding in situations deemed masculine. In these studies, women described as independent, assertive, successful and oriented toward taking charge are labeled negatively by respondents—high in interpersonal hostility, low in likeability, low in social skills and viewed as undesirable supervisors.

. . . . .


Hillary Clinton’s popularity was at its highest when she was not running for office. Now that she has to convince Americans that she is eminently qualified to be President, she is fighting an uphill battle against our almost automatic—and largely unacknowledged—dislike and suspicion of assertive, ambitious women. Her every failure to be completely transparent thus mushrooms into something that the public easily and uncritically interprets as a serious blot on her trustworthiness. Donald Trump’s allegations about a rigged system notwithstanding, the real “rigging” lies in our well-learned biases about women and leadership.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/09/07/why-are-we-so-hard-on-hillary/

[redstatebluegirl]

1. It is her sex, plain and simple. She is a woman, she can't be strong, she has PMS.

All of the nasty things many of us have dealt with in business and academia for years. The fact that Lauer would talk over her last night, the chair was suited to a male body not hers, the constant nasty questions. In their feeble minds she doesn't belong there. Not unlike what President Obama went through but for women it is more "under the table".

I am so sick of this shit I can't talk.

[niyad]

2. and yet, when this blatant sexism and misogyny is pointed out, the instantaneous denial and

screaming outrage is almost funny. it is certainly predictable.

but, try as they might, I will not shut up.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. Me neither! I am tired of being a good girl and keep my peace.

[niyad]

20. alas, I have been neither a good girl, nor quiet!!

[calimary]

6. Neither will I!

Last edited Thu Sep 8, 2016, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I've stated elsewhere that, being a fan of Hillary Clinton's since I first started learning about her during Campaign 1992, she had me at "well I guess I could have just stayed home and baked cookies." I heard that and it was utterly electrifying! I knew right then: THAT gal's for ME! Hell, she freakin' IS me!

Hillary's ultimate and unforgivable crime is that she is an uppity woman. She had, and still has, the nerve to be an uppity woman. From way back when not many women were that assertive in the public arena. The main role for a woman in politics was to be the WIFE of someone in politics. It was seriously unusual and quite improbable that you were a player, yourself. She does not "know her proper place." Actually, she does. And it ain't staying home and being meek and mute, and baking cookies!

Hey, for some women, that's enough. For some women, that's what they aspire toward, and what they hope to be. That's THE goal. And that's FINE! To quote Seinfeld: "not that there's anything wrong with that." No one condemns that. But should that be the unchangeable blanket absolute for all women? Should that be our only available option, as women? Some women feel driven or compelled or inspired to do MORE. And do it in the public arena, on the front lines, center stage, fully exposed and in the spotlight she doesn't merely share with her husband because it's actually HIS spotlight. Some women want to stick their necks out and try to affect positive change for the greater good. Not all of 'em, but some of 'em definitely do. And why should they be held back?

Why, indeed, should they be held back, if they're capable of contributing more, and willing to take the risk, and willing to put themselves up for public scrutiny and take some real responsibility and become active participants? Become players? That's what's always bothered me about the Catholic Church. Women are held back, simply because of their gender. And in an era where one of the biggest problems in the public service of the Church, and there's still such a shortage of priests, WHY more than 50% of the available talent pool is locked out - simply BECAUSE they're not men? I've known women of faith who are ten times the leaders (and faith-leaders) of the men to whom they're subservient.

When Donald Trump says Hillary doesn't look Presidential because she doesn't have a Presidential look, we all know what he's really saying. It's because she doesn't have a dick. But then again he "trumps" her there because he not only HAS a dick, but he IS one.

[Skidmore]

15. I don't have to add anything

Last edited Fri Sep 9, 2016, 06:08 AM - Edit history (1)

to this. Except perhaps to point out that so many women throughout history have had to work to support the family. Some times the husband was ill or disabled. Others worked because they were abandoned or had no spouse or relative to support them. Some because they made choices to participate in greater society. Lordy, I love those uppity women. Give me a Hashepsut or a Hypatia or Sappho any day. Give me the woman fishmonger or merchant or miner. The list is endless. Just don't tell me to go sit in my place.

[niyad]

22. in one of my favourite novels, set in victorian england, the woman protagonist has--gasp!!! "gone

into trade" (a bookseller) when her father dies penniless after being defrauded. one of her father's "friends" complains that she has disgraced herself by so doing, despite the fact that she would have ended up either in the poorhouse, or on the streets.

sadly, that opinion has not advanced in many cases, even today.

[madisongrace]

25. What book is that? Thanks n/t

[niyad]

30. I will have to look it up--have read about 70 of this author's books, so will take a minute.

[niyad]

45. sorry it took so long. the book is "the river knows" by amanda quick, who also writes

as jayne ann krentz and jayne castle.

[niyad]

21. you laid it out perfectly. would you please post this as its own OP, for greater visibility, and so

that we can rec it?

I would love it in women's rights and issues, as well.

[calimary]

33. Here:

In the Women's Rights & Issues forum,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11389328

and elsewhere right here, too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512407115

Thanks, niyad! Glad you liked it!

[DemonGoddess]

41. This should be an OP

great post calimary!

[calimary]

44. It IS!

Our niyad asked me to post it as an OP, so I did - as suggested.

Here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512407115

I also added it to Women's Rights & Issues at her request:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11389328

[Orsino]

46. And the caution she shas evolved to deal with the sexism also counts against her.

Sad.

[Buzz cook]

4. Years of right wing propaganda and a failed American media

The first big story on the Clintons was Jeff Gertz article in the New York Times. It was dictated to Gertz by Clinton's enemies and was pretty much whole cloth.

Once that was accepted as gospel the rest of the media fell into line with any slur no matter how stupid or fact free that was fed to them by the right wing.

[uponit7771]

5. +1, Woman tax... not pointed out enough for me

[niyad]

23. and just look at the vehement, almost screaming denial, when it IS pointed out, and women are blamed

for it (after all, it is only marketing, we have all these options, blah, blah, blah. never ONCE is it the fault of the companies, the marketing, etc. never once)

[Stonepounder]

7. While I don't disagree that it is much harder for a woman than it is for a man,

There are also other things at work (in no particular order):
1. The GOP hates the Democrats with an almost insane hatred.
2. The GOP has hated the Clintons for 25 years.
3. The GOP hates Obama with a visceral hatred, because he is black and because of #1.
4. The media is owned by 6 huge multi-nationals who don't give a damn about America, the only care about their profit. News is no longer 'news' and journalists (with a paltry few exceptions) are no longer 'journalists' it is all 'entertainment' to sell ads and make money.
5. FOX News has been the Pravda wing of the GOP. (Note that FOX was founded in Bill Clinton's first term. Coincidence?) It has spewed hatred of 'liberals' and preached the blessings of Conservatism since day one, sending out lies and spin since day one.

Corporations have no soul. They are amoral because that is what a corporation. It exists for only one purpose and that is to make money. Corporations will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to reach the goal of making as much money as possible. (This is not meant to be a value judgement, just a simple statement of fact. Corporations do not have a soul, they are not alive, they don't have morals, they exist to make money.)

Trump is making lots and lots of money for them and if he is elected he will make even more money for them. Remember, war is insanely profitable. Just ask Dick Cheney. And it doesn't matter to a multi-national corporation who wins the war. If the US falls apart, that is OK with the corporation, so long as it makes money.

[byronius]

12. There will come a day when 'Corporate Ideology' is studied as an archaic error of the past.

In the great book 'Gotham', Burrows talks about the original corporate charter, created by the early New York Dutch. They granted the business form only with the caveat that the corporation must serve the public good first -- they could see it all coming, those smart Dutch guys.

It was adopted exactly as was by the British, and then by the Americans, and it was all well and good until the 1930's , when a majority of crooked Supreme Court judges wrote several opinions that freed the corporate form from its public service requirements. Fast forward to now, when generally well-intentioned people as well as stone-cold psychopaths use the 'shareholder value' gambit to excuse every goddamned crime under the sun.

Can you imagine if Monsanto were held to the 'public good' requirement? Whole different entity.

[Stonepounder]

14. If we manage to hang on that long.

It sounds like a fascinating book. I would love to read it. Unfortunately, since I do almost all my reading in bed these days, and the book is 1400 pages long, and not available in Kindle format yet, I may have to wait a bit. Not sure I could handle a book that size in bed

[mr_liberal]

13. 6. The left hates moderate Democrats. nm

[NewJeffCT]

17. excellent post

great points. I've stated many times on here and on Daily Kos that Republicans don't just hate Obama because he's black. While that certainly plays a role in the hatred, if Hillary had been elected in 2008, we'd have been talking about how the GOP hates her because she's a woman. We would have had misspelled Tea Party signs that had the B---- and the C--- word on them instead of the N----- word on them for Obama.

The primary reason for the hatred is that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a (D) after their names.

[rivegauche]

8. she is being held accountable for Bill's messes.

And also, because vagina.

She has been excoriated far more than any other candidate I have ever seen and I'm not a kid. Not only because she's a woman but because her husband has so much fucking baggage. I remember when the pathetic Lewinsky scandal was raging, some idiot male in the office where I worked told me in all seriousness that it was HRC's fault that he was such a scummy cheating horndog. This is what we are up against - the morons and their moronic ideas.

[mopinko]

9. boy howdy.

i am a pretty outspoken woman myself, and too often find myself painted as vagina dentate or something.
people have even insisted that i hit them, which is patently absurd. but that is how it feels to them when i put my foot down.

own property, on my own, outspoken about what i do, which is important- yeah, clearly a dangerous monster.

it is truly amazing.

[byronius]

10. This has become clear as an #$% bell.

Weird, too, how deep it goes. Almost cellular. Pops up everywhere, even in generally well-meant people.

I'm glad she's running. I've always liked Hillary, always. I never accepted any of the idiocy catapulted at her by our weird reality-show Hate Kultur.

She'll be as good as Obama, and better than Bill. Finally time for this to happen.

[Coolest Ranger]

11. I think a lot of it is from

insecure men who don't want to see a woman in office.

[LanternWaste]

16. dullards and half-wits are mad because she's a woman who doesn't bake cookies.

In recent years, I've never heard a candidate criticized for "not smiling" or for wearing pant-suits, so I''m beginning to believe that, despite protestations otherwise, some dullards and half-wits are mad because she's a woman who doesn't bake cookies.

[DFW]

19. I'm sure she does bake cookies

But when SHE wants to, and not just because someone else tells her to. THAT's what has had so many people twisted in knots since 1992.

Don't kid yourself--Merkel gets bashed for her gender, MANY women in power, especially in high profile countries, get crap for a thousand made-up reasons other than the real one. Gandhi, Bhutto, Thatcher, Ciller, they all have/had to put up with it. Ghandi and Bhutto paid with their lives, even if, granted, the ostensible reason for their assassinations were different. Women leaders fuck up just like men do (see: Brazil, Argentina)--they just have to put up with the additional crap as well.

The one thing I have to wonder about--the Republican women in the Senate, for the most part (not morons like Joni Ernst) will not take kindly to the gender bashing of President Hillary, no matter WHAT party she's from, and they will recognize it as well as their Democratic counterparts. Murkowski, Collins, they know the score.

[stage left]

18. She's a woman

and she's smart.

[niyad]

24. . . . .

[unblock]

26. the sexism merges with the democratic/republican double-standard.

even when the candidates have been both male, there's still been a high standard for democrats and virtually no standard at all for republicans.

shrub was a complete idiot through and through, a terrible communicator, incompetent, and cheney's self-selection and power proved that shrub couldn't lead. and he came to office under highly dubious circumstances. yet the media treated him as a strong and powerful leader, never questioned his legitimacy or mandate, and stuck by him really until the stock market finally fell apart and it was just too obvious there was nothing left to defend.

meanwhile, gore, who was smart and thoughtful and articulate and experienced and accomplished was dismissed for sighing and wearing earth tones.

having said that, sometimes it seems the democratic party is a stand-in for woman and minorities and the republican party is a stand-in for white men. so a lot of stereotypical sexist and/or bigotted treatment happens to democrats.

i imagine if somehow the race were sander vs. fiorina, they'd talk about her attire, but only in glowing terms, and still hold sandard to a high standard. and mock his hair or something.

everything aligns when the democrat happens to be a woman, so it becomes more intense and obvious.

[niyad]

34. an excellent response. I remember the criticism that gore was "too intellectual, too brainy", as

though intelligence is somehow a serious character flaw.

the anti-intelligence of so many has always puzzled me.

interesting, as I write this, that that is one criticism the reichwingassholes are not making against HRC. they do not dare draw attention to her brains.

[unblock]

38. because trump is smart, ok. he's very smart. probably the smartest person ever.

believe me.

[niyad]

39. yes, of course. how utterly remiss of me to forget his overwhelming intelligence.

say, drumpfy, were you ever in MENSA?

[Cosmocat]

40. Spot on - same dynamic for BHO

relative to race.

If Condi Rice had run, she would have been untouchable.

[Pathwalker]

27. Thank you for this thread! This is such an interesing, enlightening

joy to read. Thoughtful, interesting perspectives, that make me so glad to see DU again offer such mental yummies! K&R!

[niyad]

31. you are most welcome. it is my pleasure.

[demigoddess]

28. The republicans are so afraid of having a female president, because if we have

one we will have more. And those female presidents will probably be democrats and the republicans HATE it when they do not have control of the White House. Women are very often good campaigners and they can have great followings. I think why they keep telling us we hate Hillary is really because she has been highly esteemed by many over the years and a lot of people said that she did a good job as Sec of State and they really have not liked that she might be elected.

[AgadorSparticus]

29. Sadly, never truer words. K&R

[niyad]

32. . . .

[niyad]

35. . . .

[LAS14]

36. Hillary's experience this election has given me an education...

.. in sexism. I'm 71. I was in college when The Feminine Mystique came out. I've watched dramatic changes. But this year I understand how incomplete the changes have been. It is appalling how persistent anger at "uppitiness" and pedestal fixations and applying different standards still are!

[niyad]

37. the sheer ugliness and hatred toward her is like nothing I have seen in all my decades. and yet,

when this sexism is pointed out, the instantaneous howls of denial are almost comical.

[DemonGoddess]

42. K&R!

One of the things that, quite frankly, astonishes me; is how we can all see the sexism so very clearly. Yet, when we say it (I'm speaking women who say it), we're being whiny, or some other such stupid thing.

[niyad]

43. how DARE we call attention to the deplorable sexism???? why, we might make people uncomfortable

or something!