Sex is only a problem because influencers such as NYT make it one. Numerous countries that might be considered culturally patriarchal have had Female heads of state, just as USA will as soon as we stop making everything about personal identity.
11
It goes to show just how much the US has to grow up. The first female president is going to face the same over-the-top anger and resentment the first black president had from white men who think that unearned privilege should be their automatic birthright.
14
Were she to run, these words would not be used for Nikki Haley.
6
The hardest hurdle is the dogma among some evangelicsals that a woman is “the weaker vessel” and thus unfit for leadership. Yet the same bigotry also dictates that a woman dress modestly to avoid leading men into temptation.
8
Men and women have equal intelligence. According to Forbes report on the 400 richest Americans, "most of the country’s wealthiest females inherited their fortunes from husbands, fathers and grandfathers. Only 1-2% of wealthy females are self-made."
Perhaps if all the business and government leaders in the world had been females instead of males.....then females would have prevented WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the little fights in the Arab countries from ever occurring. Correct? Or are females just as angry and warring as males? In terms of human behavior, the more things seem to change....the more they remain the same. Correct? Then some will say, "no hope left for humanity." But actually there is hope if you believe in God. That hope is great for Christians. So what hope is there for atheists and agnostics??? Is this why separation of church and state exists?
Can the media PLEASE STOP this discussion. How about just talking about policy and past action. Every time you talk about "likeablilty," "sexism" it draws attention to the fact of gender. While I think it it critical to understand this, please, no more front page articles calling out the women like this. Please look at this: http://www.nameitchangeit.org/pages/name-it/
For example, an excerpt which I think could be generalized to this article you just published on today's front page...:
WASHINGTON, DC—Name It. Change It., a joint project of the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run
Name It. Change It. is a non-partisan media-monitoring and accountability project of The Women’s Media Center and She Should Run, which tracks sexist media coverage of women candidates and public leaders.
In the survey on media coverage of women candidates’ appearance,... demonstrates that when the media focuses on a woman candidate’s appearance, she pays a price in the polls. This finding held true whether the coverage of a woman candidate’s appearance was framed positively, negatively or in neutral terms. The second survey, a simulation of the impact of sexism in campaigns, ...simulated a campaign situation similar to those experienced by real candidates and found that where a woman candidate has already been attacked, sexist coverage further diminishes her vote and the perception that she is qualified.
9
Until the news media starts printing what women call men there's no equality.
1
Is this journalism? Or is it a solicitation by the reporter of any examples readers might have that would support her prejudices? Utterly without news, utterly without evidence -- this article is a sort of speculation and plea: Help us show the world that it is entirely unfair to women!
6
Too many people are afraid of strong women. A "mommy's boy" is a man who's controlled by - wait for it -- a woman! "Nanny" is a strong woman, hence "nanny state", a pejorative used whenever the objector (almosy always male, by the way) doesn't like being told he can't have everything he wants.
And so on. It's pathetic.
5
Perhaps if we could stop thinking in terms of gender we might move towards looking at the person. Why does the NYTimes continue to point out a candidates (or anyone's) gender, race, ethnicity as if it matters? Isn't that bias? If a woman runs, she's applauded and given outlandish coverage. Just think about Stacy Abrams - not only is she applauded for being a woman, but for being black as well. Why? When candidates stand on their own merits, and the media promotes merit over identity politics, then woman will have the opportunity they seek. However, we still have many women in politics today, so I wouldn't say that people won't vote for a woman.
9
I do believe a shrill sounding voice can be a negative factor for a woman candidate, maybe because deep down, especially among men, it unconsciously reminds them of being scolded by mother or teacher. Add to that the voice will usually become more shrill if the volume or intensity rises. It wouldn't decide my vote, nor that of, I hope, most others, but I am sure it affects some voters. It shouldn't be, but it is. What to do? Voice training? Deepen and soften the voice a little if possible. I, so far, like Kamala Harris a lot, and her voice is as shrill as say, Hillary's. Things that shouldn't really matter, often do.
1
"...was abrasive and shrill. She was aloof. She was unlikable."
These are among the many reasons I did not and would never vote for Donald Trump. (And, yes, there are other reasons.)
Approachability and likability are qualities of merit in many eyes, whether or not the WP or anyone else bridles at that. Fact is, people tend to like being with others who are engaging and warm.
Some of this, not all, but some, may emanate from workplace experiences where many women are notoriously hard on other women. It is not a pleasurable situation for anyone.
This is not a "male" issue -- it's a recognized way by which many women in the workplace behave toward other women. Lethal.
Attraction to candidates (such as the Obamas) who are warm and gracious and funny is simply human nature. They feel good.
2
On a comments board in 2008 I was accused of being sexist for wanting Obama over HRC. I had valid reasons for not supporting Hillary. I didn't want to vote for her again in 2016, but was forced to since she was the least worst.
Now, I have several Democratic candidates I Iike for 2020, two of them are women, Kamala Harris and especially Amy Klobuchar. I like Klobuchar because she's tough, AND moderate. I also think she's honest. I also don't favor Warren, for similar reasons I don't favor Bernie. She's too progressive. It has nothing to do with her gender, and the DNA test story is just noise to me. If I liked her positions, I would support her.
I don't favor either Harris or Klobuchar because they are women. I favor them due reasons that make sense to me. I will be voting for the best candidate, regardless of gender.
I think there are plenty of voters who see things as I do. I think Hillary had some baggage, and not the baggage that Trump tried to give to her. And I think America WOULD elect a good female candidate. I think we all should vote for the best candidate and not a gender. That is the best for America.
With "thinking" like this, the Democrats are detined to relive the consequences of 2016. The American people dislike faux sincerity, pretense, and a disingenuous mien. The women most prominently featured in the article suffer from all of those things. Warren did not display that persona when she spearheaded the CPFB. Gillibrand's was displayed a measured gravitas -- until recently. And Harris . . . well, Harris has always been Harris. If the Dems want to succeed, they will recognize political reality, exercise sound judgment, and insist on running with a genuine article. On the other hand, perhaps we are losing the ability to recognize such.
That would be sad. Very sad. And dangerous.
2
When will people (and the NYT) grow up, stop identifying candidates by their physical characteristics and present them by:
1. their accomplishments
2. their education
3. their priorities for America
and most of all How they hope to accomplish their ideals and priorities.
In this small city area where I reside and volunteer, even such mundane jobs as members on local non-profit boards, are decided with these factors in mind.
You ask yourself 'Who can get the job done?' 'Who has shown diligence in the past?', etc.
The presidency is not a popularity contest and this is not high school. Both men and women are capable of deciding by more than the 'cute cheerleader' or 'strong quarterback' stage.
It's a fight for women all their lives to be able to stand up for ourselves while being told we sound like fishmonger's wives, are too old, too young, too fat, too skinny, etc. by men who do not use those descriptions on other men.
That said, if women do not stand up for other women in this arena, we will deserve what we get.
6
Chris Quinn former Speaker of the City Council had it right when she spoke on MSNBC yesterday. Men who speak with authority are deemed strong. Woman who speak with authority are deemed aggressive.
I am paraphrasing but I think everyone should get it.
Folks have been saying it for years but even progressive men just sit back and let it happen. They don't want to give up any power.
Years of inequality read "The Language War" by Robin Lakoff. It sums up everything.
2
None of these women, including Hillary Clinton, were and are judged as shrill and unlikeable by the majority until the news media keeps repeating the opposition's trope; asking talking heads about it and continually showing the opposition party videos and writing articles about the opposition party claiming they are shrill and unlikeable. If the public hears something enough times they begin to look for it or believe it. I once asked a friend who hated Hillary what she found unlikeable about Hillary and she had no answer.
I wish the news would stop harping on the sex of these contenders and spend more time on their platforms.
138
"...held to a different standard than men remains to be seen: Male politicians pressure and berate staff members too, and, like Ms. Klobuchar’s Senate office, President Trump has had high employee turnover..."
This ipso facto holds Ms Klobuchar to a higher standard.
1. It implies she pressures and berates staff members
2. It likens her staff turnover to Trump's
2--is impossible.
1--needs supporting evidence.
The Times should be held to a higher standard.
5
Finally figured out why I so ardently support our state’s two female senators when I wouldn’t consider voting for a woman for president, no matter how qualified. It is because the requirements of the two jobs are completely different. Being a successful senator requires one to be a good collaborator and team player, something at which most of our female senators excel. Being President requires being a great manager and boss, a job for which women in the U.S. are not usually prepared or trained for in this country because of our sexist culture as described in this opinion piece. The Dems must nominate the best qualified man they can in order to guarantee ousting the current Oval Office occupant.
1
This resonated for me in my personal life. When I would try to express myself, my husband would often put his hand up before my face. One of my sons would accuse me of "yelling" when he didn't want to hear what I had to say.
2
Claire has it - Trust is the key. Warren is just all over the map and not to be trusted - she just wants the next rung in the ladder and will use anything to get it.
Find the candidate with a strong military background and you have a potential winner. Military training teaches trust and field experience demands it.
Military background is marker for a man. How about a teacher not a warrior?
2
@TRedd, Tulsi Gabbard has the military background.
1
This is not a gender issue. The more charismatic candidate always wins. In the last 45 years I can think of only one example where the less charismatic candidate won (1988 Bush Sr over Dukakis, and it's not like Dukakis was Mr. Charisma).
22
@Melanie Billings-Yun. I half agree. The problem is that the personality trait of charisma is more commonly applied to men than women. Charismatic men are easily trusted. And, well, people (men and women) harbor suspicion against a charismatic woman.
12
Warren is politically amateurish (DNA), Harris has 750 people on Death Row in California, Gillibrand is a double-talker. "Shrillness" is the least of their problems. In fact, the whole Democratic field, male and female, is problematic, to say the least. As a student of presidential history, I do set the bar pretty high--Lincoln, FDR, Washington--but these times require more than a bunch of underachievers, one-hit-wonders, has-beens, and political chameleons. I was a Bernie supporter. I think his time has passed and speaking as a senior myself, age is an issue. But in comparison he looks better to me every day, though I can't imagine which of that motley crew he could have as a running mate. 2020 is going to be a nightmare.
3
@Michael Engel When you try to hold Kamala Harris responsible for all 747 people on Death Row in California I knew you were going to be singing the praises of the shrillest male candidate I have ever listened to before the end of your comment.
10
The NYT's deplorable coverage of Hillary Clinton will not be redeemed until it turns the microscope inward to expose the gender bias that pervades its own coverage of female candidates: which subjects get covered, what kinds of adjectives it uses, how much space it devotes to describing "what she wore," and so on. Basically, through the likes of Amy Chozick's and Maggie Haberman's relentless focus on trivial issues and personal appeal, you gave full life to the perception that even small mistakes are disqualifying for women, while maintaining the presumption that men are competent no matter how outrageous their actions or fundamental their character flaws.
15
Women may indeed face prejudice on the presidential campaign trail, but no more than President Obama faced during his first run for office in 2008. Liberal democrats and socialists would say that he faced racism and that female candidates now face sexism. However, President Obama never complained about the prejudice that he faced, he never complained of racism. Any potential female candidates for the US presidency might profit from his example.
3
Very good point. Not to put words in your mouth- but arguably (from a female Democratic candidate’s perspective) “less is more” in terms of pushing the identity political button in 2020. Obama did not do so based on the historical nature of his candidacy and that worked. BUT- he is a man..
The media and those of us in the bleachers can do the heavy lifting in terms of prosecuting and protecting the case for a woman in 2020. Speaking for myself- I want the nominee to be a woman. Clinton beat Trump in 2016- just not in the right states. Given the rabbit hole he has dug for himself over the past two years- ABSOLUTELY any of these women can bury him once and for all.
3
"May" face prejudice? Not sure if anybody has complained about the prejudice they are facing any more than Obama did.
3
In reply to Jim Neal New York
It’s not often that people agree with me so I like your post.
How shrill and unatttractive would you have to be, to be a less appealing candidate than Donald Trump? It just isn’t possible. So why are we discussing it?
5
An article written by a woman in favor of women showing why I won’t vote for a woman because they only care about women.
5
Meaning that you need a man to endorse a woman before you’ll listen which is precisely why we must elect women from the top to the bottom of the ticket in every nook and cranny of this nation. Otherwise we’re at the mercy of sexist, misogynists (see: mirror).
6
I'm a male voter. I will vote for Elizabeth Warren should she be the Democrat candidate. Nonetheless. i hope she isn't. 2016 proved to me that the shameful stupidity of the 'Mercan electorate and the incredible dishonesty and callous, monied manipulation of that electorate by the GOP make it practically impossible for a woman to be elected - and very difficult for anyone with a moral code and any trace of empathy. I strongly suspect that the oligarchs, who have bought the GOP, would spend any amount of lucre to defeat Warren considering her history of favoring policies that which benefit consumers.
BTW, I'm not eliminating the possibility of voting for another female candidate; I just don't know the rest as well as I know Warren.
1
Oh please, many of these women ARE unlikeable, shrill and abrasive and come off kind of sleazy and self important.
They don't show themselves in a good light in most instances. It's not the electorate, it's them.....
4
Back in my pre-Valley-Girl generation, both men and women who wanted to go places took measures to round off regional accents and soften nasals. We learned how to breathe properly, from the belly, in order to project our voices, and to modulate so we wouldn't bore people to death. I do not think it's sexist now to expect as much from all presidential candidates, male and female.
4
This is the old love/hate of women, if she is not perfect in everyway we don't want her. It is pretty much a "American phobia", look at the rest of the world, they so not have it, even in developing countries that elect women over men.
Compare honestly trump to Hillary, trump is a man who lies, does not keep his word, not to be trusted, cheats at golf and taxes, lazy, makes fun of anyone who does not agree with him, flirts with the enemies of the United States, has the intelligence of a 4th grader,does not handle his financial world with responsibility, and YOU could add 5 more things you do not like about him. If you had a beer with him, he would do all the talking about himself and make sure you paid for the beer.
Some of you do not like that Hillary wore a pant suit, she talked to loud and seem to yell to be heard, she stayed with a husband that cheated on her (but you did not care that he cheated) She pays her bills, she went to law school, she in spite of her schedule raise a very talent, normal, loving daughter. She loves America and maybe the most important thing of all, Putin is afraidl of her!
Would she have a beer with you, no because like most women she is too busy taking care of her daughter and the country she loves.
Republicans have tried every way to take her down, but instead they showed the world that they would rather have a cheating clown as president than a women. Did they Learn anything by this mess, no they are doing it again.
9
I've never heard a man described as "shrill".
Women are subject to unending unfair judgement.
4
@zort
You're right, men are routinely called things far, far worse, sometimes rightly deserved. Women have regressed in the last 10 years, having discovered the 'victim' meme.
5
Excellent, necessary article published four years too late.
NYT needs to write about this Every Single Day. That’s how we will face our implicit bias and re-examine how we view women in leadership.
4
I heard this comment a lot during the last presidential election, from women and men. It was sad for me to hear this, and to know that people are so stuck in the archaic culture of oppressive sexism. When I would challenge their naive comment, by askiing “If not Hillary, then who, since she has the most qualified woman in decades”? They would give me a blank look and say something like, “Well I don’t know, but not her!”
The second part of my sadness is to have good friends say this to my face, a Feminist. They had no idea how demeaning their comments were to me. What they were really saying is “Not her and not any woman!”
I have worked hard all of my life. I have “Persisted” and my resilience has brought me success in life . . . and great trauma. As a woman and a Feminist, am retraumatized daily by the attacks on our women leaders. Trump horrifies me, but my friends who are shallow enough to make the “Not her!” Comment are just as horrifying since they are the reason we are so divided as a country. They have no idea that their biases against women are showing and just as offensive as the current revelation about black face.
My friends came up with all kinds of reasons that Hillary has failed as a politician, but that pales in comparison to the atrocities committed by Trump and many men in politics. But she dared to compete in this dirty field of politics, so that makes her unworthy.
The real message of “Just not her,” is really, “Just not any woman.”
4
Female or male, the key quality is that of being "the real thing" -- of coming across as authentic and genuinely connected to what feels important to a voter (and not all voters are the same!).
If a candidate is showing up that way, voters sense it intuitively .... even if they can't put it explicitly into words. So, if they're not being "real", we get adjectives (that serve as proxies) like "shrill", "abrasive", "tone-deaf", etc., etc.
For instance, compared to the other declared Democrats, I prefer Klobuchar because she has that "what you see is what you get" quality ... Nothing phony or pretentious or in-your-face .... I think it will serve her well.
1
I heard Gloria Steinem interview talk about why people didn’t like Hillary Clinton, and I’m afraid that will apply to any outspoken woman: there are like five-year-olds being told what to do by their mothers
Sorry to say but when I read the words in the title "that woman" I immediately thought of Bill and his denial of ever having sexual relations with "that woman" ... meaning a 21 year old intern in his charge. I also recall how Hillary and her minions (Blumenthal, Davis) led the charge to smear and discredit "that woman." Prime example of how selective memory works and how Hillary could rise to represent the Democratic Party a decade later carrying the banner for many women... and then an ignominious defeat to the most blatantly sexist and racist candidate in modern US history.
3
@JL, yes, Sid Blumenthal was a Clinton hatchet man for a long time, not just with respect to Monica Lewinsky but also with respect to Obama during the 2008 primaries.
1
Is it inherently sexist to not support Hillary
when Hillary violated Federal Laws again and again
and spent the Summer in the Hamptons
"Meeting and Greeting" the 1 %
Senator Warren fibbed on her claim to be Native American.
2
OK, I get it...if one does not find a female candidate to have a likeable personality (in that person's opinion), then he is sexist. Nonsense, we admire or like people for many reasons. To say a voter describing one of the candidates noted in this article as shrill and then accusing that person as sexist is sanctimonious. It is no different that the Democrats who call Trump a loudmouth.
1
Hillary lost mainly because lots of people were mad about the Dems shoving her down their throats. That, and her being a corporate/Wall Street shill. As for Harris; she's been hated as a pandering , self-serving "tough on crime" opportunist for a very long time. Hopefully she will get weeded out sooner than later.
2
Here’s what Ms. Warren (e.g.) might say:
“These days it seems for many people ‘unlikeable’ is a word meaning “female.”
“I think of it differently. I think of it the way we use ‘like’ on Facebook. And here’s what I’d ‘Like’
“I’d _Like_ competent government, based on what is real rather than what we _wish_ was real.
“I’d _Like_ a leader who brings us together and builds on the strongest American values, community values.
“I’d _Like_ a government that doesn’t put children in cages and govern by whim.
“I’d _Like_ equitable taxes, fair is fair, and it doesn’t change because you’ve got a pile of money.
“I’d _Like_ a government and a leader who knows that the very real challenges we face, the great obstacles before us, are our invitation to greatness, that our greatest days are ahead of us, and that the great American people are the reason everyone in the world wants to come to America. Let’s celebrate our diversity and our greatness.
“_THAT_ is what _I’d_ ‘Like’!
That’s just a sketch, but perhaps it carries the idea? And perhaps we can bury “like” as a slur.
1
I too heard from friends that there was "something they didn't like" about Hillary. I was baffled, until I read an item about how she and Bill had cleaned out the White House when they left, taking ashtrays and towels, etc. Crass behavior. Except, it wasn't, which I found out when it turned out Russian trolls had disseminated this type of story.
Mysogeny is alive and well in America, Still, the NYTimes should avoid framing articles as they have this one, which ignores the full reality of what happened in 2016.
2
Females running for POTUS for the 2020 election should remember what I told my dog yesterday:
I wouldn’t have voted for Hillary for any office, not because she is female...but because I don’t trust her. I don’t trust Fairfax in Virginia. I didn’t trust Bill Clinton. I don’t trust Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn’t trust either Bush. I wouldn’t trust many politicians. Regardless of gender, race, etc. Being a politician corrupts people in office and people running for office. Now if humans had tails like dogs, I could tell in a heartbeat if they were trustworthy. THAT’s the problem. People don’t have tails like dogs do. Never saw a disingenuous tail wag from a dog. Dogs tails always tell the truth. In 2020, I’m writing in “Wags” for all the offices on the ballot. Done! No gender bias here....maybe species bias.
20
@Claire Yet Trump has clearly shown he's no politician and he's the least trustworthy of any of them. Go figure.
5
@Claire
Didn't see you mentioned Trump. Does that omission mean you trusted him and voted for him in 2016. Just asking.
17
As someone once said, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"., or if you do, be prepared to lose. Didn't we learn anything from the last few years? America is really not ready for a female president, or for another black president again. Our most important priority is to get DJT out of the White House, so it's going to take another older, white male, with LOTS of experience, to be able to defeat Trump. I do wish for more female candidates, and I still love President Obama, but in 2020 we have to face the facts, and not just try out more progressive ideas - if we want to win the White House. Let's just gird ourselves, and get the job done.
What frustrated me about the 2016 election is that one couldn’t offer even the most thoughtful, substantial criticism of Hillary Clinton without being accused of sexism. It really didn’t help the discourse to be told that disagreeing with her proposal for a no-fly zone in Syria or recounting her role in backing the murderous far-right coup in Honduras made one a male chauvinist. (I did vote for her despite my concerns, by the way.)
That’s why I’m so happy that in this election we can talk about the differences among a field of women without gender entering the discussion.
Theoretically, at least.
But then the issue of “electability” raises its head, as it should during a primary contest, and those nagging gender-based intangibles come up. Why are many Sanders fans chilly towards Warren? How can having an inconsistent voting record be an asset for Beto (he’s such a maverick!) while being a liability for Gillibrand (she’s so calculating!)? And why might being a demanding boss derail Klobuchar’s candidacy when no one would list Trump’s being a demanding boss as a reason they won’t vote for him?
But this can cut both ways. Many found Hillary’s journey as a woman so inspiring they resisted scrutinizing her record as closely as they would have for male candidate, and similarly we’re now being asked to overlook Kamala Harris’s troubling record as a prosecutor because it’s too important to have a woman of color on the ballot.
We’ve come a long way but still have far to go.
2
with respect "likeability" I react exactly the same way to men as I do to women. My reaction to Elizabeth Warren is I just don't like her - her demeanor is caustic, acerbic and off-putting. If a man acted that way, I would feel the same. That's why I don't like Bernie Sanders either. As a Californian, I've never heard Kamala Harris speak but I voted for her for US Senate as good for California. Now I view her as a cheap opportunist who, with barely 2 years in office, is now running for president. While Obama did the same thing, I was a Hillary supporter in 2008 and Obama was my default candidate because I am a lifelong Democrat. I feel the same way about Corey Booker. The other woman candidates I know nothing about. So far, other than Joe Biden, we have no one who has presented themselves who can beat Trump, an incumbent Woe is us.
i beg to differ. the difference between the current crop of female candidates and Hillary is that MOST voters and the general public shared a negative view of Hillary, whereas i don't think that is the case with these women. There may be the occasional carp leveled against them in an "ad feminam" manner, but this seems (as yet) muted in comparison to the Hillary negativism.
We have 6 qualified women to choose from.What is unfair is that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have the first and often final say so. why do we have to depend upon THEM (rural white voters..often more culturally conservative) to be the first hurdle? It is way overdue to start rotating the primaries around the states. We are more than ready to overcome the prejudices and vote for a woman for president in the primaries ...IF we get the chance!
The principal of my first school (and 8 out of 9 of my first teachers) was a woman. My first boss was a woman. My parents raised me expecting me to go to college and get a good job and expected me to be able to support myself so I wouldn't have to rely on anyone but myself.
Women have been authority figures in my life since 1968; why would it be difficult for me to vote for a woman? I can distinguish the strengths and weaknesses among the candidates, male or female. Likability should be a minor factor. Someone who is a competent leader, a good communicator, someone who shares my values, and someone who has ideas that will benefit all Americans will be the person who gets my vote. No single gender has a stranglehold on those qualities. Male or female, it just doesn't matter.
2
Amy would get farther if she learns to say Iraq and Iran, not /Eye-rak/ and /E-ran/, like most mid westerners. A sign of lack of experience with other countries.
In 2008 when Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primary to Barack Obama, I was devastated. I loved her and felt she would be great for this country. When Hillary ran against Trump, I was so turned off. Why? It bothered me. What changed? I’ve given this serious thought. The only thing I could come up with was that her persona in 2008 was positive and forceful without being masculine as she was in 2018. She played up stereotypically to masculine qualities in hopes of gaining popularity.
1
Because, of course, sexism is the only conceivable reason you would not vote for a woman.
2
I have to ask how Margaret Thatcher in Britain managed to get voted in as Prime Minister and how voters in Germany (Merkel) Pakistan (Bhutto) India (Gandhi) Israel (Meir) voted women in as leaders to mention a few. Maybe it’s not about gender but competence.
3
Or maybe it’s because those countries aren’t America. All of the women who have declared their candidacy are not only qualified, but much more than Donald Trump is, even after two years.
1
@Brenda Snow
Nothing prepares one to be President. In that sense it is unique.
1
Warren is shrill and unlikeable. It’s just her personality and is not sexism. So was Hillary and so is Gillibrand. I recoil when I see Warren lecturing her way through a speech. Many male politicians are unlikeable as well, Ted Cruz for instance. Stop calling people sexist for honest assessments.
3
Shrill and unlikeable. Women’s voices are “ shrill” when they are raised. Women are “unlikeable” when they are tough. Time to start voting for the most qualified person whose ideals most match your own and what you want for the country. Key concept? Qualified.
This article could do a lot more to address the intersectional nature of sexism in politics. When you're talking about appearance, for instance, it's remiss not to mention how the category of attractiveness is racialized, and when you talk about women coming off as angry, this obviously would affect women of color differently. Treating sexism as colorblind, as this article does implicitly, excludes women of color from the conversation.
55
Why? Because women are afflicted with internalized misogyny and men with overt misogyny. What is appropriate, likeable, or tolerable in men is anathema to women, especially in public life. Male privilege bestows on men immunity from a vast array of social sins that women are stoned for committing. Is it time to change this? Of course! But it isn't going to be with the help of men. Women must refuse to be defined by male standards of what women 'should' be and stop enabling male privilege.
64
Here's a small partial list of men who lost either in presidential primaries or general elections (during my lifetime) in large part because they were not "likable."
Thomas Dewey
Adlai Stevenson
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
Mike Dukakis
Bob Dole
Al Gore
John Kerry
Ted Cruz
Bernie Sanders
Some of them eventually won the office. But let's face it: Nobody liked any of them very much, and that was a big factor in their rejection. They ranged from elitist (Adlai and Kerry) to self-righteous (Carter and Gore) to phony (just about all of them) to downright obnoxious (Cruz and Dole) and overbearing (LBJ). Hillary fits well into their company on multiple grounds. This is not to say that we never elect unlikable men, of course.
3
This seems to be a particularly American prejudice showing how we really are a superficial and bigoted people. We bicker about who is and isn't a racist or misogynist and point fingers at one another and find all sorts of reasons to do absolutely nothing about it.
3
I believe it is a reflection of our adolescent culture that we seem unable to elect a woman president, in contrast to so many countries across the world. How can anyone nit-pick any woman's qualities and characteristics after who we just allowed to become President. It is truly beyond time for us to grow up.
8
Instead of looking to the past for a model of female presidential leadership, why not look to the future? Specifically, look at AOC.
4
To wit. At dinner with my cousins on Saturday.
I made the case for electing women in redressing the scourge of patriarchy. My female cousins were most shrill. “But it’s gotta be the right woman” they responded in unison. Nary a mention of selecting the “right man”. Mind boggling.
3
Klobuchar is the only one in the group who could beat Trump. A left of center(as opposed to radical left) with solid, strong personality(without presenting herself as a faux bully).
Folks wonder if a moderate could win the nomination but I think the far left will eat each other alive.
2
I agree. I think the far left may mess up the primaries and give us a candidate that moderates, independents and the rare old-school Republican cannot vote for. On the other hand I think the Democratic far left’s hearts are in the right place and vastly prefer them to the hard right Christian conservatives.
1
In inches, yard or miles. Just how far left from Center do you gauge the far left? And the far right? Just curious.
I find it odd, yet darkly humorous that U.S., including its media, will twist itself in knots to give cover to the ridiculous. That entire "who would you rather have a beer with" was shown to be a sham as the question magically disappeared when Trump became his party's nominee--as it is well known that Trump does not drink. The criteria obviously shifted to suit the electoral college (and media's) preferred candidate.
I also am starting to hear the same shifting of goal posts and recriminations of female presidential candidates in media, proving that no one has learned a thing since the last election.
4
Stating what we already know-
We did vote for a woman. That Woman. Hillary got more votes, even though not in the right places to take the electoral votes.
That said, I believe the "just not that woman" factor was possibly the biggest factor in the 2016 election.
And anyone who did not see this sad phenomena being applied to any future women presidential candidates is asleep.
Now-
What was Gillibrand thinking in the brewery photo op? Drinking out of a glass? No no no. A beer MUG or straight outta the barrel. Come on lady. Be one of the boys.
Is it a sign of progress that all of a sudden Amy Klobuchar is said to be an angry boss? Or is that just a creative new trope to trot out. As Roseanne Rosanadanna's mom said, "It's always sumthun'" Wouldn't want to run an angry boss against the steady, level-headed, charity-for-all Donald J. Trump. Wouldn't be prudent.
6
"Shrill and unlikable" are code words used by the opposition. Look at the abuse heaped at Pelosi in the months before the last Congressional election. Similar descriptions were given because her foes knew how strong and intelligent she was. Had Hillary listened to her aides there would have been a different outcome and we wouldn't be stuck with a person like Trump.
3
Sexism and racism continue to taint the political debate in this country. If it in any way reflects gender or race differences, many will jump on it as a rationale to criticize or outright malign a candidate. I, for one, am a little tired of so much attention paid to whether a potential candidate is female, Black, Hispanic, LGBT or or otherwise. We do not "need" a minority candidate or a centrist white male. We need a candidate who stands for good, decency, fairness and a positive view of the world. We do not need a candidate who is liberal, socialist, or conservative. How about a good person who will pay attention to the issues, seek advice, communicate clearly and act decisively.
3
Small point: the article states, "There was no similar backlash to male candidates who defied gender stereotypes." Which candidates, specifically, were those? I certainly can't think of any on a national level.
2
Not content with thought control, we move now to speech control. Likable and unlikable? Look at the cited 2010 Harvard study, 80 people contacted online? That doesn't even qualify as marketing research. Trump and Clinton were both unlikable, and the most unlikable, in my objective opinion, was Trump. And he won! Use that as a study, rather than blowing smoke into mirrors. Superficially, it should support your thesis. Another point, it may be that unlikable as Trump was, people may have thought that being also not very bright, he would be less dangerous than Ms. Clinton who was bright indeed, and quite capable of implementing her ideas.
2
American culture has defined the male as leader and women as second class. Only recently have women emerged in leadership roles. We have a lot to overcome. With Trump we are living a macho movement that is neanderthal- as women take key roles,
retro males recoil in traditional , historical thinking. With the me-too movement , sexism has been exposed but it will take a long time before it rattles the brain-dead old males who live in a 50's mode. There is so much nihilism out there today, I only hope these brave women who fight for the Presidency will help to change the course and that one of them will rise to claim the prize.
10
Yes, and let's compare these women's behavior to Brett Kavanaugh's tears, loss of emotional control, abrasive responses, shrill cries of innocence and apparent outrage while being questioned for sexual assault at his SC confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Cmte. last year. Clearly his expressed anger and resentment at being questioned about his youthful drinking binges and subsequent behavior toward females didn't adversely affect his SC confirmation. His obvious, insulting resentment and snarling responses to some Senators (Amy Klobuchar among them!) viably demonstrated his inability to control his emotions under stress, and a lack of judicial temperament that should have disqualified him. Shame on the GOP, once again.
10
Thanks for this important review of the issue before, well almost before, it is needed.
However, a quick perusal of the comments is not encouraging. I see a lot of people willing to attribute bias to others, while seeing their own judgments of "shrill" as accurate descriptions.
People, know thyselves!
1
I am sick and tired of the many double standards here. We have a president who has an unequaled number of underlings in two years either fired or who have left their jobs. No one puts the "difficult boss" label on him. But Klobuchar, who holds her staff to the same high work ethic standard as she applied to herself, is being labeled....Gee, guys; no sexism here?!? If we were to un-designate the gender of those who have tossed their hats so far, Klobuchar would be hailed as a pragmatist, hard working candidate who puts her muscle and money where her mouth is. Let's hope that the press can keep their focus on the issues and values presented in the 2020 election rather than on the headlines that escalated a (fill in the blank and add unqualified) man into the presidency that is close to breaking our democracy.
6
I have been saying that I will never live to see a woman elected to the U.S. presidency since I was about 9 years old. I was very much aware of the 1976 election, between my parents' interest in politics and my excitement at seeing a kid my age in the White House. At school, I observed how my peers (male and female) interacted with each other and how they reacted differently to male and female teachers. At home, I saw my feminist mother treat her daughters and son differently, too. As an educator today, I can't say that I see much difference in my colleagues from what I saw in the 70's and 80's--but I remain optimistic for my students and my own children. I may not live to see this, but my son and daughter might. Please, America, prove me wrong!
65
@MBM- Yes yes. Valid points. However, I do not remember thinking of or treating my teachers different because of their gender. As a matter of fact, this never occurred to me until I read your comment.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.
3
@ggallo I think you were not paying attention. It is well documented. Although now, with increased awareness of recent years, it may be changing. Hopefully.
1
@Dj Thank you. "Not paying attention" was a joke; apparently a hidden one. I was referring to my behavior, only, not the rest of the world's. Bias based on sex baffles me. Always has. Always will.
Already the upcoming election is about sexism and electing the first female president. This bodes well for the future of the free world.
1
Hello: in general, women have higher voices than men. They also very often espouse more effective and fair ideas. Get over resistance to the soprano, etc.. They are not your mother scolding or hurting you (nor is the low-voiced male to be confused with your abusive father).
People speak in different voices. My test is: does what they are saying make sense, or are they making excuses for the grifting powerful? You decide. And use subtitles if you can't stand the mens' voices. (Wink, wink.)
European countries and South America dating to Evita Peron have elected female presidents or prime ministers.
But if we want Trump out next year, let’s get real - it won’t happen here. We are simply not that enlightened.
Yet. If ever.
1
Totally agree. We’ll never elect a Roman Catholic or an African American either.
1
@Jim Neal It doesn’t need to be a prority for 2020.
It strikes me as somewhat ridiculous that the United States has never had a female president in its entire history. This group of Democratic presidential contenders could certainly buck that trend. It feels like an auspicious moment where this kind of change is possible - and as I watch from across the pond in Ireland, I hope that it does.
3
Isn't it somewhat common for people running for president to be attacked, questioned and called every name in the book? My old memory tells me Nixon and Reagan were called far worse than shrill.
Isn't a little name calling part of the price of thinking you can run the free world?
1
No male candidate would ever be criticized for sounding shrill; just ask Howard Dean.
4
This article and almost all of the comments seem to be discussing why more Americans voted for a man than for a woman in 2016, despite the fact that significantly MORE Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Clearly, “shrill” is less unpopular than “bombastic, but can’t construct a sentence.” What matters is WHERE it’s less unpopular.
2
I never really noticed the voices of wonen candidates until it was pointed out by the media. I’m more of a visual person anyway.
What i do notice is that women candidates and politicians are increasingly clumped together in a group of ‘X’ presidential candidates, or ‘large number of congresspeople wearing white’...etc., while male politicians/candidates are not. In fact just now one who is really neither of those gets his own headlines showcasing him in a lone Showdown at Dry Gulch with the President.
I feel like the media are starting to build a maenad image of women in politics that is dangerous because of the fear and backlash it will provoke.
It’s time to stop clumping women together in categories based on their sex, clothes, voices, etc. and time to talk about them infividually as people with ideas.
4
There are comments about female politicians just like there are comments about male politicians. Just think about all the comments and jokes about Trump's hair style, which have made it viral. The thing is - comments about female politicians, who seem contrived or unlikable aren't sexist, aren't any different than comments about male politicians.
2
When you think about women who have accomplished great things - Marie Curie, Angela Merkel, Barbara Jordan - this group is a disparate lot. You can easily identify superficial similarities: science, peace, social justice. In a way, they were all outsiders. Curie: Polish immigrant studying mathematics in chauvinistic France. Angela Merkel: East German running for political office in a recently reunified West Germany. Barbara Jordan: African American, crusader for social justice, civil rights activist, gay?
But one attribute that cuts across all their personas is power: they were powerful women. And perhaps power - which in a simplistic way is normally associated with male attributes - makes people feel uncomfortable when it is manifested in a woman.
Are the women we are disaffected with disliked because of their power? Hillary Clinton, top of the list: she did take on health care before it was fashionable as first lady which was very ambitious - not consistent with the traditional role of the president's wife. Later she toned that down - to be more likable? - "It Takes a Village" (mother, child rearing, the community).
There was great disaffection with Michelle Obama: lawyer, activist, then mother of the nation - healthy eating, nutrition education - pretty tame stuff. Our problem with her was racial: she fell into the "uppity" class - the power class?
Things changing? Kamala Harris is forceful, but she has a fever dream (Medicare). But, what about that Amy Klobuchar?
3
Scrolling down the comments section makes me laugh. I read 20, then another 10. The majority just proves the point of this piece. In brief, “i would vote for a woman...but not these ones...too much of this...too little of that...she said...she didn’t say...and no...it is not me...it is not a women’s issue...it is them...i just don’t like them...not this time...”
I am glad they are all running. The democratic party has finally embraced its diverse constituents, including women at the table.
4
I don't think it's helpful to try to draw conclusions about this from 2016 - that election and it's candidates were very unique.
I do believe that women have a higher bar for some of the electorate, and it's sadly possible a woman simply cannot win the presidency right now. 2020 is too important to test this hypothesis - it is a must-win for the Dems. I am ready to fully and enthusiastically support whatever ticket is nominated but I think the safest choice is to have a woman for VP, with Klobuchar and Harris as the best options.
Or perhaps it's true. For a woman to be successful in politics she may need to be shrill and abrasive.
1
Sad that much of the rest of the world from India to the UK is far ahead of our country though we see ourselves as world leaders.
Also sad that when it comes to criticizing female candidates women are often the worst offenders. In a Trivial Pursuit group of older adults (smart, educated folks) I'm part of, when Hillary's name came up she was ripped to shreds by the women. Policy or qualifications were never mentioned. She wore those "horrible pants suits because she has piano legs." Another added "and a fat a**." Someone else chimed in about those "G-d awful head bands"; someone else wondered "what's with that hair." Note - no one in that group liked Trump either and there was the vague comment about his orange hair/skin, but the viciousness was reserved for Hillary Clinton.
4
The women referenced (Clinton, Gillibrand, Warren - and to a lesser degree, Harris), happen to be shrill and unlikeable. It’s who they are. I’d vote for Nicki Haley, Susan Collins or Amy Korbuscur any day over any one of them because they are each thoughtful, powerful, intelligent, reasonable leaders - whether or not I agree with their politics. There are negative characteristics common to describing male politicos too - smarmy, shady, bombastic, grandstanding - not so often used in describing female counterparts. Some political figures - Ann Richards, Barbara Boxer, & Shirley Chisholm, for example - knew how to project strength and determination without being ‘unlikeable or shrill.’ It’s a talent, and can possibly be learned...if egos and ambition don’t trump all else....
5
@kda2b, I don't believe that smarmy is commonly used to describe men!
1
I see that smirk when men discuss any woman running for office. I’m not hopeful for the US getting past the 19th Century.
1
The male candidates who seemed less likable (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) all lost, but the warmer ones (Carter, Clinton, Obama) all won. I don’t think warmth and accessibility necessarily make a better president, but these qualities make for election winners.
3
I vote as a Democrat and so far, I would not vote for any of these women. Like Hillary, none of them are grassroots candidates. They all seem to be riding some sort media wave. I would rather vote for a man or woman that has organized a community around some great cause. If one of them had made a name for themselves in a non-profit like Habitat for Humanity or by championing a string of Montessori or Kipp schools across the country and THEN went into national politics, I would vote for her. But the only stories I know of these women are their political accomplishments over the last eight years. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and a young governor that brought in great business headquarters like Wal-Mart into little old Arkansas. Obama was a community organizer in South Side Chicago. None of these women have any credentials like that. So why should we jump on their bandwagon?
4
@BrettFavreFan4Life
Go ahead and vote for Trump; because, is the greatest community builder of all time, just ask him.
There were many reasons Ms. Clinton's loss. I doubt there is much to be gained by venting spleen at the incorrigible sexism of the electorate. Pretending that Ms. Clinton lost largely because of reasons beyond her control will prevent learning anything from the 2016 fiasco. Let's face it, she lost to a very bad candidate.
3
@George, I think the reasons for Ms. Clinton's loss are still not known. Until we have a complete picture of what happened behind the scenes, I will withhold judgement. I am not giving her a pass, but I do not believe she lost it all by herself or because of some fatal flaw. She did lose to a very bad candidate, but instead of blaming that solely on her, why on earth did so many people vote for the 'very bad candidate'?
1
Six thousand years of male patriarchal rule and what is the result? The planet is burning, it is questionable whether mammalian life will survive, we are in the middle of the Sixth Great Extinction, the world's fisheries are in collapse, perpetual warfare is the norm, children starve while all the resources go to militaries and killing weapons, the nuclear sword of Damocles hangs over all our heads.
And most of the comments are about how the commenter does not like women, or particular women, and that we must have another president in the mold of male patriarchal militaristic values. We are doomed.
10
@Earthling
"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts."
-Camille Paglia
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/camille_paglia_159814
Perhaps men have done some good in the world too,,just a little perhaps?
1
Is it really that shocking (or that wrong) that people view men and women a little differently? People have biases, including the author of this piece. She sees sexism when it happens to women, but is blind to any biases against men. A lot people don't like Bernie Sanders. Some because he's too old. Some don't like him because he isn't Christian. Some because he's disheveled. Those are biases. Everyone is subject to them, whether we want to admit that or not.
Men are also subject to biases and superficial judgments that are unique to them. Nobody mentioned Hillary Clinton's height during her campaign. A man her size wouldn't have much chance, if any, of being elected to the highest office in the land. Who was the last bald president? Could a man with an unusually high-pitched voice get elected? Only tall, manly men with a good voice and a reasonably full head of hair need apply.
And if you want the best example of someone who was actually undone by being called "shrill," that would be Howard Dean. Remember the "Dean scream"? One brief moment of shrillness somehow derailed his campaign and it never got back on track.
6
@J.C.
I believe you are correct. But, your statement says more about the shallowness and poor judgement of the American voters than it says about the candidates.
4
Brett Kavanaugh. during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing cried, yelled and was disrespectful to several of the senators. Yet, he was confirmed. Had that been a woman would she have been confirmed???
It's time to break up the boy's club. I would love to see Kamala Harris debate trump. He might be the one crying during that one.
10
Oh please, Hillary Clinton IS both those things, its not sexism, she's just a deeply unlikable human being.
She represent all the cold robotic corpratism that people loathe about politics, everything feels rehearsed, calculated, and lacking empathy. She was tremendously well qualified, but thats only half the battle, you also need to be charming, she is not.
These women however, are another story, Warren has fought for the rights of the little guy for years, Harris years as a prosecuter gives her a sharp wit and analytic mind that could make for an excellent diplomat should she take the white house, and she easily made Kavanugh look like the small, entitled, angry little boy he truly is, a skill that could be invaluable when contending with Putin. Gillibrand is warm and charming in her interviews, seeming to easily connect with those around her something we'll need to heal from the last few years and start building a unified government again.
It feels incredibly important that Trump be beaten by those he belittles, that the democrats don't backtrack to another old white man like Biden, and all three of these women seem up to the task, all three seem excellent candidates.
Stop blaming Clinton's loss on sexism, it was a factor, it always is, but nothing more than a factor, lets take some responsibility for the democrats nominating a bad candidate who lost to somebody even worse, and move on with our lives.
4
@Bryan, I don't understand your comment about a candidate needing to be charming. Ms. Clinton isn't but Mr. Trump is?
2
I think it’s extremely unhelpful to dismiss legitimate concerns about mistreatment of staff as merely a ‘likability’ issue or worse, label it sexist. The data exists and it shows she’s had and continues to have extremely high turnover compared to her senate colleagues.
Pointing at Trump and saying ‘he did it worse/more/ etc’ is not really saying much.
2
I dislike like Warren as a candidate. Not because she is a woman, but because of the dozen other reasons there are not to like her as a candidate.
I dislike Sanders, Biden and Booker as candidates, too. Not because they are old and white or young and black, but because I think they would either lose or make lousy presidents. I'd put Gillibrand in that group as well (though not because she's a woman).
I like Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Kamila Harris, and Pete Buttigieg as candidates. Not because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation, but because I think they have what it takes to win and would perform well if elected.
Sometimes I wish the Times would focus on criteria that matter--if only so we can, too.
6
Lots of men get trashed and publicly humiliated when they run for political office. It's not a gender bias issue. It really is a type of beauty contest. Who has the most appeal.
Just because Hillary ran, and lost, and suffered her fair share of criticism, doesn't mean there is a general, across the board issue with women. It's just a matter of time before a credible female candidate comes forward.
5
I just want someone to beat trump. I don't believe a woman can. I voted for Hilary, and will vote for a women again if they are the nominee. But I hope we get Biden or O'rourke. They'll win.
Kirsten Gillibrand has huge negatives because of what she did to Al Franken. This is an opinion shared by many, many people. It is her ruthless opportunism that people dislike about her. Would they feel the same about a man who did that? I don’t know, but I would hate to have her be my only option.
7
@A.
Why is this always sticked and glued to Gillibrand's behind solely?
It was the full house of his Democratic Senate colleagues that asked him to go. None of them spoke up for him. I take it they were all briefed informally in the wings with more and rawer detail than we were concerning the anonymous forcible kiss accusation by the Congressional staffer that tipped the balance of the joint accusations to his fatal demise.
It was probably an essential move to help the Dems win the Alabama Senate seat too. Even Al Franken must have sensed that. The case would otherwise have out-airwaved the Roy Moore indignation, and give Trump an easy jump off the hook of the 19 disgusting stories accusing him.
But tactics over due process demand a steep price.
A lot of women came out testifying for the virtue record of Franken (and Kavanaugh), and now of Klobuchar. Still, if you insist Franken had to go, why not flying binder #metoo? There's a pattern, there are staffers with accusations. Why should the one female Dem with accusations be the one to get a pass and be allowed to stay? Double standards, anyone?
1
It's way beyond time for this country to elect a woman President. We currently have 5 women who could walk into the White House today , and do a far superior job than Trump. Like the article says,women who won in 2018 didn't follow all the so called rules. We don't want or need the same old stuff and that's why a woman will win.
1
Offering oneself up as the hurt, hurting victim is strong in this article.
As if women don't fight with all means.
Notably the women in this comment section can relentlessly and uglily dismissively elbow the men out of their way.
One article's top comment in the hot phase of the 2016 election ridiculed the men showing up to the Sanders rallies as the freeloaders coming out of their cellars with infinite spare time to squander as they didn't have any daily chores to go about anyway. The people really mattering, the women, weren't able to take time out of their busy, meaningful lives of 24/7 service to obnoxiously prove their lame existence, but they were there (and apparently had plenty time to comment, read and upvote) and their enthusiasm was real. Fast forward a few months and, I kid you not, the same commenter went lyrical over the turnout for the women marches, going through the roof with another upvote stampede. No double standard there, no prejudice.
I like the AOC approach. I would advise the women to brush the dust off their shoulders like BO did. But if Al Franken had to go, then flying binder #metoo, no?
"The only thing preventing me from flying many more binders is not bringing them to the debates."
"At least I got binders and not just slim, oversimplified, colorfully illustrated summaries to walk my coping capacity of a 4-year-old through the woods of modernity and the minefield of whoever takes advantage of my masterful art of the 4-year-old 3D chess deal."
2
I like Amy Klobuchar, who reminds me of one of my aunts, a smart, sensible, no-nonsense woman who enjoyed a long professional career in the insurance industry. She was sympathetic as an individual, and somehow managed to combine plain speaking with kindness and humor. But she was smart first, and that counts for a lot in both men and women.
Elizabeth Warren does not strike me as smart at all. Nor does Kirsten Gillibrand. Both have bungled in clinging to positions (DNA testing, hounding Al Franken out of office), where smarter women would have seized the opportunity to do something powerful and uniting.
Yes, I thought that Hillary Clinton was more comptent than Donald Trump, but her eagerness to endorse George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq left me with serious doubts about her judgement. I find it hard to think likable thoughts about someone who could send my children out to die in a frivolous military adventure.
There are plenty of smart women in the world, and many can be found in positions of leadership. But I don’t always see the parallels between women I respect in private life, and what I see the Democratic party bringing forward as their standard bearers.
1
To me, its surprising the hurdle that women have here in the US in breaking the ultimate glass ceiling; that people focus on likability more than competency. I attribute Hilary’s loss to Trump - a small part of it, not all, to the lack of women leaders during the toughest times in US history.
In Britain we have had queens sit on the throne and rule over countries; in Europe we have had women leaders and warriors - Joan of Arc as an example; even the country where I was born, in India - the most prevalent religion Hinduism, has fierce Goddesses - Kali and Durga, and in the last 200 years of its history had freedom fighters like Rani Laxmi Bai, Annie Besant, or Sarojini Naidu, who stood shoulder to shoulder with men and are household names as contributing figures in the country’s history.
Where are these historic names in the history of USA in its 300 years?
I am not the closest to US history, so if the readers can share any women icons who are household names and we can make them a more integral part of the history that is taught, we can help the country move away from this perception that strong women are unlikeable. Its “deja vu” again for me when I see people reacting in the same way to the new crop of women presidential candidates.
1
I wonder how much of this is actual science and how much is beltway nonsense. in the 2018 election we learned that a lot of assumptions about voter preferences were just wrong. Clinton had the best consultants money could buy and followed all the rules, and was almost defeated by the emotional outsider Sanders and then actually defeated by the even more emotional Trump (and the electoral college). I hope at least one of the female candidates shows some raw compassion, but it looks like they are all very guarded in the tradition of Ms Clinton.
3
Not a single mention of Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard? She is already a declared presidential candidate. Like Obama, from Hawaii.
Ms. Gabbard is who I would like to see go the distance. Everyone else seems a stooge of the military-industrial complex and national security state. Happy to do the bidding of the intervention-first, regime changers, whether dressed up as messianic neo-Wilsonian "make the world safe for democracy, or human rights" or whatever is necessary to say to justify CIA gun-running to CIA funded rebels, if not outright invasions (regardless of Congressional declaration of war).
Among the others mentioned, Elizabeth Warren seems a little better on this issue but probably not as good as Bernie Sanders. Been sad to watch some supposedly liberal media outlets criticize Gabbard as "out-of-step" with today's Democratic Party on foreign policy. Too much negative partisanship. Trump wants to withdraw from Afghanistan and Syria so suddenly many Democrats reflexively becoming pro-forever war, just to stand in contrast to him. Hopefully won't be forced to do a write-in for Rand Paul.
1
I'll vote for any Democrat who is not taking big from corporations for speeches or any other activity. That was Clinton's problem, not her "lack of likeability."
1
Margaret Thatcher was a great woman, widely respected, rescued England from Socialized, state industries. I would have proudly voted for her. We'll have a woman lead this country soon enough, and when it happens it's no big deal, she'll be the best candidate, regardless of party.
2
Speaking of appearance, I find the visual representations of women politicians in thr media jarring. Look at the photos used for this article: Warren, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand hardly look stately and Harris is framed to look tiny. Maybe its intentional here, but compare the photos of male politicians used in everyday news coverage to those of women and the sexism is hard to miss.
11
Yes, bias exists around gender, as it does around race - but that is far from the whole story. A more nuanced perspective would recognise that there is a widely accepted (by society) “type” for President. Yes, he is male. Yes, until recently he was white. But he is also tall, able-bodied, heterosexual, married with children, adequately good-looking, of a certain age, and has a powerful voice and a firm handshake. How are those biases, none of which are remotely indicative of a candidate’s ability to do the job, any less significant than gender bias?
Mark my words, the US will have, as its President, a woman far sooner than it will have a short man. There is a bigger story here than the usual gender trope.
9
HRC's appeal or lack there of was not an issue of sexism, but one of her lacking in perceived trust and honesty. What played out on the front pages and on televised news was the ramblings of an arrogant, self serving individual who was quick to blame others for her mistakes and ambivalent to the plight of Middle American. The Avon Lady could have beaten Trump! People remembered Whitewater, Haitian Relief Scandal, paid speeches to Wall Street Banks, Iran Nuclear Deal, Benghazi, the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, deleted emails, her treatment of the victims of Bill's indiscretions. The sexism card does not play when HRC is involved. She still has not accepted she is wrong.
7
@George, not to mention vote in favor of Iraq War (in contrast to Democratic Party Senate colleagues such as Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone); and support, while Obama Secretary of State, for regime change intervention in Libya and Syria, without any declaration of war from Congress. And refusal to disavow support & endorsements of Bush-Cheney neo-cons such as Max Boot, etc.
3
This country over came it's egregious history of racial stereotyping to elect and reelect a black president including votes from alleged racist and misogynistic trump supporters.(talk about stereotyping.) Hillary earned her defeat with her waffling on TPP; proclamations of feministic empowerment while excusing Bills behaviors with enabling excuses that placed the blame on his accusers; poor judgment on international affairs; her politically tone deaf approach to health care reform when she was first lady;and an overemphasis on identiy politics while ignoring the plight of working class americans. She lost on merit and the current flock of female candidates have already proved their electable via their state elections. Every candidate male or female is subjected to trite assessments of personality quirks.
5
If you're voting for someone because of their likeability, the sound of their voice or how they wear clothes rather than their knowledge of issues facing the office for which they're running, then you are voting for class president, not the leader of a country.
We need some one who will heed the words of their advisors, has presented a fairly clear agenda for domestic AND foreign policy, who can throw together a coherent sentence.
The gender, sexuality or race of that individual is secondary to their ability to LEAD.
6
Respectfully, during the 2016 campaign Senator Clinton frequently defaulted to an odd, stentorian, 1960’s New England cadence that was ultimately distancing and un-relatable to many potential voters.
There was very little of President Obama’s soaring oration or Ronald Reagan’s inspirational “aw shucks” phrasing. Sure, not everyone can be MLK, Winston Churchill, or Golda Mier (fair enough) but Secretary Clinton’s delivery in front of large crowds often seemed like some sort of karaoke version of “Ask not what your country can do for you. . . “ that may have obscured her message.
It is not sexist or misogynist to suggest this (as a few pundits did at the time) because the *reason* I think Secretary Clinton embraced this tone had nothing to do with *gender* but rather a performative effort to embrace (or maybe heighten) the *historic* energy of each moment, as if for some future “CNN Special Report” retrospective on a historic campaign.
But not every single speech should have the cadence of the “We choose to go to the moon” speech or be delivered in. some. kind. of. odd. halting. Hyannis Port monotone. (Loudly, as if there were no microphone or public address system on site.)
This sadly had the unfortunate effect of making many important speeches sound like a Harvard commencement address, than a relatable or simple and resonant address that skeptical 2016 voters could remember and be inspired by. Sigh.
5
tRump’s management and employee relations styles are most definitely not the standards by which any presidential candidate should be judged. I know very little about Amy Kloubachar but leading the Senate in employee turnover is not a quality to be admired.
2
I have not heard anyone say Kamala Harris or Kristen Gillebrand are unelectable. I think they both have a good shot at the nomination this early in the race. Elizabeth Warren, not so much. It's not because she is "shrill" or any of the other adjectives this writer uses. It's because she isn't being honest about her declaration as a minority on job applications. Dishonesty and insincerity are her biggest problems. For Hillary Clinton, it was her sense of entitlement and her firm belief that rules just don't apply to her. (See rules governing the use of private emails for the public's business for just one example.)
1
I must admit to being perplexed by the utter stiffness of the Democratic candidates. Don’t any of them have hobbies or interests that are separate from the strict demands of the job they’re seeking? They’re asking for the power to blow up the world; I want to know more about them as “people.”
2
Maybe we should try a conservative Republican woman. If she wins easily, then we'll know why the voters are rejecting these Democrats.
7
Amy Klobuchar has it all: leadership, valor, smarts, courage, and charisma. She will be our first female president.
9
This article misses a critical nuance about political like-ability, which applies to both genders. It's not that people insist on voting for a candidate they find likable. They vote for candidates who make them like themselves.
5
True, but who wants to be like Trump? I guess this explains only a part of the voting behavior.
I voted for Ronald Reagan, both Bush presidents, and Trump. I also voted for Obama and Bill Clinton. I do not vote a straight party ticket or gender line in any race - local, state or national. I try to vote on the candidates' visions for every office they seek. I respect the candidates who ran and lost, and support the candidates who won, even if I did not vote for them. This is democracy.
In a perfect world, we would allow Independents or Undeclared party candidates to run without making them reach some signature/petition threshold. More than ever, our country needs voices of balance and reason. That is exceedingly rare among the two major parties today.
5
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I voted for HRC, primarily because I thought that it was important to vote against DJT.
Let’s be honest, HRC was not likable and few Americans remember themes from her campaign. As much as I hate to admit it, at least people remember “let’s build a wall”. HRC was a bad candidate and I hope that the Democratic Party does not make the same mistake twice. Also, consider that America might not be ready for a female president. Yes - there it is I said it. In our coastal/urban bubbles we might be ready, but please take time to travel and learn about the country we love so much.
Also, while I’m at it some female candidates are more likable than others. As an employee of a certain bank with a significant presence in Charlotte there is zero chance I’d consider voting for Elizabeth Warren. Truth speaking Americans including members of the financial services industry in our coastal/urban bubbles will admit to the same, even if their reasons end up being more trivial than mine.
4
While I'm in agreement with pretty much everything in Ms. Astor's column, it should be pointed out that if it weren't for the antique and manipulated Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would be president today.
18
If Mr. Trump’s government has done so wrong, why are democrats fearing a woman won’t beat him? And why do they think he’s going to run for office again?...maybe he hasn’t done so bad, has he?...
6
The word “stereotype” these days is little more than a (shrill) finger-wag pushing back at innate assumptions. Hilary Clinton was “shrill,” And largely unlikeable. I still voted for her. Mitt Romney looks like he couldn’t dance a hokey poker. It’s a true stereotype. Warren does indeed come off as scolding, punitive and petty. It will likely doom her in the election. Trump, for all his faults, is expansive. He knows you hate him and he doesn’t really care or just accepts it and kind of laughs it off. He doesn’t correct behavior. He isn’t there over your shoulder trying to browbeat/guilt you into a certain line of thinking.
It might just be Democratic women. Nikki Haley doesn’t come off like that, and though she was less qualified to be vp than I was, neither was Sarah Palin.
A lot of Democrats just come off like nebbishy social studies teachers who just read a book and can’t wait to remind you that 28 percent...
But, the truth is usually not found there.
7
Women have to get past being chagrined when these comments come along. Ignore them and move forward. Stay on the issue, remain calm, radiate assurance and don't raise your voice and scream back. They are just trying to get to you, they want you to be annoyed and react emotionally, which will prove their point, especially if your voice goes up. Imagine them in some comprimising situation and you can laugh internally while you move on. Be more professional, and take charge by leading. Know your facts, know your direction. Be confident. Leave them in your wake.
10
You are right, ignore the barking dogs.
1
Not for nothin’ but I’m not particularly enamored of Bernie. There’s no ‘thrill’ or any big likability there. I like Joe B, but not enough to get out there now to start campaigning. I’ve got no passion for him. I could go on. What you will not see in the NYT is an examination of their speaking styles or voice inflections as a barometer of electability.
8
Women are making great strides in politics and will contine to do so. They bring great balance and stability to politics. Women are tough, sensible, reasonable and they have great staying power. The very presence of women, especially strong and intelligent women, will balance out the excesses of power politics and the Old Boys Network, which must happen sooner or later in order to have progress, fairness and transparency in government. Women are necessary and valuable in our political system which is now male dominated. The changes they wiil bring are transformative and important. I support women in politics.
13
Tulsi Gabbard is one national female political figure who is not condemned as shrill or unlikable. This is because she is substantial and takes well articulated positions that most people support but that most politicians, including females like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Polosi, Feinstein, Waters etc. never mention, resist or dismiss outright. This is why they are ultimately unlikable.
1
I was just thinking that there were women heads of state in Asia in the sixties - Mrs. Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka in 1960 and Indira Gandhi in India in 1966. (In 1969, there was Golda Meir as Prime Minister of Israel). I don’t remember likeability being an issue. In the subcontinent, at least, it may be that the stratification is by class, rather than gender, so an educated woman of a certain class can be an authoritative figure. I don’t think dynasties have been particularly successful - one might argue the reverse, in the assassinations of Mrs. Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto, though the class business was definitely still a factor. You see it happening in America, with the nascent dynasties of the Clintons and even the Trumps — that sense that being of the political class trumps gender, thus giving a leg up to (potentially Chelsea Clinton, or Ivanka Trump, one day, god forbid). Anyway, grey haired ladies had their day! Though not in the west!
4
Clinton was aloof and unlikable to many on the left. Just because you disagree one woman is bad for a job doesn’t mean you don’t want a woman in that job.
14
Poppycock. My mother, who raised six kids in difficult circumstances, was one of the strongest, toughest and bravest people I have ever known.
I judge all candidates by their merits. I perked up when Senator Harris spoke movingly about the Sandy Hook victims, but wrote her off when she failed to recognize that universal background checks could not have prevented that tragedy. (The alleged perpetrator stole the guns from his mother.)
5
Biden/Harris, Biden/Beto, Biden/ Klobuchar.
These are all very winnable choices and we can't take any chances this time.
2
@biglefty
I remember people saying we had to vote for Clinton over Sanders because she was "winnable" and we couldn't take any chances. I remember that not working out too well.
7
@biglefty Biden/Warren.
1
I detest calling anyone shrill. But its meaning is simple: high pitched. If you add the clear preference for the taller candidate in most elections, you see a definite hurdle for women is really a bias among voters.
Likability and beer drinking partner is similar. Who do you want to meet in a bar... either attractive looking or friendly and extroverted. Here the bias women must overcome is to be taken seriously. Reagan and W were genuine idiots; they had only one idea, the free market good no matter what. But it worked, and is only dying now as we see what happens when we turn the government over to a businessman.
A woman will have the best chance to overcome these biases by having different core values, the opposite of greed is good, a message of putting the social good, the public health, and the global climate foremost. Being dominant, deep voiced, tall, will be less important. But being authentic about the importance of the greater good will be essential to convincing voters to support better funding for education, healthcare,and environmental protection. It will require more than just being likable.
2
TRump’s problem is not that he was a “businessman,” bit that he was a bad businessman. And a horrendous chief executive.
1
When the right woman decides to run for POTUS, the American people will elect her. Accusations of misogyny and sexism are overstated. Sure, it exists but so does a lot of the trashing of old white men lately. I'm an OWM, but I'm smart enough to vote for the right candidate.
8
Sure, another woman, not this one. Not a democrat woman, proclaiming that the future is female and border walls immoral. Not Gillibrand, not Harris and not Klobuchar.
We would be blessed if women like Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir passed our way again. But their successors won't be found in the democrat party.
10
Sen. Clinton made a point of pitching her voice down. "Shrill" is code for "emasculating" among men who feel their potency waning, and The Times should know as much.
11
No. Shrill means shrill. If Hillary were a man, she still would have lost.Not because she's a woman, but because she's unlikeable.
1
Shrill, unlikable, abrasive, provocative, and on and on do not even begin to describe the current occupant of the White House. How come these qualities didn't get in the way of him arriving there????? DUH?????
15
Poor, USA. Imagine a great politician such as Angela Merkel running for office in the retro-USA? Grow up, baby America.
11
As former Gov. Jerry Brown said to Maureen Dowd during an interview aired on C-Span, if a candidate isn't "likeable" in terms of public perception then he or she is likely to not be elected or re-elected. Bernie was likeable, but not in the way one might generally think. Politics has always been about authenticity, a huge part of likeability. To deny it or discount it would be a mistake and a formula for losing.
9
It's not fair to blame voters for the toxic attacks on women in the media. The press plays a huge role in deeming women unlikeable. Witness the reporter after reporter who needed to ask Hillary "Why are you so unlikeable."? Before she ran, she was one of the most popular women in the world. So much was made of her voice, her smiles, her laugh, her health, her email. Don't blame that on the voters. Mr. Trump must have chuckled with glee. He, by the way, had none of the qualities you say voters deem essential. "The qualities voters tend to expect from politicians — like strength, toughness and valor — are popularly associated with masculinity."
14
As a big fan of Sarah Palin, I always found it ironic when liberals would say they wanted "A woman, just not that woman" when she was running for VP. Why is it sexist when a conservative indicates dislike for a particular woman, but not when progressives do?
11
No liberal I know expressed any preference for any potential running mate of John McCain's. Not one. So I'm calling straw man.
7
I would vote for a woman without hesitation: how about Nicki Haley or Carly Fiorini. I would love to vote for one of those two. And yes, I would not vote for that particular woman: Clinton, Warren, Harris. How sexist is it to assume that a person who wouldn’t vote for the last three named is sexist? I would never vote for a woman just because she is a woman; I would vote for a woman because of her policies!
7
Fiorina would run the county like a business. Problem is, that business would be Fiorina's HP, a rolling disaster of Trumpian magnitude.
6
@Ann So instead of voting for failed business man Trump, you would vote for failed business woman Fiorini. The tone might be more sedate but the results would be pretty much the same.
PLEASE. Let's stop the gender and the "likeability" discussion. I don't care about a candidate's gender or whether or not I want to have a beer with him/her. I want someone who is able to do the job. My country's interests are more important than my personal interests.
8
@MarathonRunner. Even if you don’t care, likeability is one of the most important factors in winning. Many voters, especially in critical swing states, don’t do the reasearch. They vote from their gut like a popularity contest. John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary all lost on likeability in states they needed, despite the popular vote.
2
Brett Kavanaugh hearings anyone...?
2
I don't mind a barking dog too much if it says woof, woof, but it provokes instant irritability if the dog says yip-yip-yip.
There may be something about the higher-frequency pitch of many women's voices that may evoke a negative reaction for some people. And if a woman raises her normally soft voice to be heard, perhaps it strains the vocal cords and results in a less pleasant sound.
Is there a speech or hearing specialist in the house who can address the question?
3
Having actually watched a lot of the rallies from both sides, and taken the time to study and analyze positions and facts (probably hundreds of hours over 18 months) I think the article raises valid points, especially with Trump vs. Hillary.
He is a bigger and tougher looking male, who without reserve boasts about his best ever past and best ever future, strutting around soaking in the applause from the biggest rallies ever, and ranting about mostly macho testerone ideas ... BIGGEST weapons ever, BIGGEST wall ever, toughest negotiations ever, and now he's the hardest working President ever?
With no offense to Anne, Hillary does remind me a lot of my mother's mother. Visual and audio is extremely significant in things like music and arts, and now in this social media era ....
Sadly, I think that is what appealed to most of his 63 million voters, since they felt left out of the DC elite who dare take things slowly and logically, with facts and negotiations.
ESPECIALLY them upstarting women who should be back at home raising the kids and knitting and .... just like in Trump's ideal TV world, Andy of Mayberry.
3
Time for a double female ticket. Go with the best.
5
The Dems will run two campaigns this time.
Campaign 1 will be far left to get nominated in primaries. Campaign 2 will be center left once the primary is won.
3
Women won overwhelmingly in the 2018 midterm elections. This was historic and I believe sets a precedent for the future. The tide has turned. One reason Al Gore did not wipe out GWB in every state was because he was deemed not likeable enough, a stiff with no humor. Richard Nixon lost the debate to JFK, for those who watched on television, because he was not nearly as handsome or as self-possessed as JFK. Politics spares no one, except it seems Donald Trump.
8
It will be pivotal in 2020 if the majority of white women will again vote for Trump or if they will be willing to back a female Democrat.
4
Not shrill but nothing to hang on to, too forced and awkward, all three -- not a natural like Cortez. Perhaps a lesson or two from Cortez before they all hit the campaign trail.
3
There's nothing forced or awkward about Harris.
4
Um... duh. Sexism exists. No question. So does racism (but Obama was elected president not once, but twice). Now let us talk about who can win the election. Amy Klobuchar is the answer. As someone that has voted both sides of the aisle, please give us someone other than Kamala, booker, sanders, and ugh warren. Too far. AK is just right. Not too much either way. Just right in sensibility, sensitivity, strength. Whip smart. She can carry the Midwest. She can take an insult and respond with integrity and toughness. Wishing Amy all the best as she holds the best hope for our future.
9
@A person. Amy has a record of refusing to take a stance on important issues. Plus high staff turnover because they hate working for her. I prefer a someone who is willing take a stance on the important issues our day and fight the fight.
1
@Rain
Please show actual data. Not heresay
What a shame to read all this because it is true.
4
The Democrats will have to sort this out and decide which candidate they find the most "likable." Since they aren't voting in the Democratic primaries whether Republicans are sexist or not won't make any difference. So if a female candidate fails to be nominated due to sexism, it will be due to Democratic sexism.
And conservatives WILL support a female candidate. Maggie Thatcher continues to be very well regarded among conservatives to this day. If the Republicans could find a woman like her she would be a shoe-in for the nomination. (Sarah Palin doesn't qualify.)
3
Judging from her campaign appearances so far, I'd say that Kamala Harris transcends this discussion completely. On the debate stage against her, Trump might not even know what to do.
Or, try this: Successful Democratic candidates have had charisma, which is quite different from likability: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton. Who among the current group can match that? Beto does. And again, Kamala Harris.
@JEB
While I believe Beto has a genuine message which might appeal across party lines he has presentation issues. IMHO, of course.
His physical enthusiasm is all jerking and twisting and contorting like a bobble-headed Howdy Doody. At first I thought I was just enjoying an old time country revival camp meeting. Then, be it on late night television or in recorded campaign advertising, the contortions were simply annoying.
Can't imagine all that spastic energy sustained through a rigorous presidential campaign.
1
@JEB. Kamala Harris was just barely elected to Senate and now running for president. She has little to no experience in Congress or with governing for that matter. Too opportunistic for me. A president cannot get his or her objectives through Congress unless he or she knows how to play their game.
1
There is something lazy about applying all these same criticisms to these very qualified women.
That said, Gillibrand is rightly criticized as an opportunist and motivated too much by ambition. Hillary is and was shrill. Liz Warren is presidential, smart and well-informed, which is perhaps the reason she has been such a target of President Trump for such a long time.
3
I am from India (25 years in India and 25 in US), where there was a women Prime Minister. After assessing the citizens of US, there seems to be an inherent reluctance to elect a women President - a ‘women can never be good enough’ attitude. Women are amazing, they multi-task and run the home and career so successfully, they can run a company and a country with great success - they just need to be given a chance - by men and women.
20
Because superficial, trivial -and really- nonsensical factors are attached to political candidates, particularly those running for president, is it any wonder that palpably undeserving males such as Bush and Trump have occupied the office? Even Al Gore was mercilessly attacked for his mode of dressing, for God’s sake.
It’s really down to the media as to how they will run with gender stereotypes...regrettably, the same old playbook already seems to be front and center...so predictable and so pathetic.
3
Shrill and unlikeable pretty much covers a lot of those Fox News reporters with Jeanine Pirro leading the pack by a mile.
8
High offices have long been dominated by men and these men have their own style. The successful ones generally are not terribly combative. Rather, they tend to seek compromise and consensus, and express great anger only when there is no possibility of agreement. The emergent progressive women have come forward during the Trump administration, when anger is the rule. Plus, they tend to share anger toward perceived sexism.
Men have defined the role of power broker and most of the public favors what they are used to. Combative women will be accepted. But it will take time. And I don’t think this is about sexism. It is about conformity to what is expected. In time, women will create their own expectations and that will create the norm. This probably isn’t about sexism. It’s about approval of what voters are used to.
2
No candidate was more combative than Trump. No candidate acted as angry and encouraged anger in his audience than Trump. So much for being your theory.
9
It's unfair and unwise to continue to make excuses for Hillary Clinton's loss. The DNC leadership managed to alienate the people who were most interested in participating in free and fair elections by hand-selecting the candidate who just happened to have a fistful of cash to bail them out of their financial insolvency. As if that weren't enough, Clinton herself managed to further alienate those people by telling them (us) that she didn't need their votes to win anyway. I don't care if a candidate is shrill or abrasive, but from everything I saw, she did not have the intelligence to convincingly pretend to be either of those things.
8
I like all of Warren's policies, but I think the way she presents herself seriously lacks polish. Swing voters don't decide by policy, they pick according to impulse, an impression of the candidate. With that in mind, I think she should dress for the job she wants. Ditch the shapeless sweaters, tired stretch pants and scoop-neck black top, which are fine for the grocery store but bad for a campaign appearance. You have a few good jackets; get more of them. Get a voice coach to find depth and a more pleasant timbre. A slightly more sophisticated haircut and eyeglass frames would go a long way to bringing her presentation up a few notches. Yes, I will be called sexist but I am a woman and I think changing these details would help to make her more appealing to a wider range of voters. Image does matter; we live in the television/internet age.
4
This letter is a perfect example of the unconscious misogyny and double standard women face when running for office. The writer is unwittingly asking the candidate to be more like Sarah Palin type, missing the obvious point that being overly concerned about one’s appearance is sign of lack of strength and confidence. BTW, poor appearance didn’t seem to hurt Sanders or Trump- but they are men, right?
8
As a woman, I agree with the essence of your criticism, even if I'm not sure whether it entirely applies to Warren, who I am supporting. Women candidates or women in the spotlight, like news anchors and commentators, ignore this advice at their peril. Men are showing up in business suits and some of these women are showing up like they're headed to a picnic or nightclub. How do they expect to be taken as seriously? I thought Hilary's wardrobe during her first campaign was laughable. Sadly, she needed fashion tips from Palin. Yes, you should look professional, and in this case, presidential. But I wonder if Warren is trying to cultivate a more populist look given the political climate.
2
@James Osborne: Not "overly" concerned, just reasonably concerned with appearance. Amy Klobuchar dresses appropriately for a presidential candidate and seems to be the very embodiment of both strength and confidence. No need to emulate the awful SP!
It is so depressing to read this story, as a 63-year scientist who managed to thrive regardless.
How are we still talking about this in our country? With so many other countries having successful leaders who are women?
16
It’s not only the hard-core Gillette-rebuking cavemen who use this reductive and sexist rhetoric but also highly educated men who share these women’s world views and still chasten them or grumble to themselves (and anyone in earshot) for this assertiveness. The notions of masculine and feminine have always been bound to might versus influence, agency versus entreaty. These same tools loved the Enjoli ads.
1
Could it be that some people have genuine policy disagreements with the neoliberal women this article is about? Or must everything boil down to identity politics?
Many are so jaded by generation after generation of corrupt politicians, that it's difficult to accept the flawed candidates that keep presenting themselves. I want someone who would actually be good, not just less bad than the other person(s).
4
Is it up to the listener to change, or the presenter?There are many people who are good at giving presentations, even though public speaking does not come naturally to them. They are good at presentations because they worked hard at improving their public speaking, often via listening to critiques of their previous performances, watching videos of themselves to spot weaknesses, etc... Doesn't seem like too much to expect someone running for president to learn some to public speaking skills.
The United States is overdue to have a woman to be elected president, and I really believe it will happen in 2020. To be honest, the Electoral College vaulted Trump to the presidency, and look at how that's turned out! The early candidates, in my view, are women.
If 59 other countries can have women as their political leaders, among them: Germany, the UK, Israel, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Pakistan, Chile, Argentina, Portugal, Philippines, Peru, Norway, Iceland, Poland, Nicaragua, New Zealand...and many more...why not the USA? We're overdue.
4
@Silvio M
"59 other countries [have had] women as their political leaders"
That leaves 136 countries that have not. Playing a numbers game can backfire on you. As a principle, stick to supporting the most qualified candidate. If that candidate happens to be a woman, so be it.
1
How about sticking to reporting on the candidates’ platforms, their history, goals and records? We all know at this point that reporting and opinions have been sexist and biased against female politicians. I’m tired of this stupid smile salad being tossed over and over again. Tell us about their ideas and how they might implement them.
6
@Lleone. Likeability is a real issue in winning over swing voters. We can’t ignore and pretend that doesn’t exist. Definitely worth calling out so people can check their own biases.
1
@Rain I agree likeability is a factor in voters’ decisions. But I’m also tired of reading about the same “smile more” topic. I want more articles instead like today’s on Gillibrand— it covers her campaign, her voting record, her words, her ideas. It’s a substantive take. I’d like to read more coverage on all the candidates like that piece. That piece feels like equal treatment.
1
Will the Americans and their press ever catch up to other countries, where apparently women can run and win, without never-ending repetitive, misogynistic comments and coverage about how “shrill” women are?
Can we just stop giving any attention to this incredibly stupid trope?
4
Well, Hillary actually WAS abrasive and shrill. So it's accurate to say so.
For the others, we'll have to see what they do.
7
My father blamed Hillary for Bill's affair. He said she was not giving Bill what he needed intimately like she was supposed to do. He called her a "cold b-word" in the same sentence. That said all I needed to hear about his inner biases against her and I suspect many men feel the same about her and other ambitious women. It's okay if men make work, ambition, and power something they seek, but not women. I understand why people would be turned off by people with the desire money, fame, or power, but why are the critics so much nastier towards women than men. I can't help but feel like even among people who consider themselves feminists, or woke, but abhorred Hillary, that at least part of the enmity towards her was due to subconscious biases against women.
24
Perhaps it is no coincidence because Warren, Gillibrand and Harris are indeed abrasive and shrill. You will never hear Sen. Klobuckar described this way because she has neither of these attributes. Not everything is about gender politics.
9
Let's not forget how Trump insulted Carly Fiorina during a presidential debate in 2015.
"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next President? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on."
Ms. Fiorina was a fellow Republican and former CEO of Hewlett Packard. Imagine how the Misogynist-in-Chief will attack an accomplished Democratic woman candidate. It will be a daunting challenge for any of the current contenders to find the most effective way to respond to what will surely be far worst ugly taunts from the president. It's a tough tight rope to walk as a woman politician. I'd hate to be in their shoes.
14
The truth of the matter is.. If one of the current female candidates was "knockout gorgeous"- she would be leading in the early polls right now.
That isn't sexist .. science has proven this true countless times and there are thousands of articles to corroborate.
https://www.businessinsider.com/attractive-people-are-more-successful-2012-9
3
You just reminded me of how popular Sarah Palin was and as others have commented about a shrill voice -- Sarah's voice projected and was pleasant to the ear.
Your research is pretty thin to be accusing so many people of sexism.
8
Kirsten Gillibrand shrill? Not hardly.
@jahnay
She is definitely shrill. I saw her on camera during the Kavanaugh hearings. Someone caught her speaking to a bunch of people in the hallway of the Capitol building. She defined the word 'shrill'.
5
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus She was that loud? Her voice was that high above other people?
2
@William Smith
Shrill as the word implies when describing in pejorative terms the behavior of women. If you saw the video you would see for yourself.
The truth is, I always got the distinct impression that Hillary Clinton did not like ME. She appeared to consider voters a necessary evil in her quest for power and seemed to imply that if we didn’t support her obvious superiority then something was wrong with US. I did not get that impression from either Barack Obama or George W. Bush - both of whom I voted for. I did get that impression from both John Kerry and Mitt Romney - neither of whom I voted for. Charisma is not automatically bestowed on a certain gender or political party, and it is not essential to successful election or governing; but as far as I am concerned a smart candidate would cultivate it.....
21
@FNL
She is corrupt. That's why the constitution limits the terms of our elected officials, because it's human nature that people are corrupted by public office.
4
This artice skates right past the fact that it's the press that asks the questions! Nothing's more frustrating than a press corps that won't talk about its role in framing what people talk about. We keep hearing that Clinton and Trump were equally unlikable, but that isn't true. Clinton had high favorable ratings right before she announced. The seeds that she was "unlikable" were planted during the campaign amid daily questions by reporters claiming no one liked her.
17
Thanks for shining a light on this, and it isn't only about adjectives like "shrill" and "unlikeable". The mass of men are so ingrained with prejudice and condescension toward women that, given the desperate need to defeat the Republicans, I find myself looking for a male Democrat candidate who won't trigger that prejudice against women. And so many women of older generations have been conditioned to believe male superiority, we are part of the problem. Look at what is being made of Warren citing her Native American heritage. Warren has apologized (despite the fact she never claimed to be part of any tribe) and yet detractors are doing everything they can to needle her with that. They won't let it die from here to eternity. Did it ever occur to anyone that a woman who claims Native American as her heritage would be a good president for Native Americans? No. The same mistake over Hillary's emails being repeated again. Political enemies needle women to death on trivial issues and media attention turns the needles into daggers. Headline on the Daily Beast screams that Harris's California prosecution team wanted convicts kept in prison to do work for the state. Turns out she actually repudiated the argument. Klobacher was too tough on crime when she was a prosecutor. No suggestion that maybe she has learned something since then. ]I'm not sure I want a woman president, but I'm sure I want to judge on the merits of their policies and qualifications.
7
It’s too say this is because of a “mass of men”. Half of white women voted against Hilary Clinton. And almost all of the commentary on tv that I saw concerning what she wore came from women - high profile personalities.
There are some fair points in the article and your comment but women ironically own some of the continuing misogyny in out culture. Confront it everywhere and stop participating in your own subjugation.
7
@Chris I agree with you, as per my statement above that many women have been conditioned to accept male superiority. I do believe that an unprejudiced society would judge these decisions on the merits of the issues, and not according to gender whether male or female. But in this election, my view is that we are going to have tragedy heaped on tragedy if Trump gets elected again, so the candidate best able to beat him must be chosen and if that is a man, I will vote for him. This article is correct when it says "The qualities voters tend to expect from politicians — like strength, toughness and valor — are popularly associated with masculinity." Well, so much for popular expectations. Any of the women currently running could beat Reagan, two Bushes and Trump on those qualities. Without moral conscience there is no valor, and muscle or toughness is worthless if it isn't guided by intelligence and right spirit. But if we want a woman president it would be better if so many were not competing against each other, splitting the media focus and voters' sympathies four ways.
1
@Bryan Whooooaaa, Byran. Lots of beautiful, feminine women are feminists. Is that what you see in Warren, Harris, Klobuchar and Gillibrand? A war on beauty and power? Better look again. It's time we all recognized that women and men contain a spectrum of male and female qualities in varying degrees. Rough, angry women that you know probably have as much reason to be rough and angry as some men I know. They are simply rough, angry people. But not the legislators we are talking about. And yes, I think Warren, Harris, Gillibrand and Klobuchar have certain qualities that society has long, mistakenly equated with men. Start off with the strength to tell the truth about what's going on right now in government.
For a woman to win she will have to walk a very fine line. She'll need to be calm, firm, sometimes warm, but able to show outrage when the situation/subject demands. When questions are asked about her hair or her appearance or her family, she'll need to be able to calmly bring the discussion back to the topic quickly and without defensiveness. Her success will depend less on her experience and deep understanding and more on how she presents herself, unfortunately. She'll have to be unapologetic in her opinions, but able to listen well to others. I personally think its too much a balancing act- that is, exhausting. But, hey, women have always had to be twice as good to get half as far.
8
(1) Hillary Clinton LOST the total vote - more people voted ABC (Anyone But Clinton) than voted for her. She LOST the majority of the states She lost not because she was a woman but because
(a) She would change her views at the drop of a hat (or poll) as in "I am for the TTP" to "oh it polls badly in key states so now I'm against it". She didn't have principles - only short-term opportunism.
(b) She got to be Sec of State because she had gotten to be a Senator because she had slept with Bill Clinton and 'stood by her man' in 1996 . She 'stood by her man' because she wanted to coattail to power. She slept her way into those jobs & the nomination. Women really hate women who get ahead on their backs
2. Warren has always looked very good until its become clear that she has execrable judgment Claiming she was Native American on her bar registration & in the national law school directory based upon a Family LEGEND????? I'm a lawyer just 6 years younger. Both of us were trained to NEVER assert something as fact without evidence - verifiable evidence - not a story passed down. Only a fool thinks it didn't help her career
3 Kamela Harris - she is from California the cereal state - land of fruits, nuts & flakes & panders to special interests
4. Gillibrand - impossibly biased. Seems to think all men are rapists & women not responsible if they get drunk & fall into bed with someone & participate in sex
10
@AnnS wow! That’s all I have to say
9
@AnnS I guess it's Klobuchar for the win, then.
1
I find the female candidate you mentioned objectionable for one reason or another. But I don't have those problems with Tulsi Gabbard--whom the mainstream media have decided we should not consider. You can't object if people don't like certain people. It happens with men as well as women. Most male candidates are uninspiring. It's not surprising or bad that we expect different sort of behaviour from women than from men.
6
The entire piece rests on the assumption that the criticism these female candidates are incurring is inherently sexist. The reader is not allowed to evaluate for him or herself whether calling Hillary Clinton "shrill" is sexist or if she is just . . . shrill. While the word is more associated w/females, there are plenty of derogatory ways to describe a man's temperament. After all, one of the main criticisms of now Justice Kavanaugh was that the anger, bitterness, and partisanship he displayed made him unfit for SCOTUS. Men are frequently described as mean, anger-prone, aggressive, or words not fit to print in NYT.
Was Hillary qualified to be POTUS? Of course. Would she be of the best judgment and temperament to be a great leader? Maybe. Maybe not.
When it came to Obama, any "criticism" he received because of his skin color was obviously racist. 70 years ago, it might have been a legit question to ask if white subordinates would obey a black man. In the 21st Century, of course, there is no legit "issue" about his color. Thus, there was no debate that the whole birther thing was outright racist. They were reversing MLK's dream that content, not color, would be the measure of a man.
In the cases of Clinton, Warren, Harris, & Klobuchar, no reasonable person is suggesting that men wouldn't follow a woman or anything else so blatantly sexist. Instead, questions are simply being asked about what truly matters--what's in their heads & in their hearts.
5
Come on, New York Times. Don't make a mess of your coverage of female candidates....again. The problem with Hillary Clinton was not that she was a woman. It was that she was saddled with decades of self-service, questionable decisions, uninspired policies, a lack of bizazz and a deadly boring persona on stage. She was not "a woman" she was Hillary Clinton. People didn't overlook the smarmy nature or corrupt practices or immoral choices of many a male candidate, they noted wooden performances and hypocrisy and all manner of flaws. Women will be evaluated individually, not as "a woman." By simply assuming that people will look on candidates as "a woman" you are planting that idea in peoples' heads, when it wasn't previously present.
13
They don't like strong women...... unless they're barefoot and pregnant.
3
'...Mr. Trump won by roughly 20 percentage points.' What does that mean? I can't think of a way of measuring the vote count that ends up with Trump winning by '20 percentage paints'. Please explain.
3
@Luciana "In 2016, for instance, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump had poor favorability ratings; among voters who said they viewed both candidates negatively, Mr. Trump won by roughly 20 percentage points." I had to go back and reread it, too. :)
Only women engage apply the sexist criteria this article describes. Sure, some men are biased against women as candidates. But they just oppose all women candidates. Only women judge other women in the manner described in the article. And, I suspect there are a lot more women applying these sexist criteria than there are men who simply won't vote for any woman.
So, if women don't like the sexism described, then they have only women to blame for it.
1
It's time for women to be women. That is, themselves. Sexism isn't going away. Right wing jerks will find a reason to vote against reason and American progress. If they choose to base their bigotry on a woman's appearance or demeanor, there's nothing a woman or even a minister can do for them but let them stew in their own putrid juices. Truth, justice, and the American way is Democratic in 2020. More and more voters are deserting Republican attempts to hurt the middle class and the working class so that billionaires can benefit. Superman is now a woman.
5
Mostly I didn't support HRC because of her warmongering and support for Iraq, but also because I didn't know who she was because SHE didn't know who she was.
6
Title - How Sexism Plays Out
Lede - “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.”
Transition - “The influence and impact of these stereotypes and double standards are about to play out in uncharted territory...”
Acknowledgement - “How much sexism ultimately influences votes is a matter of debate.”
Men’s takeaway (defensive and whiny) - “I’M NOT SEXIST!”
Pièce de résistance - Maggie Astor apologizing to men for “the message that [you] got from the article” - even ones who didn’t read it! - rather than raking them over the coals.
Ms. Astor, I envy neither your task nor womanhood. Keep fighting the good fight!
P.S. “sexism” and “sexist” have become dirty words. We must change this.
4
@SM
"Pièce de résistance - Maggie Astor apologizing to men for “the message that [you] got from the article” - even ones who didn’t read it! - rather than raking them over the coals. "
Your hostility toward men is apparent from your statement. But the sexist criteria described in the article are almost always applied by women judging women candidates. Men seldom apply them, even men biased against women candidates. Men who are biased simply won't vote for any women, period. But they don't engage in the petty criticisms described in the article.
My guess is that there are a lot more women applying the sexist criteria described in this article than there are men who won't vote for women candidates.
1
@Errol I’m a man. I’m hostile to defensiveness and lack of critical thinking.
You raise an interesting point with who applies the double standards, but the article makes clear it’s men and women.
2
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has shown how to run for office as a woman. Have a program that stands out from everyone else’s and gets support from the majority in polls. Run a grassroots campaign with no money from big donors. Explain complex ideas so everyone can understand. Stand tough in the face of criticism, and be yourself in every situation. Fox New and the Republican Party don’t know how to attack her, and Michael Moore and Steve Bannon see AOC as a natural leader. Obama knew he would lose a percentage of votes because he was black, and the women candidates should move beyond their loss of some votes because they are women. The battles and stresses of campaigning will test and reveal the truth about Warren, Harris, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and the men, promising the most exciting battle of ideas since Lincoln-Douglas.
4
@Bruce Shigeura
AOC is a vote killer in my state. D Congressional candidate & I were talking about it - he wouldn't let her within 100 miles of his campaign or rallies.
She showed up to campaign for a statewide candidate and the guy's numbers dropped through the floor - and then he got clobbered in the election
Those of us in the REAL world aka 'not Berkley' think she is INSANE!
3
@AnnS
What is it about the Green New Deal of renewable energy and jobs in urban and rural neighborhoods, and taxing the rich to support it do you oppose?
1
Obama ran and got elected largely on the assumption we could all feel good about ourselves voting for a black man. What we got instead, was a Wall Street Trojan Horse, no different than any other member of the Ivy League mafia, with the same allegiances. That goes just as well for Eric Holder. Hillary ran using the same logic, but she was more machine than woman, someone who was running for president practically in-utero.
By all means, lets elect a woman, but not just for the sake of electing one, so we can all pat ourselves on the back for being so open-minded.
5
Women run in concrete shoes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/04/how-be-likable/?utm_term=.3c1f182da4fe
2
"Perhaps the most obvious way female candidates are judged differently is on their appearance: not only how “attractive” they are and how they dress..."
I agree, this is rationally a bizarre way to assess female politicians, but anyone else remember how the NYT ran a whole column about Nancy Pelosi's dress last week?
Come on people, let's focus on what counts!
7
I am so tired of this hypocrisy. It’s become taboo for a woman to say she dislikes a female candidate, for any reason. Hillary Clinton WAS abrasive during her presidential campaign. Elizabeth’s Warren IS shrill. I can say equally critical things about male candidates and no one will put me down for it. But God forbid I violate the sisterhood!
For the record, the main reason I have written off Elizabeth Warren is not her remarkably annoying voice or strange, awkward manner, but for the lack of common sense, discretion and grace she has shown in the recent past. She makes poor decisions. She takes the bait from bully Trump and spits it back at him. She succumbs to his game playing tactics. I don’t want someone like that in office.
9
" Shrill " is the polite term for the B word.
Seriously.
5
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Shrill-high-pitched; loud voice
No one called the high pitched, whiney voice, of Sarah Palin "shrill." Nor was she termed unlikable.
Maybe we should be looking at a political media bias instead.
6
@elle
Sarah Palin certainly took her lumps from media pundits and entertainers. Tina Fey still get mileage from her Palin satirical impressions (SNL Palin endorsed Trump). Fey was spot on down to Palin's distinct voice.
2
OK, there's sexism. There always was, there always will be. It's too bad, there's no excuse for it. But liberals are determined to take the wrong lesson from it. Sexism clearly played a part in Hillary's loss, probably the critical part.
But that doesn't mean the next candidate has to be woman. Maybe it means that at this time in history is not the time to put a woman at the top of the ticket. Especially against trxmp and the vast right wing and their billions. A woman at the top of the ticket will bring out all the whispering and frontal attacks all over again. A male at the top of the ticket will destroy that part of their playbook. But that's absolutely critical in defeating this incumbent and his "base." Don't give them that tool.
Sure, you want the best president you can get (the best candidates don't often make the best presidents, remember). But the first thing is to get rid of the Worst President Ever. trxmp men won't vote for a woman for president, and I wouldn't take my chances that they will.
Unfortunately, liberals are in love with the idea of a female president in general, and all female candidates in particular.
However, they are blinded by Hillary's loss and want what's "rightfully theirs", but blindness won't select the best *candidate* for the job. This time - This Time - the best chance for the working class/male/trxmp voter to swing away from their Saviour is a white male at the top of the ticket. This Time is no time for liberal symbols.
4
During the campaign, women candidates should reframe the adjectives, the disdain for them as candidates as their detractor's lack of respect and disdain for all women. Especially women seeking roles of great responsibility and power.
This simply indicates another reason why we need public financing of elections to eliminate millions of dollars spent solely for the purpose disparaging a candidate's character.
To go one step further, the campaign process should not allow character assignation as a form of campaigning.
1
While it's true that some of these things are sexist and stereotypical, the whole voice thing (shrill or whatever) is partially a function of acoustics and the way we hear pitch and color in the voice. Women often try to lower the pitch of their speech with robs them of expression and takes them into frye to avoid being shrill instead of learning how to speak with depth. It shouldn't matter.....but it does, so we should work on making certain our message is heard. We have something to say, and like it or not we need to speak in a way that people want to listen.
2
I find it interesting how Trump repeatedly calling Ted Cruz a "nasty guy" during the election cycle didn't make headlines, but him calling Hillary Clinton "nasty woman" did. Cruz was (and still is) widely viewed as an unlikable character, unsavory to the point of even his Republican colleagues in the Senate declining to endorse him. He was also the runner-up for the Republican nomination and temporarily beat Trump in the primaries.
Perhaps being called names is a barometer for the candidate's strength. It's probably better to be called "abrasive" than "low energy", as poor old Jeb might testify - and if the candidate stays on the message, if they are "strident" on the voters' behalf, public perception could change for the better despite the prejudices.
I maintain that Trump won the electorate despite his unlikability because he fully addressed (and exploited) the Midwest's desperation. I find it frustrating that NYT and many of its readers continue to undersell Clinton's failure in this endeavor. Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Michael Moore recognized the danger. Instead of dismissing the blue collars as "deplorables", or (to quote a previous comment I read here) people "throwing tantrums because the world doesn't revolve around them", a candidate should respect and listen to them as much as they do to minorities.
Democrats did exactly that in 2018 and won back the House. Perhaps staying on the message and dwelling less on the candidate's character will produce results.
3
Part of it is that people simply do not trust politicians across the board. It isn’t difficult to find a hypocritical stance or questionable professional links with the majority of politicians and that goes for men and women.
I disliked Hillary Clinton. I found her to be elitist and fake. Hanging around Hollywood celebrities and corporate elites did nothing but make her seem unrelatable. Her focus on identity politics and barely acknowledging the economic situation until Sanders changed the debate was noticed by many.
On the other hand, I find Warren to be genuine and is on point with the real issues. She isn’t carefully wording answers to avoid taking a stance and neither is Sanders. If it turned out she had a “charity” with donations from SA or scoffed when a common man tried to approach her my opinion would change quickly of course.
1
The beauty of this insidious type of sexism is that you can indulge it to your heart's content whilst convincing yourself and others that you aren't sexist.
6
Like many of the commentators here, unfortunately.
4
@Em Kaye. Not pretending anything here. I am a woman and I want a man at the top of the ticket. I want to get rid of Trump, not spend four more years whining about misogyny and Russians.
2
The comments as ‘likable’ women candidates began as soon as women started making serious runs for the presidency. In my book on Shirley Chisholm, who ran for the presidency in 1972, the sexist derision began with Walter Cronkite when he announced that Chisholm was “throwing her het, oops bonnet into the ring.” During her campaign she was called crazy, feisty. A little school marm. Even our civil rights icons said, it’s not that we don’t want a black woman to be president just not this one. Sounds just like what the media and other said about Clinton in 2008 and 2016, and has already begun with warden, Gillibrand, Harris and Klobuchar.
1
Very inspired article.
It makes me think about what Chancellor Angela Merkel had to go through about the way she dressed during her first campaign. It was terrible. Would we see such bias in how men present themselves?
Such behaviour is clearly not unique to the US!
1
Hillary Clinton had a husband that many democratic voters felt had betrayed all of his campaign promises (black, gay, feminist, and progressive voters). The two of them had said repeatedly over the years that they would govern together. "8 years of Bill and 8 years of Hill." — I paraphrase Mr. Clinton. He put her in charge of health care reform (she failed). She said on the campaign trail she would put him in charge of the economy. This was not a subtle link — her career was joined at the hip to his from the start. This might be commono in power couple careers but it doesn't wash in politics where it's called nepotism. People didn't want it. They didn't want the self-importance the two had always displayed together. The narcissism and entitlement. Yes Trump and many of his voters were misogynists but Hillary Clinton was not elected because of her own political record which happened to be shared with her husband from start to finish. She was not the victim of Misogyny in 2016, she was an exception in american politics a one off, a first lady who claimed credit for her husband's success and had him call in big favors from big players as payback so she could get her turn. It didn't work out because again —nepotism and broken promises.
14
@Arthur
Right on.
4
Perhaps they are perceived that way because they deserve it.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
7
@No
I'm most offended by Warren's repulsive, regressive ideas, not her shrillness, but when she flaps about onstage like a demented seagull, THAT'S entertainment!
3
This article is a bit of a discordance of logic when one remembers that just a couple of days ago the NYT, including at least two prominent women NYT pundits were calling Jeff Bezos a hero after he cheated on his wife. There's a good example of how men are automatically given a pass and extended all sorts of considerations just because they fit the "comfortable" mold of how a man is expected to act in society.
2
I defy anyone anywhere to call down-home, straight from-the-hip Amy Klobuchar “shrill”. (Besides “shrill” is a totally sexist, inexcusable, disgusting label.) Amy is as real as it gets. No pretense. She does not “perform” on stage. She just says it like it is. No faking. She’s someone you’d like to have a beer with, (heard that before?). She is a true, born and bred, hard worker. It’s in her genes. Holding her presidential announcement in a snow fall was flat out brilliant. She is someone to watch closely.
4
@Hortencia
She's also quite nasty with her employees. Call it "Minnesota Mean."
5
Anyone not aware this would happen again is a fool. The "I'd vote for a woman, just not THAT woman" was always a scam, the real meaning was, "I'm not going to vote for a woman!". But they couldn't say that without condemnation.
Hillary won the popular vote because 3 million more individuals were smart enough to see she was the superior candidate, she lost the election because of Russia, Bernie, and misogyny.
On Election Day, only two people could win, Hillary was the only choice, and she lost.
In 2020, we'll see if a woman can win at all.
2
@klm : Clinton lost because she ran a strategically flawed campaign - ceding “rust belt” states to Trump from the outset because she presumed that she’d never win votes there. Those states are heavy with electoral votes, and that’s what cost her the election (she also never set foot once in Wisconsin, a state with a strong progressive tradition where there was a grassroots effort to fight back against Scott Walker’s right-wing agenda - on which she could have capitalized.) Sure, Russia had a hand in it and there was plenty of sexism involved (including among women, whose votes she took for granted) but Clinton had the media on her side, massive amounts of cash, many experienced staff members and consultants, and a record of accomplishments to run on. However, she badly misread the mood of the electorate, running as an insider in a year when outsiders (Trump and Sanders) were appealing to masses of voters. The race was hers to lose - and she did.
1
The mainstream media, now in full pro-Trump propaganda mode (watch for tonight's wall to wall coverage of his campaign rally in El Paso all free of charge), is going to have a tough time playing the "Hillary" card the way they did in 2016.
In 2016 there were 15 men and one woman in the GOP primaries. It was easy for Trump to get away with name calling and unfounded accusations because he was mostly picking on other men.
But in 2020, as this article indicates, there may be as many as 6 women in the Democratic primaries, possibly more. How will the MSM report on Trump's constant and continued insults towards a majority female Democratic primary (among serious contenders)?
We know from history that Trump has no tolerance for insults from women and so far the current crop of female candidates (and Nancy Pelosi, also) have been masterful in hitting Trump where it hurts while avoiding the school yard taunts and name calling.
But the big question is how far will the media go in doing Trump's dirty work for him.
3
@Paul
"The mainstream media, now in full pro-Trump propaganda mode"
Huh? I agree that their free coverage of him is excessive but Trump could only dream of the mainstream media being in his camp, Fox being the exception.
1
Why in an article about sexism in campaigning are all the advertisements featuring scantily clad women?
1
@Jennifer Masterson
You might try purging your browser cache. I'm using Microsoft Edge and there is no advertising featuring scantily clad women.
Picking up on my prior internet interests the browser does feature advertisements for home office furniture, Boeing aviation, and the upcoming American Alliance of Football schedule with ticket prices.
I'm pretty sure NYT is innocent and not serving those images to your browser.
In 2015 and 2016, there was neither enough talk about the candidates' histories, votes, and positions, nor significant, in-depth debate among both liberal and conservative economists and statisticians about the feasibility of those positions. In the absence, we had articles about Hillary's shrillness and pantsuits, Bernie's hair, and Donald's latest outrageous tweet. We know how that election turned out.
I don't dispute what the author says --that there is sexism in some quarters. But this completely established fact is neither "new" nor news. Once again an opportunity to choose between candidates based on the merits is ignored in favor of an enticing headline and not much else. Do the "examples" of sexist criticism do anything to help voters decide how to vote? Do we "unremember" the "sexist" criticisms once we stop reading?
1
So, why did you use unflattering photos of some of them? Like there aren’t thousands to choose from? Really really awful especially given the story.
2
Any candidate should get some objective advoce as to how he/she comes across, in my view. As a speech pathologist, I was distracted by Al Gore's speech - monotone - as well as his rather mechanical-seeming mannerisms. I (probably others) wrote to his campaign offering my services for free, but never heard back.
If a candidate is getting feedback as to distractions of any sort based on "delivery", it just makes sense to get some vocal training. It needs to be about the message.
2
@Ellen
Maybe you could offer your services as a speech pathologist to those public-radio guest commentators (mostly female, sorry) who haven't yet addressed their grating, annoying vocal creak. Seriously, I have to change the channel sometimes. How did this happen? Women weren't creaking 15-20 years ago, were they? Do they not hear themselves doing it?
4
@Ed L.
That croak (vocal fry) is an affectation, kind of like Valley Girl- speak. The women who use it should be quietly and gently spoken to by their friends (in my opinion) but - doesn't seem to have happened so far. I hear it now and then on NPR. It does seem slightly infectious, a fad that will hopefully go away one of these days, with any luck.
3
@Ellen
Imagine Ingrid Bergman croaking -- Kim Kardashian-like -- "Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake."
1
It may not be "fair" that women tend to have higher-pitched voices than men, resulting in a "shrill" effect when they yell, and it may not be "fair" that politicians often have to yell in order to appear confident and assertive, but that's politics, and politics isn't fair. I personally don't enjoy listening to loud people, male or female, but a loud and shrill female is unbearable, especially if she's wrong.
5
Well, there is some truth to the old adage that Americans expect women to rather raise families than earn bread or fight wars.
To me, the issue here is not so much about whether women are capable - but it goes to the very founding of our Republic.
George Washington was first in war and first in peace - and therefore, first in hearts of us all.
We were born as a result of a victory in a war over then - a mighty empire.
For many of us - raised with our history - a Commander in Chief - aka POTUS - has always been portrayed as a man. It's an image etched in minds of all children.
As an unrivaled military power - we still see a Commander in Chief as a man. It's ok for a governor to be a woman because a governor has never been called a Commander.
In Britain - tradition of having a Queen goes back many years. Queen Victoria - was one formidable woman - who expanded her realm way beyond any could have imagined. Brits accustomed to a Queen - have therefore had formidable female prime ministers.
Heck, even Chile - in South America where men are admittedly more chauvinistic elected a female. Or for that matter - Argentina.
I therefore say that our Founding Father - George Washington - skewed the view of a man being POTUS.
And I dare say - it will be repeated in 2020.
I don't know why this is, and I don't understand it, i like women, but for some reason I can't stand Warren. I wouldn't want to vote for any of them, and i have wanted to see our country headed by a female president, but they all rub me the wrong way especially Warren. She has changed her appearance to look more drab, poor, and masculine???? Sorry to say it's Biden for me and that may be because i think he has the best chance of beating Trump and we sure as heck need that to happen. Whatever it is, it seems I have been struck by lightening with womantitus. Ugh!
1
@Nightwood I won’t vote for any of the women in the primary. I would like to see Amy Klobacher as VP, but possibly the more I get to know about her that could change.
The women don’t have to worry much about my vote since I live in Pa. Our primary is the third week of April, by which time the candidate will have been chosen. Swing state, 21 electoral votes, but we basically have nothing to say about the candidate.
1
I am unbiasied. I dislike all the currrent Democrat candidates, female and male. They're all light weight upstarts.
Now if either party could send forth a candidate with the experience and savvy of an Elizabeth Dole, my interest might suddenly bound and leap over the 'likeability' hurdle. Too bad Dole is aged 82 years old or so.
3
People's actions reflect how people view them.
1
Right. And no one ever called Donald Trump unlikable. He is always referred to as “chivalrous” and “gentlemanly” - it’s so clear he has been accorded so much deference because of his gender. Now that I think about it, I’ve rarely heard an unflattering word about the man.
Honestly, are there any journalists at the NYT who can view reality other than through the distorting prisms or gender, race and sexuality?
If Warren, Harris, Clinton, Gillibrand, etc. were so hobbled by sexism then how did they become some of the most powerful Senators in our country in the first place?
Can we please return to actual journalism instead of constant PC agendizing?
5
Some Americans seem to want to be entertained by our gov't and like the idea of a clueless clown who is abrasive, shrill and skating the law with both middle fingers out to the majority of this country. And they have the nerve to call someone else abrasive, shrill or unlikable? These Americans are not dealing with a full deck. Why do we pay them any mind? Write an article on how dangerous, reckless, stupid and irresponsible it is to elect leaders based on likability. We should have gotten over that during the Bush years. Policies are what matter. Integrity is what matters. Someone you can trust matters. The media is going to have to spell out their policies day and night and compare it to Trump's, if you want these people to 'get it.'
4
I'm absolutely amazed, and amused, that mainly republicans and many other men, in general, are terrified and scared of women in public office.
We have a sexual predator in the White House and two sexual predators on the Supreme Court, but, I guess that's alright; they're men.
Funny, but sad.
8
You think Trump is likable?
His personality (anger, calling people names, lying, cheating, stiffing people of money he owes, not very smart, cheats on his wives) is very unlikable and his ethics horrible.
7
What’s the male equivalent of shrill? Donald Trump.
8
@Catherine Schuler My friend travels a lot to South America. There, he said, women still like to be women. We could use some of them here
@Catherine Schuler I wouldn’t know about that because as soon as his face appears I immediately mute the sound.
2
One big problem with the article's logic: Hillary won the popular vote. Ergo, the country was not only ready for a woman but was also ready for THAT woman, unlikable or not, mendacious or not.
6
More people voted against her than for her. She won a plurality, not a majority. The only majority vote was in the Electoral College, by the way , a big reason James Madison and the guys created it.
It's definitely more difficult for women to sound as authoritative as men when, on average, they have a higher pitch. But to me substance more than makes up for it. My favorite congressperson right now is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and she is routinely criticized in sexist terms (bimbo, lightweight, people refer to her as "honey"). But when you take the time to listen to her you realize she is one of the most impressive and substantial politicians to emerge in generations, a true historic figure in the making. And her voice is very high pitched, almost squeaky at times. So my advice is don't worry about your voice, worry about your policies and what you stand for. Your voice emerges from your ideas.
4
Outside the political world, men and women are judged differently. And men are more frequently deemed harsh and unpleasant. But in roles where men have dominated, the standards are different.
In sportscasting, for instance, mutual criticism among the announcers and sharp wit are favored, which is why Charles Barkley is at or near the top. Doris Burke knows everything about basketball and is liked and respected by coaches and players. But she doesn’t exhibit much humor and is much less popular with listeners than is Barkley.
What’s at work here is a job whose norms have long been set by men and where many new women on the scene break from expectations and preferences. You can call the negative reaction sexism. But there are women who do it like the best men do and are well received. I’d say that men have defined the role and the new women who do the job like Barkley are judged favorably . I don’t think it’s about gender. It’s about doing the job the way listeners prefer it be done.
There is a close analogy to politics. And I am quite certain that the new women on the scene will change expectations and how women are viewed. But that isn’t going to happen overnight. Women who conform will do better at first. It takes time for the electorate to accept new norms. Women who choose a different path are judged not so much by their gender as by their path. And that is working against them.
Let me just throw this out. We live in the U.S.A. in the early part of the 21st century. It is what it is. Shrill women make unattractive candidates. This is true of women on the right, and on the left.
Now, two questions. Ask yourself: how do we get white, middle-class voters in the rust belt to vote Democratic? Do you want to make a noble statement on the subject of sexism by having a left-wing woman as the Democratic candidate, or do you want to get rid of Trump in 2020? You cannot do both. It is what it is.
1
Well
Sorry, in my opinion Warren and Harris are unlikeable.
More importantly, would they make a good or great presidents?
Who knows?
I still wouldn't like them but I'd get past it and might respect them.
We'll see.
Shall we also add a swimsuit competition category for female presidential candidates? Maybe ask them about their dream date?
Perhaps, after that, we can spare a moment to focus on their policies.
5
@citybumpkin
I can't think of a single politician I'd like to see in a swimsuit. They don't call politics "show business for ugly people" for nothing.
Its interesting, I thought Kerry, Gore and Hillary all lost cause of their personalities. They weren't cool and Democrats want cool. I don't find Harris, Abrams or Gillebrand as shrill, although Gillebrand is to much of a chameleon for me. Warren has some great ideas, I do think of her as shrill, she won't be elected. But as secretary of the treasury she'd be great. My point is having a warm personality that appeals to people can come in any package. Unfortunately Hillary who I voted for didn't have it. That doesn't mean that Harris and Abrams don't or that Rahm Emanual does.
(Admittedly, these comments are hetero-normative.) One of the problems Mrs. Clinton faced was the double standard regarding heterosexual infidelity. For the man who "strays" there is often the question, "did his wife withhold sex, was she "taking care of herself" (euphemism for gaining weight). A woman who "strays" is often dismissed immediately as promiscuous. Some of this occurs in discourse, some in the voices in our heads, some are subconscious. Men and women see a woman who has a lot of sex entirely negatively. On the other hand, a man who does so may be seen as sexy or manly by women and nearly entirely, a hero by other men. These baseline beliefs and bias are a tightrope for a female candidate trying to be, "likable."
- S
I would like reporters to ask opinioneers to give an example of shrillness, etc etc. Too often the amplifying of sheer ignorance by the press itself becomes some kind of unquestioned "proof".
Clinton was a prime example of the press just passing along opinion without ever giving readers or listeners the chance to know if the opinion was based in anything or just blabber.
4
This should come as a surprise to no one.
One of the most efficient ways to marginalize Women's voices is to categorize them as being as "shrill", attack their physical appearances and wardrobes by keeping them under constant scrutiny -- And if they have one ounce of experience, intelligence, and integrity, categorized them as being "abrasive", "harpies" and in one way or the other, "threatening".
Any look at the recent attacks on Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Stacy Abrams, Kirstin Gillebrand, Kamala Harris, and every voice woman's voice in the political arena that's seen as making waves by demanding; Equal Rights, Equal Pay, and Reproductive Oversight is proof enough that the male establishment is well aware the clock is ticking until the 2020 elections...And it's about time.
TICK-TOCK, TICK-TOCK...
4
This attempted apologia for the Clinton disaster of 2016 is lacking in both evidence and sound logic.
Of course any declared presidential candidate comes under sharp scrutiny and rhetorical fire, that's part of politics. And for so many Democratic members of Congress to now, so far ahead of the 2020 election, to be diverting urgent attention from reining in (if not removing) the disastrous "president" is in and of itself grounds for serious critique.
But Warren, Gillibrand, Harris and Klobuchar did not ride their husbands' coattails to power. While in Congress they have done nothing as outrageous as rubberstamp the gigantic folly of invading and occupying Iraq for no good reason. They are not being widely denounced as arrogant, entitled, deceitful or opportunistic.
Indulging the presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton was a misstep in a class of its own, committed by the Democratic Party establishment and the mainstream "liberal press," including the New York Times. No matter how many sleight of hand columns are run trying to deny this blunder, there is actually no credible justification for it.
3
Ok , I read all the comments . So who’s like-able ? Certainly not Gellibrand. I’ll NEVER forgive her for leading the Salem witch hunt against Al Franken . He said censure me , investigate me , he apologized . Where does she get off pushing him out . She’s a phony . I can’t stand her .
She’s not like-able because of what she did , not her personality traits necessarily.
9
Wholeheartedly concur regarding your comments on Gillebrand. I like Harris.
I hated the way Hillary Clinton handled her husband’s infidelities and I disliked her voice. I found it much easier to blame the latter - when talking to my co-Democrats.
Reading the comments, poor Kirsten Gillibrand/Hildebrand/Hillebrand/Gillibrant's first problem is her name is just too gosh-darned hard to remember. I would advise Ms. Gillibrand to rearrange that I and R in her first name, too.
1
Are you serious? Are you suggesting that men in politics don't get fried/skewered/sliced and diced for their way of talking, their looks or their behavior? Please, what is a person thinks Hillary Clinton is shrill? What if they think Elizabeth Warren is sharpie-lioke? So what?
Ok, I didn't coin this phrase, but "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Politics is a contact sport. It's rough. And if some women ca n't handle it, there are many other occupations open.
2
This is all true, but let's never forget -- HILLARY won the popular vote and without cheating and help from Russia, would in fact be our president.
8
Getting a plurality is not winning the vote. More people voted against her than for her.
It seems reasonable to deduce that these women who are hopeful to become a candidate have made it this far with the personalities they show up with. So why change? Because the audience is broader and they must exercise Emotional Intelligence skills to really tap into the general public.
I would visit the places where you can get a glimpse of folks you don't generally live among. Take notes, there is a lot to see.
In fact, the irony is that this is what women are good at with their built-in skills of scanning the environment to figure out how to juggle and care-take what comes your way.
1
While some voters have gender bias, I think it's less of a factor in overall voting choices than the article suggests. Very personal, subjective definitions of likability are one of many influences. Partisan affiliation is another: unfortunately weighted excessively by too many Americans. We need good ideas, competent individuals, and competent party leaders, not ideological purity alone. Anyway, there is subjective likability, partisan affiliation, and also experience. In the past it's been more common for Presidential candidates to have significant executive experience, running a large organization, government agency, or state government, e.g being a state Governor. Someone with demonstrated executive competence has a lot of credibility, but none of the Democratic hopefuls have this kind of experience, nor the Republican incumbent, they are all lacking. The odds are low that anyone, male or female, can be an effective President without it somewhere in their background. So far most choices for 2020 President are all either unproven or proven incompetent in this area. That means poor options. Possibly voters will choose from among those for poor or even biased reasons. But when none are well qualified for the job, it's hard to complain too much about how voters select from bad options. Also, it's ludicrous that we're seriously considering 2020 candidates nearly 2 years before the election, when many have other government jobs. US elections are way too long.
4
Amy Klobuchar seems grounded and strong to me. Warren, Harris and Gillibrand do seem to base their stance more on antagonism, which is not appealing to me. Marianne Williamson is strong and passionate, without seeming negative.
You Americans need to stop obsessing over the gender (or the race) of your candidates. Once you stop, it is likely that the right person will succeed in becoming president.
Angela Merkel was elected Chancellor of Germany for her beliefs NOT for her gender. Marine Le Pen did not become President of France for her beliefs, NOT because of her gender.
If you want a true democracy, you must stop dividing people by gender or by race.
5
Every time I read an article in the NYT about how tough it is for women to rise to the top I can't help but cringe. I cringe because I remember 2008, when the NYT had the chance to endorse a woman for president but chose not to. At the end of the day it is of course the voters, not the editorial endorsements, who choose our presidents. But with its endorsement in 2008 the NYT made it abundantly clear what the pecking order is. And the most qualified candidate in that race, a woman, was *not* at the top.
@Themis In 2008 the NYT did endorse Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primaries. Check your facts and you will see that they did.
3
We voted for Hillary and we donated to her campaign...there just wasn't any other choice. But we talked about how we did so without any fervor or passion. Sure, 'shrill' and 'nails across a blackboard' were mentioned by both us and I think they have some meaning. We defended her history because she has done a lot for the country and the Republican smear campaign was unfair and untrue. We want a woman candidate. We want one that speaks truth to the issues and is personable. We don't want to be harangued or demagogued. We'll know it when we know it. I think terms like abrasive and shrill have currency with respect to both men and women.
1
Please, everyone who denies that sexism had anything to do with Clinton's defeat, try a little experiment: For the next few months, open your ears to the phrase "I just don't like her" or any variation of same with respect to the female candidates - especially from folks who agree with a woman on issues, but can't articulate why they just can't get on board. I promise you, you'll start hearing it all the time. And maybe, just maybe, you'll begin to see the problem.
9
It’s great to see a lot of women putting their hats in the ring for the presidency, but sadly I think sexism is too insidious and entrenched for any of them to win. If the Dems really want to beat Trump in 2020, and that should be their priority, I reckon they need a man. It’ll just prevent the campaign from being dominated by sexist comments and cheap shots, from being superficial and all about appearance rather than about substance. The electorate knows what Trump is and what he thinks of women and they don’t care. Trump didn’t win the last election, Hillary lost.
2
Some people don't want to vote for a woman no matter who she is, but they had better get over it and just pull the lever for her. Because after what happened in 2016 I'm not voting for a man again until after a woman has served two successful terms in the White House. Call that identity politics or whatever you want, but I want gender equality in this country -- now, and if you don't nominate a woman -- at the head of the ticket -- you'll be on your own. This is the 21st century and I'm not waiting anymore. Put sexism aside, cast your ballot for her, and let's get past this for once and for all.
2
@Joe. That thinking got us Trump.
There are female candidates like Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, woman who exude AUTHENTIC toughness and the necessary stoicism to lead. Then there are candidates like Hillary Clinton, Liz Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris, women who strike this voter at least as fake, inauthentic power/attention seekers. Perhaps it's because Thatcher and Merkel grew up in countries devastated by war so that being frivolous and inauthentic was a luxury they could never afford. Whatever the case, no one would ascribe the title "Iron Lady" to any of those American women.
1
Well, there is some truth to the old adage that Americans expect women to rather raise families than earn bread or fight wars.
To me, the issue here is not so much about whether women are capable - but it goes to the very founding of our Republic.
George Washington was first in war and first in peace - and therefore, first in hearts of us all.
We were born as a result of a victory in a war over then - a mighty empire.
For many of us - raised with our history - a Commander in Chief - aka POTUS - has always been portrayed as a man. It's an image etched in minds of all children.
As an unrivaled military power - we still see a Commander in Chief as a man. It's ok for a governor to be a woman because a governor has never been called a Commander.
In Britain - tradition of having a Queen goes back many years. Queen Victoria - was one formidable woman - who expanded her realm way beyond any could have imagined. Brits accustomed to a Queen - have therefore had formidable female prime ministers.
Heck, even Chile - in South America where men are admittedly more chauvinistic elected a female. Or for that matter - Argentina.
I therefore say that our Founding Father - George Washington - skewed the view of a man being POTUS.
And I dare say - it will be repeated in 2020.
I think Hillary Clinton lost because she referred to a large part of the electorate as a 'basket of deplorables' (Mitch Romney lost a nomination due to a similar blunder). She then spent August after receiving the nomination fundraising on Wall Street rather than campaigning in the rust belt states among those she deplores. Why ? I think because the Clintons identify with a highly educated global elite who are indifferent to much of the US population. Her husband masked this well, but had as much to do with globalization as any president. It was the people who have suffered from globalization in the rust belt who swung the election. Her immense policy knowledge and competence couldn't make up for her lack of empathy for the un- and poorly educated, and unfortunately we have a lot of them in the US.
She didn't seem shrill to me, nor does Warren, but I didn't find Howard Dean's "shriek" offensive either. It ended his bid for nomination in an earlier election.
As has been pointed out before, she won California by more votes than she won the popular vote. This doesn't mean that the votes in California (or NY, or Texas, or Florida) count less, it means the electoral college did what it was designed to do: It keeps large population states from dominating the politics of the entire country.
Clinton ran a poor campaign. Her de facto slogan 'It's my turn', was offensive. Now we have a dangerous buffoon as president. I think we can blame our failing, underfunded education system.
4
Alan, well stated, but not sure how you came up to the educational system being the culprit - unless narcissism is one of its outcomes. What tends to cause a lot of ire in me, is this sense of entitlement that many Americans have, the “you deserve it”, the “world is your oyster” type thinking. Clinton couldn’t see the forest for the trees in part by over inflated sense of self and accomplishments to date.
1
I often wonder how much of the male/female divide is due primarily to incessantly poor reporting rather than any real bias. All the world around we have had female Prime Ministers, from European, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, to the Caribbean. The male/female dynamics in some of these countries are far worse than anything you would see or experience in the US.
Are voters really not voting for female candidates because women are portrayed as "abrasive and shrill"? Seriously? Give voters more credit than that.
2
Elections are always about likability. It's isn't always about sexism. In fact, it's sexist to pretend otherwise. Qualifications are secondary. It's more important to to understand why seemingly normal people could vote for a creature like Trumpy over someone like Secretary Clinton. She is likable and supremely qualified. Those that felt she is 'shrill' wouldn't have voted for her if she had a voice like James Earl Jones. In fact, they'd never have voted for a non-lunatic anyway.
3
To misogynists all women are shrill and abrasive. Those men who are now criticizing all those ambitious Democratic women who have declared their intention to run for the presidency are really afraid that their own "manhood" may be in jeopardy by strong women. To tell the Truth, those men who worked so hard to destroy Hillary Clinton were defending their manhood and so were so many of those who voted against Hillary. They hated her because she was a strong woman.
5
If you want to eliminate the gender double standard in American politics get rid of your Christian religion. That is the basis for discrimination against women as political leaders. The Bible says... a woman's place is in the home, a woman must obey her husband, a woman was created from man's rib, etc, etc.
The NYT recently ran an article about the search for the original document of a woman's" Declaration of Sentiments". Most of the people mentioned in the article, the historical women responsible for its creation, were Unitarians or were closely associated with the Unitarian church. Even Obama's grandmother was Unitarian.
3
As an Independent voter who finds Mt. Trump disgusting, I also had problems with Ms. Clinton, but not along the lines of abrasive, shrill, or unlikable. More about exorbitant "speaking fees" from Wall Street companies, and major campaign donations from the wife of Marc Rich, a fugitive seeking a pardon from her presidential husband. And getting it. I recall those being describes as "bad optics", but I see them as a lack of ethics. And BTW, I did vote for a woman last time whose positions I agreed with.
2
What all names has Trump been called? Has it come in the way of him becoming president? They said this even if Jesus(and it may have been even true). One may need the thickest skinned pachyderm for the coming election.
While it is undeniable that sexism plays a role, it is important that we not forget that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million.
17
@MSL - NY
That number keeps going up with each telling.
She got a plurality. More people voted against her than for her. Keep repeating that 3 million and the algebra does not change.
@Michael Blazin - I stand corrected. She received almost 3 million votes more than Trump - 48% of the popular vote while he received 46%.
Or, perhaps the women candidates discussed in this article, as human beings and as politicians, each have unlikeable qualities.
4
Markell,Ruth Ginsberg,Meir,Queen Elizabeth,etc......the women that really do not care about how others perceive them. They are who they are. Take me or leave me. Why do we market these candidates to death. It destroys their opinions,what they believe in,who they are and what they will do when elected.To much information creates political theartre of no consequence.
I do think a lot of female candidates make the mistake of trying to appear more masculine than they are, and in doing so, tend to seem somewhat disingenuous. I think a more succesful strategy for females would be about embracing their femininity, but very few seem to want to do that. AOC does that very well, and people tend to find her real, bc you know she isn't trying to be something that she is not, by flexing some faux-masculinity. Women aren't going to out toxic-masculinity males, but they can beat them in other ways. I think men tend to be more sympathetic to a woman who is emotionally invested in morality than a man. Most people have a more favorable opinion of their mothers than their fathers. So a woman who can play to that angle I think would be well-served, but a woman who did what Clinton did--and does everything to hide the inherently advantageous qualities that femininity could offer, are short-sighted and are simply using an excuse for really bad messaging, and come across as really difficult to trust and therefore like.
I would say the least likeable politician is probably Ted Cruz, precisely because he does not seem genuine, and made Beto O'Rourke look unbelievably genuine just by association. It's not that women are inherently unlikeable, but that women who attempt to act like a male does tends not to seem real or honest, and ultimate end up having the same issues as Ted Cruz.
2
@nickgregor
What if women are naturally ambitious and assertive, are accomplished in fields other than motherhood, are good leaders, and have interesting ideas about the important issues that face the country? What if they are not trying to be "faux masculine." but you just define ambition, assertiveness, and leadership as masculine and any woman who displays these qualities as dishonest?
You want women candidates to be more emotional? To be more moral? More feminine? More maternal? (Because, you know, everyone loves their mother and longs for more opportunity for her to run his/her life?)
I strongly suggest to stop asking women to live up to your sexist fantasies and learn to evaluate their accomplishments, ideas, and qualifications for the job.
1
Democrats, quit with the sites and sounds. Go for reason, intelligence, thought, strength, education, environment, natural resources, healthcare, the earth, wages, housing, allies. Let's find out who has time for us, cares for us, works for us, chooses well for us.
3
[[In the words of her detractors during the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton was abrasive and shrill. She was aloof. She was unlikable.]]
Well...she WAS shrill. It's unfortunate that the moniker (not Monica) "Shrillary" rhymes with her first name, but when she got going, her voice was worse than nails on a chalkboard.
But, on the other hand, I can't listen to many (or any) politicians for very long and the obsequious tone of most NPR personalities also drives me up a wall.
And she was (is) aloof. That's not something detractors made up. She's wonky not warm.
The irony, of course, is that she thinks the best way to "reach" people is to scream louder. (See problem #1.)
And, she IS unlikable because she is untrustworthy. (I know, I know...Donald Trump is much worse on that score and with his bizarre hands gestures and facial tics. But it's not a zero sum game. Him being awful doesn't make her wonderful.)
Finally, she had plenty of time to work on these well know issues. That she couldn't fix them is instructive.
5
How on earth can any woman running for office maintain an authentic, genuine persona, when there are so many rules to follow? When criticism is contradictory? If you have to be so conscious of how you present yourself at all times, and carefully remember what "persona" speaks positively to which audience, of course you'll be seen as inauthentic. There's no such thing as having a "winning personality" when you're a woman seeking power.
5
This statement represents the 2016 Presidential election. Hillary was not the strong candidate we needed, it was tough to vote for her.
Not all Trump ideas are complete nonsense. I could have supported some of his ideas....but I'm unable to get past the bombastic narcissist I've known about for years. He is not good for America.
1
Apparently a goodly portion of the American electorate would accept a woman as the leader of this country if she were a cross between Boss Tweed, Madame Curie, a pole dancer, and Betty Crocker. The republic is indeed in trouble.
11
The real sexism is that one cannot have choice without being scrutinized. Isn't this a democracy? What we must love all female politicians? Sorry, this is just another form of attacking and remaining people for their choices! I'd vote for Nikki Haley any day of the week, but never Clinton or Warren for many reasons. Does that make me sexist? I think not!!!
3
Why aren’t any of the candidates discussing how to prevent Russian interference in the 2020 election? I want to hear more about foreign policy because most of what I’ve heard is focused on domestic instead of the real and present dangers that Trump has manufactured with Putin to endanger NATO, the EU, and our other allies.
3
@Ichabod Aikem
Because Americans don't actually care about foreign policy. They care about wages, health care, and the price of gas. Trump could declare nuclear war or we could incinerate the planet with global warming alone, and most voters would not consider turning down the A/C or voting for a Democrat, to say nothing of a woman.
I think we can all agree that if we can get anyone in the White House who is not a liar, has a modicum of morals, can admit when there is a problem, does not tweet, can hire non-criminals who are competent, does not need to have hours of personal time per day, can read a report in it's entirety, believes in science, is not a crook who scams the average Joe out of a dollar owed whenever possible, who has a wife and or husband who has not posed nude for a living, who's children are not little despicable chips off the old block, who is not a clear racist, who does not brag incessantly about their own superlative self, claiming superiority in everything at all times and can admit facts are facts and not open to interpretation then we will be better off than we are right now, shrill and unlikable or not.
7
It could be ... though I hope it’s not ... that there’s a double standard when it comes to a female candidate for presidential nomination, ie, that any sign of outspokenness or being too “direct” by a female is, based on gender, reason for many to reject that person. How this could be actually validated by actual measurements is unknown to me. So we’re speculating about the matter. Fair enough. That said, what I personally consider un-wise to have as the next president is an aggressive bully, no matter the gender. We’ve seen the disrutive national effect that has had in Trump ... whose leaving office cannot be soon enough, at least for me. Male or female, we need a president, I think, who is honorable and respectful of the people s/he would serve. In fact, Trump, the self-proclaimed “strong man,” has shown himself to be an extremely weak person and president ... and of no evident moral (if not negative) significance. By and large he is not accepted by America. Having a female president who matches his arrogance and incivility will not help us and what we are about as a nation; nor, certainly, would any male who would serve that office. I favor Klobuchar at this point, for what it’s worth. She is firm yet pleasant and can run a “tight ship;” she’s bright and politically talented; she’s respectful of others and polite. In this regard she stands alone relative to others in the race to be Democratic presidential nominee, including any male.
Hillary Clinton was unlikable because she was a crook, a liar and had a phony, and ugly personality. The fact that she violated federal law by establishing a private record-keeping system to avoid FOIA demands, lied about it under oath, and then destroyed tens of thousands of public records under subpoena certainly had something to do with why she was "unlikable." And maybe her attacks on the sex crimes victims of her husband had something to do with it as well, as well as numerous other actions that made her unlikable.
Yet, as left-wingers tell us endlessly, Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote in 2016. So despite her criminal behavior, her ugly personality, her carpet-bagging career as a Senator in a state where she had never lived, and despite significant incompetence in office, more voters voted for the unlikable woman than voted for the unlikable man.
End of story.
6
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and that woman argument did not hold it is just the votes were concentrated in 3 of the most populated states in the country. I do expect a woman to be president of the USA in my life time and she will not be elected because she a woman but because she will be as good as the 45 presidents of USA who have been males and can represent all Americans not just one gender, one race or one religion and articulates a vision that will resonate with the working class.
2
Hillary was in a class of her own. Power brought her to many negative things. Nobody could really trust her. It had nothing to do with how menlook at women Isuspect that more woman voted against her than most people think.
1
Tulsi Gabbard is not included in your list of Presidential candidates? Is it because she opposses continuous war? An Iraqi war veteran who was a major had several medals and had the integrity to step down as vice chair of the Democratic national committee when she found the Democratic party was rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders? Is Tulsi's position counter to the New York times stance on supporting every military intervention the reason for her exclusion?
2
@Richard Katz DO. She's mot included because she not shrill, boring, or have any of the unlikeable qualities of the women included in the article. As a man I am impressed with Tulsi Gabbard.
@Richard Katz DO. Thank you! Tulsi is a really interesting, inspiring candidate who could actually get votes. She zero coverage in the Times or other major outlets.
Hillary became "unlikable" to me in the span of five minutes when I saw that video of her unable to lift her feet just to walk a few steps to her vehicle at the 9/11 ceremony. She reinforced her "unlikableness" when she lied about her email server that contained classified government information, something for which I would have been fired and prosecuted if I had done the same thing as an employee of a DoD intelligence agency with a top secret security clearance.
Any time a male criticizes a woman candidate they are immediately branded a misogynist.
Do you even know how a man assesses a woman to be likable? The same way they assess a man to be likable, by their temperament, their integrity, the way in which they can work with people without creating conflict. The same way women assess another woman to be likable.
3
IDK why Kamala Harris is on the list. She seems quite likable to me because she has the ability (rare among both genders) to eviscerate her opponents while smiling at them.
2
Hillary was very alienating and baited and insulted Trump supporters when she should have taken “the high road” as Michele Obama likes to say.
The electorate that went to Trump was likely influenced by that. These other women are not like that. They all have some great qualities. I’d like it better if Michele Obama ran.
When in god’s name will Americans look to elect a QUALIFIED person to do the job , regardless if you like them or not ? You’re not going out with them and you’re not going to be their best friend. They’re going to be the President of the United States. It’s a job and an important one. Look what happened when people voted on personality? It’s ridiculous and Dangerous.
3
The sexism dog whistle goes both ways. Senator Warren badly handled questions about her ancestry, just as Secretary Clinton badly handled questions about her email server. Warren is successful as a left-wing crusader in a left-wing state, but that may not play well nationally, as Mr. Sanders has demonstrated.
Senator Warren is not a good candidate, and rather than doing real journalism by focusing on her political skills (or lack thereof), you blow the sexism whistle.
2
Tracy Flick loses nationally. Are the Dems gonna keep trying to disprove that?
Some people are just unlikable. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz come to mind.
2
Working several decades in an industry dominated by men, I was on the front line of these issues before they entered the larger discussion. It’s simply true some men I worked with were dyed in the wool misogynists with zero self awareness of their negative assumptions and biases. They blithely applied double standards to men vs. women in all arenas, with special hostility toward women who behaved with insufficient deference - women who actually had the chutzpah to behave as if they actually earned their positions (which they had). I also worked with men who wanted to be fair and gender neutral in their decisions.
Overall, I found it a constant and at times draining exercise to walk the lines between nice and assertive, effective and deferent to male authority. I also marveled at how easily my male colleagues could be dazzled by the brazen confidence of charlatans, con men and outright sociopaths, when more red flags waved over their track records than in the People’s Republic of China.
Net net: competence and superior qualifications are likely not enough for any candidate, but I would say male candidates still have an edge on what is considered acceptable behavior. Even in 2019, it’s a game of whack a mole dealing with the range of criticisms and attacks a female candidate must contend with.
7
People who think the most important quality of president is "likability" are probably the same people who want to be their children's "best friend."
And we all know how that works out.
A strong leader is respected. A strong leader is not your best bud.
For the record:
Warren-- Yes, THAT woman!
Harris-- Yes, THAT woman!
Gillebrand-- OMG please no! Can you maybe keep her away from the other two?
1
Very well presented article. My Issue with Hillary did not center around whether I liked her or not. I felt she presented herself as entitled. Hence, a no vote.
As for the current mass of candidates, I feel it is too early to tell. Foreign policy, global economics, and a sensible immigration plan in no particular order.
2
@Chris
But don't you see? You based your no vote on Clinton's perceived personality/likeability (she seemed "entitled"), even as you go on to claim that you care about issues. Your statement proves the point of the article!
3
1. Shrill, harpy, not likelabe were comments made about Geraldine Ferraro too. We have heard this nonsense for a lifetime. It isn’t like it changes based on which woman runs.
2. Tammy Duckworth is the candidate I want. Warren is wooden, and Kamala Harris is just mediocre.
3
Who is talking about Klobuchar as a tough boss? You are. MSNBC is. CNN is. BLAME THE MEDIA.
2
Same sexist bias, different day.
2
Great timely article Maggie Astor !
Some Texas elected official Scott Dunn called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a ‘bimbo’ on Twitter and then deleted his tweet.
But AOC is someone to be reckoned with , she is 29 years old smart, articulate and may not be silenced.
Her political career has just begun, and one never know where it will stop eventually.
I hope one of these Presidential contenders sends donald trump where he belongs far away from Presidency to Mar-a-Lago away from the White House .
1
Another “women have it tougher” diatribe...
Sorry, Hillary, and Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand are, indeed, awful.
Amy Klobuchar, though, is much better.
2
This is rich coming from the NYTimes, whose Amy Chozick led the sexist choir against Hillary Clinton. Hopefully this article gives us hope that this time will be different, but I’m not holding my breath.
4
In the words of her detractors during the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton was abrasive and shrill. She was aloof. She was unlikable.
Unlikeable. Is that a euphemism for fanatical hatred? That along with a whole lot more than aloof and shrill - and for decades from the entire GOP. In fact Hillary Clinton was unique in how strongly she galvanized the GOP. That animus can't rationaly be explained in terms of traditional sexism that you can apply to any of the other candidates.
3
The Times itself was guilty of this double standard when it dismissed NYC mayoral contender Christine Quinn as "shrill." Had she been a man, no one would have cared, I suspect.
3
When was the last time a voice like Humphrey Bogart won the vote? When does a woman politician have to sound like Katherine Hepburn?
There is no more annoying voice than Donald Trump's.
All of his speeches are just awful.
His state of the union sounded like he was on Xanax. And the way he pauses over words as though they are complicated when any third grader can utter them without having to stop and think of them shows the paucity, weakness and ignorance of his mind. It doesn't help when his every word is a lie. He grates enormously.
By the way, Hillary won the vote. What some may call abrasive was actually embraced by a majority of the voters. If that is abrasive than I guess we like the sound of it. We need more abrasive voices that gets under the skin of every racist white male who watches the abomination called Fox.
Embrace the voice God gave you. It is the goodness of the policies we listen for. And the goodness definitely comes from the Democratic side of the aisle.
8
this is utterly ridiculous! Warren one of the best candidates my wife and I have seen for a long time! Kamal Harris ditto.
3
It is not a coincidence that so many voters found Hillary unlikable.
On planet earth there are industries worth hundreds of billions of dollars that are obsessed with knowing who is likeable and who is not as it effects profits and turn out and votes. Five minutes on google and anyone who cares about the truth will find Hillary is known to be widely disliked by objective measure and that there are women who are politicians who are liked by the same objective measures. Dumb humans!
But go on with the same ol same ol. That is far far far more important than getting Trump out of power; Trump, a known sexist pig and the preferred choice of white married women over Hillary—Hillary’s own kind mind you—by a big margin.
Being insistently wrong while demanding submission from others is no longer the privilege of white men!
And it is a known fact that Warren is a poor speaker. And that this Native American thing is a cringing embarrassment that is a gift to Trump that keeps on giving. But facts are for the patriarchy and keeping jets and the internet from crashing. So don’t let me interrupt. Go on repeating yourselves and watching Trump rule. He is grateful to you. Needs you. Wouldn’t be where he is without you. He admits it. Relishes it.
2
Male with money v. female with reason.
I'll take the latter, thanks. Shrill or no shrill, I'm tired of baby name-calling and links to crime, friends in prison and indicted, Russian connections, secret meetings, lies, hate, probable money laundering, and hiring unqualified people to take care of our nation. By the way, Mexico is not paying for the wall. How's that going for you, base?
7
NYT: You are not helping! Stop reporting on these insidious non-starters among female candidates such as "likeability" (what even is that?) and focus instead on qualities like, say, legislative voting records or previous leadership experience. Or better yet, cover a different beat for the next 8 months and come back when the election is still a year away. No one will be able to take the next 20 months of this....
5
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was not characterized as a "difficult" boss. She was described to be an abusive boss. It's curious how the writer is selectively choosing her words to describe women to soften what is actually said about them.
3
Being pro-Hillary just because she is a woman, brought us Trump. Careful now.
2
The "I'd vote for a woman, just not that woman" is applied to every single male candidate out there, and always has been. It just wasn't viewed thru a gendered lens before. While certainly different filters are applied, women are running and getting elected in droves these days. Heck, despite all the attention this article put on Hillary, she did get a fair number of votes in 2016, so yes, people will vote for female candidates. Pls don't make everything about gender, b/c its not!
A liar. An autocrat. A racist. A dangerous, unhinged, delusional conspiracy theorist. A cheat. A fraud. A traitor. A Russian patsy. A swindler. A sexual creep. An adulterer. A narcissist. Lazy. Dumb. Addled. Foolish. Vengeful. Mean spirited. Incompetent.
But it's Warren who is unlikable? Ooof.
12
American men are spineless cowards - kowtowing to bullies like Trump and scared of intelligent women. Talk of "personality" is nonsense when idiots like W and Trump can get elected.
5
Political candidates are judged like potential leaders in any company in this country: capable women are scrutinized and treated differently than men. Until we raise a generation not focused on the differences, we will never be treated equally. These types of stories prolong it.
3
We have to consider that the presidency was a job created with American Alpha Male #1, George Washington, in mind. I’d argue that it’s been pretty hard for every subsequent chief executive to fill Washington’s shoes.
And it’s been particularly hard for women, no doubt about it. We’ll never be as tall, as intimidating, as awe-inspiring as the man who received Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown. How could we be? These are different times; even Washington could not be Washington under the bright lights of our current era. But it is awfully hard to unearth this deeply buried, tightly held American iconography. To our peril, I’m afraid.
Take, for example, the display of emotion: If a male leader cries, he’s sensitive; if he doesn’t, he’s stoic. If a woman cries, she lacks the proper temperament; if she doesn’t, she’s wooden, aloof, austere. There is very little breathing room here for a woman who desires to be both authentic AND authoritative.
But, I’d argue, I’m not sure we American women do ourselves any favors when we come to office and gush about the ways in which female power is wielded differently. My inner egalitarian would prefers to think that there will come a day when female leadership will be so commonplace that our potential for corruption, equivocation, duplicity... AND our potential for statesmanship, valor, and greatness are unquestioned and ordinary.
I supported Hillary Clinton ardently, since her days as NY's effective senator. I've always found her authentic and warm, therefore I was chagrined listening to the constant barrage of lies about her as "cold" and "not smiling" and all that nonsense, much coming from Democrats! That some didn't support her because SHE was "cold" and then we ended up with the monster in the White House is tragic. Now if sexism played a part in this or not is irrelevant. People will vote as they choose and they will respond to a person viscerally, so hemming and hawing about it won't get anyone's vote, plain and simple. I personally don't like ANY politician that shouts their ideas at me, be it man or woman or someone in-between. That's one reason I don't like Warren because it's one thing to have convictions (which I expect and respect) and it's another to be shrill about presenting them. I would say that someone like Ocasio=Cortez, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio fall into the "shrill" category as well. Trump, conversely, is "bombastic". Bernie Sanders, while likable and whose positions I tend to support, verges on the bombastic, which is not my style. I go for someone like Nancy Pelosi, tough and exuding great intelligence and political acumen but without a hint of rancor or divisiveness - alas, a dying breed. Recently extolled, she nevertheless was forced to promise to resign as Speaker in exchange for her party's support. Is it possible therein lies the problem with the Democrats?
4
So, we should be worried that Trump is covering up the killing of Jamal Kashoggi, but it's sexist to not like the person who sold weapons to his murderers... huh.
This is very simple. If you want to elect a woman give me Margret Thatcher, Indra Ghandi or, best of all, Judy Dench as M. There you go. 80% of the vote.
5
"In the words of her detractors during the 2016 presidential race, Hillary Clinton was abrasive and shrill." --
Hmm -
How about Marlene Dietrich - with her low, smooth, sexy, gravely alto voice --?
Nothing "shrill" about her --
I realize she wasn't born in the USA - but hey - those alt-right Obama "birthers" might be willing to overlook someone with a thick German accent...
All I can say is we have 22 months to go in the 2020 election cycle and having to endure the MSM coverage is already making me shake my head. Can't think of an adjective other than 'shrill' is apparently beyond many reporters capabilities.
If this is how it is going to be, just cut to the chase and talk about Hillary's emails. No real reporting required. No issues to be discussed. Just bash Hillary and follow Trump's tweet lead for the day.
I am beginning to think that, yes, we are stuck in repeating all our past mistakes since 2016. The media, both parties and the voters. We are all stuck and can't seem to get out of the vicious cycle we are all in.
We need help.
2
Women politicians taught that their politics are different and that they interact and make decisions/govern differently than their male counterparts. Perhaps, they indeed should be held to their "high" standards.
Our deeply misogynist white nationalist nation-state. Truly it is pathetic. We are part of the Western tradition, and yet we don't follow in the footsteps of other Western nations or those that have been westernized like India and Israel.
The GOP can only break this spell as of now since there is so much backward thinking. They should get behind a woman and have her support the same issues as the current manifestation of their party. Then we can finally break the spell that has us pitifully mesmerized. Just awful and disdainful.
I think the best way for a woman to overcome gender bias is to pretend that it doesn't even exist. I also believe that MOST women are inherently unfit to be POTUS. It requires a calculating and logical mind that many women simply don't possess. If you do possess it, than you won't worry about being a woman so much
1
@WabiSawa: Most men are also inherently unfit to be POTUS, Trump first of all. And women are as able as men in calculation and logic. I’d think MOST women more so than you...
2
Elizabeth Warren is not a natural politician. She's wooden and isn't relatable, like Clinton, but I don't think that has anything to do with them being female.
Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar seem very likeable to me. There are public figures that I like (Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown) and some that I hate (Donald Trump, Mike Pence) that happen to be men.
Let's not make this all about genitalia and skin pigmentation. That's a sure way to lose 2020.
2
Why was my assumption that the person who wrote this article was female (before looking at the byline)? Probably because of implicit bias I may have. Yes, I have implicit bias about a woman writer complaining about implicit bias against women. It always seems, well, biased.
Re: "...A Woman, Just Not That Woman’: How Sexism Plays Out on the Trail..."
Any female, and/or, non_white person, and/or, gay person, is...just fine with Republicans, until / unless...it looks like they'll actually get, elected!
As a straight, caucasoid male citizen voter, I'm appalled, (all my adult life), by the overt/covert racism, sexism, and homophobia, displayed, AND the use of my former, ('Xian'), faith, to...justify / excuse such crimes / bigotries, etc.!!
Otherwise...
Blessed, Be Kept!
But Trump is quiet and likable??
(Huge laugh emoji with tears here!)
The fake equivalence of the '16 cycle is still with us and the NYT and the rest of the liberal media will use it again and again out of some sort of obligation to fake fairness and will enable another victory by Trump in '20.
1
I remember the discussions in 2016. Someone would say, I'd vote for a woman, anytime, just not this woman. And I would say, but that's the woman who's running. There is no other woman to vote for in this election. If you're not voting for the woman who's running, then, no matter what you say, you won't vote for a woman. And here we are again. I'd vote for a woman, just not this woman, whoever the current woman might be. Maybe the ugly truth of the matter is that there will always be people who will only vote for a man. They always have and it's familiar. If just feels like that is how it's supposed to be. I don't see any woman being elected to be president of this country anytime soon.
None of these declared candidates are a Margret Thatcher. Not even close. Real leadership eludes us.
I wish the NY Times - and the rest of the national media - would stop promoting this obsession with electability, likability, race, gender, and all the other distracting irrelevancies enumerated in these incessant hypothetical puff pieces. Unfortunately, you’re implying that all the Democrats are interchangeable except for these unpredictable and less significant aspects. There are huge philosophical differences between these candidates! I am a feminist, but rumors about Hillary’s personality were not what turned me away from supporting her. I did not like her positions on the issues (as best I could figure them out), and Bernie’s platform simply made better sense to me. Why don’t you educate us and write some meaningful articles about the political differences between the candidates? Your Deep Thoughts about electability are conjecture at this point. We’ll find out who catches fire during the primary season, but in the meantime, give us some substance, please. Where do the candidates stand on the issues in what surely will be the most critical election of our lives?
4
Why can’t we find an American cousin of Margaret Thatcher? This would be a better test. All these democratic women are competing over new left wing extremes.
1
I am very pleased the Times is dealing with the issue of the prejudices female candidates face. We will need recurring articles like this to make voters confront their own biases.
2
Female candidates have to convert all male and many female voters to gender equality hoping to be taken seriously. American males are still profoundly misogynist, so much that they even can't imagine they are.
1
Sure, lots of people described Hillary Clinton as abrasive, shrill, aloof and unlikable. But maybe she was. Maybe she was a bad candidate who had trouble connecting with voters and who was tied to an albatross of a womanizing husband as well as a corrupt "charity" used for pay-for-play access. Maybe people being told they had to overlook such flaws--merely because Clinton was a woman--was not a good selling point. Complaining that any criticism of Clinton was per se sexism was not the way to win over those on the fence.
No one describes Gillibrand as abrassive. Or aloof or unlikable. Maybe a flip-flopper, but not criticized on a physical level. And I'm not sure anyone has ever describe Kamala Harris as abrasive, shrill, aloof or unlikable. Maybe she's a closet-establishment figure paying lip service to single payer, etc., but I haven't seen criticism on a superficial level.
There is no dispute that plenty of female candidates are judged on their physical presentation. But then again Kasich was pilloried as being too sweaty, Rubio as looking too naive, etc. Gore's weight was constantly monitored and commented on between 2000 and 2004 and 2008. Trump's hair is the constant topic of articles.
Does sexism exist--sure. Does it influence how some people vote--of course. But to say there's a double standard in the media coverage or in the majority of voters' choices is just lazy. Clinton lost because she was a flawed candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
5
I don't see a qualified woman in the race yet.
1
I'm sorry, I'm not being sexist, but Trump is shrill and unlikable, as are Hillary and Bernie and Elizabeth. It really is how you put across your message, not your sex. I can do without the histrionics from any candidate, even if I agree with them.
1
What a bunch of politically correct psychobabble. Lots of male candidates lose elections because they are unlikable. How did these women get elected to the important positions they are in now if there is so much sexism? The world is going nuts before our eyes as we are exposed round the clock to constant nonsense like this and the left wonders how Trump got elected in the first place
3
I agree likability matters. But let's face it, when a woman is running for office, she is seeking a position power, and for many that makes her not only unlikeable, but untrustworthy. That, before she even opens her mouth.
I have a theory that women are called shrill and bossy because nearly everyone has had the experience of an authoritative mother who was a task master.I know that my children did.Mothers are often not conciliatory and charming negotiators.Everyone hears their own mother when a woman speaks with conviction.This mommy memory may be the first reaction folks have before they get over the female voice and listen carefully to the words the woman is speaking.
1
Case in point, this newspaper asked in one article whether Senator Klobuchar was too "Minnesota nice" a mere two weeks before it reprinted accusations that she was too tough as a boss. only thing those two assertions have in common? Putting the most productive Senator, who has gotten the most laws passed in the Senate, under a ridiculous microscope that it never turns on male candidates. Even worse, on top of that, after repeating the tough boss comment, The Times compared her far, far lower employee turnover rate to Donald Trump's firing squad.
Note to The Times and all media - focus on platforms, and stop repeating the same individual accusations in pursuit of the drumbeat media-promoted false equivalency with Clinton's emails that handed Trump the Oval Office. There will never, ever be any dirt near equivalent with these candidates to the man on the other side who has had to settle literally thousands of lawsuits, bragged about sexually assaulting women, and is being investigated by the FBI!
2
And Trump is likable?
1
Elizabeth Warren - seems like good social economic policies but very staged and inauthentic. In my gut I just don't trust an inauthentic person but I can see that she would do a good job on economic issues and Wall Street
Tulsi Gabbard - no. Weird Syrian and hard-line India politics and unforgiveable and flip-flopping statements on LGBT
Kamala Harris - interesting choice. Intelligent and comfortable in her own skin, but slammed by progressives as too centrist and some African Americans as too ?? A law enforcement background is good right now because some serious Russian legal and cyber warfare is going to start once Trump is out of office and it's good to have someone who knows the FBI
Kirsten Gillebrand - haven't researched her enough but she seems middle-of-the-road with a lot of big money lobbyist baggage
Amy Klobuchar - I was really interested in her entering but the "mean boss" thing is a little disconcerting. Character does matter (see Donald J. Trump) and being consistently voted the worst to work for transcends simple sexism in my view.
Marianne Williamson - I have absolutely no idea who she is or what her positions are.
I am dubious of all politicians and never donate to or volunteer for any. I do research and vote. So, for the female candidates it's pretty much the same mixed bag as with any primary field. Some I don't like their policies, some I don't like on a personal level, and others I could perhaps support. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
The democratic party must call for a huddle and come up with an offense and a defense against the Republicans and the media. In this day and age we do not believe in the old dirty lucre picture of the Jewish race. Lobbyists tun the money game.
The large cast of characters in the Democratic nomination game is perfect fodder for the media and the republicans.Hourly they are both looking for any taint of impropriety to weaken those running for President. The current President was and is guilty of many indiscretions.
It's time to revert to the days of the smoke filled backroom. The Democrats should gather all candidates, come up with a unified party platform, pick a leader and present that candidate to the American electorate. No more election by TV ratings. Find a platform and a leader and run with it.
1
Yawn - false equivalency - if you claim Hills/Warren is/are unlikable then you simply MUST be sexist.
Many folks - male and female - black white brown - gay straight - are unlikable independent of their demographics.
The hardest thing in politics and business is to balance likability with strength - you need to be nice but you need to take stands and make decisions.
If you get it wrong then you're "unlikable" - hint: it is often unfair and irrational.
That is how people feel about you - it is not a mysterious proxy for racism/sexism/random-other-ism's
All this talk about how women sound. Why can’t we just listen to what they say?
3
This subject for me runs deep. At 64 years of age today, I was one of the first women who routinely entered the workforce full-time. As such, I experienced precisely this sort of prejudice throughout my career. You absolutely cannot win. The line you must walk is so narrow, I’d say it actually doesn’t exist. Your mere presence is often met with disdain. And the crucial factor about it all, which I only recently realized, is that the people who are finding you shrill, unpleasant, aloof ... whatever ... are completely unaware of their prejudice. Like the article observes, people feel that “there’s just something about that woman,” without realizing that the “something” is, in fact, that she IS a woman. Everyone is a sexist to one degree or another. Any time you find yourself with this sort of undefined negative “sense” about a woman, you must stop and question it: Is this feeling unconscious bias?
4
Where do biases come from? Sometimes from experiences, especially early ones.
I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and never considered the alternative, even for a second. I think she was undeniably well qualified. I agreed with her almost completely on policy issues. She was, to me, CLEARLY the better choice for President.
But I didn't "like" her.
My bias (and get ready to be very angry) is that women who are older and have short hair and wear matronly clothes and not much makeup remind me of female authority figures who used to be angry at me during my youth - especially when they raise their voices. It's a visceral reaction, and a strongly negative one.
I'm aware of the bias, and it's not strong enough to get me to sacrifice my principles in the voting booth (which a vote for Trump would have done), but I still feel it.
If an (otherwise) extremely progressive person like me feels it, imagine what influences the more casual voter - who might not be able to even name their senators or representative. They vote almost entirely on visceral reaction.
Yes, it's unfair.
We can denounce the fact that people develop different attitudes about men and women and that those biases affect elections, but if we want to put a qualified liberal candidate in the white house in 2020, I think we're going to have to acknowledge the biases and make them part of our strategy.
1
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I like some women candidates and don't like some others. But it seems convenient for unlikable candidates to blame gender, which becomes another thing I don't like about them. But here's one thing: the office of president is too important to award to someone just because of race or gender. Obama truly was a better candidate than McCain, and I fully expect Elizabeth Warren to be a better candidate than Trump. Or Bernie Sanders.
2
The more I look, the more I like Warren. She is smart, she is spirited, and most of all, she doesn't play pretentious politics. She seems authentic. Now that's a kind of person I'd like to have beer with.
4
I find it interesting that commenting on a female candidate's appearance is derided in this piece. Perhaps that approach is being reinforced by the continuous comments about the way Milania Trumps choice of clothing, her looks and just about everything else is parsed and often criticized, and she is a candidate for nothing. Let's just stop commenting of a woman's appearance, voice and body language period. Maybe that will get us on the right track.
3
Unshrill women of the past & present:it is possible to appeal
Eleanor Roosevelt. Barbara Jordan, Sheila Bair, Claire McCaskill-
there is a way to appeal in modern TV Q standards...just harder.
Relaxed with show biz skills
1
I voted for Hillary Clinton and she absolutely doesn't know how to relate to people. Donald Trump did - even though it was about slamming them because of their gender, race, religion, where they were from - you name it. It's awful. Remember how she didn't visit the states that cost her the election? Remember Mike Dukakis in the tank? I do as a 51 year old. That said, the only candidate of the (3) in the article I've got any awareness of - I really only know Elizabeth Warren. She's got some great ideas. I've got no idea if she can win against Trump. I'm concerned she's going to make the same mistakes that Hillary and Dukakis - being a policy wonk doesn't get you elected. Sen. Warren's handling of her Native American heritage is a red flag that she's not paying attention to what's really important. And yes, Trump was a racist on that topic. Some of the Times coverage of Sen. Harris has been so one sided - that she's too conservative to win as a Democrat - that I've thought about NOT reading your coverage of her.
1
Gender activists posing as academics are going to have a field day on this topic, because there is no scientific way of test their claim (no random assigned assignment of gender) and the women who go into politics are going to be a much more selected sub population of women than men who do the same. Those women will surely be different from other women.
1
As someone who wrote, produced, and directed hundreds of radio and television commercials, I am qualified to make the following statements.
1. Clinton created very mixed impressions because her public speaking style was inconsistent. I attended two of her events where she came across as both smart and even-tempered. During private interviews, such as on 60 Minutes, she was great.
But in many televised speeches at rallies, yes, she was shrill and off-putting, like a threatening schoolteacher or sister superior. Lots of men, I'm certain, said to themselves, "I don't need this".
It was posturing, which was unbecoming to her as it is to any politician who does it without subtlety. If Clinton was coached, shame on her coach. If she ignored the coaching, shame on her.
2. I voted for Clinton in 2016.
2
Some of us disliked Clinton not for her personality, but for her positions on the issues, namely, Republican lite.
3
This is a race to be the President of the United States. This is not a Miss America contest and, these women are not aspiring for the Miss Congeniality title.
I said for Clinton and, I say it again for the women running for president now. These women got to the positions they are now because they are strong, smart, deliberate and, have thick skin.
I have to like the friends I invite over for dinner, wine and, conversation. I did not have to like Hillary to vote for her. She was the best candidate. That is why I voted for her.
3
Why don't we just refer to the Candidates as Candidates not men or women. Maybe that could take sexism out of it.
3
This is silly. Both male and female candidates have appealing and unappealing qualities. Marco Rubio flustered easily. Cruz was bombastic. Jeb Bush was colorless. Fiorina was forthright but inexperienced. Both parties will one day have a winning female candidate. I would be happy for the GOP if it were Nikki Haley in 2020, who is a true American Dream story with both international and executive experience, plus strong under pressure, plus persuasive enough to be the UN ambassador under this president. I'd vote for her, and I am by no means a GOP'er.
2
When it comes time for a woman candidate to announce and these typical questions are asked, such as the ones about likeability, I for one would like the candidate to respond as follows: I am not your sister, I am not your mother, I am not your babysitter or your friend. I am running for office of the leader of the free world and I will be discussing those issues, not my hair or my makeup or my smile. I hope you will do the same.
Honestly, is anyone surprised? Women are and always have been second-class citizens in the US and around the world. Sadly, I'm not optimistic.
3
Hillery's problem was that she represented the status quo which was the rich get richer and the poor . . . Trump was a big unknown who "told it like it is" but then switched when he was elected. Interesting, Hillery won the election in the popular vote but then with Republican voter fraud in Georgia and Florida, lost the Electoral College. So now we're Making America Over" into an monarchy.
1
"Likability" has always been a non-starter for me. Give me a President who's tough and smart, and maybe doesn't have time for a beer with someone because they're doing their homework.
President Obama got, what 5 hours of sleep a night because he was WORKING? And Dubya, that guy people would love to have a beer with, spent how many hundreds of hours clearing brush from his ranch?
Give me a dweeb, a wonk, a nerd (but not a tech multimillionnaire!)
3
As a conservative, I expected an article that went directly to blaming Republicans for sexism in America.
I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the evenhandedness of this article, which I think was for that reason much more effective and thought provoking than most articles on political topics. The only way to make it better from my point of view would have been to add in some of the specifically sexist attacks on Sarah Palin, which would support the vice versa in Dr. Bauer's assertion that "If a Republican starts out disliking a Democratic woman, or vice versa, 'they’ll use gender stereotypes about women to maintain that perceived negative relationship' no matter what the woman does."
By the way, across the pond my left-wing British friends would love to have a female Prime Minister, but just not Margaret Thatcher. Oh and not Teresa May either.
1
Constant repetition of every little complaint against every Democratic candidate only gives those trivial complaints more gravitas than they deserve. Give it a rest - the race has barely begun.
3
As a liberal who grew up and worked amongst Conservatives, I can help translate. What Conservatives mean when they describe a male politician as "likeable," they mean "I would be friends with them." When they describe a female politician as likeable, they mean "I would sleep with them." Conservative descriptions of women in politics as "unlikeable" is, once again, just old white men giving us their unasked opinion of who they're attracted to.
3
I voted for Hillary Clinton even though i found her to be unlikable. She was and is well qualified. I am finding Warren to be the same way. Bring on Biden. Sorry, i would love to see a female president, but this time we can't take any chances. Trump must be defeated. And if he is suddenly removed from the Oval Office we have "holier than thou" Pence to deal with. Is he going to bring back any of the good laws trump so joyfully made past history? No, he's a Judas, a first rate Judas in that he betrayed his Lord for signing up to deal with the most "evil" president that ever came along. He thinks he's doing the Lord's work? Trump will have to leave and he will be president and he will show the people how to live. Read the Bible then digest it....literally if necessary.
Biden,where are you? Please run.
I'll vote for a woman.
Her name is Nikki Haley.
She has my vote today, 2020 and 2024
3
I voted for "That Woman" in 2016. And if another Democratic "That Woman" is the nominee in 2020, I'll vote for her too.
4
A New York Times article last Saturday giving Amy Klobuchar all of a sentence and a half in the lede while going on to wax poetic about Beto O'Rourke didn't exactly help things. And if she is mean to her staff, so what? All presidents have to be a little bit mean to succeed, or the likes of Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin will take them for pushovers.
5
A very fine piece. I find myself uncertain of which candidate I will support. I want the one who can beat 45 -- male or female.
9
I'm not very clear about what qualifies as "shrill". Women's voices are generally higher, but I don't think that's what the criticism is about.
It's pretty much an unanswerable complaint. High-pitched and piercing? I think it's a complaint individuals can sling at a woman that differentiates her from a man. It is generally a way to discount anything a woman says.
Ululating is something I have never heard any of these candidates do. It is very much about a woman's voice. The shrill voice of a boy is never cited as a complaint, though shrieking children might be called shrill.
4
Warren really is hard to take just on an annoyance basis. Gillebrand pulled that stunt on Al Franken and Harris is entirely an ego trip. Klobuchar seems pretty great though.
9
@Chriva I don't necessarily want Warren to drop out, I just don't want her to end up the nominee.
Harris really is full of herself. Smug and arrogant. Not inspiring of a lot of trust. That's what the average voter is going to read. I wish it were otherwise.
Klobuchar is the only one of these that comes across as someone most people would accept as a competent, credible, personable human being in the office of president.
For the record, Biden often gets on my nerves as well, but I think he would take out trump pretty easily.
I just want the best possible candidate in terms of getting rid of trump. Simple as that.
I look for policy ideas, knowledge, and experience. Whether I personally like the candidate is not an issue for me. Lets face facts, Hillary Clinton was the best candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign. She lost by a little more than 70,000 votes in the states where she lost the electoral votes. She lost because some people would not vote for her because she was a woman, she lost because of the fake websites deriding her candidacy (Russian interference), she lost because she told coal miners the truth, and she lost because cable news helped elect the current president in their continued, and persistent coverage of him. Cable news gave Trump millions of dollars worth of free coverage for the election. Now, the American voter will e tested again, almost anyone of the current candidates for president would be better than what we have in the White House now.
16
@daytona4
After reading your comment it occurred to me - the only truly shrill, whiney, and annoying voiced candidate I can recall in recent memory is Sarah Palin. But no one called her shrill. You're right, it's not Hillary's voice. It was never was. It was what was said.
Now Warren, Gillibrand etc. will have the same smokescreen used to silence their platforms as well.
When I was an ADA in the best county in New York City (hint it sounds plural), it was common knowledge that the harshest criticism of a female victim-VICTIM- will come from female judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and jury members.
And heaven forbid the victim was too attractive, too voluptuous, or on the other hand did not fit the societal norms of beauty.
7
There MUST BE a multi-party system! Don't blame third party candidates for running, blame that we engender terrible candidates by making it only about two parties! Other countries handle this problem far better than the US and we could learn from them!
Bring in the bigotry, it will apply either way. But when you have multiple candidates able to be voted for by the people, it doesn't become either/or. Are you trying to tell me that Hillary, who lost twice(!) is the only and best qualified woman candidate this country has to pick from? That's a joke, and this primary shows exactly that. There are many qualified candidates women, men, minorities. But it's time we let them run in something that doesn't reduce the most important decision of a nation down to A or B.
1
When the Times is willing to discuss ALL OF THE VERY GOOD REASONS a progressive might have had for not awarding Ms. Clinton with their vote automatically and without question -- militarism, being chummy with donors, her ability to milk cash from Wall St. and her endless self-created scandals, then were can talk sexism and "shrillness." But as long as the Times tries to suggest that Ms. Clinton was in any way a good candidate for President, they will recieve the earned scorn and disdain of many Democrats who knew Ms. Clinton would lose even before Mr. Trump entered the race.
if I don't back Ms. Harris, it will be because she was a prosecutor, and that does not reflect well on her interest in justice for all. If I don't back Ms. Warren, it will be because for economic ideas, while robust, are not alone enough for an entire presidential platform. The idea I should ignore these concerns before voting solely because the candidates are women is just a sexist as insisting but I do not vote for them because they are women.
3
You still haven’t discarded your political purity test, even though it gave you Trump. I prefer political pragmatism. No candidate is perfect, but give me a candidate who ticks some of my boxes and I’ll vote for them every time if the option in the other column is someone as blatantly unqualified as Donald Trump.
1
@JJR
Clinton won the popular vote by 3M+ votes. She was popular enough. She did not campaign in reliable Blue States; Trump did with all the lies he could tell with a straight face. Clinton lost the necessary EC votes by 77,000 votes. I would be happy with a national vote, no small States, or low population States negating the votes from large populated States whose taxes support the States which have given us Trump. You can't put lipstick on a pig; the Civil War is long past and the South is not going to secede if they don't receive more votes than they are entitled to.
2
Where was this analysis in 2016 when we needed it? I remember constantly reading about Hillary Clinton's unlikeability in all major news media. It was treated as a given, reflexively echoed without any consideration of the misogyny underlying it. This assessment was so standard that I remember feeling unnerved that I did, in fact, like her and saying so would likely trigger a debate. It wasn't until right at the election itself that I realized others liked her too, mostly through the Pantsuit Facebook group.
This issue needs a lot more attention. Any time a woman with power asserts it, this label gets hung on her. Maybe she gets a temporary pass with a victory, but you can be sure that within a short time frame there will be talk of how much she's disliked.
9
The 24/7 news cycle of cable media and their pundits have a lot to do with the perception they present to the public . They and the newspapers promulgated the dislikable image they presented of
Hillary Clinton ; and they're at it again .This is not a popularity contest but a dead serious issue , if a female candidate is capable and has the experience (as Hillary did) I will vote for her . The same goes for a male candidate . So stop it . There are a lot of people out there who fall for this negative presentation . We are voting for President in 2020 , not the Virgin Mary .So Amy Klobuchar is a difficult boss ??? I'm sure the fat man in the White House isn't easy and probably insulting when things don't go his way(judging by what he calls others in public) and most unpleasant .
4
I have a theory: anytime a female politician says anything that can be construed as "shrill", people (men and women) recoil because it reminds them of getting disciplined by their mother (or aunt, or Grandmother, etc.). It's not misogyny, it's simple psychology.
1
I have been closely watching the announcement of candidates for president from the Democratic side. Every time one announces there are a swarm of trolls out there on social media saying essentially I'm a lifelong democrat and a liberal and I would never ever vote for (fill in the blank). There's not a one that any of these trolls like because they are all firmly in the pockets of trump and his controllers. They will never vote for a democrat - even if there was no republican running.
My choice is to listen to all of these candidates, read and listen to reputable news sources about these candidates, question thier policies and then make my choice for candidate for President. Eventually I will vote for any one of them rather than give my vote to Trump or one of the inevitable third party candidates running a vanity campaign- which is just as good as voting for trump.
5
Dems can't risk losing the election to gender perceptions. Female democratic candidates should only vie for the VP role. If they push for a presidential nomination knowing the cost to the nation, they put themselves first and the nation second.
If an organization that supports Democratic female candidates sells pink T Shirts that say "Shrill and Unlikable", I will buy and wear one. Cultural change happens one conversation at a time in places like the gym, supermarket and the dog park. Let's get offline and create change.
7
@Tom
If you can find a way to get those tees manufactured, you will make a fortune. Late night hosts would love them. A lot of women, their husbands, boyfriends, and male friends would love them. I think it falls in the category of self-deprecating humor, always funny.
It's not sexism. It's reading the body language, content, class signalers, and verbal style of candidates and having an intuitive reaction to whether you sense they're honest, spontaneous, ethical, and civic-minded, or whether you sense they're scripted, poll-driven, inauthentic, and corporate-owned.
Almost all major politicians come across as phony, because everything they say and do is stage-managed by consultants, the same consultants who told us Hillary would beat Trump in a landslide.
The candidates who speak directly, viscerally, and from the heart, such as Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, tend to get favorable response, even if people disagree with their policies.
Take a look at Gabbard's interview on the Joe Rogan show.
You'll never see Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Booker, Biden or any other major Dem go anywhere near a cutting-edge show like that.
The main problem for women and men presidential candidates is they come across as fake, bought-off, sleazy.
Has nothing to do with sexism.
Can we please stop bringing up Hillary? She is so yesterday. The media, and especially the NYT with it's huge megaphone, can define reality as we know it. Keeping Hillary in the news and making her the standard against which all other women candidates are judged doesn't make sense and it distorts the fresh field of women candidates today. We are not all Hillarys. (Frankly, I always saw her as more political animal than woman.)
One good thing about so many women candidates this year is we can see the variety that is female. And it gets ridiculous to keep finding each of them "shrill."
For me, Warren stands out in her integrity of purpose (the unfairness of corporate power over individual consumers has been her consistent issue) and her smarts, grounded in economic and legal knowledge and her proven ability in legislation (she gave birth to the consumer protection agency).
Klobuchar strikes me as mid-western honest, straight forward but not making waves.
Gillibrand I only know as the Senator who kicked out Al Franken.
I'm a Californian and voted for Harris as Senator but nothing has stood out to me in her record. After all, in California, we expect our politicians to be progressive.
I don't find any of them shrill, although Harris does sound angrier than the others.
3
Given that so far there are 6 potential woman candidates, perhaps this will become a non-issue. These women will have to compete on competence and accomplishments. If anyone of them run against Trump, they will win on both counts.
Trump has shown the majority of voters just how important it is to have some political experience, issues experience, legislation experience and also compassion, insight and regard for your fellow citizens. Also they will need a sense of humor and very thick skin . They need to ignore taunts from Trump.
So maybe we have learned a thing or two about judging Candidates on shallow criteria.
And I hope the press has learned a thing or two about what is important to this country. After all they are responsible for Trump the Candidate and the Electoral College is responsible for his election
I do not care how much money they have, what their hair looks like, if they smile or not. I care that they have expertise and ethics. If they can work with both parties. If they have vision and a knack for doing the work. Do they care about our place in the world order.
And no more golf every week-end on the taxpayers dime, man or woman.
3
Bigotry is astounding.
Aside from that these women are not that much alike (one, they are different people, two....obviously on policies), you could easily argue for or against them based on, you know, things they said or did.
But politics is about painting someone like someone else. 'Shrill' can't even possibly apply to Kamala Harris, and yet the idea is if it's a woman, and it's liberal, then it's all the same....according to the alt-right propaganda machine. And let's not underestimate that propaganda machine, because it has worked before.
'Women' are supposed to act a certain way, but if men are loud they are strong? Don't expect this next presidential election to be anything but uglier than the last. There's no respect from the pundits on either side anymore for their opponents, and that's why even the winner of the next election will probably just turn out to be the biggest loser.
1
One of the reasons women candidates and the "likeability" question rears its head whenever women are discussed when running for president; it is an easy out for the men who haven't a clue that they are simply executing and employing only the left side of their brain.....the one that requires less thinking than when using the right side in tandem with the left. The same holds true with many women voters who wouldn't vote for Hillary for that reason.....well they see the alternative to not using the right side of their brain.
Why it has to be a tough slog for a woman to be president has its roots going back thousands of years. One would never have thought by the 20th century that women wouldn't have the right to vote until 1920. How unsettling and disgraceful that must have been to women, yet here we are nearly 100 years later and we are talking about likeability among the women candidates. Let's face it. There are people in this country who would vote for a gorilla instead of a women.....a male gorilla...... So we can pretty much say that the winner of the 2020 election will be either Donald Trump or a likeable male. No wonder women are finally revolting against all that they have endured.
3
Nice try, but works the same for men-- some are likeable, affable, and approachable, and others not. Personality matters for both men and women as candidates.
Thanks for this article. Sexism is rampant and was a major factor in the last election. So much more is expected of female candidates, and they are held to standards no one could meet. Let's try to check our own sexism and ask ourselves why something about a candidate bothers us before we write them off. Maybe our engrained sexism is really the problem - not the candidate. I've heard many Democratic women dismiss female candidates with the "Just not that woman" mindset. Let's stop the charade and stop judging female candidates more harshly then men simply because they are female.
AND NYT, how about you lead the way with eliminating sexism in the way you describe and report on female candidates for 2020.
5
Not much research on the primaries? Didn’t a woman just win the Democrat primaries? Sheesh!
She won the primaries even though she made my skin crawl. Best person for the job was married to the last best person for the job. Quite a coincidence!
1
Start to focus on content attitude and values not gender. We vote for the best leader not a man or a woman or a color this is yesterday look forward.
2
Abrasive and shrill? That's a good description of Master Trump. And he's a drama queen as well.
6
I decry the media's obsession with women's "likeability" but those who deny people vote based on personality & whether a candidate is an appealing person are wrong.
Like lots of people I find Elizabeth Warren off-putting. I don't like her pugilistic style & her seemingly angry demeanor. But that's not sexism. I don't like the same qualities in a male candidate - see Chris Christie, Donald Trump.
Our chance to defeat Trump has to do not only with policy but nominating a candidate millions feel positive about. That was a problem for Hillary. Many people didn't feel positive about her - for whatever reason. That helped Trump sneak in. Trump was the most off-putting candidate to run since Nixon but the media focused on his popularity & crowds & on Hilllary's flaws. She got a raw deal. But her arrogance & flawed campaign also hurt her.
I like Kamala Harris, Corey Booker & Amy Klobuchar because all exude a warmth, positivity & dignity I think would help the Democratic nominee against Trump.
I'm not against Warren because she's unlikeable. I'm against Warren because her pugilistic "fight fight fight" demeanor will be tiresome in the long run. I think this will also be a problem for Biden.
The more a candidate gets in people's faces & hectors them & shouts at them about how we have to fight, the more likely people are going to tune them out. I am already tired of Elizabeth Warren.
It's not sexism to claim you find a candidate's approach tiresome or exhausting.
1
The reason we say Clinton and Warren are shrill and unlikeable is that they are shrill and unlikeable. I'd add imperious to Clinton's "attributes."
Not all women are shrill. Do what Democrats like to do and look to Europe. There are female leaders there who are neither shrill nor unlikeable. Nominate someone like them.
@JamesP
Elizabeth I was imperious enough to defeat the Spanish Armada. Elizabeth II was imperious enough to have served in WWII as a mechanic and as a member of the Royal Family. I am okay with a bit of imperious when needed in a leader; Eisenhower could be imperious; he refused to shake hands with Rommel. DeGaulle was imperious; he kept France as a free symbol in London during WWII, and he was not too imperious to march with Jackie Kennedy following JFK'S casket to Arlington.
At the moment, I support Warren for president. However, I don't support and never will support the crypto-conservative Harris.
I just want to remind all the people who want to endless re-litigate why I'm sexist for not supporting Clinton and writing in Sanders (yes our electoral votes went to her, but it wouldn't matter) that even the most racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic man has been known to say, at least once, "A man, just not that man."
The Democrats are not tricking me into voting for a woman who is on the take from Wall Street, or who wants to railroad innocent people to life sentences or death row in California.
1
The country is likely ready to elect a female President, but I would be surprised if it is one of the three female front runners. The negatives that I see are Warren (she badly fumbled the Indian ancestor thing and it likely has crippled her permanently since the punch line write themselves), Gillibrand (Hillary light and she keeps playing the young mother card and she is in her fifties, surprised SNL hasn't done something with it), Harris (her prosecution background among other things will be used against her). I would hope that somebody else emerges from the pack that doesn't sound like they have been reciting talking points since they were an infant, because the current three female front runners won't beat Trump or Pence. There are others further back in the field that could generate more enthusiasm , but if they don't gain traction I am afraid we are going to be stuck with Trump or Pence if Biden or Sanders doesn't end up as the winning candidate.
@Kevin
"...she keeps playing the young mother card and she is in her fifties, surprised SNL hasn't done something with it..."
Trevor Noah did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE-jkS9JNRc
@rtj I missed that, thanks for pointing it out
Shrill is not descriptive of a woman's speaking voice, it is descriptive the listener's reaction to her. It is almost impossible to speak in an actual shrill manner as described in a dictionary for any length of time. It is meant as belittling or insulting. It is used in describing women in the same "factual" manner as describing them as a witch or harpy.
7
Shrill? If anyone is shrill, it is Bernie Sanders (and Donald Trump).
3
Sexism is exactly why we have Donald Trump as president.
Let's switch roles for a minute. Let's say that the Democratic candidate were a man, with exactly the same record ("flaws" and all) as Sec. Clinton had. This man would have beat Trump handily.
Let's continue this thought "experiment". Let's say that the Republican candidate were a woman, with the exact same "record" as Trump (with all the racism, disgusting behavior, and general unfitness for office). A woman with his "record" wouldn't have garnered 6,000 votes much less 60 million.
As this article shows, the knives are already being drawn against the Democratic women who have declared their candidacy. I have yet to see anything similar in print against the male candidates.
The fact is, men, especially white men, are given a pass for behavior that would not be accepted in any woman. And women will pay the price for the slightest "mis-step" that a male candidate wouldn't even be questioned about.
Let's take another example -- the three (or perhaps four now? I've lost count) political leaders in the state of Virginia, who are still sitting in office, despite credible evidence of bigoted conduct and sexual assault. If any of these leaders were women, they would be hounded out of office by now.
I'm a native born American in my sixties. And what the 2016 election has taught me, and what the 2020 campaign coverage is teaching me now is that I will not see a woman as the American President in my lifetime.
2
When either Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton try to make a loud point -- to pull off a rant -- I hear my mom nagging me. Its just grating.
I know that is sexist. I know its wrong, but I can't help it: I want to tune them out and then do the math on how many days I have left until graduation so I can move out of the house.
In my defense, I don't have that involuntary reaction when Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris get on a roll.
1
@JohnnyRock
Michelle Obama would win with a large majority; unfortunately, she wants no part of it. I would support Biden, even given his age. He would hold the fort for 4 yrs., younger Democrats would have more time to grow a constituency.
yeah, well, I put up with it in silence w/ Hilary and for 30 years before, but not any more.
I see no reason why a woman can't be both tough and likeable. But shrill and nasty are equal opportunity un-employers. Many Trump supporters don't like his nastiness--but it's the only thing they don't like, and that should tell us something.
1
Anyone who thinks likeability isn't an issue for male candidates must not remember Michael Dukakis or Al Gore.
1
This was inevitable. Anything a woman does in trying to become part of the boys’ club is going to be criticized. How she dresses, what she stands for, who she associates with, etc. and yes her voice. Because in the end that is what will be remembered. Along with the style, color and fit of her clothes. Very important to not only the men, but regretfully the women. Too bad they didn’t have the obligatory navy suit. And as far as the voice, as the song goes “we were born this way!”
In comparison to some of the adjectives used during the campaign by the Media with respect to President Trump, the ones described in this article are relatively benign.
In reality, voters were - thanks to Trump, who gave Hillary her very best chance of election - remarkably emotionally generous to someone who had been selling political connection and influence to Wall St. for decades. $225,000 for a 45 minute talk full of "bromides"? Not even a campaign contribution, just money she could put in her pocket? No press, no transcript, until the time we get a glimpse of what she said in those talks, and it's, in part, that those members of the great unwashed that live in rural areas or are socially moderate-to-conservative are "deplorable". Whitewater, and the Clinton's business partners and close friends go to prison but according to the NYT, the Clintons are clean as the driven snow? If you look at other examples, it came out recently that the "Monkey Business" smear of Gary Hart was probably a completely fraudulent set-up - one with which the press seems to have made possible, hounding him with packs of reporters, desperately searching for a sex scandal, whether or not there was one to be found. I rather suspect the press would never investigate a powerful female political figure for a sex scandal even if she did something as horrendous from the point of view of decent people (those that still exist) as, say, raping small boys. What articles like this actually make clear is the extent to which the academy has been taken over, particularly in fields like sociology, by people who build careers by indulging in smooth ideological sadism.
1
I know the party and media is boycotting her because she sided with Bernie and is aggressively anti-regime change wars and interventions, but Tulsi Gabbard would have made an interesting inclusion in this article, since she, as a woman, announcing for presidential run was perfectly comfortable both using the word "love" (or peace or aloha) dozens of times in her announcement, while projecting a calm, confident, authoritative demeanor, and also proudly recalling her military service and support for service men and women. Worth a look on U-tube or her website. I greatly prefer Gabbard, or Elizabeth Warren, to the other women running, but I also greatly prefer any of the other current female candidates for president over Clinton and democrats would be much better served if liberals weren't constantly looking for opportunities to continue to carry water for the Clintons. Move forward.
1
Nonsense. During the 2016 election we hear plenty of comments on "mansplaining" (men allegedly condescending to women) and "manspreading" (men who sit with their legs to far apart). Of course, that also accompanied comments about Trump's hair, tie length, and hand size.
Hillary truly was unlikable, as polls since the 1990s showed. Even her friends in Hollywood tried and failed to change that. But that is because she was impeached by her own words and deeds.
Elizabeth Warren has similarly taken to hectoring and threatening to show she is tough. And yes, she is guilty of cultural appropriation.
Kamela Harris's positions on health care are unsupported. And yes, she slept her way to the top of California politics as Willie Brown's mistress, and beneficiary of his sinecures. Women voters should think twice about her.
And Senator Gillebrand has shown that she wants to be the candidate of women, and isn't even pretending to want to represent the other sex in the country--or even the middle of the country, preferring to espouse the policies of the coastal elites.
But go ahead. Blame sexism if it makes you feel better. But I know that if somebody like Nikki Haley was nominated by the GOP, she'd be attacked by the Left for not being a "real woman."
1
I have liked all of these women in the past, when they were genuine. Hillary in the 2012 election, she was electable, but her opponent was more electable. The others, same thing, they seem to change when they become candidates and they seem to become more indignant. I don't know what the solution is, buts far the only woman who seems electable is Klobushar. Of course she's only been a candidate for a day. I'm disappointed in this field of women candidates. I think it's less about the adjectives used to describe them, than the fact that they think this is what a female candidate needs to sound like.
2
I don't want Warren to win the nomination for a very simple reason that has nothing to do with gender: she won't beat Trump.
And so as a Democrat and a feminist, I am going to stick my neck out to speak as a realist. This country is not ready for a woman president. Why do I think that? Because the country just proved it's immaturity by replacing one of the best presidents our nation ever had with the worst president ever. Backlash.
We will be coming into our next election raw. We are going to need a strong, level-headed, experienced, knowledgeable, educated, trustworthy, steady, calm voice to rebuild America. A voice that will inspire from sea to sea and down the middle. Who? I have no clue. But I am exhausted by the unending trauma drama of the past two years and have no desire to listen to anyone who is not all of the above. I want a deliberate, even-tempered, composed voice with a step by step plan to move us forward to a sustainable future for our children.
I would love to be proven wrong, and certainly believe a woman can possess what I am looking for in our next president. And in that spirit, I would offer this bit of old-fashioned advice to all candidates, man or woman: Study the timeless style of one of the most successful legislators in the history of this country - the current Speaker of the House. And may the best Person win.
3
I voted for Hillary Clinton. I did so because I thought she was a better candidate than Donald Trump, not because she was and, apparently shall remain, a woman.
I can tell you exactly what I don't like about Elizabeth Warren. And what I do like about her, for that matter. But I can't help being annoyed that I MUST LIKE HER, and that the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON for not supporting her is I'm a bigoted, chauvinistic man.
You can support Elizabeth Warren, despite what I consider character issues. I feel that Biden has them as well. I would support either of them if they run against Donald Trump, but they are not my first choices for the Democratic nomination.
Not that it matters, but I like Beto. I could tell you why. It annoys me that my reasons wouldn't matter in the least. But the crushing orthodoxy of the Democratic Party could give us another four years of Trump, and I'm getting tired of it. Cryin' out loud.
I'm proud to be a Kiwi, and from a country that gave women the right to vote years ahead of the U.S., and has had three female Prime Ministers. The current PM, Jacinda Ahern, was pregnant and now breastfeeds while leading the country. Other countries do it, why can't the U.S. step up and into the 21st century on this issue? New Zealand also ranks high for government transparency, integrity, and well...there's just a lot less drama than in the U.S. Wonder if female representation has anything to do with that?
454
@Lisa
We already did, you just got lied to by press with an agenda and ate it up.
What If I told you a study was done that switched Hillary and Trump's gender. The study found that male Hillary actually did even worse and female Trump actually did even better.
Would you believe this inconvenient truth? Would you just dismiss it offhand?
Furthermore, how do you factor in, all the people, who like yourself if you lived in the US, voted for Hillary specifically because she is a woman. Is that the good type of sexism or something? Some forms of sexism are better than others?
You present no facts only feelings, and then wonder why you keep being wrong...
10
@Lisa
"Prime Minister," that's the key. We directly elect our president in the US. Which country out there has ever directly elected a woman to lead it?
Hint: if your answer has "parliament" in it, do a little research on how US system differs.
17
@Lisa
Is she proving her femaleness by breastfeeding?
Not impressed.
8
Honestly, I see this implicit bias in my own review of the current Democratic primary candidates. While I pride myself in being a feminist and am hopeful of a future female President of the United States, I have written off several of the candidates as "unlikable", "fake", and "shrill" for no particular reason. I support Cory Booker for his likable personality, but when a woman wears this I think of her as "fake". I appreciate Bernie Sanders (not running, but still an example) as being passionate, feisty, and honest; but when a woman adopts these traits she becomes "standoffish" or "quarrelsome".
How do I (and Americans) move past this? I am unsure.
113
@Kas D By voting for the most electable person. Who that is, remains to be seen. And, lest we forget, Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million.
45
@Kas D
I wish I knew. Even applying the "a-woman-has-to-be-twice-as-good" rule of thumb doesn't necessarily work: in 2016 we saw the most overqualified candidate in the field lose to one who was, and remains, manifestly unfit.
82
@Kas D. I find it very hopeful that you recognize that tendency in yourself. Awareness will be the first step in overcoming that bias.
60
I like to think the men and women that are my son’s age, mid-30s, are accustomed to seeing their mothers go off to work and even accomplish really great things. One hopes that this awareness/upbringing will tamp down the old fashioned idea of unsuitability for women to hold office. I often find institutions that count as “the press,” to be the shrillest, negative and most behind the times when covering women candidates.
1
Perhaps we need all these women running in 2020 to see the sexism revealed when they are ALL called shrill or unlikable or one of the other insults reserved for females.
Frankly, my dear, I'm sick of it...
2
". . .don’t talk about your kids because then people are going to ask who’s taking care of your kids.’” Actually I think any woman with children still at home who runs for office should talk, openly and often, about exactly how she intends to balance her roles inside and outside the home since that's an issue that's probably very important to most of her audience. If she's lucky and privileged enough to be able to afford full time help she should acknowledge it. If she's going to depend on a spouse or other family member she should say so. And every time she raises the subject she should use the opportunity to talk about policies that will help all families deal with the issues of work-life balance, education, affordable childcare and healthcare.
6
And the same should be asked if men who have children at home.
4
Israel had Golda Meir. The UK has had Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May. Germany has had Angela Merkel. The Philippines had Corazon Aquino. India had Indira Gandhi. Liberia had Ellen Johnson Sirleaf .
Why can't the United States have a female head of state? Do the men in charge have problems listening to women? We know that there was a problem with Barack Obama being an African American male. In my opinion most men do not respect women in positions of authority. In fact quite a few will go to any length to undermine women of any color and men who are African American if said people are in a position of authority.
White men have run this country since its inception. They have reacted poorly to every proposal to improve family life, women's lives, the lives of minorities. Now they are upset because they may not be in the majority for much longer. Perhaps they are afraid of being treated as poorly as they have treated the rest of us. As a woman I'd love to get revenge for the way I've been treated by certain men. As a human being who knows how it feels to be sexually harassed, physically threatened for no reason, treated like an object rather than a person, I don't want to treat another human being that way.
Clinton was the most qualified candidate we had, male or female. If people can't handle having a smart woman in office this country is in trouble. Correction, with Trump in office and his continued incompetence, trouble has arrived.
13
Personality matters regardless of gender. How one communicates is important. A leader can only lead if people want to follow her/him and believe in her/his vision.
The US has had many effective female leaders - Margaret Chase Smith and Barbara Jordan to name but two.
Time will tell if another of their stripe can emerge and provide the kind of leadership we need. I hope so. The “guys” haven’t been doing a very good job over the last 50 years.
1
Many women have said, and say, that they would rather work with men than other women.
Many say women were/are their most destructive adversaries.
Yes, that is true. When few women were in the workplace it was easy to manipulate men, in many ways, to get ahead. Women have been manipulated for millennium and those who wanted to excel probably decided that "anything goes" in the man's world. Therefore, other women became work adversaries as well as societal adversaries trying to get the "best" man, which usually meant the one with power and money.
Now it is time for women to learn to work - and compete - with each other in new terms. That includes supporting each other - or at least not attacking other women - while they move up the ladder. It means they must mentor other women and teach them the ropes, especially younger women.
It is time for a new societal model that is a power-with, balanced, inclusive one rather than the destructive power-over one we have lived with for all those millennium.
Women can either work together to gain their rightful place in society or destroy each other. NOW is the time to decide.
3
"Just not that woman" is pretty much a euphemism for ANY woman! Sad thing here is that it's OTHER WOMEN who tear down women who have ambitions of running for office. Why? I get so sick of this. We need to stop working against our own interests. How will things ever change if we women keep employing the tall poppy syndrome and tear down every female who is a contender? That only helps the men like Trump get and stay elected :(
23
Men and women share flaws, but just as you see a lot more men in the bully camp, you see a lot more women in the shrill and too often petty camp. Ask any manager of people what it is about their female employees they most dislike and you will hear many of the words that some of the female Democrat candidates are being labeled as. It’s not sexism, it’s a factual way to describe the Warrens and Gillibrands in the campaign. If they can’t take the heat they should stay out of the kitchen or change their character.
5
@ehillesum: "Ask any manager of people what it is about their female employees they most dislike and you will hear many of the words that some of the female Democrat candidates are being labeled as. It’s not sexism,"
That's the definition of sexism. And your implicit assumption seems to be that the managers are male because most women do not denigrate each other like this.
2
Descriptions of personal characteristics or tendencies, such as “shrill,” can hardly be called factual.
2
The premise of this article is if you opposed Hillary Clinton, or oppose Elizabeth Warren, then you must be sexist. That broad accusation is nonsense. As a California resident, I voted for and supported Senator Diane Feinstein for many years. Although I do not agree with all of her positions, I regard her as fair, courageous and principled. Giving women a pass because of their sex is sexist and only will lead to absurd consequences. Women are not held to a higher standard. The press would be critical of any male politician who was as dishonest and secretive as Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the New York Times, which is hardly a bastion of misogynists., wrote many of the leading articles on Clinton's stupid email practices, which probably cost her the election.
21
@Christopher Rillo
Exactly.
I could vote for Pelosi or Feinstein or the deceased Barbara Jordan or Michelle Obama or Ann Richards or Kamala Harris.
Only if I 'had to' (i.e. against Trump) could I vote for Warren or Gildebrand.
How, then, does that make me 'sexist'.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies in the slanted premise of the article itself.
3
Why is it always you men who deign to explain to us women what does, and does not, constitute sexism? Do you really think you are better able to recognize it than women are?
18
@Christopher Rillo Hi Christopher, I'm sorry to hear that this was the message you got from the article. I don't believe the premise is that if you opposed Clinton or oppose Warren, "you must be sexist." The article discusses a variety of ways — supported by research — in which women are held to different standards. That definitely doesn't mean all criticism of them is sexist, or that voters are obligated to support them just because they're women. The premise is simply that the specific criticisms outlined in the article — things like "unlikable," "shrill," and so forth — are often double standards.
Please don't hesitate to email me if you want to talk further. You can reach me at [email protected].
28
It is odd to find find some of these candidates so triggered by Trump. Kamala Harris gets the win for not playing the white privilege card exposed in the indignation of her fellow female candidates. If Kamala can come off as likeable, which is very possible, she beats a bunch of angry white women. In the grievance Olympics that is the Democrat nominating process, only Kamala has authenticity.
1
why are all you cowboys so taken up with a woman's 'likeabiity' when talking about her candidacy? the rest of the world has both democratically elected and autocratically selected women leaders without all this fuss. ever heard of the queen of England?
6
‘A Woman, Just Not That Woman’: How Sexism Plays Out on the Trail
Not just the campaign trail....
‘A Woman, Just Not That Woman’: How Sexism Plays Out Everywhere
Fixed.
45
Trump is unqualified for the presidency for many reasons.
One of those reasons is that he an unhinged screamer who is unable to maintain a staff. Despite his claims that he would have "the best people," where he has been able to get people to work for him, they have been the worst.
The fact is that "the best" and most talented people don't want to work with or for a jerk, regardless of the jerk's gender.
So I think it would be sexist of me to hold Klobuchar to a lower standard. No?
In a sense, I think it is almost worse in Klobuchar's case. She presents herself as "Minnesota Nice" but (if the reports are to be believed) she has a hair trigger temper.
I don't know. Maybe people who dismiss these criticisms of Klobuchar as "just being a boss with high standards" have never worked for a screamer. I have.
Make no mistake. This has very negative implications for the health of her staff. It is also ineffective. It suggests that Senator Klobuchar is not a leader or advocate but a tyrant.
It is her behavior that is the issue. It has nothing to do with her sex.
A candidate doesn't have to be a lamb but they should have to conform to basic standards of conduct. If not, I just can't vote for them.
4
@Al Miller You do realize "Minnesota Nice" does not actually mean nice, right? It's kind of a joke. Like southerners who say "Bless your heart."
Democrats didn't have a problem supporting a woman presidential candidate. Clinton got about 55% of the vote in the primaries, despite a strong challenge from Sanders (who got 43%). In the presidential election, Clinton got "more votes than any white man in history," and in fact achieved the highest total of any presidential candidate other than Obama in 2008. And as everyone knows, she got 3 million more votes than the "winner" in 2016.
The fact that Clinton is not in the White House should remind us that a) the Electoral College still functions to give undue weight to voters in sparsely populated conservative states, and b) unlike CA, NY, and other states where Clinton routed Trump, voters in those conservative states are not ready for a female president.
Given the wealth of talented female candidates, and Democrats' willingness to support women, I will not be surprised if we again nominate a woman. I will not be surprised if this, again, makes the race closer than it ought to be.
40
Exactly.
2
Another turnoff in voting for women presidential candidates is the way women use language. Deborah Tannen's research validates my own experience. As a senior manager, my male boss counselled me that I "let's do …." Instead of saying "I", I said "we." Hillary was ridiculed for her listening tours, a feminine and consulting approach to problem solving. Trump, seen as a man's man, rushes in consulting only himself. Maybe the nation will be ready for a less toxic approach.Another turnoff in voting for women presidential candidates is the way women use language. Deborah Tannen's research validates my own experience. As a senior manager, my male boss counselled me that I "let's do …." Instead of saying "I", I said "we." Hillary was ridiculed for her listening tours, a feminine and consulting approach to problem solving. Trump, seen as a man's man, rushes in consulting only himself. Maybe the nation will be ready for a less toxic approach.Another turnoff in voting for women presidential candidates is the way women use language. Deborah Tannen's research validates my own experience. As a senior manager, my male boss counselled me that I "let's do …." Instead of saying "I", I said "we." Hillary was ridiculed for her listening tours, a feminine and consulting approach to problem solving. Trump, seen as a man's man, rushes in consulting only himself. Maybe the nation will be ready for a less toxic approach.
@Dustin Mackie: There's something very ironic about this post.
2
We describe men that way, too. Ted Cruz is always described as unlikable. Beto, the faux Hispanic, cultural appropriator, made as much headway as he did because he was handsome and likable. It's a cultural problem, not a gender one. We mistake beauty for goodness and charisma for character. And in both men and women, likability is is valued more than it should be.
14
Most all the complaints I read here wreak of cultural bigotry and misogyny. Maybe not all the articulated concerns, but by far the majority.
The criticisms that someone is "shrill" falls right into those stereotypes. We may not be able to get around the biases (maybe we can?), but we should still recognize what is happening and how the press and social media fall right into this. Maybe it is not as bad as complaining about a hair style or outfit, but it reflects the same traps.
8
@JSK
You illustrate the problem.
'You disagree with me, and that makes you sexist'.
To the degree to which certain women start with that premise, it is no longer possible to have a meaningful conversation. Paraphrasing Barney Frank: It is like arguing with a chair.
1
@dmckj
If I am interpreting you correctly, I think you are wrong. I have no objection to a disagreement per se. It depends on the quality and source of the argument. If those discussions focus on being shrill (how do you define this?), or the color of a suit or style of a haircut, then I suspect there is a problem.
If you want to fight about chairs, that is up to you.
Hillary Clinton was the worst possible candidate without question in 2016. She was also the most qualified. She ran on a record you could check. She was in the arena and there was never a question who's side she was on. Her Iraq war vote was a mistake, but so is our continuing response to the 9/11 tragedy, a process that has created many more terrorists than we have defeated.
But here's the important thing: Hillary is still standing. She has won the argument by her worst, if honest detractors: She was far and away the best person in the last race. And she won the popular vote. The known skulduggery that undermined Clinton's credibility right up to the election has been exposed for what it was. Today she is the country's and the Democrat's best choice for President.
There is a certain irony in Trump complaining about 'Fake News'. It was fake news that put him in office and undermined Clinton.It won't work this time Democrats will finally find the nerve to support and defend their candidate.We do not need revenge, we need some hope.
11
@ Chriva Thanks, I've got a gross of MAGA hats. I'll give you three for one. Best wishes.
A crucial issue for 2020 voters may not be gender, but independence from big money donors. The media has deal with the campaign finance issue to reflect voter views. Most Americans and many politicians want to reverse Citizens United, which legalized unlimited money from the rich to our elections.
Now, more candidates are trying to reject PAC money and raise small donations from average earners.
That's a change. See NYT 2016 article on the ties between Hillary and Goldman Sachs—
“Mrs. Clinton’s blessing — an important public seal of approval for Goldman at a time when it had few defenders in Washington — underscored a long-running relationship between one of the country’s most powerful financial firms and one of its most famous political families.
Over 20-plus years, Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation’s charitable programs.”
Are the 2020 hopefuls taking money from G. Sachs and Wall St?
Seems that Bernie Sanders and Eliz Warren are the biggest promoters of restoring govt regulation on Wall St among the 2020 candidates. Other candidates are raising money from small donors, not powerful corporations. Big money is the issue, not 'sexism' in politics that needs headlines and TV cable news discussion.
5
Is this a news piece or an editorial? The judgement that criticism of a female politician is based on sexism is a matter of opinion, not fact. But it is a fact that male politicians are often attacked for being unlikeable. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are just 2 examples.
6
Michelle Obama is the most popular figure around lately. I think that if she announced her candidacy for president, it would be a matter of minutes before she was described as shrill, angry, divisive, unlikable or what have you. I'm sure that her platform would be completely ignored.
7
@Jen
A good read on the 2008 campaign and election remains Rebecca Traister's "Big Girls Don't Cry". She fair and square examines mostly the unquestioned deference given all the men, especially the shiny, bright new identity politics profoundly unqualified boy toy Obama. However, she also outlines in detail the abominable treatment of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by the public, along with certainly the wholly unacceptable misogyny by the press - and not just by the men. Both 2008 and 2016 stand as rotten elections that exposed the worst of our country when it comes to elections. SCOTUS anointing the GOP's moronic Bush boy in 2000 was a violation to all this country is supposed to sand for, but 8 years later, the Democrats compounded the mistake, then 16 years later eroded the process by pretending the lifelong sycophant Independent marxist underachieving back bencher Bernie Sanders was a viable contender the Dem nomination and presidency. I'm as fed up with both parties as I can be. Done and done and done.
One's dead and the other in a super sweet position now, but I have a feeling that Ann Richards and Kay Bailey Hutchinson could both have run for president without such criticism. One Democrat and one Republican, both Texans, and both truly capable of leading the country with class. Oh, wait! Is it sexist to say women have class? Some do, and some don't!
2
@Reinadelaz, Ann Richards was criticized in so many ways that an equal male if her stature would not have been. She was an amazing woman who held her head up high through it and also knew how to fire back. There’s a reason she is known as a firecracker, a term that itself has sexist undertones even with its positive connotations. Hutchinson, I think she just stuck close to the old bots club in Texas. They never quite let her in, but she was sure voting right along with the worst of them when it came to things like birth control covered by insurance (a no vote when she also openly stated that viagra should be covered). I know we’re not judging based on policy, but it was pretty clear she felt she needed to play the game.
Virtually every profile the Times did of Sanders implied he looked like an unmade bed. How is that more appropriate than saying Clinton was shrill?
9
I remember reading an article, I believe it was here, about a technical support supervisor who traded email accounts for a while with another one of his very experienced techs who had issues with tickets taking too long to close.
He found that writing under a female name, he suddenly got replies questioning his expertise, more pushback on his answers, had to do several replies to accomplish his task, and got criticized for his tone - when none of that happened to her, writing under his name.
It's easy to say you aren't treating a woman any different - but statistics and facts say that even if you aren't, many are. The issue is real, no matter how much it is denied.
83
@SusanStoHelit
True. I've commented for over a decade with a gender neutral tag. I am respected, my comments are read and recieve replies, and I am always assumed to be male.
US had a chance to elect a female president and they fumbled it. Hillary's poor strategy (not campaigning in key states), poor choice of words and not coming out and talking to her supporters on the election night (I assume she was bawling with a box of tissues ) has set back the process.
Do you think if Hillary had won, Trump would have cried all night before talking to his supporters the next day?
Hillary keeps making rubbish statements such as the recent, "It often takes a woman to get the job done" (on Pelosi). Statements such as this might generate some applause, but majority of people see the absurdity of such statements.
Now, two years later, it is clear that Democrats haven't learned their lesson. They keep focusing on things like female candidate, black candidate, brown candidate, purple candidate, lavender candidate and so forth.
Instead, focus on putting forth the best candidate. Black or white, gay or straight, male or female ...
212
@Bogey Yogi -
"I assume she was bawling with a box of tissues"
I think that line right there says it all as to what people, particularly men, think of women right there.
Personally it's hard for me to imagine Hillary Clinton crying - especially of all those other things that are attributed to her are true.
BTW - Hillary was the best candidate "Black or white, gay or straight, male or female ..." in comparison to any of the Republican candidates. It wasn't enough. People voted for an inexperienced liar with a record of deceit and moral, as well as financial, bankruptcy. "Best". Just, another, excuse to not vote for a woman.
227
@Bogey Yogi Sorry, Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate who lost not just once, but twice. But this article does bring up how now the alt-right wants to paint every woman candidate as Hillary, unless that woman is in the Republican party. While Hillary was hardly a palatable candidate, albeit not a toxic one like Trump, there are actually women this time around like Kamala Harris who are far beyond Hillary Clinton in their capacities.
9
@Bogey Yogi sounds good on principle but we are a nation of labels. It is not a Democrat thing. We have identifiers aka labels everywhere. Census forms, applications, surveys, focus groups, ... hard to focus on the "best" when identity is often used to indicate something special, unique, or simply to stand out from the crowd. Some candidates are proud of their identity. It doesn't help that the media uses these labels to describe candidates. Even if one used just the person's name—no gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, looks yayaya—along with qualifications, some people would still want to know (man? Jewish? Muslim? LGBTQ? ) Unfortunately those are often more important that qualifications ( a way to weed out or elevate).
6
Look at the words Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is having thrown at her. Some Texas politician called her "a bimbo with nothing between her ears." Another called her a "fraud." She's been criticized as being too young, at 29, to be a member of Congress, but Paul Ryan was called a genius when he was in Congress at 29. She's also been accused of not smiling enough, yet when she was happy and smiling in the Boston University dance video, she was called a flake.
I can't explain why, but if you are a woman in a leadership position in America, you come in for a lot more flak than men do. I mean, c'mon, if you smile too much you're criticized, if you don't smile enough, you're criticized. Picture a newspaper article 150 years ago. "President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was all right, but he didn't smile enough."
208
@Linda
Unfortunately she is a bad example to bring up. AOC is all about pushing AOC, using the same Trump-like snarky condescending comments about complex issues. She dresses to the nines to be a "babe" and get face time. She is the worst thing to happen to female candidacy - just running her mouth off about everything. Please please let a thinking person of experience get the same media coverage as this babe - go Kamala, go Amy, go anyone but AOC. As a left-of-left voter, I hope fervently she disappears into her office to work a little before her next rounds of media showcasing.
12
@marylanes
It will be a miracle if her 'Green New Deal' fiasco, which unfortunately many candidates endorsed without thinking it through, does not end up alienating a whole lot of voters.
The GND is a complete crock, and I say this as someone who has been paying attention to climate change issues ever since reading "Earth in the Balance" when it first came out in the early 1990's. The GND is like an attempt to wallpaper over a falling down house. We will need to adapt, and very soon,
but we will also have to let emergent conditions drive that adaptation.
1
@marylanes: Wow.
1
In 2000, some people decided to vote for George W. Bush because he seemed like "a guy you'd like to have a beer with" as opposed to the condescending Al Gore. In the '80s, Ronald Reagan was seen as warm and personable in comparison to both Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, and he beat them in back-to-back elections. And the stiff Thomas Dewey never recovered from being compared to the "little man on the wedding cake," while Harry Truman rode a wave of what we would now call "authenticity" to victory in 1946.
The reality is likeability matters in all modern presidential campaigns. It shouldn't, but it does. And that fact has nothing to do with gender.
158
@GEEBEE Hi! The article addresses this, and even mentions the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" example. Yes, both men and women are judged on likability. But as the article explains, voters *require* likability from female candidates; they just *prefer* it from male candidates. Studies show that this does have to do with gender.
80
@GEEBEE: Truman/Dewey was 1948, not 1946. Sorry.
7
@GEEBEE Thanks Geebee. I'm old enough to remember very clearly the big round "I LIKE IKE" buttons, and even at 12 wondered, what does that have to do with it?
14
For many years women have been chosen as world leaders, e.g. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi. What distinguishes those women from the current crop of Presidential candidates is that they did not focus on or play up their gender. Many, if not most, voters who not identify with the particular gender or race of a candidate resent it when the candidate touts his or her identity as a reason to support the candidate. It’s time for all candidates to lay their identity-cards on the table and toss them out.
9
Just how exactly does a woman play up her gender or not? I mean, an actual example of what you mean... something a woman initiated/said first that was designed to draw attention to her gender.....
3
The difference is those women came to power in a parliamentary system where the leader of the majority party becomes prime minister. They are not running head to head against a male candidate. Simply not comparable in any way to our system.
7
@Jay Orchard
The countries you cite and many others long ago got over their gender prejudices to elect candidates they felt best for the job. Your comment is another example of objecting to "that woman" as an excuse for there never being the "right woman." It is most often the opponents of women candidates who make an issue about gender and that certainly is the case for our current White House occupant. Do you think he would call a male opponent with a claim to Native American heritage "chief" as a derogatory title. Of course not; that's a word he is sure only applies to himself.
5
A good example of one of the author's points is Ted Cruz. He is widely reported to be disliked (sometimes intensely), yet he won re-election.
8
@Anonymous - And he’s a cuddly Teddy Bear compared to Mitch McConnell.
2
The only reason this piece was written is because Warren is a woman. And a Democrat.
It is frankly unconscionable that the horrendous variety of insults heaped upon our President by this very news source and a multitude of others it quotes - because he is male and a Republican - is viewed as acceptable by every NYT columnist and reporter as well as nearly all respondents in forum comments.
If the time ever comes that President Trump is judged for a record of considerable accomplishments (which you won't find here), rather than bashing him as a result of his gender, then it would be unfair to Warren or Clinton to refer to them in similarly uncomplimentary ways.
Is this piece proposing that no one be permitted to voice characterizations of female candidates, or only those it supports?
8
@JBC “If the time ever comes that President Trump is judged for a record of considerable accomplishments (which you won't find here)”
You won’t find them because they don’t exist. Insults have been heaped upon Trump for many reasons which don’t include his gender or party affiliation.
10
@JBC Trump is a gigantic liar. And you're right his accomplishments wont be listed here because they're not accomplishments as much as they are a complete waste of taxpayer money (trade war, gov shutdown, tax cuts which is costing the middle class, the unnecessary removal of health and safety regulations, etc, etc. separating women from children, etc, etc, lying, lying, lying, overstating average job performance as great, more lying, taking meager accomplishments and blowing them up with words like "great", "the greatest", electoral college vote, inauguration, etc, etc lying, lying and more lying. Yeah he has a lot of accomplishments!
1
@Doug Lowenthal
No accomplishments can be found here because they are not reported upon here. The insults are filler just to make folks feel good.
Very good article; wish more of the commenters had bothered to read it and think — uh-oh, “think” is a shrill, unlikeable, scold of a word, right?
Keep on speaking up because the deniers need to hear it again and again, until this injustice is righted.
8
So if I support Joe Biden does that make me sexist? If I choose Nikki Haley over Kamala Harris and I racist? How about we just have middle aged white guys run so we can criticize them without fear of being labeled racist, sexist, etc. It would be sooo much easier.
7
@Midwest Josh: Oh, gosh, fabulous solution. All white guys, all the time, forever!
I am torn here - on the one hand there is a need to educate the public about sexism, on the other hand I have a sneaking suspicion that NYT publishes these articles to generate clicks. I sure clicked.
Don't you run here the risk of amplifying the wrong statement - not that sexism is bad, but rather that the female candidates indeed have a likeability problem, are shrill, etc.
Maybe NYT should not provide a platform that may end up actually contributing to a voter bias. Repeat it enough times and it sticks, even if for the wrong reason. Beware the cognitive links between repetition and memory....
3
It would help if all reporters stuck to candidates policies and avoided the traps of sexists descriptions. Just keep to the facts.
When people make subjective judgements don't amplify them. It's ok to point out they have no basis in fact but that's it.
And please Josh - whining? Shrill?
That is your subjective opinion. I disagree. Let's agree to disagree, shall we?
3
I really like Amy K, for both her record, ideas, and personality. I think Warren IS shrill and too left for most of America. Personality matters a lot.
2
Maybe reporters who cover female political candidates can begin to ask questions about their ideas, priorities and experience rather than about likeability when first introducing us to them. If reporters decide not to focus on such gendered questions, then media consumers will not see gender bias reinforced in articles they read to inform themselves about the candidate.
When deciding whether or not to vote for Hillary Clinton, I did not focus on what she wore, whether she was shrill, or if I liked her. I sought out substantive reporting on her experience and priorities as a public official. It is out there, you just have to look for it.
9
Ever listen to a speech or even just an interview in which Elizabeth Warren gets passionate about the many ways that banks, Wall Street, and federal financially-oriented agencies are hurting average Americans?
Her knowledge is remarkable, and her intensity and rationality at times make me want to get up and shout my support.
Kamala Harris approaches Warren's seriousness and intensity at times; I wish others would do so as well.
One problem I've seen with politicians in my long lifetime is their detachment from average working Americans, from our lives, our problems and the multitudinous ways in which we have to battle for basic rights, health, education for our kids, housing, retirement.
So don't confuse the passion of Warren and Harris and AOC with the wooden disinterested older white politicians we became used to over the years. Elizabeth, Kamala, Alexandria, Nancy and the others are a breed apart, and I applaud their willingness to fight for average Americans.
And please please please stop talking down to women, it's most unbecoming.
123
These are six very different female candidates, which should make it a bit less easy to write them off with the usual unfair generalizations. The test for any, as for the males, is how well they hold up in the race. It's an excessively long one, beyond sense, and any misstep or past indiscretion will of course be pounced upon by political foes and commentators. A worthy candidate should meet the criticisms head-on, remain composed, and reply -- nothing looks worse than fleeing from tough questions. It's galling that the standard for Democrats remains high while the Republican incumbent in the White House routinely violates every standard of honesty and decency with impunity (it helps to have a supine GOP and a pliable base). And no-one should forget, in regard to Mrs. Clinton's campaign, that but for Russian meddling on behalf of the Trump team and the damage done by the late memo from James Comey, she would almost certainly be the first female President of the U.S.A.
6
This is all true. What we have going for women this time is that often, in many fields, once a position loses status and prestige people are far more willing to give it to women.
The Trump presidency has lowered that office's perceived dignity and honor to the gutter. We can therefore expect more voters to now be willing to give it to a woman.
2
Were the same objections raised about a black man seeking to become the president of the United States? The unfairness in an established order always needs to be challenged with a compelling vision for a just alternative. it doesn't matter whose vision it is.
I am tired of the tropes used to diminish and belittle women in politics. They keep out half of our qualified candidates, they damage our culture, and they damage both women and men with rigid stereotypes. People are people, and it's long past time we figure that out as a country.
Come 2021, I look forward to the newspapers saying Madame President and whatever title they come up with for her spouse. I know it's not a lock, but a guy can dream.
13
Names such as abrasive, shrill, aloof and unlikable only work against a woman if they are true, which they are about Hillary Clinton. More than that, she is, in spite of her intelligence, monumentally obtuse. Why shouldn't she be called what she is?
As for other women candidates, some may be abrasive, others not; some may be shrill, others not; some may be aloof, others not; some may be unlikable, others likable.
Some, but not all of them will have an authoritarian streak. Some, but not all of them will be truthful about their agendas.
Some will be progressives, some will be cynical opportunists surfing a progressive wave.
Their adversaries may call them what they like; whatever it is, it will stick to them if there is an element of truth in it. Otherwise, it will make them stronger. So, if a woman candidate is called any of those names, she had better ask herself how much truth there is in it before she starts complaining about sexism.
5
In the past several decades of my following politics, I’ve never heard a male candidate labeled shrill.
11
@J L S F
While I disagree with your thoughts on HRC, even if you are correct, all of those same descriptors could be used for Trump EXCEPT the intelligence.
So it does come down to sexism.
5
The point is that Hillary was unlikable. As for me, hoping for Kamala Harris.
1
In the 1980s' I interviewed Jeane Kirkpatrick for a cable program I was producing. In that interview I asked her about how she was perceived as a woman having achieved the rank of U.S. Ambassador to the UN. In her response she said, "...men were called professorial while she was call schoolmarmish." Her remark has remained with me ever since. We haven't come very far in more than 35 years.
65
Nice article and I would go one step further and say that both right and the left do this. Remember Palin, yes, she had issues but There was lot of focus on her personality and family and other traits instead of her work as Alaska governor.
3
@VS not at all. The distinction between how they treated Palin and how they treated Clinton was so pronounced SNL had segments about it. The criticism of Palin was based on very foolish things she was saying, which spawned it's own SNL segment repeating Palin's own words verbatim (no comedy writer required). I'm not saying she was not objectified, but clearly we are not talking about someone who was qualified for the role of v.p. who was being criticized for not smiling enough or for being too shrill.
@VS palin was despised due to extreme right wing views, a lack of experience and dare i be frank, stupidity. Mccain flunked the first test of a chosen candidate, and its probably why he lost.
Keep in mind that a major part of being president is being commander in chief. That alone can reinforce gendered stereotypes and expectations.
Perhaps if the coverage of the campaigns focused on policy proposals and knowledge of issues, instead of personalities, the candidate most qualified to govern (including the one in 2016 who happened to be a woman) will be valued.
2
It's ironic that Trump is a person who used to call reporters and pretend he was someone else, just to let them know he was committing adultery. Calling someone, using your own voice, and pretending you are someone else is insanity. We have this guy who lies constantly, admitted to sexual assault, mocks people with name-calling like he's some five-year-old, never paid his debts, never pays taxes, has been bankrupted at least six times, but he's likeable.
Meanwhile, women with no adulterous or legal baggage, are considered unlikeable.
What's wrong with this picture?
305
@Linda How do you know he didn't pay his taxes?
1
@Joe O'Malley He bragged in one debate with Clinton that not paying taxes made him smart. The words came from Trump's own mouth, that he did not pay taxes.
71
@Linda
He's not high on the "likeable" scale at all by any stretch BUT he was higher then his opponent and that is why why he won.
It's not the complicated. The results speak for themselves.
2
Hillary would have made a great president. I voted for her and would gladly do so again. But in her public speaking before crowds (very much unlike her speech in more intimate settings) it was fair to say she sounded shrill, and also, because it seemed so at odds with her natural speaking voice, somewhat inauthentic, in a way that none of the woman running or considering a run right now currently sound. Some will understandably see the use of the word 'shrill' as following from a prejudice against women. But Hillary simply yelled too much on the stump, and somebody should have noticed that it wasn't playing well and advised her to tone it down. I suppose they all thought she would win easily, and that it didn't matter. People are sensitive to the sound of a voice...it's why I think Sherrod Brown might have a bit of a problem.
79
@Greg Weis
I love Sherrod Brown's voice. Go figure.
7
@Greg Weis This is pretty pathetic and simply indicates how shallow the public is if they rate people on appearance, sound of their voice rather on character, knowledge of the issues, ability to communicate their policies (despite the "shrillness" or "gravelliness") of their voice. And no, I don't think Sherrod Brown will be judged on his voice simply because he is ......a man.
35
@Greg Weis
I suspect one of the issues is that when speaking to large crowds, it can be difficult at times to hear women versus men, so women must project much more than men. I oftentimes heard Hillary's voice as being rather hoarse, as if she had been shouting loudly over some period of time. It was, I suspect, from straining her voice to be heard throughout a large crowd. This shouting to be heard may be perceived as being shrill when a woman does it because women's voices tend to be higher-pitched than men's.
23
Voters in other countries manage to elect women leaders, prime ministers, for example, weighing competency more than all of the baggage mentioned in this article. What does that say about American voters?
345
@Puffin
Says we’re a superficial lot. Americans prioritize being entertained over all else, no matter the context- even politics. We’ve succumbed to the 24/7 onslaught of being sold to, always with shiny objects or candy being dangled.
Why we’re going down.
38
@Puffin It says we're an extraordinarily sexist, patriarchal culture and many American women voters buy right into that.
70
@Puffin
In many European countries, voters vote for the party (e.g. Labor or Conservative in the U.K.), and the party chooses the leader. The party may choose a woman leader.
So there is no popular vote for Prime Minister. That may make a difference.
25
By 2019, one would hope that most Americans would have gotten over their stereotypical beliefs about women. In the '80's, as a young executive, I had a boss who introduced me, at every important meeting (always males-only), with "Don't worry... She looks like a woman, but she thinks like a man."
Are we still there?
125
The comment I see repeatedly (in fact, in the comment section for this paper) is I don't care about gender, I'll vote for a woman if she is qualified. Of course the problem with this statement is that it reveals that the person commenting will by default vote for a male regardless of qualifications and will only vote for the "perfect" female candidate.
130
@Sarah. I have no idea how you interpreted, "I'll vote for a woman if she's qualified" to mean I will vote for a man even if he's unqualified. Seems to reveal an enormous bias on your part.
11
@Sparky
I agree completely. What Sarah and others who make similar comments seem to be saying is that if someone disagrees with them, they are okay with smearing them with a bad name. (i.e., if you vote differently than I want you to, you are a sexist.) I am afraid that the Sarahs of the world will give Trump a second term.I cringe at the distinct possibility that he will also get a third!
7
@Richard & Sparky: I think she's saying we ASSUME men are qualified. We expect women to jump through hoops to PROVE it. There is indeed a difference.
7
I would vote for a woman for President but not if I believed that she was running for President BECAUSE she is a woman. Given that there are at least six women running for President in 2020, after Hillary Clinton, who was a shoo-in and prematurely annointed as the first woman President, lost the last election, I can’t help believing that many if not all of the female candidates would not be seeking the Presidency if they were men. Fortunately for the female candidates, even a gender-centric candidate is far more preferable than the current occupant of the White House.
9
@Jay Orchard Have you considered that actually women are for the first time stepping forward at the same rate as men, and that six women running for president is perfectly normal?
More to the point: Have you ever considered how many MEN throughout history have sought the Presidency purely because of (white) male privilege?
5
@Jay Orchard I'm not clear - you think these women are running simply because they are women? If so, I could not disagree more.
3
@Jay Orchard: Is Cory Booker running because he is a man? Or is it only women that you use that gendered question for?
3
I like Warren, Gilebrand, and Harris. Planning on voting for Elizabeth Warren in my primary, unless I discover an overwhelming argument to the contrary. I’m also very proud of Pelosi for finally bringing back checks and balances to government.
I could never bring myself to get enthusiastic about the unfortunately wooden actor Hillary Clinton. So it’s a huge relief to discover I’m not a sexist, or at least not as bad of one as I feared.
7
The same phenomenon can be true for Black candidates. I remember people who claimed to want to vote for a Black candidate in 1988, but certainly not Jesse Jackson.
Obama is Black, but he wasn't too Black for much of the white electorate. It is interesting that Kamala Harris went to Howard and grew up in the civil rights protests of the 60's. Will that help or hurt?
7
The most qualified candidate we've had in quite some time, versus the least qualified candidate EVER - and she barely won the popular vote. And people act like there's no sexism to that.
Built in biases can be hard to see - but the fact that she was judged so harshly while he was given so much leeway says it all.
526
@SusanStoHelit Qualified for what? Certainly not qualified to win the election. Can you name any convincing acts of hers in any of her positions that demonstrate her qualifications?
"Being There" isn't enough. (There was a movie....)
9
@SusanStoHelit
I'd expect DEATH's granddaughter to be pragmatic. And I agree, Donny was a conman and thief yet people voted for him because he was a man.
12
@C. Richard
You mean other than service to the country in the Senate and Secretary of State?
Of which Donald Trump had zero in service to himself and only himself?
Was she perfect in either role? No. But the mistakes are lessons learned that Trump never had the benefit of.
But bankruptcies, lies, infidelities, bilking people, well, sounds Good! Line me right up for that! Those are great acts.
68
People should never forget that "unlikeable," "abrasive," "shrill" Hillary Clinton might have lost the "likeability" polls, if the Electoral College had not existed, she would have been the first woman president of the United States by a margin of approximately three million votes. Only an arcane, out of date law that should be abolished kept the people's choice from office.
429
@CleotaNonsense. Read the Constitution. You don't enter a contest and rewrite the rules. Her job was to win the electoral college, not the popular vote (BTW - all of her plurality plus was from California)
10
@C. Richard I do so enjoy when people remind me that Californians don't count as much as other Americans.
46
@John B
I don't see C.Richard as saying that Californians don't count as much as other Americans but I see you as saying they should count more than other citizens.
Sorry no deal.
The Electoral College did what it was designed to do and that is to prevent a popular vote from electing the President. This is not flawed but rather genius. 4 or 5 largely populated states should not get to pick the President ...ever.
Hillary only won 20 states to Trump's 30. She was soundly defeated. Her un-likability Comey's announcement, coupled with her lack of a message, poor campaigning did her in.
It really is time to let her go.
6
I hear as many voices saying we should vote for a woman because she's a woman as saying being a woman is somehow disqualifying. Aren't both wrong?
9
@epistemology Who, exactly, is suggesting we vote for someone solely because she is a woman?
4
@epistemology
A woman or man of color or out LGBTQ person who has reached the same level of politics as a white cis-het man will ALWAYS be more qualified.
They had to be, to get there.
5
@MorgainePen
ALWAYS? Depends on the meaning of "qualified." Good luck arguing that President Obama was the most qualified candidate to be president in 2008.
1
Well, 3 million more people voted for "that woman Clinton" in 2016 than voted for the current male president. I am sick of hearing that this woman or that woman isn't likable, or shrill, or whatever. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and takes up space in the media that should be dedicated to what they want to do for the country.
214
@Kathleen
It's worse than that, it's used as an excuse to hide illegal activity subverting the vote.
4
Create a narrative step one:
1. Find adjectives used regarding female candidate (don't worry whether those same adjectives and worse were used for male candidates).
2. List other female candidates that have had similar adjectives used regarding them. (Don't worry about the fact that with over three hundred million people in the United States every single major candidate for president has been called almost every adjective in the dictionary at some point or another).
3. Offer zero statistical analysis beyond the anecdotal evidence that can be used to build any case you want when it comes to political candidates.
4. Celebrate what a powerful argument you made.
3
The test: let the Democrats nominate an American version of Margret Thatcher. The see how many Republicans and conservatives vote for her.
2
I have always found Hillary Clinton shrill, abrasive and unlikeable. I find Elizabeth Warren to be even more so on all three points. But I don't find Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard for example to be any of those things. Instead of throwing out broad charges of sexism why not acknowledge that some people both male and female are far more likable than others.
135
@Todd And what does likeable have to do with it? Is Trump "likeable"? Did Ms. Clinton know what she was promoting and able to communicate it effectively? Did Trump? Of the two, who would have made a more knowledgeable leader? Who might have been able to wrok with both parties to move us forward? Who is speaking for and wanting to help the folks who are not part of the uber rich today? I don't think it is Trump - Warren has been promoting policies to protect Americans from predatory lending, promoting a more equitable tax system, promoting infrastructure projects to create badly needed jobs. She has passion and a lot of folks are uncomfortable with that.
136
@Todd The sexism comes in when likability is a qualification for elected office. Men, according to studies, are elected by those who consider them qualified. Likability is beside the point. For women candidates, likability is how they are judged to be qualified.
84
@Corey Anderson I think if you look back at elections since the start of the television era the more likable person has typically won. Maybe Nixon is the outlier.
22
Hillary Clinton WAS shrill and unlikable and failed to recognize the most important issues. I think had she projected a different image many more people would’ve voted for her. Now that isn’t to say a strong woman isn’t electable.
Just not Hillary.
10
@Sandy, Just Curious Thanks for making the article's point.
3
I think Hillary Clinton is shrill and unlikeable. I have suspicions that Gillibrand hates men.
But today I send Klobuchar for President $2k.
Am I sexist?
11
@Captain Obvious Thanks for injecting something sensible into what promises to be another of gazillions of Times articles with their unwavering POV.
1
@Captain Obvious: Why do you suspect Gillibrand hatesmen?
1
@Anne
"Why do you suspect Gillibrand hatesmen?"
Probably for the same reason that so many women posting these comments suspect that men who call some women candidates "shrill" hate women.
1
Please. Enough. Give it a rest.
Ms. Clinton lost. She lost for a host of reasons, not least of which was failure to campaign where the people outside her bubble actually lived.
You can debate until the end of time whether sexism contributed to her loss, but sexism does not explain why the race was even close.
Furthermore, Ms. Clinton had a looooong history here in DC of being less than easy to work with and aloof. You can call it a sexist attack on her likeability if you wish. Others might say the dislike wasn't about gender at all.
Ms. Warren is spectacularly tone deaf, as such I won't vote for her (I also am not as far left as she). Is there something sexist in my claim? I don't think so.
15
@Lydia
"Is there something sexist in my claim? "
Yes. And of course you don't think so.
YOU "give it a rest" :/
3
@Lydia I agree with you completely on "give it a rest", and on your interpretation of Clinton's losing run. Not so much on Senator Warren.
I wish the media would appreciate that her DNA report brands Trump a welcher on a bet.
2
As one who would have voted for Barbara Jordan for President, the tone of this article shows, nearly perfectly, why Democrats are nearly completely tone deaf to understanding the qualities needed in a person to get elected.
Elizabeth Warren come across as the patronizing college professor she is and, while undoubtedly sincere, her strident castigations just don't come across well. End of story.
Hildebrand personifies opportunism, and the willingness to take down a decent, and brilliant, senator such as Al Franken.
Throwing Kamala Harris into the mix in this article is simply dead-wrong, and is not reflected in the polls. Lumping them all together is simply a too-convenient 'women are victims' meme that is unworthy of a serious article in the Times.
I could vote for Harris. I will only vote for the other two while holding my nose, and only to boot Trump from office.
Articles like this tend to alienate those votes crucial to keeping the democratic party a viable force.
Stop already.
18
@dmckj Hi! While it's true that so far, Harris has generally received more support in polls than the other women in the race have, that doesn't mean she hasn't faced some of the same double standards or gendered criticisms. Howard Schultz, for instance, was recently criticized for reposting an article calling Harris "shrill." Harris's past relationship with Willie Brown was also scrutinized in a way that male candidates' past romantic relationships tend not to be. As the article mentions, the double standards aren't limited to Democrats, either; Carly Fiorina also faced them when she ran as a Republican.
You're absolutely right that there are many non-sexist criticisms of specific candidates, and it's essential to be clear that criticism of a female candidate isn't automatically sexist. Research does show, though, that sexism plays a role.
19
Got it. Will only say positive things about these women. Thank you think police.
10
@Reece How about simply discussing their policies rather than their looks or voices? Is that too much to ask?
9
This article exaggerates and amplifies what sexism is out there. Who says it’s widespread? Seems the mainstream is fine with a woman candidate, and many voters, men and women both, are enthusiastic about these women candidates.
I haven't heard these women called shrill or unlikable. Am I watching the wrong TV channel? And aren't men candidates evaluated on 'likeability' also?
I don't think women who speak authoritatively are seen as arrogant. But this makes good copy for newspapers and TV pundits--- ESPECIALLY if they don't want to talk about what we really need----ISSUE TALK!
So maybe excessive gender discussion in the media serves as a distraction?
The US is behind many countries which have had women leaders. Same as the US is behind many countries which have health insurance for all---for generations.
The Question is why? Will the NYT analyze why the US lags so many countries in not yet electing a woman--in the 21st C?
Hillary didn’t lose because of gender bias. But the press uses this to avoid issue talk. And her fans use it to excuse her various shortcomings----like being connected to Wall St for instance--- (yikes, who would ever get that idea? Just from the millions she made in speeches to big banks, then told voters it was none of our business what she told the banks? Do you think? And her refusal to restore Glass Steagall regulations that her husband & GOP had repealed? )
For 2020 we already have better women candidates than Hillary.
5
@MeredithVery correct. One example about "issues" that isn't talked about as much as it should be. During the '16 primary race, Sanders talked about single payer health care. Clinton's contribution was "won't happen."
Maybe that lost her lots of votes, enough to lose the election.
2
@C. Richard....right. The NYT and even it's liberal columnists didn't even compare those 2 position, and analyzed why Clinton said it 'won't happen'----even tho it's happened in dozens of countries-- if not single payer, then other forms of h/c for all.
In the age of the internet---this is kept dark in our 'free speech' media!
2
There's a lot of malarkey in this article, which sets up straw men, whom it is easy to knock down. "Not THAT woman" is realistic, not sexist, because (surprise!) different women have different records and policies. I'm an oldish white man who voted for Hillary and I'll gladly vote for Amy K or for Warren or for any number of female Democratic candidates if she receives the nomination. But Gillibrand? No way. Not because she's a woman but because she was primarily responsible for getting Al Franken, a very good senator whose views reflect mine, to resign from the Senate. (Shame on her and, importantly, no vote for her from me.) If a woman--or a man--supports sanctions and divestiture regarding Israel, I will, similarly, not vote for her or him. If either opposes sanctions and divestiture, she or he will get my vote. There are other issues I'll consider before I vote or not vote, such as age (2 of the would-be candidates, in my opinion, are too old for the job), but these are the ones that come immediately to mind.
8
@Bernie Franken was reprehensible and needed taking down.
3
@Jennie
Franken was a true progressive, a brilliant comedian and author, a loyal fighter for his constituents, and was a professional comedian before he was a politician.
In case you didn't know it, comedians make their living doing insane, sometimes offensive things.
He was in no way reprehensible.
If you want to see reprehensible, take a look at Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and their Lolita Express friend, Jeffrey Epstein.
1
@Bernie Franken got Franken knocked out of the running. But sure, blame the women who spoke up. Straight from the Catholic church playbook on handling those who speak up.
I'm grateful to GIllibrand. She has courage. Those who let her do the dirty work, then signed on to call for Franken to step down? A lot of men I'm sure you like.
2
good thing POTUS is so soft-spoken. and also thoughtful and polite in conversation. nobody needs to have to speak over him.
2
I would argue it's an enormous advantage this go around to be a woman running for the democratic nomination.
It's not a coincidence that nearly all the top tier candidates who have actually announced (Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand and Warren) are women. Clearly, Biden, Beto, Bernie, Bloomberg and the other straight, white males are a little scared to jump in the pool.
1
Regarding "that woman" Hillary Clinton:
You mean the one who entered the race having voted in favor of the Iraq War, used her personal email account for sensitive diplomatic communication, and happily accepted $250k 20 minute speaking gigs for Wall Street oligarchs? The one who, in spite of amassing a $1 billion campaign war chest including guidance from egregiously expensive "seasoned campaign professionals", nevertheless failed to campaign in key swing states and came up with brilliant rallying cries like "basket of deplorables"?
In Hillary's case, the pejorative "that woman" has nothing to do with her gender. Just as "that man" doesn't for her husband's.
29
@Phillip Usher You're absolutely right that Clinton made mistakes and had liabilities. But I think it's important to note that "sexism played a role" doesn't mean that sexism was the *only* thing that played a role, or that it played a bigger role than other factors, or that it was the deciding factor in the election, or that all opposition to Clinton was sexist. It simply means that sexism was one of the factors at play. Extensive research, some of which is described in the article, has found that many voters do evaluate women more harshly than men, sometimes without even realizing they're doing so.
18
I don’t accept your premise.
I had plenty of people who I thought were a shoo-in for HRC and they always cited the same thing, ‘Well, I don’t know, I just can’t put my finger in it but I just don’t like her.’
That’s sexism, whether or not a man or a woman says it.
Let’s face it Bernie had his bros; otherwise he would have been a lot less likely to get as far as he did and that was all based on said bros exhibiting their sexism.
I will never believe anything else.
8
@Phillip Usher Did you vote for her, or proudly waste your vote on another candidate?
4
There's no question there's a double standard with regard to personality requirements. Nor do I much doubt that a small percentage of voters are leery of voting women into executive offices, as opposed to legislative ones. It's perhaps a 5 percent headwind, as it may also be for African-American, Asian, Arab-surnamed, or Latino candidates of either sex.
At the same time, perhaps the candidates the article mentions really have unlikable qualities and would if they were male. Sen. Harris suffers from Hillary Clinton's forced smile and overly loud laugh. Elizabeth Warren comes across as the classic scold.
One doesn't hear complaints that another candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawai‘i), is unlikable. And Sen. Ted Cruz is pegged as unlikable.
In sum, it's quite possible for women candidates for executive offices to be treated unfairly as a general matter and yet for particular women candidates to be unappealing for reasons not particularly related to their sex.
3
The last group anybody needs to listen to with regards to the Democratic candidate is Republicans. For decades now, they've been cynically playing "scapegoat of the week" with the aim of dividing the American people. It didn't start, nor will it end, with Trump. He merely tapped the hate that party has been brewing since Nixon and Newt Gingrich. If it's not blacks, it's gays, if it's not women, it's Muslims, if it's not environmentalists worried about the ongoing climate disaster, it's now our loyal allies around the world.
There is no one more "shrill" and typically Republican than the President himself. If that weren't so, they wouldn't fear his reproach––and expend so much effort protecting a traitor.
2
"The influence and impact" of these sexist stereotypes would resonate less if the media would stop repeating them.
Just saying.
3
All of us women working in corporate American knew how utterly sexist the treatment of Ms. Clinton was by the media, her opponents and those on the left who continually found things to criticize that no man would ever be criticized for. The refrain just not this woman - was so comical - given that we women well knew - that it's every woman who would come up short by men (and their female sympathizers) criteria. why do you think upper management is so lacking in women in this country. Media professionals and every day people began every sentence about Ms. Clinton with "She's not perfect but..."I have never heard a male candidate held to the perfect standard. And yet - it rang so familiar as that is how we are assessed at work. there is perfection - and where we fall short of it. The mediocre male in the meantime is rewarded for showing up. And the support for Joe Biden just drives it all home - Iraq war vote - no problem when it's Biden. Paid speeches - no biggie - white guys have been doing it for years. All these things that were so "fatal" for Clinton are non-issues when it's a man doing it. And last but not least - if Clinton looked and sounded like Jennifer Garner she's be President. The last form of sexism - the one that allows Ms. Ocasio Cortez to get coverage and attention in no way commensurate to her experience and ability. And allows her to wear expensive clothes and be defended for it by the same left who attacked Ms. Clinton for an Armani suit
52
@Dana
When I encounter Dems and people who claimed to be 'left' criticizing Hillary I always state that they must Hate Obama. They never do. They never hate Biden. It never ceases to amaze me that she got blamed for every unpopular thing in his presidency but none of the credit.
She was the epitome of over qualified, why else did Putin fear her?
4
The likability assessment is a bit of a red herring. President Obama was very popular and imminently likable, and that was turned inside-out and used against the Democrats in 2016.
If one does not have as much talent or competency than their competitor then they have to resort to superficial criteria. Obfuscate by calling names, and changing the subject.
I do not care how likable any candidate is. I just want to know for certain that they are the best person to do the work and will solve the hard problems. One of the most brilliant colleagues I ever worked with was an ugly anti social geek who would simply say "Blarg" around the office. Boy could he get stuff done.
1
Of course there’s racism and sexism. But does constantly talking about it make it better or worse? Unclear.
3
@Mike Livingston: Being silent and ignoring it sure doesn't help.
4
Yes, the press and the public act as if they are electing the king and queen of the prom. Hillary was by far the most qualified candidate that the country has ever seen ( Secretary of State, collaborative Senator, her work on healthcare, etc). However she just did not look good in a poodle skirt and kitten heels. This was disqualifying. Democrats left her hanging out to dry. We should have been fierce in our focus on the qualifications that matter and the issues. Also, many voters just don't understand the complexities of governing. As a result we now have two draconian conservatives on the court. Dems better grow up fast.
3
I can't imagine any woman more shrill and unlikable than Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Steve King, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Tucker Carlson, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Mnuchin, Joe Lieberman, Stephen Miller, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump.
708
@Blackmamba except maybe Ann Coulter...
34
@Blackmamba You forgot Lindsey Graham! ;-)
36
@Blackmamba : thank goodness, true levity.
6
Many shrill, unlikeable and flawed men have served in government for years, and still do at the highest levels. That these labels are used to disqualify female candidates is blatant, bald sexism.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that sexual assault and pedophilia don't seem to disqualify men from positions of power.
11
Let’s not downplay all the dirty tricks Mrs. Clinton played to get the nomination. She stole Mr. Sanders nomination by playing dirty. So... no, she was not likable and I hated myself voting for her.
7
I have not a doubt in the world that a key reason that Elizabeth Warren's campaign is consistently featuring her fabulous dog Bailey is to increase the "likeability" factor.
3
Can the NYTimes agree to do an equal number of articles focusing on male presidential candidates calling them out for their shrillness and unlike-ability - and also give rambling critiques on how they dress? My bet is you wont.
4
Actually Hillary was very shrill. Warren was done before she even announced. Gilibrand's voice sounded like something from a cartoon when she announced it was actually hysterical.
4
Interested in hearing the various positions of the candidates as their campaigns unfold.
Hopefully regardless of the primary scuttle, we can all rally behind the respective nominee as a progressive collective.
2020 is not the year to pull another Jill Stein ultra-lefties....please.
You handed us Trump in 2016 with your "protest votes", don't do it again or you'll find more centrist liberals such as myself will only move further Right away from you.
4
Although it states the obvious, this article serves as an important reminder of the glaring double standard seen in the upper echelons of American politics.
One only hopes that the New York Times' own writers also read this piece and refrain from using the same loaded language to demean and diminish female candidates.
8
I hate listening to the sound of Donald Trump's voice. The sound of his voice is like listening to nails run up and down a blackboard. Then, there is the content of his discourse and the way he expresses himself, which is dreadful.
4
I read the New York Times regularly just as I did during the 2016 election. And the New York Times did its part to torpedo Mrs. Clinton along with many other mainstream news organizations.
9
Hillary Clinton proved that micro-choreographing every little detail is futile and joyless. The ideal candidate should be herself and have fun.
5