Featured Essay

Watching Election 2016 with a Gender Lens

Kelly Dittmar, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rutgers-Camden and Scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University

The presence of women candidates in both major parties’ presidential primaries, including a likely woman Democratic nominee, has increased the attention paid to gender dynamics in the 2016 election. However, the presumption that previous presidential elections – without female prominent contenders – were gender neutral is false; gender dynamics have been at play in all presidential elections to date. The nation’s top executive office is arguably the most masculine in American politics. Duerst-Lahti (1997) describes the presidency as a gendered space in which masculine norms and images are reified as the ideal, noting, “the lone woman at the top has not yet become a transgendered image” (23). Presidents and presidential contenders – whether male or female - are expected to meet the masculine expectations of the office through words and actions, and those around them – family, spouses, and advisors – often play a role in shaping the degree to which they are successful. In navigating, candidates also face gendered treatment by opponents, voters, and media, reminding us that presidential politics is far from gender neutral. These gender dynamics have been detailed by scholars, particularly in analyses of the presidential candidacies of women (Beail and Longworth 2012; Carlin and Winfrey 2009; Carroll and Dittmar 2009; Dittmar and Carroll 2013; Falk 2010; Han and Heldman 2007; Heldman, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Lawrence and Rose 2009; McClain, Carter and Brady 2005; Duerst-Lahti 2013). However, the depth and nuance in scholarly analyses are rarely evident in popular dialogue about the ways in which gender shapes presidential elections. 

Seeking to remedy this disconnect between scholarly debates and news coverage, the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University partnered with the Barbara Lee Family Foundation (BLFF) to launch Presidential Gender Watch 2016, a nonpartisan project to track, analyze, and illuminate gender dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Presidential Gender Watch 2016 draws upon the research and expertise of both partner organizations, as well as other experts, to further public understanding of how gender influences candidate strategy, voter engagement and expectations, media coverage, and electoral outcomes in the race for the nation’s highest executive office. The goal is to lend expert analysis to the dialogue around gender throughout the election season. As an expert for the project, I contribute regular analyses for public distribution and compile bi-weekly posts that review evidence of gender bias throughout the race, whether among media, candidates, or voters. My On the Bias posts are not meant to act as an arbiter of what is or is not sexist, nor to call out individuals or organizations for biased behavior. Instead, these posts illuminate the ways in which gender shapes presidential dialogue, candidate experience, and institutional dynamics, referencing scholarly work where possible and demonstrating that gender bias is neither only perpetuated by men nor employed against women.

Below, I share a selection of themes evident in my On the Bias posts over the past six months of the presidential election, excerpting specific examples of bias evident in the election thus far. These findings illuminate the ways in which presidential politics are gendered and provide themes worthy of watching for over the next 11 months.

Masculine Dominance

In June 2015, Senator Mark Kirk’s (R-IL) characterized Republican candidate Lindsay Graham as a “bro with no ho.” Reacting to his comment, Rick Santorum told reporters: “Guys will be guys,” adding, “Look, people — this is locker-room conversation” that should not be held against anyone. Regardless of his – or anyone’s – position on Kirk’s comments, the comfort with which we accept sexism as simply “guys being guys” acts as a reminder of the dominance of masculinity and transference of masculine power across all spaces – from locker rooms to congressional committee rooms. It’s in these spaces that women are often unwanted or unwelcome – as a May New Yorker cover with only male candidates in a locker room (and Carly Fiorina peeking through the door from the outside) so vividly clear.

Earlier this summer, video was posted of Republican candidate Mike Huckabee that perpetuated this locker room mentality, and affirmed his performance of traditional masculinity. In his address to the 2015 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, he said that he wished “someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE.” He added, “I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’” Huckabee’s language is overtly derisive of transgender people, appealing to the socially conservative audience to which he spoke, but it also demonstrates the type of gender policing that is particularly acute when you are running for the most masculine office in American politics. In these comments, Huckabee brandishes his masculine credentials as a “typical” guy attracted to girls, boasting about how he would act on that attraction if given the opportunity.

In October 2015, rapper T.I. received swift and harsh blowback for his comments about the potential for a woman president, in which he claimed, “It’s kinda like, I just know that women make rash decisions emotionally. They make very permanent, cemented decisions – and then later, it’s kind of like it didn’t happen, or they didn’t mean for it to happen. And I sure would hate to just set off a nuke. [Other world leaders won’t be able to negotiate] foreign policy; the world ain’t ready yet. I think you might be able to the Loch Ness Monster elected before you could [get a woman elected].” While widely rebuked, these comments are consistent with a history of questioning women’s capacity to act as Commander-in-Chief (remember when vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro was asked on Meet the Press if she was “strong enough push the nuclear button”). Moreover, they evoke the most frequently-used stereotypes of femininity that work to women leaders’ disadvantage, including that of women’s emotional fragility.

Despite the many polls that show the American public is nearly universally prepared to vote for a woman for president, comments like these demonstrate that implicit biases against women leaders still exist. And while T.I. is just a single case in the news, it’s unlikely that he’s the only person to have doubts about a women’s capacity to lead. That said, the strong rebuttals against him also demonstrate that there is little tolerance among the American public for such overt bias, possibly indicating the evolution of public opinion and the ways in which it has influenced, or has been influenced by, the advancement of women at all levels of political leadership.

Style over Substance

In an April 2015 editorial condemning Carly Fiorina’s candidacy, Guardian contributor Jeb Lund begins by characterizing Fiorina’s style. He writes, “One is tempted to focus on her peculiarly peevish demeanor, a Grinchy soft-talking that sounds, even at the start of speeches, like she’s already had. it. up. to. here.” While Lund proceeds to focus more on her campaign strategy and failed record at Hewlett Packard, this emphasis on her demeanor and vocal style is reminiscent of similar coverage of fellow female politicians, including her Democratic counterpart – Hillary Clinton, as shrill, whiny, or unnecessarily angry or nagging. In retaliation to her denunciation of his comments about Megyn Kelly, Donald Trump took to Twitter to ridicule Carly Fiorina’s voice in a similar way, writing, “I just realized that if you listen to Carly Fiorina for more than ten minutes straight, you develop a massive headache.” A May 2015 piece in The New Republic analyzed 2016 candidates’ voices with linguistic professor Carmen Fought, wherein she explained, “There’s an idea that men and women talk differently, that men are from Mars, women are from Venus. That’s really misleading. The biggest difference is in how men and women are perceived, and our ideas about how women should talk and how men should talk.” Men, the article claims, are supposed to be assertive, loud, and competitive, while women are supposed to be soft-spoken, cooperative, and helpful. As Frought concludes, “No matter who’s saying something, a man or a woman, they’re being judged on their language via their gender.” While recent debates over “policing” women’s voices have addressed women across generations and sectors, the policing of political women’s voices reflects another way in which gender shapes treatment and perceptions of presidential candidates.

In addressing the flap between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over his remarks about those “shouting about guns,” Emily Crockett at Vox explains: “The flap between Clinton and Sanders is about something different from the outright sexism that Sanders swears he didn’t intend. What Clinton was pointing out was a subtler, more pervasive kind of discrimination — and the disbelieving response of both the Sanders campaign and the media shows why she was right to bring it up.” That subtler, more pervasive kind of discrimination toward women includes criticism of aggression and hearing women’s voices differently than we hear men’s. It was evident in the strategy Clinton employed at last month’s Benghazi hearing, when “not losing her cool” was a mark of her success not just because of the setting, but also because a response deemed too emotional or aggressive would easily be labeled unstable and irrational. But don’t take my word for it – a new research experiment by Dr. Jessica Salerno finds that in the context of debate, men tend to gain influence as they become angry, while women tend to lose it. Salerno opts for a more optimistic take on the findings: “The message here is that we should all be very aware of the biases we express without meaning to. I don’t think women should have to change how women speak about things. … I would definitely not advise women to temper their anger when they’re talking about something they’re passionate about, especially when men can do it at no cost.” However, women running for office have had to temper their emotion – whether anger or otherwise – in order to navigate the biases that shape their path to political office, including expectations of niceness and femininity that their male counterparts do not face.

Voice, aggression, and emotion are not the only sites for attention to style over substance for women candidates. Much research to date notes the persistent gender differences in coverage of men and women candidate’s appearance (where coverage of women includes more attention to hair, hemlines, and husbands), as well as the implications of those disparities for women candidates’ support and success. Just this month, Matt Drudge claimed that Hillary Clinton must be wearing wigs, posting a series of tweets perpetuating his theory and making it a front-page story on his site. Don’t worry – Donald Trump weighed in with his thoughts as well, telling radio host Mark Levin that she must have done something because “her hair became massive.” Trump has been free with similar evaluations of women’s appearances throughout the campaign. In an interview with Rolling Stone, he said of Fiorina, “Look at that face!. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” After the latest Republican debate, the women of The View criticized Carly Fiorina in the last Republican debate, saying she looked “demented” and comparing her face to a Halloween mask. These comments – from Trump and The View – were called out by other politicians, other women in media and, eventually, by Fiorina herself.

Consistent with research finding the most effective responses to sexism are immediate ones, Fiorina told the crowd of women after Trump’s initial comments, “This is the face of a 61-year-old woman. I am proud of every year and every wrinkle.” That comment, which evoked huge cheers and a sense of female camaraderie, was clipped in a highly effective and much shared video produced by CARLY for America PAC called “Look at This Face.” When CNN’s Jake Tapper raised the issue in the second GOP debate, Fiorina succinctly stated, “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.” Fiorina also confronted The View co-hosts directly when she appeared on the program a week after their comments. However, Whoopi Goldberg opted not to apologize and instead asked Fiorina when she was going to “steel her skin” to these sorts of attacks. Fiorina may have summarized the problem with all of this attention to appearance most clearly in an interview with People, explaining, “The point is, whether a man thinks you’re homely or a man thinks you’re beautiful, it’s not a topic of conversation when a woman is trying to do a job – whether it’s president of the United States or secretary or anything else.” More significantly, research shows that promoting attention to women’s appearance can have real negative effects on voter perceptions of her seriousness and qualifications to lead.

“Vagina Voters”

Some columnists and pundits have criticized what they view as gender essentialism in the support of women candidates on the basis of gender identity, using this presidential race as a case study for identity politics. In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby argues that “gender is no credential for the White House,” claiming that “sex organs” are irrelevant to the job of U.S. president. Presidential Gender Watch 2016 responded to Jacoby’s piece with a letter to the editor, highlighting that women’s “distinctive experiences contribute to their approaches to governing,” as we know from extensive research on women’s representation and impact. A post on reason.com is particularly critical of “vagina voting,” calling out female columnists and commentators who have pledged their support for Hillary Clinton on the basis of shared gender identity. This post simplifies the arguments that many of these women have made, ignoring the fact that even Kate Harding’s piece (titled “I Am Voting with my Vagina”) moves from biologically-shared traits to shared experiences of sexism to justify why she might be better represented by a woman in the Oval Office. She writes,

There has never been a president who knows what it’s like to menstruate, be pregnant, or give birth. There has never been a president who knows what it’s like to be the target of subtle and categorically unsubtle sexism. There has never been a president who was criticized widely for his political ambition, or forced into a bake-off to prove he’s not too career-oriented to cook for his family. … There has never been a president who was presumed to be mentally and emotionally unstable because of naturally occurring hormones. Until 2009, there had never been a president who had to work twice as hard to be seen as half as competent, and it’s been a welcome change.

The reality is that few – if any – voters vote simply on the basis of gender identity.  Research consistently counters claims that women vote for women, instead showing that women’s votes – like men’s – are motivated most by party identity. As Kathleen Dolan (2008) concludes, “Certainly women support female candidates, but the evidence suggests that this support can be shaped by party loyalties as much as any gender loyalty. Women in the public evaluate female candidates in the same way that they evaluate all candidates, through the lens of personal and political considerations that take many forms.” Those personal and political considerations may include the perception that women candidates and officeholders might particularly representative of women’s interests, a finding also supported by research and complicating claims that gender is neither a cue or credential for voters to consider in candidate evaluation.

Shared identity cannot be entirely separated from shared experiences that inform shared priorities among women. Those shared priorities (or at least her perception of them) appear to be at the root of Hillary Clinton’s message, not the simplistic notion that women should vote for the woman candidate. At the Iowa Democratic Ding Wing, she told the audience, “I am so tired of politicians shaming and blaming women. I am tired of Republicans dismissing the contributions women make to our economy and ignoring the obstacles that hold so many back from contributing even more. We cannot afford to leave talent on the sidelines. Women who want to work should be able to do so without worrying every day about how they’re going to take care of their child or what happens when a family member gets sick. That is not a luxury, it’s a necessity, and it’s also an economic growth strategy.” She also took on claims that she was “playing the gender card,” refining a talking point she is likely to repeat on the stump: “Well, if calling for equal pay and paid leave is playing the gender card, then deal me in. Let me add, if helping more working parents find quality, affordable childcare is playing the gender card, then I’m ready to ante up.” Clinton’s rebuttal contends the claim that talking to or about women is simply a strategic ploy, but also serves as an important reminder that everyone in this race is playing the gender card – the question is how.

Sources

Beail, Linda and Rhonda Kinney Longworth. 2013. Framing Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Puritans, and Politics.

New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Carlin, Diana B. and Kelly L. Winfrey. 2009. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 60. September-October: 326-43.

Carroll, Susan J., and Kelly Dittmar. 2009. “The 2008 candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin: cracking the 'highest, hardest glass ceiling'.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics (2^nd ed.), eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 44-77.

Dittmar, Kelly, and Susan J. Carroll. 2013. “Cracking the ‘Highest, Hardest Glass Ceiling’: Women as Presidential and Vice Presidential Contenders.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics (3^rd Ed.), eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Dolan, Kathleen. 2008. “Women as Candidates in American Politics: The Continuing Impact of Sex and Gender.” Political Women and American Democracy, eds. Christina Wolbrecht, Karen Beckwith, and Lisa Baldez. Cambridge, MA:  Cambridge University Press, 110-127.

Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. “Presidential Elections: Gendered Space and the Case of 2012.”  In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics (3^rd Ed.), eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 1997.  "Executive Power and the Consequences of Masculinism." In The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, eds. Mary Anne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boulder, Colorado: Lynn Rienner Publishers.

Falk, Erika. 2010. Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Han, Lori Cox, and Caroline Heldman, eds. 2007. Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House? Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Heldman, Caroline, Susan J. Carroll, and Stephanie Olson, "‘She brought only a skirt’: Print Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole's Bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination," Political Communication 22.3 (2005): 315-335.

Lawrence, Regina G., and Melody Rose, Hillary Clinton's Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010), 157.


McClain, Paula D., Niambi M. Carter, and Michael C. Brady. “Gender and Black Presidential Politics: From Chisholm to Moseley Braun.” Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy 27 (2005)