Why the country still isn’t ready for a woman president
This piece at the Boston Globe gives the rundown: Black man vs. white woman. Ignore the freakout at the very end of the article when arch Ev Psycho John Tooby tries to explain it all as the result of Flintstones-era hard coding; just read for insight into present-day American attitudes. This is stuff that psychologists and sociologists have known for a long time.
A caveat: This is not an invitation to engage in an inane argument over which is “worse,” racism or sexism. The question as posed is unanswerable; what is meant by “worse”? In what way? For whom? And from whose perspective? If you can’t grasp the difference between analyzing the perdurability of certain types of bias and making sweeping statements about which bias is “worse,” then you’re on the wrong blog. Also, anybody who shows up here and uses the phrase “oppression Olympics” will be instantly exploded by my magic intertube bomb.
But back to the Boston Globe article:
But in a campaign in which it’s hard to find many substantive policy differences between the leading Democratic contenders, it’s notable how well the psychological research on bias predicts the race we’ve seen so far. Obama’s ability to disarm the initial reservations of an increasing number of white voters as the race has progressed — especially over the past week, in his string of eight straight primary victories — fits with the findings of bias researchers that racial bias is strikingly mutable, and can be mitigated and even erased by everything from clothing and speech cadence to setting and skin tone.
As Clinton has discovered, gender stereotypes are stickier. Women can be seen as ambitious and capable, or they can be seen as likable, a host of studies have shown, but it’s very hard for them to be seen as both — hence the intense scrutiny and much-debated impact of Clinton’s moment of emotional vulnerability in a New Hampshire diner last month.
As the race moves toward the possibly decisive March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas, Clinton and Obama will have to continue to negotiate the complex demands of campaigning for an office that has been held by an unbroken string of 43 white men. But while this presidential campaign has proven a stage on which these issues can dramatically play out, they also run deeply through the rest of our society. And if the ample literature on bias shows anything, it is that, for all the difficulties Americans have with race, it may prove that attitudes about women are the hardest to change.
What follows is a review of some of the big work done on race and gender bias with test subjects, which has consistently shown that the two things behave very differently. In a nutshell, gender bias is more stubborn and resistant to change. And the particular gender bias that our society exhibits is bad news for any woman running for President.
“The deal is that women generally fall into two alternatives: they are either seen as nice but stupid or smart but mean,” says Susan Fiske, a psychology professor at Princeton who specializes in stereotyping.
And unlike racial bias, there’s little evidence that these attitudes are softening.
According to Eagly of Northwestern, the problem isn’t that women aren’t traditionally understood as smart, but that they traditionally aren’t understood to be “assertive, competitive, take-charge” types. More than intelligence, she argues, this “agentic” quality is what we look for in leaders, and, as both surveys and experimental studies have shown, we find it deeply discomfiting in women.
“That’s what Hillary Clinton is up against,” argues Eagly. “She’s had to show her toughness, then people turn around and say she’s too cold.”
Amy Cuddy, a psychologist at Northwestern, suggests that the durability of gender stereotypes stems in part from the fact that most people have far more exposure to people of the opposite gender than to people of different races. As a result, they feel more entitled to their attitudes about gender.
“Contact hasn’t undermined these stereotypes, and it might even strengthen them,” she says. “Many people don’t believe seeing women as kind or soft is a stereotype. They’re not even going to question it, because they think it’s a good thing.”
In a world where even self-described feminists are complaining that Hillary is unlikable, where these same women find it easier to root for an empty suit than a smart woman as long as the suit’s draped on a good-looking man, where more than one feminist has actually called on Hillary to step down and end this long national nightmare of a woman competing with Mr. Charisma — maybe we need a national refresher course on unconscious bias.
*****
via Echidne.
27 Responses to “Why the country still isn’t ready for a woman president”
-
nneoma says:
okay, i hear you on gender biases, but let’s not forget that Clinton was at one point far ahead of both Obama and Edwards. Was it only after people came to know more about Obama and his message that gender biases against Clinton all of the sudden surfaced? From what I remember, when Clinton was holding double digit leads against both of her male opponents, she was still a woman. Could it be possible that, I don’t know, Obama is running a better campaign than Clinton now that the public has come to know more about him and his message. Or after the Bush II years, America is no longer comfortable with the politics of inheritance - that is the realisation that two families may end up ruling this country for an uninterrupted period of almost three decades?
One thing that has remained constant throughout this campaign is Clinton’s female identity and Obama’s race. To suggest that the reason why Obama is all of the sudden doing much better than Clinton is because he is male would assume that America just realised that Clinton is female. Hmmm, and the accusation that Obama is an empty suit compared to his smart female counterpart - it sounds like a case of reverse discrimination to me.lolFebruary 21st, 2008 at 12:56 am EST -
Flash says:
Ideally, race and gender should be irrelevant. So should religion. Is America ready for an atheist president? Don’t bother to answer that.
While I can appreciate why you’d get excited at the prospect of a woman president, I’m not sure it’s necessarily a good thing. We had Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and look what that did for us.
-
Megan says:
Hahahah. OH CLEARLY, Flash! Margaret Thatcher proves what women in power will do. Just as Bush proves what men in power will do. You’re on the wrong blog.
-
gayle says:
nneoma,
Obama has become the only alternative to Clinton, which is why he is surging.
Other options mucked up the earlier numbers as voters were effectively split.
Witnessing the ease with which so many Edwards voters shifted to Obama clarified this for me.
-
gayle says:
“We had Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and look what that did for us.”
Electing any woman isn’t really the point. An anti-feminist Republican woman wouldn’t be acceptable to me, anyway. Sadly, lot of people on the left want to redefine HRC as a Margaret Thatcher type.
In truth she’s a feminist and a Democrat. I don’t think we’ll have an option like her again in a very long time.
-
julia says:
This campaign is bringing the sexism out of the woodwork. I am afraid to leave the house today - every single day I am having to defend women to complete male strangers whose demeaning comments I can not walk away from.
Today I did not even have to leave the house - I already heard it on my (used to be) favorite progressive radio station. -
r68 says:
we need a national refresher course on unconscious bias
An excellent idea.
As long as we focus on ALL unconscious biases. Including, say, those that white women hold about black men.
It’s your blog and you can say what you want, but you have to realize that if you say “Obama’s candidacy is a long national nightmare”, you will receive comments which will not agree with you. And a few of those comments might speculate on your own unconscious biases.
-
Violet says:
but you have to realize that if you say “Obama’s candidacy is a long national nightmare”, you will receive comments which will not agree with you.
Thanks for the heads up; I’ll keep that in mind in case I ever decide to say such a thing.
You know, there are trolls and then there are stupid trolls. And then there are stupid, creepy trolls.
Congratulations, freak. You hit the trifecta. Fuck off. Forever.
-
Nan says:
“In truth she’s a feminist and a Democrat. I don’t think we’ll have an option like her again in a very long time.”
I’m going to pray that’s not true. I would like to believe that at the very least Hillary’s candidacy (even if she ends up being neither the nominee nor the next President) will mean more women running for office in the future.
-
Virginia Ray says:
Men for the Hill
-
julia says:
This is making me go back and read the second wave feminists, so I can try and understand the root of sexism better.
I would love to hear from anyone who was a part of the Women’s Liberation Movement! I want to hear about what worked, what didn’t, to understand what we might need to build something again.
Violet, what do you think about an online ‘teach in’ from the women who were a part of it?
Why did we stop saying Women’s ‘Liberation’?!
I think it was more powerful and clear. -
gayle says:
“Why did we stop saying Women’s ‘Liberation’?!
I think it was more powerful and clear.”Agreed. Let’s bring it back!
-
Veronica says:
Why isn’t this country still ready for a woman president? I’ll be blunt: Because they DON’T WANT to be ready for one, that’s why. Look at all those negative June Cleaver stereotypes we still have to watch on commercials on network TV. We also still have those negative stereotypes that say women can’t (correct that: SHOULDN’T) be as smart as men. Let’s face it: we still want to think of women as soft, domestic types who are as dumb as dirt and don’t actually think for themselves.
If we’re going to be the advanced country we claim to be, we’re going to have to grow up, stop keeping girls out of the boys’ clubhouse, and start seeing women as PEOPLE. We women are human beings and it’s high time we started being treated as such!
-
Serafina says:
Thanks for this post and your others on Hillary. You know, I’m a twenty-six-year-old Lakota feminist who has just discovered the feminist blogosphere and I am VERY disappointed to see the reactions of so many feminist bloggers to Hillary vs. Obama and to Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan and Erica Jong and the other second-wavers who’ve commented on the race.
Honestly, the comments on Steinem’s and Morgan’s pieces are just. So. Dumb. “She’s saying sexism is more important than racism!” No, she’s not. Read the article. “She’s saying young women are bimbos!” No, she’s not. At worst she’s guilty of clumsy phrasing. And, you know, I know from racism. I get enough of it in real life.
I think the reason why the feminist blogosphere is trashing Hillary and her second-wave supporters is that racism is more fashionable to fight in white liberal hipster circles than misogyny. My white liberal friends nod respectfully when I mention my experiences with racism. If I mention any experiences of sexism, they tell me I’m exaggerating.
The horrible thing? I don’t even like Hillary. Or Obama, for that matter. HIllary voted for the war. I don’t believe Obama wouldn’t have done the same. And I don’t believe either of them will do a damn thing about the PATRIOT act. I will probably write in Kucinich.
But. But, but, but, but. The misogyny directed at Hillary is a problem that affects ALL women, not just Hillary–she’s just a symbol as far as those attacks go. That’s why it’s misogyny, not just Hillary-hating.
-
Flash says:
Julia wrote, “I would love to hear from anyone who was a part of the Women’s Liberation Movement! I want to hear about what worked, what didn’t, to understand what we might need to build something again.”
I was part of the Women’s Liberation Movement, and I knew a woman who was a suffragette. What worked was persistence. What’s depressing now is how few young women are interested in politics or use their vote, despite the pay gap that’s not supposed to exist. Too many teenage girls get very drunk, have reckless sex, and risk STDs, foetal alcohol syndrome, or liver disease. They’re not remotely interested in whether or not you have a woman president or we have another woman PM. They think they are “liberated”.
Guess I’m just a pessimistic cynic in my old age.
-
julia says:
Serafina, your post is deep and true. I would never have supported HC because of the party. I vote Green or Independent. But you’re absolutely right - each time I hear a jab or a stab at HC, I feel it, too; it’s against all women.
What younger woman would feel encouraged to run for president after this? It encourages you to hide in the closet or stand in the shadows.To Flash: can you talk about how you got into the Movement, what it was like, how it affected your day to day life? I’m just reading about it.
I was too young, then, to be part of a group. But it certainly affected my life, and encouraged me to fight for a girl’s soccer team in school and to think about my life on my terms. -
Aunti Disestablishmentarian says:
Flash: Yeah- all that wanton liberation. I blame The Pill.
-
Violet says:
Julia, I became a feminist (an adolescent one) in 1971, when Women’s Liberation (as it was still called) was cresting. You know what it was like? It was like every single woman in the country was having an Ah Ha! moment, like HEY WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT? It was like the scales were falling from a million eyes.
The big question, though, which would take a long time to discuss, is why that happened THEN and not before and not since. Because what had always happened before — and what has always happened since — is that the scales-falling-from-eyes is instantly squashed by a million contradicting impulses and inputs, as I’m sure you’ve experienced yourself.
It’s not discrimination, it’s just nature and
no no you’re exaggerating and
ooh feminism is icky those women are scary and
you women belong with your menfolk (insert race or nationality) rather than ganging up with those other women, those other women (insert race or nationality) are our enemies and
what’s wrong with being sexy? and
why not learn to play the game and stop making a big deal? and
do you hate men or something? and
what are you complaining about, don’t you realize how good you have it? and
women don’t suffer nearly as much as (insert any other group) and
a better way would be to wait quietly and ask nicely instead of antagonizing men and on and on and fucking on.
So why didn’t that happen circa 1970? Zeitgeist. The pill plus the sexual revolution plus labor-saving devices multiplied by the Baby Boomer generation and then raised to the 10th power by a series of movements for human equality and justice beyond the traditional old tribal allegiances that usually keep women apart.
Will it ever happen again? I wonder.
-
julia says:
Great analysis.
What I remember about the early 70’s was you could talk about sexism and someone would have your back! I’d never be alone in standing up for other girls, the way I’m almost always alone today in standing up for women.
I hear ‘what are you complaining about, you don’t know how good you have it’ from other women, even on so-called feminist blogs. If women in this country had economic and social equality, we’d be in a better position to help other women who don’t.Just reading Susan Brownmiller’s book about the Movement made me remember how powerful it was to have a song about us that was a national hit, and to watch a famous tennis player easily beat a loud sexist man.
It made me feel like I could do anything.
I
-
LadyVetinari says:
Dr. Socks,
I find your debunking of ev-psych to be the best part of your site (all of which I enjoy very much). I would love it if you posted more on it, particularly on the belief that patriarchy is biological and inevitable (I think there may be some biology to it–related to childbirth–but not inevitability).Oh, and don’t despair about sisterhood and feminist consciousness. I know the feeling but we have to fight it. American politics is not all politics, and mainstream reported politics is not all American politics.
Take a look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7068875.stm
Pink-clad female vigilantes in India, defending women’s rights.
-
Virginia Ray says:
hey
this will make you feel better — it is an edgy new website put together by the younger generation (thank god) and it is videos of US, all of us, who want the Hill for what ever reason and I was surprised at how beautiful and colorful we are — made me feel happy.
-
Flash says:
julia, sorry - it would take too long. I’m an armchair feminist now (for health reasons) and support http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk.
Came across this today - http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news.....-6783.html
Thought it made an interesting contrast with the US situation.“Congratulations, freak. You hit the trifecta. Fuck off. Forever.” ? ? ? Bye-bye Violet.
-
Aunti Disestablishmentarian says:
Violet: I think you’ve got enough one liners listed in comment 18 to make a nice “Feminists are Icky” Bingo card Volume 3.0
-
Violet says:
Sorry, Flash, but I’m fed up with that guy.
Wildly misquoting me in the very thread attached to the post he’s misquoting? That’s just beyond my tolerance level for bullshit.
-
John Spragge says:
Women make up over half of the American population. I cannot believe that among that half, you cannot find a woman who stood up against Iraq, the greatest policy blunder of a generation, from the beginning. I cannot believe that among the millions of women who made the right, smart choice on Iraq and other issues, you could not find one, or ten, or ten million with the smarts and drive and experience and sense of proportion to make a run for the presidency.
So why didn’t you find that woman; why didn’t you insist on the best of those ten million women, push for her, support her, organize and make it happen for her? Once you succumb to the idea that out of over 150 million women, only Hillary Rodham Clinton can get elected president, once you have no alternative but to stereotype her major opponent as a Black man making it on his looks (”an empty suit… draped on a good-looking man”) then you set up a situation in which one candidate with a flawed record, stands for all women, and if she loses, so do all women.
-
Virginia Ray says:
We couldn’t find one because women show up for hard votes. They don’t hide and then tell us what they would have done if only they were there.
-
thebewilderness says:
Each time that the people rise up and demand justice the government passes minimal “reforms” in fear of being forced to actually reform.
This is what happened with labor reform in the early part of the 19th century, and civil rights reform in the 60’s. It creates the illusion of change and progress and gives people the impression that further progress is inevitable. I think the misunderstanding lies in the expectation that once the injustice has been pointed out, and declared intolerable by the people, the problem will be resolved. In reality, the least amount of change possible will be made to put a stop to the protests, then the process of convincing the public that great change has been made begins.
This is what I think happened to the women’s liberation movement. Laws were passed, regulations were put in place, but not enforced, and women were told that they had nothing more to complain about. If they couldn’t succeed, even with all these special rights, it was their own fault. This is the same thing workers have been told since 1912, blacks have been told since the civil war, and women have been told since 1920.
The other thing that stands out in the history of citizens demanding justice is that a war happened each and every time the people’s prostests became widespread. I don’t think it is a coincidence.
