Elizabeth Heard
Professor Khoury
UNIV 200
October 18, 2015
James Brown once said in one of his hit songs “ This is a man’s world, this is a
man’s world but it wouldn’t be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl”. He further
went on to say how man created all major appliances and technology but without women,
man would be nothing. This makes me ponder what would happen if James brown
replaced the word “man” to “woman” would it still be a hit single? What makes it a man
world, is it the fact that we find men superior to woman and the only capable gender to
lead and take command? This traditional thinking is in direct relation to gender roles and
how they came to be. We place women in the category of nourishing then men as the
provider and expect each gender to live and breath in their designated roles. This is
significant because for the first time in history there is a great possibility that we could
have a female president, which is former First Lady Hilary Clinton. However we as
Americans know that we are accustomed to men as president because we see them as the
leader and the one is suppose to take command. Therefore Hillary Clinton campaign
team has a big assignment ahead of them, they have to present Hillary Clinton in an
unordinary way due to that fact that Hilary Clinton is often perceived as a less respectable
president by middle aged men because she is a strong and stern woman that is breaking
traditional gender roles.
Hillary Clinton has always been seen in the public eye as a stern women, which
has often negatively affected her presidential campaign in some aspects such as imaging.
Two departments of management researchers, Gary Powell who works at University of
Connecticut, and Anthony Butterflied at University of Massachusetts quoted that
“Clinton may have a serious problem with respect to the tyranny factor, on which she
ranked highest with McCain of all candidates. That aspect of her image as potential
president, mirroring a key anti-leader prototype, will need addressing if she decides to
run again” (400). From this statement we see that people view Hillary as a tyrant, a word
that brings fear and hatred among people, so does this mean that Americans fear Hilary?
The fact that they use the word “anti-leader prototype” to describe her image shows that
she is not perceived well among others and many believe she is exactly the opposite of
the leader we need for president.
There are many factors that make former first lady Hillary Clinton perceived as
stern. In the article “Hillary the Pol” written by the Connie Bruck a staff writer at The
New Yorker who won the National Magazine Award for Reporting said that “What
Hillary Clinton had been lacking was, essentially, an ability to connect with people far
different from her-a lack that could, of course, be fatal to her as a politician, and also one
that had no doubt been highlighted by the inevitable contrast with her husband”. Hillary
has often been said to be close-minded, meaning she only likes to hang out with a
particular crowd. Therefore anyone different from whom she is acquainted with, she has
a problem relating towards. The key thing of any president is that they need to make the
public and voters feel like they are on the same level as them and that they understand
our needs, wants and will try their best to cater to them. So if Hillary is not able to
connect to different types of people then how are we suppose to feel comforted and
ensured that she will fight for us as voters?
Some might say that because Hillary Clinton is a stern strong women, men would
like her better as presidential candidate because it would comfort them to know she is not
too sensitive or soft. However it is customary for a woman to be charismatic and
welcoming to those she encounters, so for Hillary to be un-welcoming this does not
portray a flattering look for her as woman and as a potential president. Another statement
was made in the article “Hillary the Pol” that said, “The risk that Hillary Clinton faced in
her performance was not that she would stumble on her facts or be caught short. It was,
rather…. her acumen and high competence, unadorned, would narrow her public appeal,
and alienate the more retrograde; and also that her steeliness, if it were to show through,
would alienate many more”. Hillary downfall is her attitude. She is too fully aware of her
power and skill and comes off shrewd. By her behavior she is making people feel
victimized and is losing voters along the way.
By Hillary portraying herself as a strong public figure she is producing such
characteristics to be said about herself throughout the previous quotes like “shrewd”,
“high competence”, and “tyranny” words that all exemplifies negative things towards
Hillary. Thus by appearing strong she is only receiving negative feedback rather then
admiration for her strength. Furthermore Deborah Brooks an assistant professor of
government at Dartmouth College said, “As a presidential candidate, Clinton has to
sound strong, not shrill. She has to look in command, not manly. And no matter what she
does, there always will be men and women who look at her and see a witch. Some
observers link anger and toughness, viewing anger as an emotional version of toughness
that is dangerous for female candidates to display”(600). This quote leads me to argue
that some of the negative things people say about Hillary Clinton can be birthed out of
the fact that she shows toughness instead of weakness; and we as Americans see this as
solely as an male trait. Meaning that Hillary is going to be dealt the lower hand no matter
what she does because she is portraying traits outside her gender. This point of view
brings me to my next point the double standard placed upon Hillary.
A double standard is a principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to
particular set of people, we can all come to a consensus that women deal with a greater
double standard then men and furthermore women in charge deal with a even grander
double standard because of their title and responsibilities it brings. Kim Elsesser and
Janet Lever, who both work at the Center for Study of Women at the University of
California conducted a study on 60, 470 women and men and evaluated their preferences
on male and female managers said that “In our society stereotypical female gender roles
have included communal roles, which included nurturing, caring and sensitivity. Male
roles are more argentic, with men often being considered more aggressive, ambitious,
assertive and direct. Individuals who act in ways that are incongruent with their sex roles
tend to be evaluated negatively (Elsesser &Lever1556).” Women are placed into the box
as nurtures, caretakers, and compassionate, while men are said to be aggressive and in
command. Therefore whenever a woman portrays man traits or vice versa it is shown
negatively. This hurts Hilary both ways because to be president you have to be assertive
and direct and both of those traits are labeled for males, so by portraying these traits she
is looked down upon. However if she chose to be sensitive and soft people would claim
she is not fit for presidency, and this is why Hilary Clinton campaign for presidency
candidacy is a double standard.
“Women who aspire to leadership best not admit to ‘doing tears’ no matter what the
circumstances, and men more than women get away with showing sensitivity. After all,
when a woman cries it reinforces stereotypes and tells us that her toughness was just a
front and she has revealed herself to be weak underneath (Brooks 599)”. When a man
cries it shows his sensitive side and is admirable towards all, however when a woman
cries it shows that she is weak. Hillary cannot be shown crying because Americans would
literally devour her personal reputation on magazines, newspapers, and social media by
saying she is weak and has been portraying a fake persona towards us. My inquiry
question is all about perception of Hilary as respectable and if we see Hilary as sensitive
or as harsh both outcomes will gives us a bad perception of Hillary as president due to the
double standard placed upon her.
Kenneth Jost the associate editor of the article “Women in Politics” who graduated
from Harvard College and also Georgetown University Law Center, where he is an
adjunct professor said, “Many voters still harbor doubts about the role of women in
politics. There are still deeply held attitudes in our culture about how can a woman be
soft and warm and yet be tough and commander in chief, how can a woman be a mother
and raise very competent children and still be involved in policy and be running for
president”. The fact that women can be soft hearted, but aggressive when put in charge
and at the same time be a wife and a nurturing mom while running for presidency is
something Americans in particular men cannot wrap their head around. Hilary Clinton is
a former first lady, mom, and a now a grandmother and the fact that she is all these
positions and a presidential candidate people doubt her capability to do all these task with
the proper energy and dedication that each one requires. However if it was man and he
was a senator, a father and a grandfather running for the upcoming presidential election
no one would doubt whether or not he was capable of presidency, rather they would
respect him even more for being able to multi- task and priorities so well.
In the article “Men or Women: Who’s the better leader,” a research survey was
conducted on 2,250 adults by telephones interviews carried out by the PewResarch
Center and when “Asked what accounts for this slow movement toward gender parity in
top political positions, about half (51%) of all survey respondents say a major reason is
that Americans simply aren’t ready to elect a woman to high office; more than four-in-ten
(43%) say a major reason is that women who are active in politics are held back by men,
and 38% say a major reason is that women are discriminated against in all realms of
society, and politics is no exception”. This research directly backs up the double standard
placed upon women in a high position in particular Hillary. The majority of the subjects
in the survey reason for why more women are not in charge were simply that America is
not ready for a woman to be in charge. Meaning that we cannot comes to grips with
someone who is feminine leading our country and this is just a setback that Hilary will
have to endure. However another percentage said that women are discriminated in all
realms of society and politics just happens to be one of those. The world can all agree that
women are going to undergo more obstacles then a man would, and this is due because of
the tradition that men are entitles to more things then women are, and this old mindset
thinking mostly effects the middle age and older generation.
Many can argue that even with the double standard placed upon woman, females play
a major part on how we label and treat them because they as females often believe the
double standard and allow themselves to be confined to a certain role in society. It has
been said that “Women may be constrained by their own shortfall in political ambition–
which, the study theorizes, is the sum of many parts: they have more negative attitudes
than men about campaigning for office, they under-value their own qualifications for
office; and they are more likely than men to be held back by family responsibilities
(PewResearch Center)”. Women can sometimes be biased towards their own self.
Meaning they started believing the stereotype that because of their gender they are under
qualified for a leadership position and cannot step up to the plate. Therefore if woman
sell their own self short then its much easier for men to do the same thing. Power roles is
what defines males and females, and when we start believing that leadership positions are
only entitled to males then we are making us as women a stereotype. A power shift needs
to occur that women can also hold leadership without being judged or set back.
Shifting of power between genders is an uncomfortable topic that many people try to
avoid. The reason why is because by shifting power from a male to a female then we are
admitting that woman are just as capable and superior as men are. This shift may seem
un-invasive for people who grew up in this new generation, however for those who were
born in a society that was built upon gender regulations this shift is a power struggle.
However this power struggle among genders must of occurred at some point of time, for
example in the article “Women as Bosses” an anthropologist and sociologist Dr.
Margaret Mead stated “ men’s resentment against women “bossing things” may start at
an early age when girls mature faster than boys and outshine them in school. Yet women
do in fact boss men (and other women) without trouble (Hamill)”. Females typically
mature faster then boys do and have a history of bossing boys around because of this
maturity gap. We all remember how in childhood boys disliked girls because of the
maturity girls carried. This resentment can create a stigma and carry on until adulthood.
However in today age single mothers raise most boys so they are used to being bossed by
a female. Likewise middle age men were predominantly raised in traditional two parents
home so they were accustomed to a male being in command. Therefore tradition plays a
very important role on how we perceive Hillary as a presidential candidate. Because a
middle age male might be more inclined to vote for a male because he was raised with a
male in dominance, however a young adult might choose a women because he knows
first hand how capable his own mother is in multi tasking and directing.
“A woman in an executive spot creates a morale problem. People resent working for
women. It’s a basic thing that can’t be overcome. As long as we are going to have
families, women will be handicapped in business (Hamill).” People believe that it is
morally wrong for a woman to posses an executive position. They think that type of title
and position should belong to a man, because a woman is the caretaker of the family.
This type of attitude places a “handicap” on women who are in a high political position
and how the public views them. This “handicap” is what can make people not perceive
Hillary as a respectable president, which directly relates to my inquiry question.
Furthermore as Hilary campaign team there has to be a focus on how collectively as a
team you can prevent this handicap? Something must occur between male and female to
cease this double standard, and the only solution is to cause a shift in power roles.
. In the survey conducted by Powell & Butterfield “they hypothesized that a good
manager would be seen as possessing similarly high levels of masculine and feminine
traits….However, contrary to their hypothesis, a good manager was seen as possessing
predominantly masculine characteristics by a majority of respondents in all groups,
including undergraduate and part-time graduate males and females.” Earlier in this
survey-conducted women ranked higher in skills, and attitude and coordination compared
to males. However when the real question was asked on what the subjects wanted in
charge they chose a male over a female. The subjects who were all fairly young wanted
someone with masculine traits running over them even though the facts show that a
female is completely capable of doing everything a male could do as manager, perhaps
even better. I believe this outcome is due to a comfort level that we all posses, we are
just used to a male in charge. Throughout my sources I have seen a trend of researches
that concluded that women are quite capable of being a leader such as one like
presidency, however the problem is we simply do not want to see females in charge. We
as Americans do not want to shift power roles; we have placed each gender into their own
box and expect no deviation. This directly relates to my inquiry question because power
roles explain why middle age men will be more incline to vote for a man rather then a
women because they see man as inferior and perceive women as not worthy for
presidency.
Although some may often state that America has already undergone the power shift
between leadership roles, because we see much more women in higher positions, there is
substantive evidence that proves that only a small percentage of America has shifted for
the better. In the article “Women for Women? Gender and Party Bias In Voting” the
author Craig Leonard Brians, who is the associate Professor of Political Science at
Virginia Tech mentioned how “Southern voters are more likely to embrace a
“traditionalistic culture” that does not encourage electing women to important offices
(363).” This statement reassures me that not every part of America is changing, there are
small towns and cities that still have the older mindset thinking that men should be the
only one in control. We are able to say this because we have heard on the news or
newspapers of the multiple cases where a female worker who has the exact same job as a
male have found out that she is receiving less pay. The fact that the women is doing the
same amount of work as a male but is underpaid, shows how the bosses of that company
thinks of woman and believe that women are undeserving of the same respect and pay as
a male. This logic is primarily birthed out of tradition, and when we think of the word
tradition we automatically think of our parents and grandparents. Meaning that tradition
typically lies in people who are older and have grew up in a complete different era then
the one present. Middle age men who grew up in southern towns are particular used to
being in charge in all realms of life. They are the providers of the family while their
spouse is simply the caretaker. The male perception of woman in a lot of southern towns
is for the wife to be completely submissive to the husband. Therefore they might see the
campaign for Hillary Clinton as president dissatisfying because they are not accustomed
to women having such high titles. However not every one in the south has that thinking
due to the fact that “Finally age is also a useful control, because younger voters often
have more modern views of gender roles (Brians 363)”. Gender roles are changing and
breaking those who are birthed in the new generation are welcoming the power shift and
embracing it.
In conclusion it is fair to state that Hillary Clinton is a stern woman who is looked
negatively at because of the double standard placed upon woman, particular the ones in
charge. She is starting a nation shift of power roles by being a presidential candidate in a
“man world”. By being a stern strong women she is breaking the typical traditional
feminine role that was designated for her. Some might say that they like Hilary Clinton
better because she is stern, however throughout multiple surveys we can conclude that we
as Americans believe a women should not portray masculine traits. Also others may
argue that the double standard placed upon woman is partially their fault because they
condone the standard and have made themselves feel unworthy of a leadership role.
However we can establish that there needs to be a shift of the leadership role from men
and women so that woman can feel worthy to carry and hold an substantive title. My
argument that middle age men perceive Hillary Clinton less respectably due to her
breaking gender roles has limitations on it because not all men are bias or prejudices and
are able to look pass Hilary gender and rather just evaluate her based off her platform.
Also those middle aged men who are democrat may be more inclined to vote for Hillary
Clinton because she is the democrat party and is well aware of how presidency works
since she is a former first lady. Therefore researching how party politics and gender
benefit or harm Hilary Clinton is something that Hilary campaign team should investigate
so that she has the best chance as presidential candidate. Throughout this paper we have
seen how gender roles affect perception on Hillary Clinton and most of it is due to
tradition. However we as Americans are constantly adapting to this new society, so it
makes you wonder if one day it truly will be a “woman” world.