Editor’s note: This commentary is by Elayne Clift, who writes about women, culture and social issues from Saxtons River.
[T]he first time I sensed how challenging it was for a female to assert herself I was in seventh grade. I had asked my teacher a question. “The trouble with you, Goldman,” he said, using my surname, “is you ask too many questions!” I thought it odd for a teacher to say that to an eager student. Deep down I felt smacked for being a smart girl.
Soon after that, I spoke up again when the principal accused me of being rude to a teacher. I refused to apologize because I’d hadn’t said what I was accused of. He was astounded, but once again I felt the tingle of female pride in standing up to male power.
Challenges like that pursued me into adult life. So I get what’s gone on for years with Hillary Clinton. I understand that many men feel deeply threatened by smart, capable females who don’t stand down when challenged by male privilege and prerogative. I know they fear losing their powerful position in a changing world.
Rebecca Traister wrote about this new world in her book “All the Single Ladies.” She pointed out that there have always been single women whose independence made them forces to reckon with, but as their numbers have grown in modern times, women have come to represent a changing demographic that has political clout. It’s a timely observation and leading up to the election its human face was Hillary Clinton. As Traister said, “These shifts embody the worst nightmare of social conservatives: a complete rethinking of who women are and who men are … The expanded presence of women as independent entities means a redistribution of all kinds of power, including electoral power that has, until recently, been wielded mostly by men.”
Clinton isn’t the first woman to challenge the status quo in the way she has. In 1872 Victoria Woodhull dared to run for president. More modern heads of state have been women, but they haven’t had an easy time of it. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was ousted in 2013 after just three years, and Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff was impeached recently for corruption, “even though her male predecessors had likely done worse,” as Peter Beinart wrote recently in The Atlantic.
Ultimately the patriarchy will have to realize that having a female president in a pantsuit is not going to emasculate them.
In his piece, “Fear of a Female President,” Beinart refers to several revealing studies about women in power positions, often seen as “illegitimate authorities.” But the reaction to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was met with unprecedented nastiness, especially among white men. Their anger toward Clinton was openly and dangerously hostile. Remember the calls to “lock her up,” and T-shirts that read “Trump That Bitch,” among others?
“Clinton’s candidacy [sparked] the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict,” Beinart wrote. “That backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.”
In a PBS News Hour post, social psychologist Peter Glick noted that Clinton has had to contend with what he calls “benevolent sexism,” which rewards women who buy into traditional gender roles, and punishes those who don’t. And we all know Hillary Clinton is no Pat Nixon.
Glick said that women who violate gender norms by acting in stereotypically masculine ways encounter “the backlash effect.” Psychologist Terri Vescio agrees. “If you’re perceived as competent, you’re not perceived as warm. But if you’re liked and trusted, you’re not seen as competent.”
“Hillary Hate,” as writer Joanne Bamberger dubbed it, existed “because Clinton is the definition of a transitional figure that people are uncomfortable with. She’s a professionally accomplished woman who dared to flex her mental muscles. She has the audacity to want to use her brain to help the country.”
Some research journalists have cited bears noting. A 2010 study found that fictional females running for state senate were met with “moral outrage” by subjects while fictional male candidates for the same seats were met with favorable responses. And a University of British Columbia study found that women who “deviated from traditional gender roles by occupying a ‘man’s’ job or having a ‘masculine’ personality were disproportionately targeted for sexual harassment.”
These studies are troubling indeed. They illuminate why it will take still longer for some men to accept the idea that qualified women in leadership roles do not threaten male identity. Ultimately the patriarchy will have to realize that having a female president in a pantsuit is not going to emasculate them. They will be helped in this endeavor, no doubt, by three newly elected women to the U.S. Senate — Kamila Harris, Catherine Cortez-Masto and Tammy Duckworth, who join other capable women in Congress.
In the long term, we can hope that increased female leadership will reinforce the positive reality that having experienced, intelligent female political leaders is not dangerous or demeaning to men. The truth is, it is likely to benefit all of us while leading to healthy changes in the Old Boys Network that leads to inclusion of everyone, even all the ladies, single or otherwise.
