In 2007, I remember watching the South Carolina Democratic debate with my mom. Towards the end, a YouTube user asked candidates to compliment the person to the left of them(note: yes, 2016 copied that). John Edwards, who starts speaking at 1:05 in the aforementioned video, had this to say about Hillary Clinton: "I admire what Senator Clinton has done for America, what her husband did for America. Um. I’m not sure about that coat."
Even as a young girl who understood very little of what else was said during that debate, the comment struck me. Although Clinton laughed it off, I was thinking about what her coat looked like, and what I would wear if I were on stage. But I also started thinking about how easy it was for a male candidate to get dressed. While John could get up that morning and pick almost any suit and tie combination without a second look from a reporter, Clinton had to find an outfit that would withstand the pressure of judgment from fellow candidates and the media. Even at 8, I felt like there was something unfair about being a girl in politics. At 18, I don't feel much different.
The notion that gender had no effect on the way people voted this past election is just as false as the belief that gender was the only thing that affected how people voted. By trying to ignore the gender of each candidate, we fall in to subconsciously letting our thoughts on gender dictate the outcome. But in recognizing differences, we can combat how they hurt us, and encourage how they help us. So, for the purposes of this post, sexism is defined as difference in treatment on the basis of sex.
In 2008, Hillary was faced with comments, much like Edwards', on her style. This isn't necessarily important to a lot of voters in choosing a candidate, but what this resulted in was more media focus on what she looked like, rather than her policies and campaign. Blogger Melissa McEwan started a "Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch" on Shakesville in 2007, and held over 114 posts about different times the media had made sexist comments before she conceded. The blog is definitely left-leaning, but I would encourage you to read the excerpts and examples she provides. For more information on how the outcome of 2008 was affected, check this US News + World Report article, which references studies that found sexism in media influenced voters.
But, in an odd way, Clinton (and all women) benefited from blatant sexism in 2007-8 because it forced a conversation. Katie Couric once said, “Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media."
In 2016, Hillary came in as a different candidate. The sexism she faced in 2008 made her somewhat of a martyr thereafter, she "ended the clothing conversation", Bernie Sanders did little to bring up gender at all in debates, and ultimately she proudly became the first female presidential nominee for a major party in the United States. In a lot of ways, sexism was less directly apparent. Americans seemed to think sexism had largely gone away, but that doesn't mean sexism didn't play a role in the election.
In fact, the mere belief that sexism had gone away was extremely dangerous, because it made us more vulnerable to the subconscious sexism that flourished. I love this article from PBS and Daniel Bush, because it explains extremely well the sexism we didn't see, and how it hurt Clinton immensely. To avoid inserting my own bias, because it's so well done, and since I'm already over the word count, I'm going to tell you to read the article (or look at my mind map!) to learn more about what things were sexist even though we didn't see it. Bonus: there's a quiz at the bottom that will help you see if you have any sexist predispositions.
But, even if you don't read the article, there is one thing that we need to take away from the whole thing: although we didn't see it, sexism was there, and it affected how voters decided to fill in bubbles in November.
By constantly reminding audiences that Clinton was a woman, whether it be from Clinton's own campaign slogan ("I'm with Her") or the question that seemed to loom over every woman's head, "are you voting for her because she's a woman?", voters were constantly shifting their attention away from policies and towards the qualities and personalities of the candidates. This can be seen in the image to the right, which shows that the amount of time candidates spoke about the candidates themselves far outshone any other topic.
Here are some answers to questions I commonly get in discussing this issue:
Ok, but what about women that vote for her just because she's a woman?
There are certainly people, male and female alike, that may have decided to vote for Clinton just because she was a woman. But, to be fair, we have to examine if the number of voters who are more likely to vote for Clinton because she's a woman outweigh those who would vote for Trump because he's a man. These polls can shed some light on the realities behind each theory.
But what about being the first woman president. Wouldn't a historical outcome influence voters to help her out?
Maybe! There absolutely could be voters who sought to be a part of an amazing part of American history, so they decided to cast a vote for Clinton. But, in 2008 this historical factor was cancelled out in a way because Barack Obama was contending as the first African-American president. By removing the conversation about historical importance, the conversation shifted back to policy. Also, according to the book Big Girls Don't Cry by Rebecca Traister, historical weight can actually be negative for a lot of reasons. Traister quotes Susan Sarandon, an actress and activist who said, "[She is] not worse than other politicians, but I hoped she would be better." She also references a time when Margo Jefferson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, recalled thinking about a political move Clinton had made as a Senator from New York, and thinking "All politicians do it, but I wanted more from her." This mentality that Clinton should be held to a higher standard is rooted in the historical importance of her campaign. If Americans elect Donald Trump, the 43rd white male to be in office, there isn't necessarily a correlation between his race or gender and his performance. If we had elected Hillary Clinton as the first female president, then her performance would be the only true-tested indicator Americans had of how a woman would perform in office. In a way, it adds pressure and weight to the vote to make it seem much more important, which could scare voters away from her.
Is subtle bias really that powerful?
Well, the earlier article from PBS should explain why I believe it is just as, if not more powerful, than blatant bias at times. Here's a non-political article that explains why subtle biases exist and their dangers.
In conclusion, understand that gender did matter. It could have helped Clinton, and a lot of people believe it didn't hurt her as much as others thought it did (see this article, this one, and this other one), but there are certainly a lot of ways it hurt Clinton. Voters were exposed to subconscious sexism as well as some very upfront sexism, and in the end it would be irresponsible to assume that this didn't affect voters in some way. There are certainly men and women who voted based on policy alone, and ignored the issues gender brought up as best as possible. But for those that didn't, and I'm sure I likely fall in to this bunch, we said things and acted in ways that were driven by the biases we can't see, and it contributed in a massive way in the decision we made when voting.
Earlier, I said that I believe women face disadvantages in politics their male counterparts have never seen. But, a quote from Hillary Clinton's commencement speech hangs on my wall to keep me from letting the unfairness push me away from a field I love:
"Now, I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday someone will — and hopefully sooner than we might think right now. And to all of the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams."
Every morning, when I see this quote, I make the conscious decision to fight the differences in treatment between men and women in politics. I fight for myself, but I also fight so when another 8-year-old girl is watching me on a debate stage, she'll know she doesn't have to.
Here's the mind map for the week. Mr. Westbay, I'm sorry this is such a long post.
