What do we have against women who run for president?
Unsettling news for Democrats emerged from a poll in six battleground states where electoral college votes put the president over the top in 2016.
Although national polling gives several Democrats a solid edge over Trump, those six key states present a different view. Especially for Elizabeth Warren. She loses on the basis of electability and likability.
That led the NY Times/Siena College pollsters to ask some specific questions that reveal a problem for women in politics, and maybe everywhere else too.
Nearly half the people polled said most of the women running for president aren’t that likable.
And get this. Women are a little more likely than men to label female candidates unlikable.
I guess I’m part of the problem, and maybe you are too.
Elizabeth Warren reminds me of a gym teacher, the way she strides on stage at the debates with those ridiculously hearty gestures and a voice to match. And I’m on record when it comes to gym teachers.
Other voters phrase it differently. “There’s just something about her I don’t like.” “Her body language bothers me.” “She seems cold.” And … the kiss of death with swing-state voters … “She’s a lot like Hillary Clinton.”
Warren herself had pretty well dodged questions about personality, until Joe Biden called her angry and unyielding.
Instead of deflecting, Warren leaned in with an email to supporters: “I’m angry and I own it.”
“Over and over,” Warren wrote, “we are told that women are not allowed to be angry. It makes us unattractive to powerful men who want us to be quiet.”
And of course, being angry makes women “unlikable.”
So, what does a woman in politics—or business—have to do to be likable? Or is it time to let go of likability as a criterion for success?
You know I believe men as well as women are most likable when they combine the strong traits we traditionally label masculine with the warmer qualities historically called feminine. I’m sticking with my views that we all benefit from dancing between command and connection.
There’s an extra hurdle for women, though, as Alicia Menendez, the author of The Likeability Trap points out. “Ambitious women know, and the research supports the notion that the more successful a woman becomes, the less others like her.”
This may be the crux of the issue for women who rise far enough to run for president. Or to move into the C-suite. Or to launch their own business.
Is authenticity the answer?
We’re told by all kinds of experts that authenticity is one key to likability. Be your real self, they say, and people will like you more. That may not work so well for women.
When we play full out and let go of the need to be nice, Menendez says, “Women are being penalized for being brazenly themselves.”
So, “be yourself” is great advice. For people who are already assumed to be competent, qualified, and powerful. Which is to say, for men.
For the rest of us? Well, there’s this, from Sociologist Marianne Cooper in Harvard Business Review:
“High-achieving women experience social backlash because their very success – and specifically the behaviors that created that success – violates our expectations about how women are supposed to behave. Women are expected to be nice, warm, friendly, and nurturing.
Thus, if a woman acts assertively or competitively, if she pushes her team to perform, if she exhibits decisive and forceful leadership, she is deviating from the social script that dictates how she “should” behave.
By violating beliefs about what women are like, successful women elicit pushback from others for being insufficiently feminine and too masculine. As descriptions like ‘Ice Queen,’ and ‘Ballbuster’ can attest, we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women. In fact, we often don’t really like them.”
Presidential candidates and professional women get a lot of advice (sometimes from me) about how to have a more commanding presence, convey confidence, and connect with the people around them.
Maybe we should stop focusing on individual women and how they can overcome their likability issues.
How about the rest of us get over being “deeply uncomfortable with powerful women”?
We can start with questioning our assumptions and our language.
When we hear someone say a woman is shrill or strident, we can ask what that really means. Are we talking about expressing strong opinions? And if a man did that, would we describe it in the same way?
What about that “angry woman” thing? If a man speaks out against injustice, is he penalized for his anger … or do we admire him for taking a strong stand? What about when a woman speaks out?
And (I’ll own this one) if a woman shows up at a presidential debate being loudly vigorous and cheerful, she brings up anti-gym-teacher bias. Is it possible a man behaving the same way would seem friendly … and kind of like your Uncle Joe?
Are you in for an experiment?
Tune in and notice your gut reactions to strong women—the ones on the campaign trail or the ones in your office.
Pay attention to the words you use to talk about them, or even to think about them. And see what happens when you play with the words. Find less-loaded language to describe those women. Or experiment with the same words applied to a man.
And post a comment here to let us know what you find out.
Hillary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren. Kamala Harris. Amy Klobuchar.
Tulsi Gabbard. (You notice I don’t include Marianne Williamson. Because nobody understood/paid attention to her.)
None of them are “likable”. They’re forceful, critical, intelligent, thoughtful. I’d “have a beer” with any one of them. And I would like them. How are they different from Sanders, Buttegieg, Bloomberg, Booker, Yang? Not to mention Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, etc. Oh yeah. The Y chromosome. Notice I didn’t include “Uncle Joe” (wishy-washy, like Charlie Brown. Would you vote for Charlie Brown?) and the Donald (whom I don’t need to describe and nobody would describe as likable.) As Mick Mulvaney (also unlikable) would say “Get over it.”
You’re certainly right about Mick Mulvaney. I tried to come up with a male politician criticized as much as any of these women for being “unlikable.” Ted Cruz is the only one I could think of. And he was re-elected in spite of his personal unpopularity.
I’m not sure how to create a shift and apply the likability-test across the board or not at all. But I do think we’d benefit from using the same language to discuss male and female candidates. It highlights how ridiculous some criticisms of political women are.
How about Michele Obama? She is competent, strong and likable. She is self-assured. She may be angry but she channels her anger to rise above it and make her more powerful. Wish she was a candidate.
You’re not alone in thinking Michelle Obama would be a great candidate, although she’s shown no sign of interest in joining the fray. She’s had her own issues with the tendency to dislike strong women; being seen as powerful posed a problem early in her husband’s campaign. You might find this interesting: https://catherinejohns.com/what-do-they-see-you-say/
I can tell you this Katherine, most men, especially here in the rural South are intimidated by strong women. As far as Elizabeth Warren is concerned, I think she has a better track record of an ethical Behavior than Hillary. Except for strong pockets in the two major metropolitan areas of Tennessee. Nashville and Memphis. Democrats don’t stand a chance and especially strong women. Trump is adored in the rural South. As a transplanted northerner who has lived here over 10 years I found it rather amazing that these strong rural Christian conservatives adhere themselves to him. I am neither Republican, nor Democrat. However, I can tell you Democrats are not in the neighborhood of the ballpark here in Tennessee.
Thanks for your observations, Kenneth — you flesh out what the polls tell us about your neighbors and their political preferences. I’ve known some strong Southern women — there’s a reason they talk about “steel magnolias” — but they do manifest differently from the female political candidates that Southerners disdain.
What about Tulsi Gabbard, Dem and Nikki Haley, Rep? Both strong leaders.
Interesting topic! What you’re describing shows up not just in leadership roles but in almost all social situations, where women’s approval is dependent on qualities like being agreeable, mild-mannered, demure, and non-confrontational – in short, submissive – while in men, very nearly the opposite traits are valued. What is up with that?? Some would say that as a society we have made strides towards equality of the sexes, including how their behaviors are viewed.
Well, maybe, but if you want to see how different men vs women’s behavior is still being modeled today, try this simple experiment: watch ANY drama on TV, and pick ANY scene in which men are interacting with women. Then, in your mind, reverse the characters’ sexes – in other words, pretend that the male characters are female, and the female characters are male, then watch what they say and do. Aside from being rather amusing, you will very quickly see how different the portrayals of women and men’s behaviors are. Thoughts, feelings, even gestures, which seem so “natural” in men and women will seem so very unnatural when you do this experiment and reverse their roles. It is eye-opening, to say the least.
That is interesting, Terry. As a woman who’s rarely mild-mannered and demure, I’ve certainly seen (and been told) how much those qualities are still valued. I do think things are changing, but it’s a slow shift.
Love your idea of mentally gender-switching the characters on TV. I’m going to play with that!
God help us if we are making political decisions based on “likability.” Our world is so complicated the “likability” factor doesn’t even come into my thought pattern.
Catherine, your point is about powerful women, and I get what you are saying. The problem is linking it to politics perpetuates the believe that “likability” is as important as policy when we are making a decision. Anyone who is shallow enough to vote on likability is shallow enough not to like powerful women. God help our world.
I take your point, Donna. And, I think people vote their likes and dislikes all the time. They’re just more open about saying they don’t like a candidate when that candidate is a woman. Or Ted Cruz. I remember a lot of commentary when Cruz ran for president about people, even in his own party, not liking him.
I think Elizabeth Warren would do well to heed your advice. Had she been confident enough in her true self to tell the truth from the beginning, she might stand a chance. Unfortunately, her documented history of stretching the truth to make herself seem more sympathetic has likely erased any chance of winning. If Tulsi can withstand the onslaught from the military industrial complex and their puppets in the media, she might actually win back the White House.
You may be right about Elizabeth Warren, Philip. On the other hand, if there’s anything we’ve learned from our current political situation, it’s that a “documented history of stretching the truth” doesn’t erase a person’s chance of winning.