The presidential news of the past few weeks has been dominated by Donald Trump’s vulgar comments against Hillary Clinton, his defense of those comments, and his shift to attacking Clinton for the past behavior of her husband. There are many gender dimensions to these events, but they are not the only sites of gender bias – and/or discussion of it – evident in the race. In this end-of-2015 edition of On The Bias, we review instances of male discomfort with female assertiveness, why the idea of a “woman card” is fundamentally flawed, and the gender politics of women’s bathrooms. Read More
Category: On the Bias
From risky rhetoric to displays of the double bind, recent presidential campaign news provides multiple examples of gender bias. This week’s On the Bias demonstrates the importance and implications of the words we use – and don’t use – for campaigns’ gender dynamics, candidate evaluations, and voter perceptions.
There has been no shortage of gender bias in news, commentary, and candidate remarks over the past few weeks. In this installment of On the Bias, we talk about expectations of being a lady, the double standards that gender and party/ideology impose, and the gender lens through which we view anger and aggressive behavior.
Over the past two weeks, some political commentators have made comments that demonstrate persistent gender bias, from caricatures of women candidates to the supposed “chickification” of political news. Candidates have revealed bias in comments on the trail, while voters’ post-debate comments may reflect the different standards to which men and women candidates are held. At the same time, the reflection on and backlash to perceived sexism may evidence evolution in our expectations of gender and politics.
There is no strict formula for identifying and evaluating gender bias. In fact, the elusive nature of bias is what makes it so pernicious. However some questions can help to measure whether the political playing field is equal to the men and women who run. One of the most basic: would we treat (or react to) a behavior in the same way if it was performed by a male or female candidate? If not, it merits additional evaluation to determine whether the gender difference in response or reaction is rooted in gender stereotypes.
There has been no shortage of gender bias in the presidential race since our last installment. Donald Trump’s attacks on women (and men) in the race continue to evoke gender tropes and sexist tone. But Trump’s comments are not alone in their reliance on, or reinforcement of, gender stereotypes. In fact, in responding to Trump, some candidates and commentators fall into the same traps of gendered rhetoric.
In this On the Bias, we discuss if, when, and where double standards exist for women running for office. From debate rules to evaluations of authenticity, do men and women face the same hurdles? And, what does the masculinity of presidential campaigns mean for men and women’s behavior, treatment, and evaluations?
This week’s On the Bias highlights missed points, masculine norms, and the gender dynamics of vice presidential discussions.
Donald Trump’s sexist comments in and since last Thursday’s debate are enough to fill this week’s On the Bias post. However, while Trump’s behavior (which we will analyze in greater detail in a forthcoming post) is a clear reminder that we are not operating in a “gender-neutral” world, his comments are not the only evidence of gender dynamics at play in the 2016 race.
In this edition of On the Bias, we highlight reminders of the dominance of masculinity in expectations for and evaluations of presidential candidates, including references to candidate sexuality. We review the ways in which questions about integrity may affect women differently than men, and analyze commentary of this cycle’s female candidates that paint them as protectors or victims.