Welcome to Hindsight 2020, Refinery29’s weekly column reflecting on the women running for president and the lessons learned (or not!) from 2016.
When you have conversations with people, few will admit that they think a woman president is a bad idea, in theory. In fact many will enthusiastically say "it’s time" for a female president. According to a recent study, 52% of Americans, including 45% of men and 60% of women, say they would feel "very comfortable" having a female president. A 2008 article, however, said "some polls indicate that 81% of Americans would personally vote for a qualified woman candidate from their party."
Neither of these numbers are as high as they should be. But when you look at them next to how much the male candidates are out-polling and out-fundraising female ones in 2020, it’s obvious that people really aren’t talking the talk. Look no further than South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg pulling ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, in third place behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders. He has also outearned Warren, bringing in $7 million in the first quarter while she brought in $6 million. A late March Quinnipiac poll shows him tied for fifth place with Warren nationally.
Why Buttigieg over a policy heavyweight who brings more exciting, well thought-out ideas to the table than any candidate so far? Like the senator from Massachusetts, he’s a capitalist who wants to tax the rich and remove big money from politics. Like Warren, he’s also open to abolishing both the Senate filibuster and the Electoral College so Democrats can actually make their plans happen. Unlike her, he doesn’t have a ton of specific detail on his plans or experience bringing them to life. "I really like Pete Buttigieg. He is intelligent. He is decent. He is curious," tweeted commentator Jill Filipovic. "But when he says, ‘I think that policy matters, I’m a policy guy,’ but all of his policies are basically Warren’s (except less specific and less progressive), I wonder why he’s not working for her." Good question.
A lot of this comes down to Americans being risk-averse, having seen Hillary Clinton lose in both 2008 and 2016 (although that she won the popular vote, in a country that supposedly isn’t ready for a woman president, is less discussed). In the above-mentioned 2008 article, called "Subtle Sexism? Examining Vote Preferences When Women Run Against Men for the Presidency," authors David Paul and Jessi L. Smith note that people’s perception of other’s biases tends to color their own voting preferences. Some polls "imply that nearly one-third of Americans believe their ‘neighbors’ are unwilling to vote for a woman," they write. In other words, as Kate Manne, an assistant professor at Cornell University interprets it, " I’m not biased, but they might be, so I ought to vote for a man."
This risk-averseness is compounded by mainstream media, reflecting the internalized misogyny of the public. Not only does cable news pay an outsized amount of attention to the white, male candidates — ensuring that they stay high in the polls — but print media, a recent study found, tends to describe them more positively. The Northeastern University School of Journalism analyzed 200 articles, focusing on the five most-read news websites according to Amazon’s Alexa service: The Washington Post, The New York Times, HuffPo, CNN, and Fox News. Researchers looked at the percentage of positive words used to describe 2020 presidential candidates.
The candidates by media sentiment from highest to lowest, were: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Notice a pattern here?
Words used to describe the female candidates more often have to do with their requisite "scandals" — scandals that may not have been such huge scandals had they been men. The most egregious example is that the top words for Gillibrand are "sexual," "harassment," and "franken," echoing the misogynistic and wrongheaded refrain that she somehow threw Al Franken "under the bus" when calling for him to resign. As a reminder, Sen. Al Franken had eight credible accusations of sexual harassment against him, there were other senators calling for his resignation, and he chose to resign himself.
The misogyny in political coverage is made worse by the fact that 70% of political coverage overall and 74% of election news at online news outlets is done by men, according to a new report from the Women’s Media Center. It’s made even worse by the fact that they seem to exist within an echo chamber: Male political reporters retweet other men three times more than their female colleagues. It’s all but guaranteed that most people who tweet this article will be women, when it’s the male reporters who need to read it most.
So, why is it that so many people would be happy with a female president but are unwilling to do the legwork? The answer lies somewhere between media bros, internalized misogyny, and "risk averseness." But now that all of these factors are out in the open, we have no excuse but to address them head on and, ultimately, do better than we did in 2016.
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
Source: Refinery29 – Natalie Gontcharova