Support NeoGAF

[140.85]

This was an interesting read to say the least.

Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton's role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?

So she reached out to a theatre professor and hired three actors (the two candidates and the moderator) for the performance and got a professor from the Animation department at RISD to do the graphics. Hillary was renamed "Jonathan Gordon" and Trump was now "Brenda King".

Her Opponent was performed a week after the inauguration for an audience of mostly fellow academics and press.

”The atmosphere among the standing-room-only crowd, which appeared mostly drawn from academic circles, was convivial, but also a little anxious," Alexis Soloski, a New York Times reporter who attended the first performance, observed. ”Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn't lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won."

Some of their assumptions going in:

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they'd each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump's aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton's competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

And some reactions:

”I've never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance," Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. ”For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended."

Many were shocked to find that they couldn't seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King's clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they'd remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

NYU has a great interview with the theatre professor, Joe Salvatore at the end of the article.

Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?

We heard a lot of ”now I understand how this happened"—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump's message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, ”I'm just so struck by how precise Trump's technique is." Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created ”hummable lyrics," while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no ”hook" to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, ”I wouldn't vote for either one." Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was ”really punchable" because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don't like, but you know is doing good things for you.

What did you find most surprising?

...I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man's body, and also by the fact that I didn't find Trump's behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!" The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.

I encourage reading the whole piece and the full interview. There's a lot more there and also a video of a rehearsal at the link.

Even watching the rehearsal is a little weird for me. It's something so obvious and yet I hardly ever second-guess what's going on in my mind watching speakers of different genders. I wish I could see this in person because it's good to be reminded of this.

 

[TheSeks]

said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it.

NO SHIT!? Maybe... go back to high-school US History and re-read Nixon vs JFK? JFK won the televised debates because he was "charismatic" and played well on TV.

Politics has always been a popularity game. Clinton failed to understand that. She couldn't make herself "likable" to a strong part of the base that sunk her.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

Thought it was a pretty cool experiment that lead to different conclusions than they were expecting. However, my problems with Trump was always the content(or lack of content) of what he was saying that bothered me. There is no way changing his delivery will change my opinions on the content of what he was saying. The clip shown only further proved what we already knew. Clinton was constantly on defense and stammering while Trump confidently kept shouting his lies and changing the subject. I'd say Trump as a female wasn't that surprising compared to the male whicj only further highlighted Clinton's faults.

 

[gutter_trash]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

 

[Proelite]

Clinton is a bureaucrat. Trump is a salesman. Nothing would have changed that.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That rehearsal is incredibly unsettling. It's definitely thrown me enough I'd want to think for some time about it.

 

[Griss]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

Seems to be the exact opposite of what this little experiment was showing.

Clinton is a bureaucrat. Trump is a salesman. Nothing would have changed that.

Exactly. The man is a revolting moron but he has a singular talent, and that is salesmanship.

 

[wildfire]

Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling.

I didn't think it was punchable but I always found her constant smiling offputting and briefly wondered why it wasn't called out.

 

[teruterubozu]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

Did you read the OP?

 

[hawk2025]

The whole experiment is contaminated by a lack of proper A/B test design

Cute, but there's too much baggage to tell us anything.

 

[chubigans]

Great article and vid, thanks for sharing! I hope they go through with doing the entire debates in video form, that would be extremely interesting.

 

[Aikidoka]

I didn't think it was punchable but I always found her constant smiling offputting and briefly wondered why it wasn't called out.

People call it out all the time. But, when a woman is not smiling they are very often criticized and told something like "you should smile more". Seems like a lose-lose situation for women or at least women who have been in the public eye for as long as Clinton has.

 

[hey_monkey]

NO SHIT!? Maybe... go back to high-school US History and re-read Nixon vs JFK? JFK won the televised debates because he was "charismatic" and played well on TV.

Politics has always been a popularity game. Clinton failed to understand that. She couldn't make herself "likable" to a strong part of the base that sunk her.

This. And as an academic, I'm kinda surprised that academics are doing this and then surprised that it's not a neat and clean confirmation experiment, since there are innumerable other factors for consideration here beyond just "gender-swapping."

It's interesting. But it's not like it proves really much of anything about gender bias, or the system, or anything beyond this performance. It's not generalizable.

 

[CryptiK]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

No

She lost because she was boring she had 0 charisma. Meanwhile Trump has star power and I ridiculous amount of Charisma and had the hook on the whole emails thing and a slogan. Dude was just pumping out slogans and anything to hook his audience. And it worked.

 

[Steel]

I didn't think it was punchable but I always found her constant smiling offputting and briefly wondered why it wasn't called out.

The reason she constantly smiles is because when she didn't as First Lady the narrative would be that she never smiled. It's a cache 22.

All this being said, I said from the beginning that Hillary wasn't charismatic, that's always been her biggest fault. She occasionally gave a good speech, but honestly it was her substance that was her strength, which is difficult to get through to people when you lack charisma.

No

She lost because she was boring she had 0 charisma. Meanwhile Trump has star power and I ridiculous amount of Charisma and had the hook on the whole emails thing and a slogan.

Trump had the charisma of a car salesman. Hillary was wooden but Trump was slimy. Of course, slimy seems to be reasonably popular.

 

[ZealousD]

I didn't think it was punchable but I always found her constant smiling offputting and briefly wondered why it wasn't called out.

Clinton got criticized when she smiled and she got criticized when she didn't. Even though this experiment is trying to take gender out of the equation this kind of shows it really can't. Clinton felt she had to disingenuously smile because that was the expectation that was set out for her as a woman.

 

[sphagnum]

In the video I still found fakeTrump annoying and fakeClinton disingenuous so....no different from how it was, at least for me.

FakeTrump reminded me of an overbearing Italian mom from New Jersey.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

Uh, reading the OP, didn't they end up at exactly the opposite conclusion...?

 

[Beartruck]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

Did you read the article? It literally says the opposite of that.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

As another poster pointed out. It wasn't the delivery, it was the lack of substance and overt fear/hatemongering that Trump engaged in that made him detestable. Nifty experiment though. It further solidifies what we were told; Charisma wins.

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

Lol, uh....

Well this is awkward.

 

[CryptiK]

The reason she constantly smiles is because when she didn't as First Lady the narrative would be that she never smiled. It's a cache 22.

All this being said, I said from the beginning that Hillary wasn't charismatic, that's always been her biggest fault. She occasionally gave a good speech, but honestly it was her substance that was her strength, which is difficult to get through to people when you lack charisma.



Trump had the charisma of a car salesman. Hillary was wooden but Trump was slimy. Of course, slimy seems to be reasonably popular.

Car Salesmen have stupid amounts of charisma so yeah your right.

 

[Seiryoden]

Fascinating experiment, thanks OP. I didn't realize there was a specific term - ethnodrama - for this sort of work despite having seen similar performances in the UK. For shame, me.

Edit: Yes, please read the whole piece, the interview with the piece's Director is really interesting:

What did you find most surprising?
I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things. Daryl [the actor playing Jonathan Gordon, the male Clinton] and I have talked about this multiple times since the performances. Never once in rehearsal did we say, “play this more feminine.” So I think it was mostly the smiling piece—so many women have told me that they’re taught to smile through things that are uncomfortable. It’s been really powerful to hear women talk about that, and a learning experience for me.

 

[Steel]

Car Salesmen have stupid amounts of charisma so yeah your right.

Only in a transparent grifterish manner. Then again, there's a fool born every second.

 

[wildfire]

People call it out all the time. But, when a woman is not smiling they are very often criticized and told something like "you should smile more". Seems like a lose-lose situation for women or at least women who have been in the public eye for as long as Clinton has.

I was in two of the debate threads refreshing them constantly. It wasn't called out.


The behavior is called out in general but during the debate it wasn't on gaf.

Anyway I read through the article and it didn't add anything new except a blurb that they'll redo it and reenact the entire debate. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product. I wasn't a fan of how Trump prowled Clinton on the stage and I'm not likely to see it as anything as creepy regardless of gender.

 

[CrocMother]

Uh, reading the OP, didn't they end up at exactly the opposite conclusion...?

Yeah glad I wasn't the only one confused by that post

 

[hawk2025]

Again, the experiment is in no way valid. It's an anecdote to how certain people react to a gender-swapped version of something they've already seen without proper sampling, and that's all.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

I've never looked much into it, but I pretty much believe likability/charisma is the only thing that matters in American politics. We lucked out with Obama in that his policies were ok, but remember we elected Dubya twice too. I always see people trot out facts on GAF as to why Clinton was better. Of course she was, but undecideds just vote on charisma, not policy.

 

[Mimosa97]

Gaf is not ready for this.

Hillary would have been a competent president but the election has always been a popularity contest. Obama crushed his opponents not because he was seen as the most competent/smartest candidate (even though he was by a big margin) but because he was the most charismatic/likeable.

People seem convinced that Hillary would have easily won if she were a man. I think it's the opposite. She would have lost by a bigger margin.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Again, the experiment is in no way valid. It's an anecdote to how certain people react to a gender-swapped version of something they've already seen without proper sampling, and that's all.

And you can't remove the inherent safety of knowing it's fictional.

Not to mention it's not a controlled cross section of people either

 

[Steel]

I've never looked much into it, but I pretty much believe likability/charisma is the only thing that matters in American politics. We lucked out with Obama in that his policies were ok, but remember we elected Dubya twice too. I always see people trot out facts on GAF as to why Clinton was better. Of course she was, but undecideds just vote on charisma, not policy.

You're sadly not wrong. At all. I had hopes that people would see through someone as slimy and idiotic as Trump but faith in humanity is a mistake it seems.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. If there's one thing this experiment possibly demonstrates it's that Hillary's loss wasn't primarily due to inherent sexism in American society.

 

[sphagnum]

Gaf is not ready for this.

Hillary would have been a competent president but the election has always been a popularity contest. Obama crushed his opponents not because he was seen as the most competent/smart candidate (even though he was by a big margin) but because he was the most charismatic/likeable.

People seem convinced that Hillary would have easily won if she were a man. I think it's the opposite. She would have lost by a bigger margin.

It's possible. People could have seen "him" as being emasculated.

 

[hawk2025]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. If there's one thing this experiment possibly demonstrates it's that Hillary's loss wasn't primarily due to inherent sexism in American society.

No, no, no.

It does not demonstrate anything of the sort.

 

[Makonero]

I've never looked much into it, but I pretty much believe likability/charisma is the only thing that matters in American politics. We lucked out with Obama in that his policies were ok, but remember we elected Dubya twice too. I always see people trot out facts on GAF as to why Clinton was better. Of course she was, but undecideds just vote on charisma, not policy.

YEP YEP YEP

We need someone charismatic. Substance doesn't matter really. In the next election, we need someone young and optimistic, but most of all, likable. Policies aren't anything when you can't get elected to actually promote them.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Again, the experiment is in no way valid. It's an anecdote to how certain people react to a gender-swapped version of something they've already seen without proper sampling, and that's all.

You can still find that an experiment yields interesting results without the method being 100% sanitary.

It's stuff like this that leads to more concrete, controlled tests. We see the premise we've been working with might be wrong and should be studied more.

Personally, this seems to confirm what I've known: sex might have played a role ebut in Trump vs she was a terrible choice.

 

[CryptiK]

Only in a transparent grifterish manner. Then again, there's a fool born every second.

Obviously didnt take much to convince America.

 

[Aikidoka]

Gaf is not ready for this.

People seem convinced that Hillary would have easily won if she were a man. I think it's the opposite. She would have lost by a bigger margin.

I feel like when people say this they are ignoring the character assassination tactics that have been leveled at Hillary her whole career: just thinking about the past two years, instead of the past 30 or so years. I doubt that 30 year campaign would have been so severe without all the sexism, and so her public standing would have been much better entering this election.

 

[hawk2025]

You can still find that an experiment yields interesting results without the method being 100% sanitary.

It's stuff like this that leads to more concrete, controlled tests. We see the premise we've been working with might be wrong and should be studied more.

Personally, this seems to confirm what I've known: sex might have played a roll but in Trump v Clinton she was a terrible choice.

...You proved in the very next paragraph why you are wrong: You took the results from a fatally flawed experiment and used it to confirm your previous belief.

 

[jay]

When someone really bundles a regressive message in hummable, catchy way, I can really buy into them.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Trump has charisma? I must be out of touch. I just see a colossal douche with a stupid face who sucks at english and isnt funny.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

No, no, no.

It does not demonstrate anything of the sort.

I said possibly. And why is that such a stretch?

 

[Glass Shark]

Trained actor more charismatic than Donald Trump. News at 11.

 

[Steel]

Trump has charisma? I must be out of touch. I just see a colossal douche with a stupid face who sucks at english and isnt funny.

Used car salesman. It's a type of charisma that appeals to a certain demographic.

Obviously didnt take much to convince America.

It didn't even convince the majority of Americans.

 

[HellforLeather]

the double standard is real and sad, bigleague

Irrationality hate towards Clinton was mostly sexism and perceptions that women politicians are opportunists

while men in the same position are percievived just espousing ''strength'' and could get away with murder

which is fucked up

Not sure we read the same article

 

[GeordieMark]

Not sure we read the same article

Not sure they read the article at all.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Trump has charisma? I must be out of touch. I just see a colossal douche with a stupid face who sucks at english and isnt funny.

Sadly yes. He plays off the room in his surroundings. Not very well but well enough that people think he is genuine.

 

[maxiell]

Clinton performed very poorly in the debates and that had nothing to do with her gender. She struggled with her messaging throughout the campaign and it is not surprising that divorced from the actual performance aspect of the debates, this messaging was ineffective. Hand-waving a "flawed experiment" away is bizarre.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Used car salesman. It's a type of charisma that appeals to a certain demographic.

Makes sense. Lots of successful car salesmen around here that I think are colossal douches I would never buy a car from.

 

[PdotMichael]

Some people here never break character.

The Clinton approach was the wrong one for the way the USA selects its president. John Podesta did an incredible bad job this election.

 

[skelekey]

This only reaffirms my disappointment in humanity. I have no sympathy for anyone who voted for trump. This was not and never will be a fucking popularity contest. There are lives and livelihoods at stake. If you can't be arsed to give a damn about policies and your future then fuck you. This isn't a game. Thank goodness most Americans saw through his veil of ignorance, too bad it wasn't enough.