• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why It’s So Hard for a Woman to Become President of the United States

Status
Not open for further replies.

dramatis

Member
A survey of female leaders around the world indicates how steep Hillary Clinton’s climb was.
There is no one reason—no finite number of reasons—why Hillary Clinton lost the U.S. presidential election. No amount of poring over polls will tell us the precise degree to which bias against women influenced the vote. What we do know is this: The United States still doesn’t have a female leader, as it hasn’t for the last 227 years. America remains outside the club of 67 nations, out of 144 surveyed countries, that have had a female prime minister, a female president, or both over the last 50 years, according to the World Economic Forum’s latest study on the gender gap in politics.

In many of these countries, women haven’t remained in power for long—in some cases for just days or months. Since 1966, only 33 countries have had a female leader for four years or more. The top countries in this category are Bangladesh (with a female leader on and off for 23 of the last 50 years), India (21 years), Ireland (21 years), Iceland (20 years), and the Philippines (16 years). In sixth place is Sri Lanka, which elected the world’s first-ever female prime minister in 1960. Here’s how the Pew Research Center mapped the global landscape in 2015:
But the underrepresentation of women in U.S. politics is not the only obstacle to America getting its first female president, as Farida Jalalzai, an expert on women in political leadership at Oklahoma State University, has documented. In a 2010 paper, Jalalzai noted that while more than three-quarters of all female presidents and prime ministers had come to office since 1990, spurred on by policy reforms like electoral gender quotas, these trends weren’t evenly distributed around the world.

Women, she found, are more likely to serve as prime ministers than as presidents, perhaps because in parliamentary systems women can “bypass a potentially biased general public and be chosen by the party” after working their way up its hierarchy. Very few female national leaders attained their office initially through a popular election. To win a national vote in a presidential system, women must contend more directly, and on a larger scale, with sexism and stereotypes. The more a leadership position is perceived by the public as powerful, the harder it is for women to secure it—at least until a woman manages to occupy that position and challenge its association with masculinity.
Women’s leadership in certain regions is largely limited to those with familial ties through marriage or blood connections to former executives or opposition leaders, many of whom were assassinated. … There are compelling reasons why a woman may appear to be a more appropriate heir to political power. For example, a woman may not be seen as independently politically ambitious and therefore as easily pushed aside by male leaders after coming to office. Alternatively, because women are often viewed as unifiers of the family, they may be charged with the daunting task of uniting their country following a period of political conflict.
Consider these findings in the context of the United States. The U.S. has fewer female political leaders at the national level than many of its peers. It is a presidential system with relatively stable politics and strong institutions. It is the world’s greatest military power, and one of the world’s greatest nuclear powers. Candidates for president are seeking, through a popular vote, what is arguably the most powerful job on the planet, in the one of the largest countries on earth. It is therefore very, very hard for a woman to become president of the United States. That Hillary Clinton made it as far as she did—that she won not only her party’s nomination but the popular vote, despite losing the election—is surely a testament to her perseverance and political experience. But it’s also a testament to her fame and last name.
Clinton’s unique set of attributes, and the broader anti-establishment public mood, suggest that it could be a while before the next viable female presidential candidate emerges in America. They suggest that a woman leading the United States is not, as many young voters predicted this election cycle, simply a matter of time.

“There’s absolutely no reason to think that this is inevitable—that a woman is going to get this position,” Jalalzai said. If that woman is not Clinton, she asked, “then who? And when?”

More at the link, obviously.

I would also like to post this tidbit from an article from yesterday.
Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.

Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.

“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, a professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
 
She didn't lose because she was a women. She ran a horrible "not trump" campaign who outright ignored a variety of states that she thought she would auto win.

Blame is on her and her team, not her vagina.
 
There... there was?

I voted for clinton, but let's be realistic. Most qualified out of the 2016 field? Sure. Ever? not even close.

The lack of representation in American politics is pretty crazy, especially when compared to other countries.
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Parliamentary systems are easier for women to get elected in than the system the US uses. IIRC under a parliamentary system, the voters vote for the party, and the party nominates a leader.

In the US system, you're going to have to run on your own merits using your own funding no matter who your party is. Women are inherently a lot more risk averse here than men are- and politics here is incredibly risky and rarely pays off.
 

entremet

Member
Clinton wasn't as appealing, she lost the Obama coalition, ran a terrible campaign of mostly not Trump and entitlement--"it's her turn", and had tons of baggage.

Her loss has way more do on other factors than her gender alone.
 

Aurongel

Member
I don't doubt the thesis of the article any but attaching this to Hillary's loss doesn't really address the actual failures of her campaign.
 

kswiston

Member
Canada's first and only female Prime Minister lasted all of 4 months before her party was voted out of power. I am not sure if any major party (the Green Party isnt major) has run a female candidate since.

This is one measure where we are as bad as our southern neighbours.
 

El Topo

Member
Parliamentary systems are easier for women to get elected in than the system the US uses. IIRC under a parliamentary system, the voters vote for the party, and the party nominates a leader.

In the US system, you're going to have to run on your own merits using your own funding no matter who your party is. Women are inherently a lot more risk averse here than men are- and politics here is incredibly risky and rarely pays off.

The US is 99th worldwide. It's not just Europe. Both Senate and House are significantly underrepresented.
 

legacyzero

Banned
I don't think she lost because she is a woman.
Agreed. She was a terrible candidate with horrible history that her opponents targeted with ease, while the establishment and her supporters either deflected or said "it's not THAT BAD! TRUMMMP BAAAD"

Put Warren in that race and watch her go hard as a mother fucker.
 
There is sexism in America as in most countries but that didn't cost Hillary. Think Hillary had too much baggage and personified the political establishment the most out of all the candidates that she lost before she ran. Think a female president is likley enough, just need to push away from the routine political and come off more relatable to the average voter.
 

El Topo

Member
fair enough. I was thinking more on the presidential level.

Don't get me wrong, I am not putting blame at anyone, but the statistic helps put the "Sexism does not matter" narrative into perspective. People are willing to admit that sexism exists, but also always claim that it does not matter (much), yet on the grand scale it really does.
 

kswiston

Member
LOL.

If you think it's easier in the US to get by as a black man than a white woman, you may want to reevaluate your position a little.



fair enough. I was thinking more on the presidential level.

New Fortune 500 CEOs from 2001 to 2014

new_ceos_by_year.gif
 
Remember how all none of the previous living Republican candidates showed up to their party's convention to officially nominate Trump?

There's a difference between thinking Trump is not qualified for President and thinking that Clinton is not only the most qualified person alive for President, but the most qualified person in all of American history to be President. I'm especially not sure where this "broad consensus on both sides of the aisle" idea comes from - the only times I heard any Republican express support for Clinton was grudgingly as the opposition to Trump. Trump post-election has said nicer things about Clinton than I've heard from any other Republican politician this whole year!
 

DarkKyo

Member
I don't think that's the take away, personally. I voted for her out of necessity, but she didn't inspire me at all. If it were someone like Warren though, that would be a different story. Blaming her loss on her gender is such a lame cop out that completely ignores the circumstances of this era of American life and politics and also ignores the fact that she is a terrible fit for the job in said era. She was more of the same, semi-corrupt, wealthy elite just trying to further her own ambition while ignoring the needs of the electorate. We needed a real movement like the republicans think they got, not some force fed, vanilla candidate whose only perceivable notion was that it was obviously her turn.
 
Agreed. She was a terrible candidate with horrible history that her opponents targeted with ease, while the establishment and her supporters either deflected or said "it's not THAT BAD! TRUMMMP BAAAD"

seconded. She took a race that should have been a slam dunk and fucked it up in just about every way possible.

had warren or even michelle obama run instead, we wouldn't be looking at a loss. There are absolutely sexist people in the US, but those people are almost all "traditional family values conservatives" and going to be voting republican no matter what.

Clinton got almost the exact same number of votes as Kerry in '04.

we need to be asking why everyone who turned out for Obama in '12 and '08 wasn't motivated to get off the couch. "sexism" isn't it.
 

Violet_0

Banned
To be honest, according to GAF she pretty much was the best ever. But then GAF pretty much "retconned" this after Tuesday.

I think the hype overdrive phenomenon relates to the videogame roots of the forum
just like moment when it all comes crashing down
 

CHC

Member
She won the popular vote though. Even as a bad candidate, she would have won if not for the electoral college.

I think most people can agree this isn't an excuse in 2016. I mean, maybe it could have been more of a shocker in 2000, but (a) a good campaign knows how to play the game according to these rules, and how to focus on the right areas needed to win; and (b) it should never have been so close that this would be the make-or-break anyway.
 

Elandyll

Banned
She won the popular vote though. Even as a bad candidate, she would have won if not for the electoral college.
It is a well known fact that for a Dem to win, given the over representation of rural deep red states in EVs, a Dem has to have a big turnout to win.

The reason she lost is because not enough democrats and progressives showed up to vote, or left the field of president blank, or voted third party.
We will analyze why that was the case for months and years to come, but the buck stops with the hand that should drop the ballot in the urn, and because we're not children and no one is going to hold our hand to do so, the most responsible ones for President Trump are the voters who chose to gamble with that possibility.

Clinton having been a Woman might have been a factor, positive or negative, but imo in the larger scope of things I doubt it was major either way.
 

DarkKyo

Member
I would say they have different bullshit to deal with but same amount.
Most racist dumbasses that voted for trump have white women in their family so it's far easier for them to relate. I think it's harder for a black man to become president -- Obama was just far superior in terms of what he inspired and how he spoke to us.
 
She won the popular vote.

The author is right that, in general, women have a very difficult time reaching the top of a political system, and institutionalized sexism plays a major role in that. And no doubt, there was a lot of sexist sentiment toward Hillary on an individual level (people being like, "Women don't need to hold office 'cause hormones lol")

But Hillary had already surpassed all that. Her advisors had a major blind spot, and they relied too much on highlighting the bad of Trump than the good of Hillary.

I'll be the first to decry sexism, but sexism isn't what lost her this election.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Clinton was held to a different standard than Trump. Hell, Clinton was held to a different standard than Obama. You think he would have held up nearly as well if every one of his emails was relentlessly dissected?

This is seriously somehow controversial?
 

StormKing

Member
It is a well known fact that for a Dem to win, given the over representation of rural deep red states in EVs, a Dem has to have a big turnout to win.

The reason she lost is because not enough democrats and progressives showed up to vote, or left the field of president blank, or voted third party.
We will analyze why that was the case for months and years to come, but the buck stops with the hand that should drop the ballot in the urn, and because we're not children and no one is going to hold our hand to do so, the most responsible ones for President Trump are the voters who chose to gamble with that possibility.

Clinton having been a Woman might have been a factor, positive or negative, but imo in the larger scope of things I doubt it was major either way.

Wrong. The people most responsible for President Trump are the DNC and Hilary Clinton. The buck stops with them.
 
She won the popular vote.

The author is right that, in general, women have a very difficult time reaching the top of a political system, and institutionalized sexism plays a major role in that. And no doubt, there was a lot of sexist sentiment toward Hillary on an individual level (people being like, "Women don't need to hold office 'cause hormones lol")

But Hillary had already surpassed all that. Her advisors had a major blind spot, and they relied too much on highlighting the bad of Trump than the good of Hillary.

I'll be the first to decry sexism, but sexism isn't what lost her this election.

exactly. Kerry had the same issue. He ran as "Not Bush", ended up being successfully framed by the GOP as weak (see: swiftboating) and inspired no one to come out FOR him.

Does that sound like 2016? because it should.

Kerry was perfectly qualified for the job, but people don't vote based on resumes.

I feel like these posts come in like clockwork. Like the discussion of gender and politics is literally impossible without some guy denying that gender has nothing to do with it. "It's about ethics in politics" etc.

I get what you're saying, but again- no one is debating that sexism exists. But sexists aren't the reason why clinton SPECIFICALLY did not get in. Trump got less votes than Romney, and less votes than McCain- but about the same number of republicans showed up as they always do to vote for the republican candidate.

there was no massive wave of sexists showing up to vote republican. it simply didn't happen. On the democratic end Hillary got the same votes john kerry did.

She failed to provide a convincing argument for 6-10 million DEMOCRATS that showed up for obama but didn't show up for Gore or Kerry to show up for her.

"sexism" isn't why.
 

Madness

Member
LOL.

If you think it's easier in the US to get by as a black man than a white woman, you may want to reevaluate your position a little.

fair enough. I was thinking more on the presidential level.

What country are these people living in that a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama has it easier than a blonde white woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Women are underrepresentrd because it has been maybe 2-3 generations for most since women got the right to vote, less than 100 years. We are going to see a female US President this century.
 

Izuna

Banned
My Mom can say shit about how May shouldn't have been PM because she's a woman. So I imagine there's a few voters in the US who think this.

It's pretty progressive to think it's a positive. And that's the thing, people only think of positives and negatives in politics.
 

dramatis

Member
Most racist dumbasses that voted for trump have white women in their family so it's far easier for them to relate. I think it's harder for a black man to become president -- Obama was just far superior in terms of what he inspired and how he spoke to us.
It's a different effect. That is, because they know women in their lives, they think they are good to women, and therefore not sexist.

Sexism would be pictured as something extreme before they would consider it sexism, like rape or abuse. On GAF, the longest threads discussing 'sexism-related' issues are usually the court cases involving rape or news involving rape. Anything lower than that is waved off as 'oversensitivity'.
 

entremet

Member
What country are these people living in that a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama has it easier than a blonde white woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Women are underrepresentrd because it has been maybe 2-3 generations for most since women got the right to vote, less than 100 years. We are going to see a female US President this century.

That's because Obama ran a great campaign with a compelling narrative and an immense ground game. These 1:1 comparison on race and gender are lacking the other confounding factors.

Look at his turnout.

Clinton let overconfidence blind her, ignored campaigning in the Rust Belt, basically ran as "Not Trump" and had generally badly run campaign full of yes folk.
 

trixx

Member
I wouldn't understand why; there are many societies around the world that a lot of people like to cite as more misogynist that have women in positions of power

I think she definitely could have won, just arrogance from her and her party
 

Makki

Member
Sexism is part of a chunk of reasons why she lost. It was indeed rampant.
Most of the animosity from the general populace wasnt directed at her gender, it was at her email fuckup, her lack of accountability for deleting evidence and implying that Trump supporters were all fuckups.

Explaining Hillarys loss as having to do with sexism seems to be an excuse from Democrats to not critizise their own candidate
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Wrong. The people most responsible for President Trump are the DNC and Hilary Clinton. The buck stops with them.
This is why we lose. Because when conseravatives lose they blame us and when we lose we blame us. Conservative victory is always some hurricane, some inevitable weather phenomenon that it's our job to stop without agency of its own, instead of the conscious choice of people
 
I just couldn't believe (as a conservative) how many women voted for Hillary. After the Grab em by the pussy tapes emerged I was 100% sure that Trump lost, as he threw away the women and (earlier comments) Hispanic vote, both of which you need to win.

I was completely wrong though, 44% (I believe) of all voting women voted for Trump. To me that's just weird, I am pretty sure if any male or female candidate said something like "the only thing that is useful about a man is his dick" he or she would be getting max 5-10% of the male vote.

Whats the old saying? Men forget but never forgive, women forgive but never forget. Felt kinda true here.
 
I feel like these posts come in like clockwork. Like the discussion of gender and politics is literally impossible without some guy denying that gender has nothing to do with it. "It's about ethics in politics" etc.

I think it's easy to look at Hillary and look at Trump, and say "People thought a spoiled white man with no experience is better than a highly experienced woman = sexism." The media's emphasis on her "mistakes" and "scandals" rather than Trump's obvious lack of policies and campaign of hate speaks to double standards. And at the level of individual voters, especially in conservative areas, I think there's a case to be made there. There's a lot of those people who wouldn't accept a woman as a leader because they have entrenched ideas about masculinity and leadership.

But I just don't know if it's a valid reason in terms of her losing this election. The author says it's hard for women to win a national election due to having to woo the general populace. But Hillary did that, on a purely numbers basis. If her campaign had made better strategic decisions, we wouldn't even be having this conversation; we'd be celebrating our first female president.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom