America: Sexism, Politics, & the Patriarchy.
In 1776, America was founded on the principles of equality, freedom, and liberation; yet, 250 years later, it is one of the only countries that is actively regressing in human rights progress for most oppressed groups. In recent years, the political divide between liberal and conservative-minded individuals has become furthered beyond imagination; whether because of true passion towards these debated subjects or simply for the sake of partisan pride and feeding the feud. In progressive moments of success for women's empowerment, the societal result seems to be the swinging of the pendulum to quickly take back any progress that was teased. Feminist movements and record-breaking landmarks achieved by Hillary Clinton gave way to an outwardly sexist leader, Donald Trump, to become president, who swang the pendulum once again to positively unite women with their quick rebuttal, only to be followed by the government retraction of a women's right to choice over her body by the Supreme Court. This unprecedented partisan polarization has left Americans in an extremely unpredictable state. Additionally, we are left on our toes by the undeniable burden of the accepted unwritten regulation of patriarchal rule that plays out internally in women as well as externally in overlooked mal-treatment.
The story of women’s rights is much larger than just the US. The current climate all around the world is a fiery circle of highs and lows. Today, we have nations like Italy electing their first female prime minister; while simultaneously Iran is experiencing a violent war against women, and the United States is passing laws contrary to every other nation on abortion rights. Countries that have struggled historically to give women equal access to resources and impose epidemic levels of sexual abuse, like India, Turkey, and Thailand, have all elected women heads of state before the US. India elected their first female prime minister, Indira Gandhi, in 1966; Israel in 1969, and Finland is now on their third female leader (Alter). So, as a country that boasts of its progressive nature and welcoming of all individuals, what are we doing wrong? I wonder if the attempts in America are true, or if we are simply consciously drawing the line as we are not ready for a woman to take office.
To examine the US specifically, it is important we know the history of women in political power. If our past is any sign of our future, lags in granted rights are inevitable. Women were not secured their voice through voting until 131 years after men, and even then were not truly considered for another 60 years. In 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme court. Though, in order to be accepted by her surrounding white male counterparts, she had to be sure to have a history of anti-feminist beliefs as she was very verbal about fighting against abortion and pro-life mentalities. Women were able to take lower-stake positions within their state government systems and the diplomatic corps as many who became too successful were questioned on the legitimacy of their claim to authority. Today, some states have quotas for the number of seats that are reserved for women to fill their token representation numbers. The 1992 election introduced us to a first lady who would soon make history in the US, Hillary Clinton. Clinton became the first woman to advance far enough in the fight for presidential candidacy and earn the majority of the popular vote, which came with much scrutiny over her past political decisions and capabilities as a leader (Women in Politics: A Very Short History). She brought many controversies to American culture as we question if her advancement was a watershed moment in history or just an aberration for the Democratic party. The immediate result of her loss and Donald Trump’s victory sparked around 400 women’s marches in the US and 80 in other countries– a reaction setting records as the largest single-day protest in America. Running for candidacy in America does have its apparent differences from the rest of the world that has resulted in a culture that tends to value personality over policy work. This nation has a much longer campaign period with significantly more money put into media events and televising the race, turning it into quite a spectacle (Alter). The unfortunate truth for US citizens is that when tasked with mentally picturing a presidential winner, we can only imagine an older white man.
The lack of success in elections becomes perplexing when analyzing American survey results on the widespread openness to a woman in the office. In 1969, only around 53% of voters felt comfortable voting for a woman, but in 2003, this percentage for young voters grew to 90%; thus, knowing that today ¼ of surveyors express upset by the idea of a woman ruling the US makes one question the cause of the shift in numbers (Maxwell). Should Clinton’s brief success be considered to be a ‘scare’ for voters?
It appears that Trump’s resulting polarization has separated a traditionalist view on women in authoritative positions from an era of radical feminism. We must be aware that modern sexism is undeniably partisan. The GOP’s conservative and more Christian-based agendas have proven to have a higher distrust of women in the workforce and feminist activism. Studies have also shown that they tend to already believe that gender inequality has been dealt with and women have been granted more opportunities on the basis of being a woman (Maxwell). This mindset is innately sexist. Since the effects of Trump’s candidacy, when asked about the issues they prefer to hear from candidates, Democratic voters divided a large portion of interest to economic issues at 23% and abortion/reproductive rights at 28%. The majority of Republicans agreed they wanted to hear about economic issues 52% and only 5% about reproductive rights, (Lopes, Montero) proving that they do not want to hear from the rightfully angered opposition to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
When evaluating what Americans are seemingly in search of from their leaders, one can compare the past likability of presidents that determined their social response and success in carrying out their agendas. When analyzing this of highly rated presidents, it appears that the desired traits and responsibilities include: “they provide clarity,... listen and allow others to be heard,... value conversations,... model desired behaviors,... encourage healthy conflict,... create an environment of emotional safety,... high levels of self-awareness,... empower others,... welcome feedback” (Garcia). An individual excelling in these qualitative traits set them up to be a well-liked leader and can more easily and effectively execute legislation towards their beneficial goals. Clearly, we believe that men have been able to harness these qualities better than women; which is interesting as none of these necessarily resemble the stereotypical male persona. Men are often perceived to be more assertive, aggressive, and more quantitatively grounded rather than emotionally. So, can’t women also have these popular traits? Aside from obvious biological differences between gender build and physical strengths, there are also important differences between men and women that can be detected through thorough research on neurological breakdown. The brain is extremely telling despite social psychologists and sociologists in the past largely denying any notion of “fundamental cognitive differences” between genders (Spector). Though, with all of the information on the two genders that gets accumulated naturally by essentially every study done on humans, the differences are there. Female writing proficiency and reading comprehension have been known to surmount that of men. They are more adept in speaking skills, especially English, and have more dexterity with long-term memorization; while men have more distinguished visuospatial and multitasking skills (Spector). Thus, one would expect women to be just as capable in the leadership role especially because of the necessary presentation skills a president needs. Society has proven that when justifying differences between sexes, women tend to credit societal expectations and men the biological breakdown. Though some traits are more preferred by citizens in the South like aggression, a trait that men have stereotypically owned is supported by the nurtured expectations of a dominant man and is unattainable by a woman because of these perceptive differences. A difference in brain function that cannot go unmentioned is the primitive instincts and concentration of thought toward sex. Men, on average, think about sex 19 times a day compared to 10 times a day by women. Though, the outliers of this equation are much more drastic as the study by (Van Lankveld) tallied their highest male count at 388 and woman at 140. It is no secret that women, as more emotional beings, have a contrasting reflective understanding of sex than men; in fact, this is yet another example of increased modern polarization. Thoughts surrounding sex have proven to be much more damaging than just taking mental capacity– they have been internalized and adopted into society to such an extent that it has organized nearly every element of gender interaction.
Sex of the 21st century has been enforced by hookup culture, comedic jests, microaggressions, media portrayal, standards of beauty, etc., all of which have been transformative to the symbiosis between genders. I argue that this recent cultural shift is the main answer to the question surrounding the lack of powerful women in office. These elements have been so internalized by men and women that it has pushed our country further away from being prepared for authoritative women. It is not to say that it is just men who are ill-prepared; frankly, women are their own worst enemies against any progress against prejudice.
The contemporary set of sexist standards stems from a history of expectations for women to nurture her children, sacrifice her career for the (heterosexual) husband’s fortune, and be dedicated to the duties of housework. Modern writings discuss three main branches of sexism: hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and internalized sexism. Hostile sexism is most obviously expected in the discussion of oppression as it encompasses blatant negative feelings, and hostility, towards women. This includes the idea that “women seek to control men through feminist ideology or seduction, are less competent than men, and are better suited for childcare,” (Feigt, et al.). Benevolent sexism is the appraisal of women who adapt to traditional gender roles and applauded submissive traits. It restricts women from acting out of conformity despite having positive undertones. Internalized sexism is the individual surveillance and objectification of one’s body. This form of jurisdiction over women is seen through the epidemic of striving to appease beauty standards and results in harmful body shame and internalized failure. Today women consciously reject hostile sexism but still subconsciously promote the other two categories.
Since the working definition of sexism is always morphing around the nature of its era, ‘modern’ sexism is no longer the prevention of women's presence in certain career industries or voting say. Instead, it can be analyzed under the light of whether a woman is capable of being successful in her field and whether she is trusted individually and well-liked by her surroundings. Thus, discrimination is now executed in accepted ideology that women may be too sensitive to certain comments, that they complain unnecessarily and that discrimination is no longer a problem, or that women are striving for preferential reward rather than equality in the workforce, etc.. By surveyed results identifying agreeance or instances of neutrality around these topics, it can be said that the majority of Americans do align with these discriminatory and sexist attitudes (Maxwell). This internalized prejudice around the efficiency of a working woman will continue to impact voter opinion around female candidates whether known or not.
Coming from others, women have most commonly reported instances of “sexist language in their workplace, or being ‘cat-called’ as they walked down the street,” as well as passing statements by family members instructing them to “‘take care of the house’ or ‘act more ladylike’” (Feigt, et al.). These examples fit into a broader category of microaggressions that have been speculated to accumulate to depression in women at twice the rate of men.
When put to action, microaggressions and overall negative responses are more commonly seen when a woman is acting authoritatively. Likability is an extremely important factor in politics, as this is essentially the goal of the face of an American leader. When there is a present female lead, she is not guaranteed disapproval due to her success, but she is more likely to face penalization when performing in ways contrary to their expectations, they receive backlash in subtle labeling as an “Ice Queen,” or “Ball Busters,” which inherently shows a sense of toxic masculinity (Cooper). However, when highly ranked male and female individuals are acting subordinately to others as participants and not leaders, they are equally liked. Typically, when individuals propose the argument that there is no gender bias or discrimination in the hierarchies of power, they use highly paid women as proof that there is no discrepancy. For this reason, I am focusing mainly on the qualitative experience as a woman striving toward her advancement in the workforce. Though hirees no longer outwardly deny someone a job based on their gender (not including the LGBTQ+ community), these likeability biases and trust of competence inevitably play into decision-making before and after hiring an individual and often prevent the concatenation of a promotion.
This is not to say the pay gap no longer exists, which it does, but researchers like Warren Farrell seem to ignore these additional aspects to the harmony of humans. In his book Why Men Earn More, he claims that the wage gap is a result of career path decision makings stemming from the nature of the sexes. He explains that women choose jobs in human resources rather than the higher-paying, harsher careers that men typically prefer. His general stance is that “men sacrifice more thus companies pay more for those sacrifices,” (Farrell). This argument neglects to compare the wages of congruent jobs performed by different genders or demographics and merely focuses on the different wages that come with different job demands. Writings like this can be extremely impactful is Farrell works in legislation and is admired as an expert on gender issues, and was previously a board member of the National Organization for Women. Many other potentially misleading informative examples come from culturally accepted normalcies. One of which is that women are the more talkative gender. In reality, multiple research groups have proven that in fact, women speak 30% of the time when conversing with men. This disputes the accepted stereotype of female conversation monopolizing as they are excused as blabbering and believed to have equal representation in their ideas.
Another extensively argued topic is the benefits of beauty. This is another instance where society has widely challenged that no longer are individuals, specifically women, granted favors on the basis of being beautiful. When evaluating this in the lens of a presidency, likeability is again a huge factor to consider. One interactive study breaks this down to draw conclusions that attractiveness is not overwhelmingly controlling the perception of this person's character, but does impact the interpretation of a female's competence and “sex-role attitude” (Holahan, et al.). The study uses the initial opinions on essay writing of males and females and compares them around political party identity. When looking at high-quality essays, there were patterns of liberal males more negatively judging beautiful women as being less competent and less likable than their equal but less conventionally physically attractive counterparts; but, conservative men ranked the attractive women higher. On average, when looking at low-quality work, physically attractive women were judged to be more likable and with greater personal fulfillment. The male response confirmed the” stereotype that defines high levels of beauty and competence as incompatible traits for women,” (Holahan, et al.). When women judged the work of other women, liberals concluded that competence runs parallel with likability; however, conservative women associated incompetence and beauty with higher likability. Thus, women themselves are still stuck in a traditional way of evaluating other women (Holahan, et al.). The findings of this study leave the public approval or political figures very contradictory. It leaves society in an inconclusive state of moving forward since we want our president to be beautiful so that she is well-liked, yet we still judge a physically attractive, competent woman to be less intelligent and successful because of her beauty. Clearly, society has a lot of progress that still needs to be made systemically on the judgment of beauty, but with the way, modern media is functioning and the heightened conservative views since Donald Trump, this does not seem to be probable progress in the near future.
The truth is that the issue is not just between the sexes. Women have struggled throughout history to be strong competitors against men as well as against other women. Clinical examination has attempted to make sense of the hesitancy, it became apparent that women often avoid vying with one another in the way men do as they become conflicted about potentially being cowed or causing this to another woman by seeking what she desires. Anxieties toward competition also stem from a sense of identification with her competitor as she does not wish to be too detrimental to her competitor. These reactions are largely due to the projection of insecurities and “misgivings about their inherent worth,” (Margaret Crastnopol). This fear of competition is a product of the disapproval of expected womanly characteristics that include being motherly, warm, and comforting. When women unalign from this and show signs of authority, they are scrutinized, which results in shame, embarrassment, and hands-off moderation of women.
As a 21-year-old female heavily integrated into the real and virtual worlds of communication, I have collected my own perspective on the current impacts of a patriarchal community on the generation of women that is soon to enter the political field. From early youth, there has been a massive emphasis on finding a husband and the importance of being admired by men. It engulfs the personalities of this generation as it is stuck in a cycle of girls wanting monogamy with boys but boys wanting to add as many female ‘conquerings’ to their roster as possible. Hookup culture, which has been drastically shifted by online dating platforms as well as less women passively becoming stay-at-home moms, no longer prioritizes meaningful dating and the ‘woo-ing’ of female prospects. Women have attempted to almost reclaim their sexual liberation and state that we can also be detached and use men for our own sexual enjoyment as well. However, these attempts through open discussion of sex as well as making earnings off of this awareness and sexual freedom only comes back to bite us in the butt by labeling these individuals as promiscuous and vulgar. With such a smaller pool of men in search of the same monogamy as women, it seems that women have become increasingly vicious toward one another. There is constant hostility among women as the competition grows and brutal shaming of differences becomes people’s only solution to dealing with it. Concurrently, we have an overwhelming presence of influencers on young minds that center the image of success on being a beautiful sex symbol for women, and a muscular, rugged owner of fast cars that is constantly surrounded by beautiful women for the men. A 35-year-old man named Andrew Tate has become recently influential on Tik Tok for offering extremely misogynistic views to boys as young as 11. He suggests dating girls of ages 18 and 19 so that he can maximize his imprint on their young minds, and has preached toxic ideas like, “if you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility,” (Tate) and gives legislative credit to the bible that supports men having multiple wives, though it is “disgusting” for a woman to have multiple partners or take part in labor outside of the kitchen. Middle School teachers are now forced to warn parents to monitor their kids streaming as boys have begun to protest completing assignments if they are “sourced from a woman,” and claim that teaching and being wives is a woman's job. Boys have also been noticed to be insulting their female classmates more frequently and justifying the beginnings of sexual assault. These outrageous men that have taken power over the media could be promising a terrifying future for women, and severely discourages women from breaking free of patriarchal expectations.
The impact of the past with its religious and traditional roots is obviously still thriving in present media. There is an abundance of factors that go into the distinct differences between our current interpretation and treatment of individuals. When looking into why the United States ceases to elect a female ruler, there is no excuse to credit it to women’s emotional instability as we, as a country, have done so often. When asking ourselves when we will be ready for a woman, the answer has yet to be discovered. With the intense back-and-forth swinging of historical moments and intense reactions, the future of our government remains utterly unpredictable. The road to this monumental change is a long and confusing path that is more systemically routed than the current climate believes.
Comments