2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThinking They’re ‘Unqualified’ Is A Big Reason More Women Don’t Run for Office
For one thing, there appears to be more self-doubt on the part of these high-powered women. A 2004 report by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox found that of a pool of prospective candidates lawyers, business people, political activists men were about twice as likely as women to say that they were qualified to run. Twenty-eight percent of women said they werent qualified at all, while only 12 percent of men found themselves lacking in some way. In the pop psychology parlance of 2016, we might note a whiff of imposters syndrome in these numbers.
It might not come as a surprise that just as women generally hold themselves to a higher standard in their self-examination before running for office, voters measure female candidates by different metrics than male candidates; theres a very specific type of scrutiny that women politicians fall under. Women who might run for office seem to intuit that; a 2015 paper from the political scientists Kristin Kanthak and Jonathan Woon found that women are election averse. Womens entry into the candidate pool increases only if we simultaneously guarantee that campaigns are completely truthful and eliminate the private costs of running for office, Kanthak and Woon found.
In a memo out this month from Lake Research Partners, Chesapeake Beach Consulting and the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, entitled Politics is Personal: Keys to Likeability and Electability for Women, suggestions such as Voters like informal photos of women candidates engaging with children and Voters like women officeholders who share credit with their teams, in addition to taking credit as an individual leader, were on offer.
The memo, of the brass tacks strategy variety, says quite a bit about the line that female candidates must walk. Women face a litmus test that men do not have to pass, reads a passage in the document. Women have to prove they are qualified. For men, their qualification is assumed.
Thats why Sanders statement about Clintons qualifications cuts so deep it seemed to send a volley at the fortress of qualification female candidates build up as proof of their worthiness to the public at large.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-calling-hillary-clinton-unqualified-smacks-of-sexism/
athena
(4,187 posts)who is as smart and as qualified as anyone in politics, why would any woman want to put herself through the same thing?
If Hillary loses, it will hurt women for a long time. If she wins, we will finally face the deep sexism in our society, just as we've been facing the deep racism that was mostly hidden from public view until President Obama took office. And, having faced it, if we're honest, we will perhaps finally begin to make some progress.
The woman is a huge inspiration to me. I've been through some tough stuff, but she's experienced millions of times as much, and none of it hurts her. It doesn't even faze her because she is confident in the knowledge that she's breaking down barriers for all of us.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)For all involved. But women have to contend with sexism too.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Your post doesn't even make sense.
No woman who sees the nastiness to which Hillary has been subjected will want to go into politics, unless she really loves experiencing pain. I am a woman, and I certainly would not want to follow in Hillary's footsteps.
I don't see how this has to do with bullies. It's a simple fact.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)As the url shows
larkrake
(1,674 posts)I feel Hillary is not qualified because of her history of making bad decisions in trade, war, crime and economy issues. Her gender would normally put her at my back, but her viperlike reactions to criticisms and her sense of entitlement scares me.