Politics and Perception: The Expectation of Perfection in Female Candidates

A good friend posed a challenge to me recently. Keep track of the number of times you see or hear V.P. Kamala Harris referred to as Kamala, or ‘Mamala’ (the nickname her family has given her) compared to all three of the men in the race for the White House, she said. The answer (just for one day) was 6 instances, compared to 0 times for Trump, Vance, or even, “Coach” Walz. This observation of the sexism that still permeates politics in America, is something I am keenly aware of and have always cringed at. While it might seem, at first, to be a little thing, these subtle and not-so-subtle signals perpetuate a notion that our female candidates are less qualified, less experienced, and less “presidential” and is indicative of far deeper issues of sexism and bias in politics.

Walz is a man on the same ticket as V.P. Harris and is referred to by a respected past profession — affectionately — or last name. Harris has been an Attorney General, a Senator for the State of California, and a Vice President, and we call her, casually, by a nickname her family gave her. Endearing? Yes. But, elevating of Harris’ overwhelming experience to be the next Commander in Chief — hardly. And, deliberately connected to traditional gender roles and norms? 100%.

The Media Research Center published a report in 2020 analyzing the coverage of female candidates, including V.P. Harris, in relation to their male counterparts. The report found that during debates and news coverage, Harris was referred to by her first name significantly more often than Trump and the tone of the coverage was far more personal or emotional in context. In contrast, male candidates were often framed in terms of their qualifications. She’s not alone in this treatment.

During the 2020 election, articles frequently highlighted Warren’s outfits or Klobuchar’s demeanor rather than their policy proposals or political records. Hillary Clinton was considered too cold and robotic and it was talked about extensively. Her hair and appearance were perpetually discussed at length in the media. She was constantly defined by her response to her husband’s affair. In a particularly disturbing display, her daughter’s looks were dissected, as well. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was referred to as “young and inexperienced” compared to male newcomers in politics like Buttigieg and Obama who were praised for their fresh perspectives and intelligence rather than being dismissed outright for their lack of experience. Klobuchar and Harris were also described as “too ambitious” or “ruthless,” with some pundits suggesting they were overly aggressive in pursuing power. In contrast, and in no surprise to any woman, ambition in male candidates is typically seen as a strength. For instance, Biden ran for president multiple times, but his persistence has largely been framed positively, highlighting his dedication and resilience.

Take a minute to do an exercise: In the history of the American elections you have witnessed, how many times do you recall a man’s dedication or ambition being vilified? How many times was a male candidate’s role as a “dad” vs. “stepdad” brought into the national conversation of credibility or readiness for the office? How many times do you recall height, stature, or fashion choices were part of the discussion about a male candidate? With the notable exception of the (still astonishing) tan suit drama of August 2014.

Let’s take it a step further, how many times has the self-defined party of family and Christian values criticized Trump’s multiple marriages, extramarital affairs, sexual misconduct, or actual conviction by a jury of sexual assault? None of this happens, because we don’t define success for male leaders this way or hold them to this standard.

Now, picture a female candidate, V.P. Harris , or your female candidate of choice, being caught on audiotape talking about anything sexual — let alone bragging about assaulting people sexually because “when you are famous they let you do anything.” Any woman behaving this way would be outright disqualified and canceled, in a single, media cycle.

The reality is, this double standard is perpetuated by both parties. So, when will we realize that if we continue focusing on what is superficial, expected, and seen, our country will never get a chance to experience what a female leader will do?

Harris is the only candidate in the 2024 presidential race in America to have deep experience working in all three branches of government. I follow politics regularly and I have heard far more about her role as a stepmom (with judgment, I might add, for a blended family that has been by all accounts a wild success most of us only dream of…) than her record. Instead of her accomplishments as the 32nd Attorney General of California, there is a debate about whether she can lead without having had biological children. Incidentally, as the Attorney General, she achieved landmark successes in criminal justice reform, consumer protection, civil rights, and secured a $25 billion mortgage settlement for homeowners affected by the housing crisis. And, further, she accomplished heroic work in transparency in law enforcement, and advancing marriage equality. She fought against corporate environmental violations, reduced recidivism, and took strong action against human trafficking. But, by all means, let’s keep discussing the merits of whether this “mom” vs. “stepmom” is qualified for the office.

I live in the south and in a state that often swings red. And, I have overheard people this election cycle, including women, conversing (in an almost a robotic, automated way) about Candidate Harris’s lack of intelligence and/or inexperience. I have also heard discourse along the same lines that is not nearly as kind or relevant as that. I hear implications (again, even by women) that she could only have gotten ahead through sexual favors. Given that she is a former prosecutor running against a man convicted of sexual assault, I find this particularly striking. Trump also publicly reshared on truth social, a photo of Harris with Hillary Clinton captioned, “Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently…” And, yet, this man is embraced by many, as “telling it like it is,” and demonstrating what many think a modern day American leader should be. Democrat, Republican, Independent? This alone should be disqualifying. Sometimes, I am truly amazed that this is present day America, 2024.

In a recent piece in Huffington Post, by Jen Golbeck, a picture was recently painted of the current cult-like state of the Republican party. In Golbeck’s piece, written after she was witness to countless rallies and conducted multiple voter interviews across the country, she underlines the prevalence and reinforcement of old sexist tropes at rally after rally. Sexism and misogyny are embraced, with merchandise being worn by families that say things like, “the hoe is worse than joe,” a prime example of the quality of political discourse in the Republican party today. (But, wait, finally, a male candidate whose first name was used? Oh, wait…to diminish and disrespect.)

As a woman, I have experienced sexism at multiple points in my career and life. I am familiar with the signs and subtlety with which it appears and how easily it can be dismissed or overlooked, even by well-intentioned men. Sometimes, it is as simple as criticism or doubts about the validity of my ideas (only to have the same ideas immediately embraced when presented by a male colleague.) Similarly, it might be as simple as a suggestion or elevating a professional concern, that is initially ignored or dismissed, only to be taken more seriously when a male colleague repeats that concern. It can look like perpetually being “taught” or “mentored” while a male colleague in the same role is elevated or praised. And, some of my experiences with sexism are far less subtle. Early in my career, I complained of pretty blatant sexual harassment by a work colleague. The worst instance of this man’s inappropriate behavior included him cornering me in an elevator and telling me he really liked the neighborhood where I lived. And, that he had seen me walking home (and proceeded to prove it, reciting my address from memory.) I was 21 years old and I lived alone. When I reported him, HR said I had to speak about it with my male boss. He asked if the “advances” and “flirting” would have bothered me if my colleague was “my age” or “good-looking.” Incidentally, this coworker remained at this company far longer than I did and was thrown a retirement party.

Unfortunately, exactly none of my experiences are particularly unique, nor are they things I dwell on. And, I will add that my white, cisgender female identity has afforded me significant privilege, too, and advantages that many women, particularly women of color, are not afforded. But, if any of this shocks you, please ask any professional, working woman you know of any age if she has experienced sexism in the workplace from colleagues, supervisors, clients, or customers. I am certain you will receive a resounding, “yes,” with detailed examples.

I think to some degree we all (even those of us keenly aware of or experienced with sexism) unintentionally create a criteria in our heads of what makes our female candidates more palatable, more presidential, more acceptable, or defensible to us. For women of color, this is even more extreme, as racial bias and Eurocentric beauty standards come into play, as well. And, I call on all of us to consciously and collectively examine this bias as it relates to our own decisions in the voting booth and question this double standard when we hear it from others.

We may continue to embrace warm, familiar names or labels, like “Kamala” or “Mamala” for candidates we favor. Some of us may be doing it out of fondness or to win an election. Some may do it to diminish her power. But, the impact is the same. It is ultimately damaging. It erodes her credibility, undermines her authority, and diminishes the seriousness of a powerful and competent, female leader, by speaking about her in any way that is not the same as the way you would refer to a man competing for the same position. (Just imagine, referring to J.D. Vance, but by a nickname his kids gave him.) When we demand popularity first, and presidential second, of our female candidates alone, we all lose.

If the expectation of our female political leaders remains wholly different than those of their male counterparts, we may never have a female President. Consider these double standards that apply, based on gender alone.

1. “She” needs to be adequately feminine, friendly, and attractive, so she is “likable.” (Certainly, not a shared criteria across gender in this election.) Perpetually, she needs to smile more, be dressed well, and will be examined constantly for her appearance.
2. She needs to be likable and liked. She cannot ever be too assertive. It might be seen as aggressive, ruthless, too ambitious, or abrasive. She needs to follow societal norms for women. (The flaunting and aggressive defiance of norms of electoral courtesy or respect for democracy — a MAGA hallmark — would never be something she could consider even if she wanted to.) She must follow the “rules” or it will be all anyone talks about and overshadow the issues. She has to be 10x the candidate he is.
3. She can be a professional woman, but has to also be the perfect Instagram mom and wife, and prove it. (She will also again be criticized for spending too much time working and therefore ignoring her husband and family if she returns to the white house.)
4. She can never be angry. She must take the high-road. She must remain confident, pleasant, and diplomatic at all times, or she will be perceived as “too emotional” to lead.
5. She needs to be perceived as experienced enough to be “aging well,” (a myth for women in America) but she also has to run in her “prime” as she would never be competitive in a presidential race in America if she was pushing 80.
6. She needs to be married. Because no woman in America would be competitive if she were single, even though no one would blink if a male candidate was. Because, as stated, we cannot separate women from their families or relationships like we often do (without a thought) for men. Women must be flawlessly pure and paired. Men are often revered for or excused for sexual misconduct. (Again, a double standard on full display in this election.) To put it directly in the words of the Republican candidate for Vice President, “childless cat ladies” (read: single women who are inevitably lonely without husbands or kids) shouldn’t be running the country.
7. Female candidates need to be attractive and dress well (see 2.) But, they will inevitably be accused of using their looks and/or bodies to get ahead. As such, men will get credit for their career advancement. She can never call this out or dispute it publicly. She must ignore it.
8. Her history as a wife, mother, and partner will be analyzed endlessly and publicly, in order to ensure we have confirmed her worth and capacity to be the leader of the free world.
9. Finally, she must demonstrate “leadership” (but never losing that likability) and be able to be pictured as our next Commander-in-Chief, a hollywood-esque ideal we hold as universally masculine since our country’s founding.

According to J.D. Vance (who, I might add, is never without his last name in media,) a female candidate also needs to have biological children to lead this country. Because, mothers and women are somehow less than others if they don’t conceive or don’t birth their children. According the modern Repubilcan party, an American leader can’t be trusted with an understanding of women and families, if she only has experience with stepchildren and a blended family. (Let me just pause here to share my reaction upon first reading about this statement. I yelled loud enough for neighbors to hear, “cool, then can all of you menfolk stop monitoring our reproductive cycles and legislating our bodies now?” Depending on who you ask, this is evidence of my being both too emotional and too reactive to the “logic” of a man who is running to be second-in-line-to-the-presidency, and who believes that there is only one kind of acceptable family.)

And, the double standard is, well, doubled, for female candidates who are also mothers. Because, there is fundamentally no way to be a successful mother in our society, without sacrificing everything you are for your children at every turn (and doing so publicly.) A sacrifice that benefits neither child or parent.

Nora Fanshaw’s monologue from Marriage Story (2019), delivered by Laura Dern, sums it up in a way I could relate to:

*“We can accept an imperfect dad. Let’s face it, the idea of a good father was only invented like 30 years ago. Before that, fathers were expected to be silent and absent and unreliable and selfish, and we can all say we want them to be different. But on some basic level, we accept them. We love them for their fallibilities but people absolutely don’t accept those same failings in mothers. We don’t accept it structurally and we don’t accept it spiritually. Because the basis of our Judeo-Christian whatever is Mary, Mother of Jesus, and she’s perfect. She’s a virgin who gives birth, unwaveringly supports her child and holds his dead body when he’s gone. And the dad isn’t there. He didn’t even do the fcking. God is in heaven. God is the father and God didn’t show up. So, you have to be perfect, and [his father] can be a fck up and it doesn’t matter. You will always be held to a different, higher standard. And it’s fcked up, but that’s the way it is.”

And, just to add more cultural input to the argument, this quote from America Ferrera as “Gloria” in Barbie (Greta Gerwig movie, turned cultural phenomenon) describes in detail the double standard women are held to every day:

“It is literally impossible to be a woman…if I’m too good at my job, I’m going to be called a bitch. If I’m too good-looking, I’m going to be called a slut. If I’m too strong, I’m going to be called a man. If I am too soft, I’m going to be called a crybaby. And if I’m not successful, I’m going to be called a failure. And the thing is, I can’t get it right. Nobody can get it right. You have to be a certain kind of woman to succeed.”

Is it really surprising to anyone that our country has never had a female President? Think of the bravery it takes to confront this head-on. Think about how deeply Harris must love her country to be campaigning for the White House, even with a front-row seat to how challenging that can be, and the obstacles, hatred, sexism, and bias stacked against her. All women may understand this, but most of us don’t have to navigate it in the public eye. She must fundamentally believe that good, decent Americans will triumph and our country is worth fighting for. She may very well be one of the first female candidates who comes close to meeting this wild standard. And, because of this and more, she has my vote.

The flip side of all of this is, of course, that male leaders across industry and political party are rarely expected to be and often can’t afford to be sensitive, empathetic, or human. And, that is a loss to leadership and society. Any association with empathy, emotion, or vulnerability seems to be something we accept — no, demand — in female leaders, but outright mock and despise in male ones. When Walz displayed emotion during a moment of the DNC, as did his neurodivergent son, they were both mocked repeatedly on social media. In addition to how clear this makes it that there is much work to be done to advocate for those living with disabilities, the mocking of Walz’s seemingly authentic emotional display stands in stark contrast to how aggressive outbursts are rewarded (even celebrated) in most male leaders, but in particular, in our Republican presidential nominee for President. When male politicians display anger — it’s often interpreted as “assertive,” “bold,” and, “commanding”— and they are praised for their strength and directness. When women demonstrate the same— they are called “unstable,” “crazy,” “emotional,” or worse — incapable of roles and leadership. These biases don’t just hurt women; they hurt men, and future male leaders, and fundamentally undermine our political system and democracy, while limiting the quality, sensitivity, and depth of our leaders.

Though some are rising above the double standard for leaders—those, like Harris and Walz — the road is long and the climb is still steep. This race is too close, despite how different these visions of America are. Objectively, I believe this is about an election and choice between the bullying, bigotry, and single-minded bluster that Donald exudes, and his outdated perception of masculinity masquerading as leadership. His pursuit of power (even by his own admission, dictatorship or authoritarianism) at all costs — supported by lies and the false illusion of financial success is a house of cards built on the idea that he can fix all that you have lost to the government or the media, or to “others.” He exploits his voters by playing directly on their fears that there isn’t enough for all of us, so we must “take back what is ours” from those who don’t look like us. Harris, by all measurable standards and actions, represents a vision of America that is far more nuanced, far more complicated, but far more inclusive. A capable, experienced, strong woman who cares deeply about this country, Harris communicates a depth of understanding that to be a strong leader, you must have empathy for all Americans, and the strength to make tough decisions with understanding and empathy of the perspective on all sides. Strength like this that is nuanced and dimensional is often the less popular course, and is not the definition of strength that panders to Trump’s base. I believe Harris is as flawed as any candidate (and would admit it) but she is far more representative of what is possible in our country. Without being hyperbolic, I believe this is an election that will prove whether or not this great American experiment succeeds or fails. And, that this race represents the full failing of the Republican party to confront or face its demons or live up to the values it used to espouse. I believe this is an election that will define us.

How we define what Presidential leadership is may very well be tied to our progress and success as a nation. We are at a significant and defining moment in history. We can vote based on our candidates “popularity” or we can decide intentionally to redefine what it means to look, be, and sound “presidential.” I see far more presidential qualities in Harris than I do in Trump. But, we should all be questioning how traditional concepts of masculinity and leadership may be impacting our choices this November.

Reference: Barbara Lee Family Foundation. (2018). The Impact of Gender on Public Perception of Political Candidates. Retrieved from https://www.barbaraleefoundation.org

Reference: Smith, J. A., & Smith, K. L. (2021). Women Candidates in the 2020 Elections: The Language of Media Coverage. Journal of Political Marketing, 20(2), 117–142. DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2021.1899632

Reference: Chait, J. (2023, October 13). What Trump said in vulgar Truth Social posts. New York Magazine. Retrieved from https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-trump-said-vulgar-truth-social-posts.html

Reference: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rallies-mainstream-media_n_66e07063e4b0f6ea72e2b59c

Reference: Quote from a 2018 rally attributed to Donaly Trump after meeting Kim: “He’s the head of a country, and I mean he’s the strong head. Don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks, and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

Reference: Quote from J.D. Vance’s speech at the National Conservatism Conference on September 13, 2021.“If you think about the leaders of this country… since the baby boomers, and particularly the leadership of the left, we are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, by a bunch of childless cat ladies.”

Reference: Public Comment in 2018 when Xi Jinping eliminated presidential term limits, effectively making himself China’s leader for life: “He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”

Reference: Public outrage was expressed in August 2014 when President Barack Obama wore a tan suit during a press briefing, which overshadowed significant discussions on national security and foreign policy: “This is shocking to me, the president of the United States would go out in a tan suit… It shows that he’s a lackadaisical leader, not in touch with the seriousness of the moment.” was a statement made by Republican Representative Peter King of New York. He criticized Obama’s choice of attire during a press conference on national security, which triggered a media frenzy over the tan suit.

Reference: An Access Hollywood tape features Donald Trump making controversial remarks about women It was recorded on September 7, 2005, during a bus ride for a segment of the show. The tape was released on October 7, 2016, during the presidential campaign.

In the recording, Trump can be heard making statements that have been widely interpreted as boasting about his ability to engage in sexual advances towards women without their consent. One of the most cited quotes from the tape is:

*“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”**

This statement drew significant media attention and backlash, contributing to discussions around sexual harassment and consent.