For my Invisible Man essay in English, I was researching two concepts, the confidence gap theory and the backlash effect, that got me thinking about how these might relate to women in politics. The confidence gap theory suggests that women have a lower confidence level than men(or are at least less likely to express their confidence) and that because confidence is an important characteristic when considering promotion, this lack of confidence inhibits women’s promotion rates and overall job success. On the other hand, the backlash effect is the tendency for women exhibiting more masculine qualities(self-assurance, aggressiveness, and confidence) – that are normally looked on positively for leadership positions – to suffer repercussions or criticisms because they fail to conform to gender stereotypes. This leaves hard-working women struggling to balance these two sets of stereotypical expectations: either risk not being promoted to remain well-liked, or exhibit leadership qualities and become ostracized.
In the documentary, the contrast between Nixon and Kennedy’s campaign successes emphasized the importance of likability for Presidential candidates. Given the difficulty that social expectations place on women in leadership, it makes it much more difficult for women in power to remain well-liked. They must exhibit strong leadership qualities like confidence and self-assurance, yet remain within gender role stereotypes by seeming calm, affectionate, and empathetic. With this struggle for balance and the fragility of the public’s opinion of candidates, it makes sense that women in politics would have a more difficult time remaining well-liked by the majority, and would therefore have more difficulty advancing to higher government positions such as the Presidency.
This is actually a really interesting take on this issue. When I was researching this further, I came across a source that referenced a debate between two women, Susan Madrak and Kathleen Geier. Madrak was saying that it is almost impossible for a woman to become president for basically the same reasons above, the deeply rooted sexism and the fact that everything a woman would do would be twice as scrutinized than if a man did it. However, Geier made the argument that a woman could be president and that in 2020 it might just happen. She argued that the democratic was not "drowning in political talent" and the article states that "Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris happen to be 'among the strongest contenders for the presidency'". Another point that Geier made was that with every push that men make against feminism, women push back just as hard. The example that they used was the Women's March on January 21st that was pushing back against Trump and his sexist remarks. If we apply this to the presidency, maybe women will push back and elect a female president for 2020. Personally, I'm not sure which side I feel is more accurate. I think that it will definitely be harder for a woman to not only be elected president, but also during her presidency. However, I do think it is possible.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/46/a-woman-can-be-president-right/