2020 Race Shows the More Women Run, the More They’re Treated Like Candidates—Not ‘Tokens’

Posted by on December 2, 2019 in Government, Politics with 0 Comments

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren speaking with attendees at the 2019 National Forum on Wages and Working People hosted by the Center for the American Progress Action Fund and the SEIU at the Enclave in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Source: Flickr/gageskidmore)

By Elizabeth C. Tippett | Common Dreams

When Victoria Woodhull ran for president in 1872, she was depicted as “Mrs. Satan” in a political cartoon.

When Sen. Margaret Chase Smith sought the Republican nomination in 1964, one columnist labeled her too old—at 66—while others insisted she was attractive “for her age.”

When Hillary Clinton sought the Democratic nomination in 2008 and the presidency in 2016, she was unable to escape gender-based tropes characterizing her as “calculating” and “power-hungry.”

But in observing the 2020 Democratic presidential primary—which has featured as many six women—it seems possible that this time might be different. Not because sexism has left the building, but because the critical mass of women candidates may have changed the dynamic.

A lone woman in a crowd

As a researcher who studies the workplace, I was reminded during the debate of an influential study of female representation in the office.

In the 1970s, business professor Rosabeth Kanter studied the group dynamics in a corporate sales division where women represented a tiny part of the sales force. When women found themselves “alone or nearly alone” in a sea of men, they came to be seen as “tokens”—a constantly scrutinized stand-in for all women, viewed by others in terms of their gender and gender stereotypes.

Every action these saleswomen took had “symbolic consequences,” Kanter wrote. “In short, every act tended to be evaluated beyond its meaning for the organization and taken as a sign of ‘how women do in sales.'”

The women were subject to exaggerated scrutiny of their physical appearance and became “larger-than-life caricatures.” Their presence also affected the men, who behaved in a hyper-masculine way to “reclaim group solidarity” and emphasize the women's outsider status.

This was, essentially, the predicament that Clinton faced as the lone female contender in her unsuccessful 2008 primary bid and as the first woman within striking distance of the White House in 2016. She never had the chance to be one of many female candidates whose qualifications, benefits, and flaws could be evaluated in a measured way.

Even before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, she was a lightning rod and a caricature. During the 2008 primaries, a poster depicted her as a witch. Others used various gender-based epithets. A T-shirt said “bros before hoes“—a hyper-masculine expression of in-group solidarity. Fox News compared Clinton with a “nagging” wife, while a host on CNN apparently thought “scolding mother” was the better analogy.

In the 2016 election, Trump gleefully piled on, interrupting her in the final debate to call her a “nasty woman.”

As the wife of a former president, Clinton was portrayed as the ultimate undeserving “token.”

Critical mass theory

Kanter believed that group dynamics would change if women were better represented in the office.

She hypothesized that once women made up 35% or 40% of the group, they would be liberated from their token status and others would start to see them as “individuals differentiated from each other” as well as differentiated from men.

This idea would later be popularized as the theory of the “critical mass.” It inspired, among other things, gender quotas in legislatures. Universities would also use the idea as a legal justification for affirmative action policies on the basis of race.

I was reminded of the critical mass theory in watching the Nov. 20 debate in Atlanta, which was moderated entirely by women. Among the candidates, it featured the same female to male ratio—40%—that Kanter predicted would make a difference.

And it did.

The four women on stage freed each from being the perfect woman, the “you're likable enough” trap that left Clinton in a bind. It meant Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) isn't a nasty woman—she is a populist, as some have described her, like Bernie Sanders.

It meant Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) can attack colleague Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's (D-Hawaii) record without it being portrayed as a “catfight.”

Freed to be funny

But what I noticed most from the female candidates were the sly jokes and subtle digs. Humor is difficult when you're alone in a crowd. Garnering a laugh can be as much about solidarity as wit.

During the Atlanta debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) was in particularly fine form. She bragged about having “raised $17,000 from ex-boyfriends” in her first Senate race. She also doubled down on a past comment that a female version of Mayor Pete Buttigieg would never have made it this far with his meager political experience. “Women are held to a higher standard,” she said, “otherwise, we could play a game called Name Your Favorite Woman President.”

Harris even used humor to good effect when former Vice President Joe Biden claimed he had the endorsement of the “only African American woman …elected to the United States Senate”—apparently referring to Carol Moseley Braun.

“The other one is here,” Harris quipped. The audience guffawed.

Power in numbers

Kanter observed that women's isolation in these settings not only affected how they were perceived by others. It also affected their own behavior.

Aware of their symbolic status, women felt extra pressure to perform and “prove their competence” while simultaneously trying not to make the men “look bad” and “blend noticeably into the predominantly male culture.”

I wondered how Hillary Clinton would have looked up there alongside the others in Atlanta. It's possible she would have come across as wooden or boring. Even so, the stakes would have been lower—an inference that this particular person is boring, not that women can't cut it.

Elizabeth C. Tippett

Elizabeth C. Tippett writes about ethics, employment law, and the intersection of law and technology. She is a co-author of the Fifth Edition of the West Academic textbook, Employment Discrimination & Employment Law: The Field as Practiced, along with Samuel Estreicher and Michael Harper.  Her research on disparate impact litigation was cited by the United States Court of Appeals and the Iowa Supreme Court.

Professor Tippett is the faculty co-director for the master's program in conflict and dispute resolution at the University of Oregon.  Before joining the faculty, she was an employment law attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Professor Tippett earned her law degree at Harvard Law School in 2006.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Read more great articles at Common Dreams

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to a friend