Elizabeth Heard - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Elizabeth Heard

Synthesis MatrixSlide2

How does the fact that Hilary Clinton is a woman affect middle –aged male voter’s perception of her ability to be a respectable

president?

My Research QuestionSlide3

Throughout all my sources three

keywords

constantly came up that directly relates to my Inquiry

Question

Hilary Clinton stern public personaThe double standard placed upon Hilary Shifting power roles

Main IdeasSlide4

Hilary Clinton has always been seen in the public eye as a stern women

It has been said that “

C

linton may have a serious problem with respect to the the tyranny factor, on which she ranked highest with McCain of all candidates. That aspect of her image as potential president, mirroring a key anti-leader prototype, will need addressing if she decides to run again” (Powell & Butterfield, 400).

From this statement we see that people view Hillary as a tyrant which is directly opposite of what America wants for her President. The fact that they use the word “anti-leader prototype” to describe her image shows that she is not perceived well among others and many believe she is not the leader we need for president.

Hilary Clinton Stern Public Persona Slide5

In the article “Hillary the Pol” it was said that “What Hillary Clinton had been lacking was, essentially, an ability to connect with people far different from her-a lack that could, of course, be fatal to her as a politician, and also one that had no doubt been highlighted by the inevitable contrast with her husband”.

Hilary

has often been said to be close-minded meaning she only likes to hang with a particular crowd. Therefore anyone different from whom she is acquainted with she has a problem relating towards. The key thing of any president is that they need to make the public/voters feel like they are on the same level as them and that they understand our needs and wants.

So if you are not able to connect to different types of people then how are we suppose to feel comforted and ensured that you will fight for us as

voters?

What factors Make Hilary Stern?Slide6

It is customary for a woman to be charismatic and welcoming to those she encounters so for Hillary to be un-welcoming and timid this does not portray a flattering look for her as woman and as a potential president.

Another statement was made in the article “Hillary the Pol” that said “

The risk that Hillary Clinton faced in her performance was not that she would stumble on her facts or be caught short. It was, rather…. her acumen and high competence, unadorned, would narrow her public appeal, and alienate the more retrograde; and also that her steeliness, if it were to show through, would alienate many more”.

Hilary downfall is her attitude. She is too fully aware of her power and skill and comes off shrewd.

By

her behavior she is making people feel victimized and is losing voters along the way.

Hilary Stern Public personaSlide7

Such characteristics portrayed throughout my quotes like “shrewd”, “high competence”, and “tyranny” all exemplify negative things towards Hilary.

However “As

a presidential candidate, Clinton has to sound strong, not shrill. She has to look in command, not manly. And no matter what she does, there always will be men and women who look at her and see a witch. Some observers link anger and toughness, viewing anger as an emotional version of toughness that is dangerous for female candidates to display”

(Brooks,600

).

This quote leads me to argue that some of the negative things people say about Hilary Clinton can be birthed out of the fact that she shows toughness instead of weakness; and we as Americans see this as solely as an male trait. Meaning that Hilary is going to be dealt the lower hand no matter what does because she is portraying traits outside her gender.

This point of view brings me to my next point: the double standard placed upon Hillary

SternnessSlide8

“Role congruity theory predicts female leaders suffers two types of prejudice: descriptive & prescriptive: Descriptive bias occurs when female leaders are serotyped as possessing less potential for leadership than men. Prescriptive bias occurs when actual female leaders are evaluated less favorably because leadership is seem as more desirable for men then for woman

(Elsesser&Lever,1556

).

”

Men and sometime even woman, feel like females cannot obtain all the tools to be a good leader that a man can acquire, and this type of reasoning is descriptive. When a man or woman prefer a male in charge instead of a woman just because they believe that is what looks best then this bias is called

prescriptive. Both prescriptive & descriptive are examples of double standards that woman receive.

Therefore whenever it is believed that Hilary Clinton can not be a good president based upon lack of skill and leadership traits we are being descriptive prejudice. Likewise when we think because less of Hilary Clinton just because she is a women who is running for presidency we are being prescriptive prejudice.

Role congruity theory directly explains why male and even woman can not find a women in a entitled position as respectable or capable of the job they have received.

The double StandardSlide9

“In our society stereotypical female gender roles have included communal roles, which included nurturing caring and sensitivity. Male roles are more argentic, with men often being considered more aggressive, ambitious, assertive and direct. Individuals who act in ways that are incongruent with their sex roles tend to be evaluated negatively

(Elsesser &Lever1556

).”

Women are placed into the box as nurtures, caretakers, and compassionate , while men are said to be aggressive and in command. Therefore whenever a women portrays man traits or vice versa it is shown negatively.

This hurts Hilary both ways because to be president you have to be assertive and direct and both of those traits are labeled for males, so by portraying these traits she is looked down upon. However if she chose to be sensitive and soft people would claim she is not fit for presidency, and this is why Hilary Clinton campaign for presidency candidacy is a double standard.

Double standards placed upon HillarySlide10

“Women

who aspire to leadership best not admit to ‘doing tears’ no matter what the circumstances, and men more than women get away with showing sensitivity. After all, when a woman cries it reinforces stereotypes and tells us that her toughness was just a front and she has revealed herself to be weak underneath’’

(Brooks, 599

)

.When a man cries it shows his sensitive side and is admirable towards all, however when a woman cries it shows that she is weak. Hillary can not be shown crying because Americans would literally eat her alive and say that she is weak and has been portraying an fake persona towards us.

My inquiry question is all about perception of Hilary as respectable and if we see Hilary as sensitive or as harsh both outcomes will gives us a bad perception of Hillary as president due to the double standard placed upon her .

The double standard placed upon HilarySlide11

In the article “Women in Politics” it was said “many

voters still harbor doubts about the role of women in politics. "There are still deeply held attitudes in our culture about how can a woman be soft and warm and yet be tough and commander in chief, how can a woman be a mother and raise very competent children and still be involved in policy and be running for

president”.

The fact that women can be soft hearted, but aggressive when put in charge and at the same time be a wife and a nurturing mom while running for presidency is something American in particular men cannot

wrap their head around.

Hilary Clinton is a former first lady, mom, and a now a grandmother and the fact that she is all these positions and a presidential candidate people doubt her capability to do all these task with the proper energy and dedication that each one requires.

However if it was man and he was a senator, a father and a grandfather running for the upcoming presidential election no one would doubt whether or not he was capable of presidency, rather they would respect him even more for being able to multi- task so well.

The double StandardSlide12

In the article “Men or Women: Who’s the better leader, a research was conducted by the PewResarch Center and “

Asked what accounts for this slow movement toward gender parity in top political positions, about half (51%) of all survey respondents say a major reason is that Americans simply aren’t ready to elect a woman to high office; more than four-in-ten (43%) say a major reason is that women who are active in politics are held back by men, and 38% say a major reason is that women are discriminated against in all realms of society, and politics is no

exception”.

This research directly backs up the double standard placed upon women in a high position in particular Hillary. The majority of the subjects In the survey reason for why more women are not in charge is simply that America is not ready for a woman to be in charge. Meaning that we can not comes to grips with someone who is feminine leading our country and this is just a setback that Hilary will have to endure.

However another percentage said that women are discriminated in all realms of society and politics just happens to be one of those. The world can all agree that women are going to endure more obstacles then a man would, and this is due because of the tradition that men are entitles to more things then women are, and this old mindset thinking mostly effects the middle age and older generation.

This leads to my next point of the shifting power roles between male to female

The Double StandardSlide13

In the article “Women as bosses” it was stated that

“A woman in an executive spot creates a morale problem. People resent working for women. It’s a basic thing that can’t be overcome. As long as we are going to have families, women will be handicapped in business.

”

People believe that it is morally wrong for a woman to posses an executive position. They think that type of title and position should belong to a man, because a woman is the caretaker of the family. This type of attitude places a “handicap” on women who are in a high political position and how the public views them.

This “handicap” is what can make people not perceive Hillary as a respectable president which directly relates to my inquiry question.

On the next slide we will look in deeper on where this handicap came from and how shifting power roles relate to middle age men.

Shifting power rolesSlide14

“

Dr. Mead thinks men’s resentment against women “bossing things” may start at an early age when girls mature faster than boys and outshine them in

school. Yet

women do in fact boss men (and other women) without

trouble” (Hamill).Females typically mature faster then boys do and have a history of bossing boys around because of this maturity gap. We all remember how in childhood boys disliked girls because of the maturity girls carried. This resentment can create a stigma and carry on until adulthood.

However in today age single mothers raise most boys so they are used to being bossed by a female. Likewise middle age men were predominantly raised in traditional two

parents so they were accustomed to a male being in command. Therefore tradition plays a very important role on how we perceive Hillary as a presidential candidate. Because a middle age male might be more inclined to vote for a male because he was raised with a male in dominance, however a young adult might choose a women because he knows first hand how capable his own mother is in multi tasking and directing.

Shifting power rolesSlide15

“Women may be constrained by their own shortfall in political ambition– which, the study theorizes, is the sum of many parts: they have more negative attitudes than men about campaigning for office, they under-value their own qualifications for office; and they are more likely than men to be held back by family

responsibilities (

PewResearch

Center)”.

Women can sometimes be biased towards their own self. Meaning they started believing the stereotype that because of their gender they are under qualified for a leadership position and cannot step up to the plate. Therefore if woman sell their own self short then its much easier for men to do the same thing.

Power roles is what defines male and female, and when we start believing that leadership positions are only entitled to males then we are making us as women a stereotype. A power shift needs to occur that women can also hold leadership without being judged or set back.

Shifting power rolesSlide16

“Based on this trend, they hypothesized that a good manager would be seen as possessing similarly high levels of masculine and feminine traits….However, contrary to their hypothesis, a good manager was seen as possessing predominantly masculine characteristics by a majority of respondents in all groups, including undergraduate and part-time graduate males and females

(Powell & Butterfield, 397

)”

.

Earlier in this survey conducted women ranked higher in skills, and attitude and coordination. However when the real question was asked on what the subjects wanted in charge they chose a male over a female. The wanted someone with masculine traits running over them even though a female is completely capable of doing everything a male could do as manager. I

believe this outcome is due to a comfort level that we all posses, we are just used to a male in

charge.

Throughout my sources I have seen a trend of researches concluded that women are quite capable of being a leader such as one like presidency, however the problem is we simple do not want to see females in charge. We as Americans do not want to shift power roles ,we have placed each gender into their own box and expect no deviation.

This directly relates to my inquiry question because power roles explain why middle age men will be more incline to vote for a man rather then a women because they see man as inferior and perceive women as not worthy for presidency.

Shifting power rolesSlide17

Hillary Clinton is a stern woman who knows how to take command.

Role contiguity theory says we are prejudice to women because we feel they are incapable of being in charge or because we just do not want them in charge

A double standard has been placed upon Hilary meaning that whenever she deviates from the standard female characteristics she is looked down upon, and when she portrays female traits she is considered to be soft.

However even if people do see Hilary as intelligently capable of being president, because of power roles shift we physically do not want her as president out of tradition we find man inferior and solely entitled to presidency.

Thanks for reading



The MatrixSlide18

Brians,

Graig

.”Women for Women? Gender and Party Bias in Voting for Female Candidates”

Sage Journals

33 (2005): 357-375. Print.Elsesser, Kim and Lever, Janet. “Does gender bias against female leaders persist?Quantitative and qualitive data from a large-scale survey” Sage Journals 12 (2011): 1555-1578. Print“Men or Women: Who’s the Better Leader” PewResearch Center

Aug. 2008

Web. 16 October 2015

Brooks, Jordan. ”Testing the Double Standard for Candidate Emotionality: Voter

Reactions to the Tears and Anger of Male and Female Politicians”

The Journal of Politics

73 (2011): 597-615.Jost, Kenneth. “Women in Politics”, CQ Researcher. 21 Mar. 2008. Web. 16 Oct. 2015. Powell, Gary, and Butterfield, Anthony. “Sex, Gender, and the US Presidency: ready for

a female President?”

Emerald Insight

26 (2011): 394-407. Print.

Bruck

, Connie. “Hillary The Pol”

The New Yorker

30 May 1994. Web.

Work Cited