Hillary Clinton has miles to go before that triumphant historical moment can arrive.
First there is the still pressing primary need to once and for all vanquish Bernie Sanders.
Then
she must pivot to face a bully boy opponent, so big lipped, out of
control and menacing that if she were 12 and it was recess, she’d be
flanked by a platoon of grim protectors.
Instead
it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National
Committee, who had Clinton’s back on CNN on the morning of the Indiana
primary, saying convincingly that in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would
be facing “the most sexist, bigoted, misogynist candidate” they’ve ever
had in presidential primary cycles.
The stage is set for a big old retro battle of the sexes in America.
Meanwhile, up here in progressive sunny ways land, our male PM proudly asserts he’s a feminist,
and departing PQ leader Pierre Karl Peladeau weeps openly about his
fragmenting family and the need to be with his kids. Evolving gender
roles, folks.
In the U.S, not so much.
They’re fighting bitterly over transgender bathroom rights, shutting
down abortion clinics, and threatening to take that right away
altogether.
The GOP has all but anointed a Republican
front-runner who openly judges women on a scale of one to 10 (“A person
who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10”), has called them fat pigs, and is now whining that Hillary Clinton is playing the “woman card”
and benefiting from a “double standard” in terms of how her
controversial remarks are treated. Said Trump, “Frankly, if Hillary
Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 per cent of the vote.”
And
if the Donald were a woman? As New York Times columnist Gail Collins
put it “Do not ask yourself how many votes Donald Trump would get if he
were a woman and he was the way he is. Truly, you don’t want to go
there.”
This honking gender war will be
nauseating, toxic (and admit it, occasionally grimly entertaining). But
it will also, I hope, settle something along the way: what real modern
women will put up with in a leader.
If Clinton vs. Trump comes to pass, here are three arenas of battle for the candidates, as seen through a gender lens.
First, likability:
Sheryl Sandberg, author of Lean In,
the bestselling feminist book on women and work, argued in it that
women in leadership roles suffer from a “likability penalty” and that as
they “get more powerful, they get less likeable.” I certainly have
female colleagues who have felt increasingly unloved as they rose
through the ranks.
In Hillary’s case, her
unpopularity has plummeted and soared based on unique circumstances.
Husband cheated on her? A globe trotting Secretary of State? Love that
woman! A First Lady who tried to ram health care down Congress’s throat?
Benghazi, errant emails? Burn her at the stake! Wall Street speeches,
main street inauthenticity, she’s a disaster. But still? Consistently
one of the most admired women in America. Hillary Clinton has weathered
all levels of popularity. She is beloved by her long-serving staff and
on the trail, and despite her default stiffness, there are hints of
warmth, wit and real passion.
And how
fortuitous for Clinton that she may be battling the most unpopular GOP
candidate in history (Ted Cruz is even more loathed.) So far, with very
good reason, Donald Trump is especially unpopular with women. He doesn’t
seem to be doing anything to change that. So despite the “likability
penalty” for women, I would give this advantage to Hillary.
Second, knowledge and experience:
Most
women will tell you their male colleagues not only brag more about
their achievements but they regularly apply for jobs well beyond their
expertise. In Clinton vs. Trump, there isn’t a scintilla of doubt that,
as a former First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State,
Hillary holds all the cards (yes, #womancard included) in terms of on
the job experience. Trump will try to nail her on “stamina” and
“judgment”. But his own judgment — even in his one area of
expertise—business—has been at times disastrous. So again, advantage
Hillary.
Lastly, tone:
Tone
may well decide the election. Look show brilliantly now PM Justin
Trudeau did by countering former PM Stephen Harper’s grim, mean,
fear-mongering tone. His optimistic platitudes — “in Canada, better is
always possible” — worked.
Clinton will
need to work hard on the right tone-upbeat, slightly humorous,
knowledgeable, tough, but civil — to counter Trump’s id-fuelled
toxicity. His tone will dispirit America in a way that nothing else has,
but it will also guarantee him many more angry, needy and not so
knowledgeable followers.
Trump may try to be “presidential” but in an added irony of this all out gender war, Hillary Clinton, at her simple best, exudes “presidential.”
So
in theory, Hillary’s got this, right? That’s what will make it so
confounding if she is not elected president. Politics is unpredictable.
War is hell. And a political gender war is a very unpredictable hell
indeed.
