The field of Democratic presidential candidates in this election cycle initially garnered praise for its historic diversity and amount of female candidates. Six women sought the nomination: Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), Senator Kamala Harris (CA), Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Representative Tulsi Gabbard (HI), and author Marianne Williamson, but as the field shrank, so did the number of women in the race. After a series of crucial primaries and caucuses, Gabbard is the only woman left standing, and considering her low polling average when compared to frontrunners Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the chances of her winning the nomination are slim.

The only women to be considered in the “top tier” of candidates were Warren and Klobuchar, and Warren was the only female in the 2020 presidential election cycle to achieve a true front-runner status. This label wasn’t undeserved; she had a strong background in politics and her debate performances were consistently some of the most impactful. However, she quickly lost the momentum she picked up in October. Her position in the polls continued to slip, and after numerous losses in primaries and caucuses, including an embarrassing third-place finish in her home state of Massachusetts, she officially announced the end of her campaign on March 5th. While many factors contributed to the downfall of Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, one is unignorable: female electability in a Presidential race.

Warren Rally in Houston, Texas

Source: 2C2K Photography

Battling questions of electability meant that Warren had to continuously find the middle ground between two negative images of women. She couldn’t be too kind, because then she’d feed into the narrative that women are too delicate for politics. However, she also couldn’t be too aggressive, because then she’d become too emotional, a common sexist stereotype. She couldn’t risk seeming too simple, because then she would characterize women as unintelligent. Though she couldn’t seem too intelligent either, because then she’d be elitist and condescending. As every aspect of her campaign was scrutinized, Warren couldn’t maintain this impossible balance. Soon, traits that would garner respect if demonstrated by a male candidate were attacked when Warren exhibited them, like her more aggressive debating style.

Even worse, acknowledging this issue put a target on her back. Warren acknowledged this when she officially announced the end of her campaign, stating, “Gender in this race, you know, that is the trap question for every woman,” further elaborating that, “If you say, ‘yeah, there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says ‘whiner,’ and if you say, ‘no, there was no sexism,’ about a bazillion women think, ‘what planet do you live on?’

Instances of the former are clear. Take the January Democratic debate, where Elizabeth Warren publicly addressed her claim that fellow progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) told her he didn’t believe a woman could beat Donald Trump in the election. Sanders denied her allegations, and many were quick to berate Warren for “lying.” She came under attack for daring to bring sexism to light, which discredited her narrative and shifted the conversation away from the issue at hand. People moved on from the Sanders/Warren feud, and in doing so, left behind the critical discussion about the implication of Sanders’ alleged comments, making Warren seem less electable in the process.

Warren and Bernie Sanders at the South Carolina Debate

Source: Syed Zaheer

Unsurprisingly, President Donald Trump himself has also denied that sexism brought Warren down. Speaking to reporters as he signed a funding package to aid the recent coronavirus outbreak, Trump blamed Warren’s “Tremendous lack of talent,” and her being “A very mean person”. He continued, “People like a person like me, that is not mean.” Interestingly enough, Warren’s tenure in the fields of law and politics disproves this supposed “lack of talent,” as she has served as a Senator since 2013, taught law at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston, and served as a special advisor to Barack Obama on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"I THINK YOU CALLED ME A LIAR ON NATIONAL TV" pic.twitter.com/c7LWL5SLoh — Ursula Perano (@UrsulaPerano) January 16, 2020

Clearly, Warren doesn’t lack the talent that would be necessary for a president, but Trump’s claim that “people don’t like her” because she is “a very mean person” exemplifies the very misogyny that harmed her. Yes, Warren was an outspoken candidate who openly advocated for her beliefs. Yes, her performances in the Democratic debates were more aggressive (just ask Michael Bloomberg), but that doesn’t make her “mean” or unlikable. President Trump has proudly referred to women in offensive manners, such as “A crazed, crying lowlife” and “ Nasty Woman.” He’s made remarks such as “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever,” and this is a clear double standard. When a man makes these comments, he’s characterized as confident and strong, and his misogyny is ignored. But when a woman speaks out against sexism or for her beliefs, she’s immediately cast in a negative light, and in the female candidates of this election’s case, their electability suffers.

This isn’t to say that sexism is the only reason why Warren dropped out. Her campaign had its other issues, as every campaign has its flaws. However, an issue arises when people are reluctant to even discuss the fact that women are treated worse than men in politics. Ignoring the sexism that female candidates face when running for office just allows the injustice to persist, dragging down the women who boldly challenge it. Warren wasn’t the only woman who considered sexism a difficulty she faced as a candidate. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, the two other women whose polling numbers experienced considerable surges, have brought this issue to light. The end of Warren’s campaign serves as a painful reminder to American women that their country’s notion of “electable” and “presidential” does not yet include them. Americans, particularly Democrats, need to come to terms with the fact that simply having women run for office doesn’t mean gender equality has been achieved. Finally holding male and female candidates to the same standard is the next step in this battle that’s as old as the United States itself.

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter



Leave this field empty if you're human: