Are female candidates for office held to unfair standards?

Question

It's so interesting to see the comments about Hillary Clinton. Lots of her opponents here call her ugly, a dyke, a lesbian, unfeminine, power hungry, too aggressive and use the B word a lot, as if being pretty, feminine and demure were necessary qualities to hold public office if you're female. But at the same time, people call her too weak, say she's too prone to cry, worry about her menstrual cycle, and say other things that suggest she's not strong enough to wield the power of the presidency.

It seems like we want women candidates to be simultaneously the image of feminine beauty and at the same time tough s.o.b.s Do we set impossible standards for women candidates?

Answer 1

Yes, they are. Sexism still runs deep in American society. Though few will come right out and say they don't think women are fit for office, they will use code words like those you mention to express the same feeling. Hopefully President Clinton will help to break down those stereotypes for our future women leaders.

Answer 2

All it is is muckraking, and that she's a woman means there are more terms people can use. Some people may be sexist, but the majority are not.

One can make a list of things for every candidate; what gets me is that people are more concerned with Hillary getting mucked on than say, Obama, Edwards, Paul, Giuliani, etc. Old runners too, like Bush, Kerry, Gore, etc.

If you go into politics, and are running for state or national elections, be prepared for anything. But don't cry prejudice and flash the race/sex card, because *that* in my mind makes you look weak.

Answer 3

No. The press are whiners. Political candidates regardless of sex are held to the same standard. Politics is a tough business. Politics is war in a civilized fashion. That is, the winner's agenda is enforced without bloodshed. The loser doesn't die, but must live under the conqueror's rules. Mudslinging has existed for centuries. To pose this question shows a weakness on the part of a candidate or their proxy. A whiner is the person who is about to lose or who wants to change the rules of the game because they are tired of losing. Women demanded equal opportunity with men and they have made great progress in achieving it. It's a fools errand to ever think in our lifetime thy will reach parity. It's not perfect but women are much better off than say 25 years ago. If the game is too hard and they can't take it, go home and excel in another area.

Answer 4

Non of her opponents have called her most of those things. They wouldn't dare.

Maybe some of her opponents supporters, but not other candidates. Show me one verified quote to prove that different.

Now, to your question. No, female candidates are not held to "unfair standards". We Americans hold our politicians to no real standards, those with the biggest corporations behind them produce the scariest ads and we sheep line up to follow.

So she will be fine. The real question is, how many people will walk into the booth saying they will vote for a woman, but when the curtain closes, vote for the man.

Most, I would bet.

Answer 5

I would say people would care less about what she looks like if she didn't happen to be the one candidate:
1. With the most pre election scandals.
2. Caught on a live microphone talking trash about the other candidates.
3. Rolling her eyes behind a U.S. President during a speech.
4. Proposing a huge flop of a health care plan during her husbands presidency with plans to reinact a similar idea if she is elected.
5. Pandering to far left wing socialistic ideas.
6. Who got caught planting questions.
I'm sure theres more.

I don't care what anyone looks like.. I care that she is a socialist.. and a dumb socialist at that. All politicians do under handed sneaky stuff.. and she is the only one getting caught. She is completely incapable of not making herself look like an idiot.

It's not because she is a women... IT'S BECAUSE SHE'S A LOON. So when she loses.. and she will lose, don't come crying here about how America is full of a bunch of pigs. We don't care what sex you are. We care about what you stand for.
You may now proceed to spam me with thumbs down because "I'm like.... so not taboo".

Answer 6

I do think we set higher standards for women candidates - but hopefully not impossible. I think Hillary is really getting a beating because she is the first female to really have a chance at becoming President. Have you heard how long it takes her to get ready for interviews, debates, etc, compared to the others? That alone is unfair, if you ask me! But it tends to be the trend with women, no matter what. We're supposed to be strong yet still in need of a man's assistance, beautiful but not too vain, confident, but not overly confident and smart, but not too smart.

Answer 7

Actually, very few people oppose her simply because she's a woman.

They oppose her policies, her corruption, her manipulations and lying, her statism, her stances that are in direct opposition to the Constitution, etc.

We hold her to the same standards of any candidate - we want honesty, integrity, moral courage, inner strength, etc. - things that Hillary has never shown in her many years of public life.

Answer 8

People really need to talk, don't they?
I like what George Bush, Sr. said when the media asked what he thought about something the President was being criticized about: "He can take it."

Answer 9

When you run for office it is no different than applying for a raise you have to win. Sex has nothing to do with problems climbing the ladder.

Answer 10

No, I just want to know that they are qualified. What is Hillary? Can I say unqualified.