America clearly is not ready for a female president: why?

• Pages: 31-43
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2017-0175
• Date: 14 February 2018
• Published date: 14 February 2018
• Author: Abby Corrington,Michelle Hebl
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

America clearly is not ready for a

female president: why?

Abby Corrington and Michelle Hebl

Department of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ways gender influenced the 2016 presidential

election, as well as ways in which the USA might progress to become a more gender-egalitarian nation.

Design/methodology/approach –Drawing on a combination of voter data, psychological theories –

including sexism, social role theory, stereotype content model, group status threat, and system justification

theory –and opinions, this paper explores the factors that drove the 2016 presidential election outcome.

Findings –This paper asserts that while there were reasons other than gender that people voted the way

they did in the 2016 presidential election, these reasons were ancillary to the role that gender bias and

stereotypes played. It concludes with a call to action, arguing that: more women need to enter into politics,

each of us must recognize our own and make others aware of their overt sexism and subtle biases, the public

must acknowledge and change the often double standards that exist for women but not men, and we must

realize that a win for women is also often a win for men.

Originality/value –The value lies in introducing a social psychological lens focused on gender to the 2016

presidential election. This paper combines data, theory, and broader opinions to present a compelling

perspective on the election in a way that, to our knowledge, has not been done before.

Keywords Gender, Diversity, Sexual discrimination, Sex and gender issues

Paper type Viewpoint

Despite being described by Barack Obama as the most qualified presidential nominee in US

history, Hillary Clinton repelled a number of voters, male and female alike (Reilly, 2016).

Many claimed they would gladly vote for a woman …just not this woman. But a closer look

at what people said about Hillary reveals a deep, underlying sexism behind these

convictions. Her voice was too “shrill,”“nagging,”and made men want to “cross their legs”

(Alter, 2016; Ghitis, 2016). Her hair must have been “synthetic”(Rahman, 2015), and her

pantsuits were “hideous,”“unflattering,”and “unfeminine”(Clemente, 2016). And certainly,

she lacked the “stamina”for leadership positions (Chan, 2016).

Spanning her 30-year career in public office, Hillary Clinton was a Yale Law School

Graduate, one of the co-founders of the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the

First Ladyof both Arkansas and the USA, a US Senator fromNew York, and the US Secretary

of State (History Channel, 2009). Yes, make no mistake –she was clearly one of the most

qualified presidential nominees in recent US history. Yet people claimed they just“don’t trust

her”(Barbaro, 2016). Benghazi? Mishandling of confidential e-mails? The Whitewater

scandal?The establishment? (Graham,2016). Such factors certainlyundermined people’s trust

in Clinton; yet, Donald Trump had his own set of pre-presidency scandals including outright

lies, the expansion of what he now calls “fake news”(ranging from advancement of thebirther

movement to the denial of climate change), alleged ties with the mafia, one unscrupulous

business deal after the next, an unwillingness to release his tax returns, tenant intimidations,

four bankruptcies, antitrust violations, a decades-long housing discrimination claim, alleged

marital rape, the Trump University scandal, potential collusion with Russia during the

election, hisadmission of sexual assaulton women, his infidelity (whichhe admitted publicly),

his ridicule of an individual with a disability, and his insult of Mexicans and immigrants

(Graham, 2017a,b; Joseph, 2016; Matthews, 2017; Stephens, 2017).

How is it possible that Hillary Clinton did not win? We believe one egregious element

tipped the scale and eroded the election more, beyond each of her potential scandals.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 1, 2018

pp. 31-43

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-08-2017-0175

Received 31 August 2017

Revised 27 September 2017

6 October 2017

Accepted 8 October 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

31

America

clearly is not

ready