Malesic 1

Meagan Malesic

Theory and Practice of Writing

Dr. McCully

December 8, 2017

The Power of Speech within the Patriarchy

In recent times, few events that generated as much media attention and stirred as many

emotions as the 2016 United States presidential election. The triumph of billionaire entrepreneur

Donald Trump, a man with absolutely no political background, over female candidate Hillary

Clinton, a woman whose political career spanned decades and included a stint as the First Lady

of the United States, was a shocking and unjust result of external factors that were much greater

than just politics alone. Clintons position as a female more specifically, as the first female to

be nominated by a major party as their presidential candidate demanded increased conversation

about sexism, and the role that it would or would not inevitably play in the results of the election.

Following Clintons upsetting loss, many feminist citizens angrily attested that the election

results proved that sexism is indeed still rampant within United States culture, as the majority of

the country preferred the leadership of an inexperienced and sexist male over that of a well-

qualified female. However, not all would agree that sexism was the deciding factor in Clintons

downfall; in contrast, many Trump voters affirm that it was distaste for Clintons position as an

elitist regardless of her gender as a woman that drew them towards support of the abrasive

and brash Trump. This papers thesis agrees with the feminist position; however, in order to

defend this position, the current role of sexism within United States society must be thoroughly

defined and explored in order to prove that it did in fact significantly and directly affect the

outcome of the election. The question becomes, then, exactly how did sexism determine the
 Malesic 2

countrys perception of Hillary Clinton and affect the results of the 2016 presidential election?

To explain, we need to explore how the most crucial tool utilized by both Clinton and Trump

throughout their candidacies their speech was perceived by the public, and determine how a

patriarchal society influences perceptions and expectations of speech for both males and females

within their respective gender roles.

Of course, it can only be proven that the patriarchy influenced the publics perception of

Clinton if it is first accepted that the patriarchy still exists within western, modern-day society.

Although this is a widely accepted truth within feminist culture, some non-feminist members of

society refuse to acknowledge the current existence of a patriarchy entirely or, they insist that

the patriarchy that does exist within modern culture is one that is beneficial for women. In

defining a patriarchy, it can be noted that when modern historians and sociologists describe a

patriarchal society, they mean that men hold the positions of power: head of the family unit,

leaders of social groups, boss in the workplace and heads of government.Feminist

theorists have expanded the definition of patriarchal society to describe a systemic bias against

women (Napikoski). When applying this definition towards contemporary American culture,

the similarities are undisputable, and simply cannot be written off as irrelevant statistics. In

2016, women were paid on average just 80% of what men were paid for doing the exact same

work at the exact same jobs (AAUW). This statistic alone proves that despite the progress that

has occurred over the past few decades, the wage gap is still very much present within American

society, thereby enhancing and maintaining the underlying gender oppression. In fact, it is

estimated that if progress to close the wage gap continues at its current rate, equal gender pay

will not be reached until the year 2059 at the earliest. Some scholars even argue that the recent
 Malesic 3

slowing of progress suggests that it might not be until 2119 over a century away before

women reach pay equity with their male counterparts.

Of course, the wage gap is only one small portion of the gender dynamic within a

patriarchal society. It is the most tangible example to explain and understand; many statistics

easily prove gender inequality within the workplace in a quantitative fashion. However, the bias

against women within the patriarchy goes far deeper than salary amounts and statistics. To be

female within a male-dominant society does not only affect that which is tangible; it affects the

feelings, attitudes, connotations, and expectations for every person who resides within it. The

male power dynamic influences not only how men perceive women, but also how women

perceive themselves. Women tend to be less likely to achieve leadership positions within this

westernized society, with only about 25% of senior business roles held by females (AAUW).

This could be the effect, not only of gender bias by employers, but also by women feeling less

confident in pursuing leadership roles dues to the expectations forced upon them by the

patriarchy. Such perceptions present women as the lesser, weaker gender, who completely exist

for male consumption and objectification a fact that can be proven by the disturbing statistic

that 1 in 5 women will be raped at some point in her lifetime (AAUW).

In order to fully understand the fundamental dynamic of the patriarchy, it is crucial to

consider this concept of consumerism within western culture. Many recent feminists have

focused upon the issue of consumption in recent years, as it can be argued that consumerist

culture benefits not only the patriarchal element of society, but also fuels the capitalist agenda.

Consumerism promotes the concept of objectification, whereby women are viewed and treated as

objects, existing solely for male pleasure. As objects, female identities are thereby only

understood in terms of their market value, promoting the capitalist agenda while
 Malesic 4

simultaneously dehumanizing women within the patriarchal society. However, women's object-

like status is not a natural fact, but rather a consequence of gender inequalityWomen become

submissive and object-like because of men's desires and beliefs. Men desire women to be this

way, and, if they have power, they force women to become this way. (Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy). Promoting females to be viewed as objects attempts to force women into physical

expectations of beauty in order to satisfy the male need for consumption. This extremely

objectified and, in turn, sexualized view of women promotes standards of beauty and

physical expectations that further feed the capitalist market of materialism and consumer culture,

as well as overtones of sexism and enforced gender roles.

Of course, the key in this argument is power; everything hinges on the assumption that

men do indeed hold power over women, and therefore force them into positions of

objectification and submission. How, then, do men achieve this power over women? Once we

understand that American society functions through a system of binary oppositions such as

man vs. woman we can see that these two terms can be defined and understood through their

directly contrasting relationship to one another. In Positions, philosopher Jacques Derrida argues

that, in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful co-existence of

a vis--vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other

(axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand (41). Derrida reasons that within any

binary relationship, there is a violent hierarchy; that is, there is a dominant term, called the

radical, and a lesser term, known as the term of alterity, which can only exist as such through its

submissive relationship with the radical. Therefore, the term of alterity can only be understood

in terms of its relationship to the radical term and can never stand alone, therefore defining it as

the weaker term in the dualistic pairing. In a patriarchal society, the term of male is the
 Malesic 5

radical, while the concept of female acts as the term of alterity. Therefore, as men perform as

the dominant concept within a patriarchy, they are the binary term that oppresses the lesser term

of alterity, thereby allowing them to assert power and control all of the expectations for females

within the society.

Clearly, as the previous discussion has stressed, the existence of a patriarchy is still quite

observable within American culture and its effects are not by any means miniscule. As Philip

Cohen argues, the United States, like every society in the world, remains a patriarchy: they are

ruled by men. That is not just because [it] has a majority-male national parliament, and it is

despite the handful of women in power positions. It is a systemic characteristic that combines

dynamics at the level of the family, the economy, the culture and the political arena (7). The

effects of the patriarchy extend far beyond just the political dynamic of the country, and

influence all relationships that exist within it. If the primary relationship that is affected by the

patriarchy is the hierarchy between men and women, then all aspects of the male / female

dynamic are also influenced by patriarchal society including how the patriarchy can actively

gender elements of speech and language, and thereby force them into a similarly unequal binary

relationship. In Gender in Communication: A Critical Introdution, Victoria DeFrancisco asserts

that, English language is not neutral but supports the patriarchy insofar as it creates a patriarchal

universe of discourse.the language system pushes people to see things in a particular

wayaccording to it, there are only two sexes, the sexes are opposites, and the words used to

describe the sexes are not semantic equivalents (110). The language system established by the

patriarchy is therefore designed so that it upholds and reinforces the biased dynamic of the

female and male binary set upon which patriarchal systems depend.
 Malesic 6

In order to prove that speech can be used to further the patriarchal agenda, we must

understand exactly how speech can be gendered. In English, many words are directed toward

either an exclusively masculine or feminine use. Many pairs of words describe both a male and

female position (such as heir/heiress, count/countess, etc.), and these pairs of words can be used

to mirror the connotations and expectations of the male/female binary set. Alleen Pace Nilson

observes, In many pairs of words, the feminine word acquires sexual connotations while the

masculine word retains a serious business-aura. in nearly all such pairs, the masculine word is

considered the base, with some kind of feminine suffix being added. The masculine form is the

one from which compounds are made (177). This dynamic within language yet again reinforces

the masculine term as the radical or root, while the feminine term is solely dependent upon its

male counterpart in order to even exist.

Furthermore, many terms within the English language system promote positive qualities

alongside masculine-associated words, while the complementing feminine terms hold qualities of

weakness and frailty. Nilson agrees, stating that many positive connotations are associated

with the concept of masculinity, while there are either trivial or negative connotations connected

with the corresponding feminine concept (180). For example, the masculine term sir is

surrounded with an air of respect and dignity, while the corresponding feminine term of

madam at one point commonly referred to the sexualized and demeaning position of a brothel

owner. Similarly, many terms associated with femaleness tend to be extremely passive, as

opposed to active, strong terms associated with maleness. The association of femininity with

passiveness further emphasizes the patriarchal view of women as weak objects meant for male

use and consumption. The common association within the English language to label women

with nicknames that are related to types of food further exaggerates this belief; calling a woman
 Malesic 7

a honey, sweetie, or sugar endorses the patriarchal expectation that females should be

consumed. By promoting such gender expectations and societal roles even through language, the

patriarchy further establishes the male dominant and additionally suppresses the female term

within the binary set.

Of course, just as language is capable of diminishing the value of women within the

patriarchy, it can also simultaneously exalt the male dominant. Nilson reiterates, Understanding

gender/sex in communication requires an understanding of languages power to subordinate and

liberate (103). After all, as it is the patriarchy itself that controls the usage and connotations

within language, the patriarchal society can easily manipulate the language system to maintain

and increase its power. This allows for the oppression of feminine-based language, while

praising the terms associated with maleness and masculinity.

Clearly, the patriarchy is capable of affecting a language system as a whole, and altering

the terms utilized within it. Because of this patriarchal influence on language, there are a

plethora of stereotypes associated with both male and female forms of speech and

communication. Some of these stereotypical gender expectations actually have been proven

through research to be true, demonstrating how males and females within a patriarchal society

conform to their assigned gender roles. For example, the commonly held belief that men are

more willing to interrupt women than other men is in fact scientifically proven. A study by Myra

Sadker and Joyce Kaser confirms that when men and women talk with one another, almost all

interruptions are male speakers.males interrupt females much more often than they interrupt

other males and more often than females interrupt either males or females. Sociologists think

that interrupting is a way of exercising power (2). The willingness of men to interrupt female

speakers implies their belief that female speech is trivial and of lesser importance, while
 Malesic 8

simultaneously reinforcing themselves as the powerful male dominant. Additionally, this

practice demonstrates the mutual respect that men tend to hold for other male speakers within the

patriarchy, associating male ideas with intelligence and meaningfulness, and relegating female

ideas to that which do not deserve respect or serious consideration.

This same study by Sadker and Kaser further explored gender stereotypes within

language and speech, and discovered the role that audience plays in both male and female

speech: Both female and male members of audiences pay more attention to male speakers than

female speakers. Audience members recall more information from presentations given by

males. This occurs whether the information is stereotyped as appropriate for males or as

associated with females, and it occurs even when male and female speakers make an identical

presentation (Sadker and Kaser 13). Because of the enforcement within patriarchal society that

male speech is more important and commanding than female speech, it is not surprising that

audience members would be more inclined to pay attention to a male speaker. The connotations

associated with gender and speech not only affect the speaker themselves, then, but clearly also

impact the response of the listener.

A final result from Sadker and Kasers study revealed yet again that female speech is

viewed as inferior to male speech and provided a possible explanation for this commonly held

belief. The results showed that women express themselves with more diffidence and less

assertion than men. Many researchers claim that tentative speech patterns do not characterize

the speech of women so much as they characterize the speech of those who lack power (Sadker

and Kaser14). The lack of power associated with femininity is again portrayed via the lack of

confidence and uncertainty that is correlated with female speech. Furthermore, the study pointed

out that there are consequences to using womens language. In fact, only recently [in 2013]
 Malesic 9

has the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) allowed [more] women to read the news over

the air because they were perceived to lack credibility or authority (14). The highly negative

connotations that are associated with female speech stand in harsh juxtaposition to the positive

associations of power, assertiveness, and intelligence that are viewed in direct correlation to male

speech and male speakers. It should also be considered that perhaps these stereotypical

assumptions of language are in some manner self-fulfilling prophesies; females who recognize

that their speech and use of language is viewed as inferior and weaker than male speech may be

more likely to accept this position within society.

It can be seen, then, that language within the patriarchy operates of multiple levels to

strip women of power and associate female speech with qualities of weakness, unimportance,

and non-dominance. As the previously mentioned research suggests, the societal expectations of

language that the patriarchy forces upon both genders results in perceptions of female speech as

inferior and weaker than male speech. Perhaps this is a major reason that women are so seldom

regarded as powerful under patriarchal standards. As Napikoski suggests, society perceives

women in power as an exception to a collectively held view of women's role in society. Rather

than saying that individual men oppress women, most feminists see that oppression of women

comes from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society (18). The overarching theme within the

patriarchal society, which affects not only language but the perception of women as a whole,

depicts females as the weak and submissive gender and reduce them to assigned roles without

power and respect. Through this dynamic, the patriarchy absolutely refutes any attempt at

female figures advancing into positions of power undoubtedly including the political field.

The patriarchal expectations for women emphasize that politics are not meant for female

presence.
 Malesic 10

It is no surprise, then, that women are far less represented within American politics. The

fact that patriarchal expectations form gender roles is surely a major reason for patriarchal views

of speech and for the scarceness of females within politics. Nichole Bauer stresses that Women

are underrepresented at all levels of elected office.Campaign communication activates

stereotypes when they otherwise might not be activated, thereby diminishing support for female

candidates (97). Understanding the way that speech is both used and viewed throughout the

political sphere can be central to understanding the overall lack of success and lack of

representation of female candidates within the field.

Again, the views that speech portrays towards females within the patriarchal society are

not positive ones; the connotations of stereotypical female speech associate it with weakness and

inferiority. This view reflects how all women are viewed within patriarchal society as the

weak, inferior gender, completing lacking power. Instead, these stereotypical gender

expectations for females starkly contrast with the associations that are expected of strong

political male candidates. As a result of this, Stereotypes about women pose a difficult

perceptual constraint. Feminine stereotypes characterize women as warm, nurturing, and

sensitive, and these qualities contrast with the expectation that political candidates be outspoken,

decisive, and aggressive (Bauer 45). The stereotypical roles and connotations forced upon

women can be directly correlated with how female speech is viewed within the patriarchy, and

traced back to the gender expectations that patriarchal society establishes in order to keep women

out of power positions, such as those within the political field.

Therefore, it is evident that speech plays a central role in womens difficulty in acquiring

power within the patriarchy. After all, communication is the major tool utilized within the

political field to attract voters and raise support. For females to find succeed in politics, their
 Malesic 11

speech and methods of communication would have to evoke power, confidence, and intelligence

all of which are qualities reserved specifically and exclusively for male speech. Therefore,

Because of the ability to either sustain or counter gender stereotypes, communication represents

one of the causes of womens difficult access to politics.In exploring language from a social-

psychological perspective, we assume that language in political communication can

institutionalize and constantly reproduce or contrast the current societal rules (Sensales 45).

Communication and speech are so central to the political field and so crucial to ones success

within it that the way in which they are portrayed and viewed can truly be the deciding factor

in an election. For females within a patriarchal society, this means that they suffer from an

inherent deficit; in order to thrive within the political field, their speech must be capable of

overcoming the traditional associations with weakness and frivolity that gender roles impose

upon it.

Now, in fairness, it must be acknowledged that many of the voters who participated in the

2016 presidential election refuse to admit that they declined to vote for Hillary Clinton for sexist

reasons. Most voters insist that they do not act based upon sexist thoughts and this very well

may be the case. While many individuals may not view themselves as sexist, or believe that they

act upon sexist thoughts, patriarchal expectations may still influence perceptions of speech

throughout the political sphere and may activate stereotyped bias on a subconscious level. Bauer

argues that, During a campaign, stereotype activation is likely to occur through communication

channels, such asspeeches connecting female candidates with stereotypic traits. Describing

female candidates as caring or nurturing might trigger a range of other associations about women

as mothers or caregivers and are subtle ways stereotypes become more salient (45). If this is the

case, then voters may not even be wholly aware that they are acting as the result of a
 Malesic 12

stereotypical bias. Instead, patriarchal gender roles are influenced and reinforced subconsciously

through everyday methods of speech and communication. Therefore, Activating feminine

stereotypes for female candidates may lead voters to make other stereotype-based inferences that

female candidates may not have the necessary traits for being an effective leader. Character traits

play an important role in determining a candidate's qualifications for political office (Bauer 46).

By accepting this line of thinking, we can understand how the way voters interpret a candidates

speech can directly influence how they perceive their character traits as well, in turn significantly

affecting whether or not they will choose to support and vote for the candidate. However,

because this interpretation and perception of speech may occur at a subconscious level, voters

may not even actively recognize that their opinions toward candidates are formed by sexist,

patriarchal expectations.

And yet, although it may be happening solely at a subconscious level, this bias in regards

to language is a prominent factor to consider when discussing patriarchal culture. The patriarchy

imposes an androcentric nature upon the everyday language system of its citizens, thereby

granting power to male speech and enforcing its position as the radical term. Sensales agrees,

stating that, Social science research has shown the dominance of an androcentric orientation of

language, which reflects the masculine paradigm in contemporary society (56). The patriarchal

language system is not only male-biased in its fundamental grammatical syntax and structure, but

also associates male speech of the language with strength and dominance. Therefore, language

and speech within the patriarchy directly mirror the patriarchal gender expectations and

connotations for both males and females.

Understanding the relationship between the patriarchy and speech and language enables

us to better understand the results and effects of the 2016 United States presidential election.
 Malesic 13

The means of understanding how Clinton suffered such an upsetting loss may be directly traced

back to these same patriarchal expectations of male and female language that this paper has been

explaining. As previously discussed, the patriarchy not only enforces gender roles that both

males and females are expected to uphold, but also creates and sustains connotations and

expectations to be associated with each gender. For males, the radical term of the binary set, it is

expected that they assert dominance and display power characteristics that are in complete

opposition to female expectations. Therefore, for Hillary Clinton a female to pursue the

single most powerful political position within a patriarchal society was viewed by the patriarchy

as a complete and utter contradiction of her very nature.

Clearly, Clinton defiantly rejected her assigned gender role through her political pursuits.

By pursuing such a powerful position, she placed herself within a male-dominated sphere,

refusing to adhere to patriarchal expectations of weakness and submission. This certainly is no

small feat, as not conforming to the ideals of the patriarchy (especially as the non-dominant

gender) results in backlash; in fact, Whenever women seek any space traditionally held by a

manand especially the office of the commander in chiefthey tend to be pornified, degraded,

diminished, and treated differently (Wilz 358). The patriarchy controls truly every aspect of its

society; to disobey its expectations upsets the gendered imbalance that rules it. Therefore, when

Clinton rejected her assigned gender role, she too was met with hostile criticism by the

patriarchal influence, which was eager to defeat the possibility of a female claiming power.

The methods through which the patriarchy sought to diminish Clintons chances at

achieving power relate back to a topic to one major issue: speech. As speech and language are

central to a political campaign, and are both consciously and unconsciously influenced by

patriarchal expectations, understanding how Clintons speech was perceived by citizens within
 Malesic 14

the public is central to this argument. Amy Chozick points out, Hillary Clinton has been

speaking in public for decades. But in recent days, political observers have called her voice

loud, flat, and harassing to the ear. They have said she has a decidedly grating pitch and

punishing tone and called her shrill (42). Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign,

Clintons speaking ability and methods of speech delivery were criticized time and time again.

She was universally depicted as cold and emotionless, and many perceived her speech as

abrasive. These perceptions, however, directly relate to the patriarchal expectations for women;

females under the patriarchy are associated with warmth and emotion, and surely never should

be capable of acquiring powerful political positions. Therefore, Clintons speech was perceived

as abrasive and harassing because it was female speech attempting to fit within the male-

dominant political sphere.

It can be seen, then, that Clintons speech simply did not fit in to the patriarchal

expectations for female speech and female mannerisms as a whole. She is not alone; as a whole,

female politicians are ridiculed for shouting, not smiling enough, or simply having a

masculine rhetorical speaking style (Wilz 358). Interestingly, though, the same characteristics

that are frowned upon in female candidates are the exact same characteristics that are praised and

sought after when analyzing their male counterparts. For a male to embrace masculine elements

and stereotypes within his speech is a display of his masculinity and, by effect, a display of his

capability to act as a leader in power. However, when a female demonstrates these same

mannerisms, she is perceived as unnatural and out of her place within the patriarchy. Clintons

her male-based method of speaking within a male-dominated political atmosphere resulted in

public distaste for her use of language. During the campaign, Former Vermont Senator Howard

Dean stated that, If [Clinton] were a male and she were making these kinds of speeches, would
 Malesic 15

people be criticizing her? Likely not. Especially when the harsh speech of her primary

opponent now-President Donald Trump is taken into consideration, it seems nothing short of

ridiculous that Clintons way of speaking was so heavily criticized. Surely, Clintons speech was

not viewed as abrasive simply because of her role as a politician, but instead of her unique

position as female politician.

After all, female representation within the political field is terribly underwhelming within

the modern patriarchal society. Therefore, when a female actually attempts to gain a position of

political power, it is not surprising that the patriarchy would react with such contempt. Chozick

states, In some ways, the debate over Mrs. Clintons speaking style is a reflection of the larger

phenomenon of her candidacy she is the first woman to have a serious shot at becoming a

major political partys presidential nominee. The tendency to yell on the campaign stump is

not gender specific, but the public is much less accustomed to hearing a womans voice in such

settings (42). For a female to actually utilize her speech and language in such a powerful,

masculine manner is something that the patriarchy strives to suppress. Patriarchal expectations

for speech dictate that it is to be submissive and secondary; therefore, Clintons rejection of this

gender norm naturally shocked the patriarchy and immediately launched an exploration into her

unconventional use of language.

This conundrum is the paradoxical situation that Hillary Clinton found herself in as she

attempted to navigate herself through the 2016 presidential election. Within a patriarchal

society, in order to be perceived as a good woman, one is expected to be soft, nurturing, and

submissive; however, in order to be viewed as a good politician, one must be viewed as strong,

powerful, and masculine. Chi Luu stresses that, Men are expected to be strong and aggressive,

women are expected to be docile and deferential, and so the language that men and women use,
 Malesic 16

or have used against them, is often subtly biased along gender lines, even if we dont overtly

notice it (n. p.) Clinton chose to focus on her portrayal to the public as a strong politician,

rather than as a patriarchal idealistic woman; however, her attempt at appearing strong was

instead misinterpreted by those controlled by sexist ideals as shrill. Reince Preibus, a

Republican chairman, even angrily lashed out against Clintons un-nurturing demeanor on

Twitter, writing: Hillary Clinton was angry + defensive the entire time no smile and

uncomfortable upset that she was caught wrongly sending our secrets (n.p.). Clintons gender

expectations as a female demand that she be nurturing and compassionate, and she therefore

caused discomfort to her sexist opponents when she refused to smile or demonstrate traditional

female attributes of weakness. The contradictory expectations for Clinton as both a female and

as a politician forced her to make decisions that would upset the fundamental patriarchal system,

and resulted in her popular perception by the public as cold and non-empathetic. At one point

throughout her candidacy, Clinton herself even addressed his common negative view towards

her, stating: I know that I can be perceived as aloof or cold or unemotional. But I had to learn as

a young woman to control my emotions (Clinton, n.p.). This statement perfectly demonstrates

the traditional stereotypical association of femaleness with emotionality and lack of rationality,

and Clintons lifelong struggle to disassociate herself with these concepts in the hopes of

successfully advancing in a primarily male field of power and masculinity.

Unfortunately for Clinton, this unconventional rejection of her gender expectations for

speech may have been a primary reason for her downfall in the election. The stereotypes

associated with both male and female speech and for males and females in general were

perhaps too strong for Clinton to overcome within her patriarchal society. Chozick argues,

Examining how candidates and the news media may invoke stereotypes, and the effect different
 Malesic 17

communication sources have on voter stereotype reliance, can pinpoint the way that stereotypes

shape the electoral fates of female candidates. Stereotypes canbecome activated by opponents

seeking to reduce support for female candidates (47). In Clintons case, her outspoken

opponent, Trump, surely relied upon conjuring up female stereotypes and reinforcing the

expectations for gender within the minds of the voting citizens within his patriarchal country in

order to weaken Clintons campaign. By activating the unconscious stereotypical thoughts

towards women and their role within society, Trump assured that Clinton and her language

would be viewed as unnatural within the political field, too weak to hold power, and unfit for

office. Therefore, the societal disdain towards Clintons use of speech and powerful stance

within the patriarchy directly resulted in her defeat to a far more logistically weak,

inexperienced, and unprepared candidate.

Perhaps the most iconic example of Trumps tirade specifically against Clintons gender

was when he infamously referred to her as a nasty woman during the final presidential debate

of the campaign. Trumps choice of insult did not slight Clintons ability as a politician, or refer

to her character or personality flaws as a human being; rather, it directly attacked her position as

a female and immediately stirred up negative connotations along with it. Chi Luu asserts that:

We might perceive an insult like a nasty woman very differently from nasty

man. A nasty woman is doubly derogative, because the sense is not just about a

person who happens to be mean, but also chastises women for not behaving how

good women behave.the language of invective attempts to condition, through

verbal aggression, how women and men should really act, that women should

behave like more well-behaved, self-effacing women and men should behave

well, not like women, well-behaved or otherwise. (n.p.)

 Malesic 18

Clinton did not act throughout her candidacy as what is expected for any well-behaved, gender

role conforming female under the patriarchal oppression; therefore, Trump attacked her

perceived inability to act as a woman should. Not only was Clinton a woman as if that alone

did not put her at enough of a disadvantage within the American political field but she was a

nasty woman. This description of Clinton directly referred back to her perception by the public

as a non-conforming female, refusing to stay within her assigned gender expectations and

challenging her role as an oppressed and submissive term of alterity. Trump, and those who

supported his sexist belief system, directly correlated Clintons lack of stereotypical female traits

with coldness and nastiness. Therefore, the crude concepts that [Trump] draws upon when

insulting others may actually reflect the underlying social biases that we all still have to deal

withthe abusive language and slurs that are more successful in offending others draw readily

upon the very shared images, ideas, senses, stereotypes and cultural assumptions were

conditioned to accept as normal and expected (Luu, n.p.). Trumps language towards Clinton

only further confirms his sexist beliefs, which reflect the larger, systematic oppression of women

within patriarchal society.

Of course, many voters who supported Trump over Clinton will refute this statement and

entire line of thinking. In fact, one of the most common assertions made by Trump supporters is

that they refused to vote for Clinton because of her position as an elitist, rather than because of

her position as a female. However, this argument simply falls apart when it is remembered that,

whether or not he will admit it, Trump himself is an elitist. A successful businessman with a net

worth of over three billion dollars, Trump undoubtedly embodies the very concept of what it

means to be one of the elite. Why then, would these voters reject Hillary Clinton in favor of a

billionaire with no political experience? The answer suddenly becomes much clearer; it is
 Malesic 19

evident that those living under the impression of the patriarchal bias do not fear elitists in power

at all; rather, they fear women in power. As Jeet Heer writes, Trump plays to the anxiety of

those who feel that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors.

Thats why the word loser is such a big part of his vocabulary. Masculine codes are still deeply

embedded within political discourse, and its imperative that we deconstruct these along with

overtly sexist attacks on female candidates (359). As a society, we still fear so much that we do

not know. Until we are willing to overturn the patriarchal standards for both males and females,

this country simply will not be ready to accept a female within a powerful political role. In times

where voters prefer to elect a white male with absolutely no previous political experience into

the most powerful leadership role in their country over a female candidate with decades of

experience and a plan for reform, it has never been more evident just how painfully much the

patriarchy still controls and consumes our society on every fundamental level.
 Malesic 20

Works Cited

Bauer, Nichole M. "Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation

and Support Female Candidates." Political Psychology, vol. 36, no. 6, Dec. 2015, pp.

691-708. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/pops.12186.

Chozick, Amy. Hillary Clinton Raises Her Voice, and a Debate Over Speech and Sexism

Rages. The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Feb. 2016.

Cohen, Philip. America Is Still a Patriarchy. The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 19 Nov.

2012, www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/.

DeFrancisco, Victoria, et al. Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction. SAGE

Publications, Inc., 2014.

Derrida, Jacques. Positions. Ed. Alan Bass and Henri Ronse. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1981. Print.

Heer, Jeet. Donald Trump Is Not a Populist. Hes the Voice of Aggrieved Privilege. The New

Republic. Aug. 2015. Print.

Humans of New York. Humans of New York. Humans of New York, 8 Sept. 2016,

www.humansofnewyork.com/post/150127870371/i-was-taking-a-law-school-admissions-

test-in-a.

Luu, Chi. Bad Language for Nasty Women (and Other Gendered Insults). JSTOR Daily, 9

Nov. 2016, daily.jstor.org/the-language-of-nasty-women-and-other-gendered-insults/.

Miller, Kevin. The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap. AAUW: Empowering Women

Since 1881, www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/.

Napikosk, Linda. What Is a Patriarchal Society and How Does It Relate to

Feminism? ThoughtCo, www.thoughtco.com/patriarchal-society-feminism-definition-

3528978.
 Malesic 21

Nilsen, Alleen Pace. Sexism and Language. Nat. Council of Teachers of English, 1977.

Priebus, Reince. @HillaryClinton Was Angry + Defensive the Entire Time - No Smile and

Uncomfortable - Upset That She Was Caught Wrongly Sending Our Secrets. Twitter,

Twitter, 8 Sept. 2016, twitter.com/reince/status/773694140404170752?lang=en.

Sadker, Myra, et al. The Communications Gender Gap. The Mid-Atlantic Center for Sex Equity,

The American University School of Education, 1984.

Sensales, Gilda, et al. Linguistic Sexism in the News Coverage of Women Ministers From Four

Italian Governments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 35, no. 4, 26

Feb. 2016, pp. 458466. doi:10.1177/0261927x16629787.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, Metaphysics Research Lab. 2004.

Treacher, Jim. Howard Dean On Hillary Clinton: Well, The Media Doesnt Criticize MALE

Candidates For Screaming. The Daily Caller, The Daily Caller, 3 Feb. 2016,

dailycaller.com/2016/02/03/howard-dean-on-hillary-clinton-well-the-media-doesnt-

criticize-male-candidates-for-screaming/.

Wilz, Kelly. Bernie Bros and Woman Cards: Rhetorics of Sexism, Misogyny, and Constructed

Masculinity in the 2016 Election. Womens Studies in Communication, vol. 4. 21 Oct.

2016. doi:10.1080/07491409.2016.1227178