The vice presidential debate between Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence took place in Salt Lake City, Utah on October 7.
According to the New York Times, the discussion of management of the COVID-19 crisis was a major topic for both candidates, along with climate change, economic plans, taxes, law enforcement, and abortion. The New York Times added that while both candidates engaged in evading certain questions and over-exaggerating the negatives of their opponent’s ticket, Harris arguably provided many more clear, direct answers than Pence did. A CNN poll conducted immediately after the debate found that 59 percent of the polled viewers thought that Harris won, while 38% thought Pence did.
However, the discussion of these major policies and issues were eclipsed by the glaring presence of skewed, discriminatory gender dynamics at play between Pence and Harris. Most obviously, Pence continually interrupted Harris while she was talking, and then argued that she needed to answer the questions he was aiming at her, all while ignoring or dodging the questions posed by the moderator, Susan Page, according to the New Yorker.
These interruptions were constant throughout the debate. For example, when Pence asked if the Democrats would “pack” the Supreme Court, meaning that they would expand it and add more justices onto it, and Harris started to answer, Pence proceeded to immediately interrupt her mere seconds into her answer to proclaim that she wasn’t answering the question, according to the Washington Post. Pence’s demand that she answer his own personal question and then immediately interrupting her generally exemplifies the experience many women undergo in the political field.
“Pence demanding that Harris answer his own personal questions when he won’t even answer the moderator’s is gross, and exemplary of the gender dynamics so many women have to deal with at work,” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in a Tweet after the debate.
The way Pence acted towards Harris is a very obvious reflection of how women in high-level professions, and politics in particular, are treated.
Women in politics are confronted with a wildly discriminatory, prejudicial setting that puts them under a microscope and picks apart every possible aspect of their presence, appearance, actions, personality, and more, according to a report by Lumen Learning on gender inequality in politics. The report states that women are judged extremely harshly, and usually for things that have nothing to do with their merit or their policies. They have to deal with comments about their body, their clothing choices, their cleavage, and their tone of voice — which is oftentimes described as “shrill” — among a plethora of other things.
Vox reports that female politicians are judged by media outlets for being “too attractive,” leading to comments along the vein of being “distracting” — and also judged for not being attractive enough — because a woman’s worth is often judged based on her appearance. Meanwhile, male politicians often have nothing said about their physical appearance in media outlets, or are applauded and even idolized if they are found attractive.
News outlets dedicate entire front pages to every minor detail of female politicians’ appearances. Vox reported that during the 2020 primaries, when Harris initially made a bid for the presidency, she and all of the other female presidential candidates received far more attacks on character, appearance, and identity than their male counterparts. This excessive scrutiny and criticism is something that female politicians are uniquely and unfairly confronted with.
And before they can even encounter this harsh judgement when they make it to the candidacy or position that they are working for, they must first “prove their worth” to make their way into the political world, according to a report by Gender on the Ballot. Women have to work much harder in order to make it to the same position a man could receive with much less work. Their work is held to much higher, closer scrutiny. This stems from the structural barriers and uneven expectations that women are faced with in the field of politics. They are held back from positions that men could more easily attain.
The media speculation that has still persisted about whether or not Harris is a “good fit” for the vice presidency despite her long career as a prosecutor, a district attorney, an attorney general, and a Senator highlights the inequity, according to Vox. This is a resume that would no doubt put a male candidate in a spotlight, and exemplifies these uneven expectations and barriers.
According to the Guardian, when women enter the political field, they must focus more on their likability than their actual contribution to the political world. This is because when a woman is competent, she is perceived to be less likable. Female politicians are expected to be likable before they are politicians. They are expected to be pleasing to the eye and pleasant before they are allowed to engage in anything substantial. Female candidates can talk about their accomplishments and policies, but only if they come across as likable while doing it. This is because the electability of female politicians is directly tied to their likability and appearance.
Women politicians and candidates are judged, attacked, and scrutinized for things that often have nothing to with their policies, political stances, or merit, and everything to do with their demeanor and appearance, along with whether or not they are likable, according to Vox. Vox’s report highlighted how women are judged based on the way the public perceives them — because society teaches us to perceive the actions and words of women through a far more critical lens from that which we perceive men.
For example, President Trump has vilified Harris for being a strong, firm politician by calling her “nasty” on multiple occasions, a word that has often been used to degrade women for championing and fighting for what they believe in, according to the New York Times. They reported that he has also criticized her for being “mean” to his appointees in the past, most notably Brett Kavanaugh, whom she questioned while on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017. Meanwhile, if she had been a man being “mean,” no one would’ve said a thing.
This phenomena of needing to be “nice” instead of efficient forces female politicians to strive to be likable before they are allowed to discuss the important matters at hand. According to Rethink Media, Harris had to uphold pleasantry throughout the VP debate, smiling and remaining cordial towards Pence, even as he repeatedly talked over her and ignored the moderator.
BBC News reported that when female political figures ignore the stereotypical norms that delineate “femininity,” they are immediately vilified. For example, if a female politician or political candidate loses her cool and verbally lashes out or interrupts someone else, she is immediately labelled as “too emotional,” thus tarnishing her public image and lowering her electability. Meanwhile, male politicians and candidates can lose their cool all the time without it affecting their image. In some cases, it causes people to even view them as stronger.
For example, at the first Presidential debate on September 29, candidates Donald Trump and Joe Biden were constantly lashing out at and talking over one another. Based on polls taken by CNN, the public was annoyed by the immaturity expressed during the debate, but the candidates weren’t publicly bashed the way they would’ve been if they were a pair of women, which would’ve surely brought about headlines of a “cat-fight,” in the way women are often pitted against each other in the media and popular culture in general.
This form of stepping “out of line” was very apparent during the Vice Presidential debate according to Rethink Media. When Harris responded to Pence with the very civil and calm phrase, “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking ... If you don’t mind letting me finish, then we can have a conversation,” she was immediately vilified for violating the stereotype that women are expected to fall into, in which they have to be submissive and allow men to talk over them, according to the BBC News report. Here, Harris was violating the patriarchal delineations of the rules that dictate how women should act.
Furthermore, as a Black and South Asian woman, Harris faces misogyny along with racism. Harris experiences a specific form of misogyny, called misogynoir, a term coined by queer Black feminist Moya Bailey in 2010 to describe the intersection of racism and sexism uniquely experienced by Black women, deriving from the words misogyny and noir, which means black in French, according to Blackburn Center.
One of the most apparent forms of misogynoir is the stereotype of the “Angry Black Woman,” a trope that has been weaponized against Harris. She has been constantly painted in this light, and was most especially portrayed this way in her statement, “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking.” Rethink Media reported that she was immediately vilified for being rude and overbearing, for being too “angry” even as she was cordial and formal in her reminder that she was still within her allotted time.
If anything, the fact that she had to be polite and respectful when reminding Pence that she should be able to speak uninterrupted during her allotted time, in calling him by his formal title “Mr. Vice President” and wording her reminder as “I’m speaking” rather than “Stop talking over me,” shows yet another facet of this forced need for women to be more likable, according to BBC News.
The New York Times reported that Harris responded to interruptions from Pence with the phrase “I’m speaking” three times in total. The fact that she had to repeat this reminder three times, and that she had to say it at all, highlights the everyday phenomenon women in the workplace go through: being interrupted and talked over by men, and having to fight to be heard.
Bloomberg Opinion reported that Harris has also been described as “too ambitious,” what with her career as a prosecutor, then as a Senator, and now with making a bid for the White House alongside Biden. This term “ambitious” typically has a negative connotation when used towards women, serving to vilify them for having goals and aspirations, because these things are considered to be reserved for men. This term is especially negative towards Harris because it carries an extent of racism within it, perpetuating this idea that as a Black woman, she shouldn’t be trying to “reach so high,” thus exemplifying yet another form of misogynoir she must face.
Everything female politicians/candidates do to come across as firm and strong — qualities that should display their merit and thus heighten their electability — are immediately construed by the general public as violating expectations that have been set in place for women, according to a report by Vox. So while these qualities are applauded in male politicians and candidates, they are typically looked down upon in women. Female candidates aren’t allowed to be too strong or firm, because it violates the outdated roles that delineate how women should and shouldn’t act, and they are thus vilified for these qualities.
For example, interruptions are construed very differently when they are being used by a woman versus by a man. BBC News reported that women who interrupt others or speak out of turn are far more harshly penalized than men who do the same. In addition to this, when women speak more than men in political environments, they are hit with backlash. Meanwhile, if male politicians speak over and interrupt their female counterparts — a phenomenon that happens in every political setting that includes men and women, this is seen as perfectly normal and typical.
BBC News stated that when debates include female candidates, viewers often, without even realizing it, judge these female candidates based on their likability and how pleasant or abrasive they were, rather than judging them based on their merit and weighing that merit against that of the male candidates with whom they are debating.
According to the Washington Examiner, a focus group of undecided voters organized by political consultant Frank Luntz were asked to describe the candidates in one word. To describe Pence, many of these voters chose words like “calm,” “bland,” “presidential,” “typical politician,” and “comfortable.” Meanwhile, to describe Harris, many of these voters chose words like “evasive,” “abrasive,” “snarky,” “too rehearsed,” and “unpresidential.” The relative positivity of words chosen for Pence in comparison with the total negativity of the words chosen for Harris highlights a glaring prejudice. The words “abrasive” and “snarky” have long been weaponized against intelligent, firm women to construe their strength in a negative light, as it contradicts stereotypes about how women should act.
Luntz also told Fox News that this focus group also found Harris’s reactions to Pence, like her smiling, to be “annoying” or to “cause them anger.” The fact that Harris’s smiling — which was a necessity for her to appear more likable and pleasant and thus not be publicly trashed for being rude — is being construed as “annoying” or anger-inducing goes to show how strong female politicians and strong women in general will be vilified for whatever they do.
The fact that these attempts at being pleasant and civil because she knows she needs to fit into these roles in order to be even considered as a candidate are construed as being rude connects again to the “angry Black woman” stereotype.
In political settings, conversations are often focused on gender or sex only when women are present in the proceedings, according to Time’s Up Now. Only where there is a woman present do people feel the need to comment on gender in politics. This is a phenomenon that is continually perpetuated by the media. Reports of the Vice Presidential debate, along with any political event involving women, have had biased coverage. TIME’S UP Now conducted a study that found that nearly two-thirds of the media coverage of this year’s VP debate mentioned race and gender, whereas only 5% of the coverage of the 2016 VP debate between Pence and Tim Kaine mentioned these topics.
This makes sense due to the fact that Harris’s nomination was a historic landmark, as she was the first Black and South Asian woman to be nominated onto a major party’s ticket, according to the New York Times. But TIME’S UP Now reported that a quarter of the media coverage on Harris included “racist and sexist stereotyping and tropes,” most predominantly the “Angry Black Woman” trope and “birther” conspiracies, similar to those faced by former President Obama in regards to false speculation about her birthplace that are rooted in racism, according to a report by National Public Radio.
“This shows that when white men are running for elected office, their identity is viewed as the ‘default’ for leaders in our society,” the report added.
While Harris’s “I’m speaking” statement was used against her, it became popularized very quickly in many liberal and leftist feminist organizations, such as Rethink Media, Lean In, and TIME’S UP, and is now being used by women as a way of fighting against the skewed gender norms that govern their day-to-day lives.