This article is somewhat unorthodox in the way that it is formatted. It lists out the heinous things that Donald Trump did and said throughout his candidacy and continues to say in his presidency, and the primacy of the article is replacing Trump’s name with Hillary Clinton and asking “what if Hillary Clinton did this”. It is not so much a story as it is a commentary on the various wrong that current president Donald Trump said and did, and continues to say and do. This article shines a light on the social constructionist point of view that has been built and favors men over women. This construct that claims that “boys will be boys”, and that type of behavior is expected from men despite the esteem they have. This also calls into question
…show more content…
Women in any form of a power position must be constantly wary of how they act and how they carry themselves for fear of how the public will scrutinize them. They must be plucked and pruned and perfectly polished in order to be taken seriously and seen as professional. It is not only their work that they have to prove as being exemplary, it is also their appearances. “Frequent references are made to (women’s) appearance, emotions, marital and maternal status, while their professional achievements are downplayed,” (Jaworska, 2008). This can be seen in the example of Bernie Sanders in comparison To Hillary Clinton. Bernie is iconically known for constantly being rumpled and wrinkled, hair a mess and at time his words a jumbled mess, in the eyes of the wider society, all of these qualities that he has makes him seen as being “authentic. On the other hand, if hillary is ever out of sorts in any way, or she shows a large amount of emotion she is instantly harshly criticised for it. Immediately after the election in 2016, after the votes were counted and Trump was announced as the new president, Clinton came out and delivered her first post-concession public speech after losing the presidential election, and she did so without any …show more content…
In an observational analysis Béatrice Fracchiolla did of “the televised debate between Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy, which took place on 2 May 2007” (Fracchiolla, 2011) to see whether the different genders of the two candidates had any effect of how the debate went. In her analysis she stated that both candidates used different strategies in their efforts of attempting to interact with each other as well as winning the debate. According to Fracchiolla Sarkozy’s strategy consisted of being excessively polite while Royal’s approach is a lot more direct and combative. I think Sarkozy’s lack of “aggression” that he might have shown had be been debating another man was mainly due to the fact that Royal is a woman and he did not quite know the best way to conduct himself without looking like he was attacking
Women in any form of a power position must be constantly wary of how they act and how they carry themselves for fear of how the public will scrutinize them. They must be plucked and pruned and perfectly polished in order to be taken seriously and seen as professional. It is not only their work that they have to prove as being exemplary, it is also their appearances. “Frequent references are made to (women’s) appearance, emotions, marital and maternal status, while their professional achievements are downplayed,” (Jaworska, 2008). This can be seen in the example of Bernie Sanders in comparison To Hillary Clinton. Bernie is iconically known for constantly being rumpled and wrinkled, hair a mess and at time his words a jumbled mess, in the eyes of the wider society, all of these qualities that he has makes him seen as being “authentic. On the other hand, if hillary is ever out of sorts in any way, or she shows a large amount of emotion she is instantly harshly criticised for it. Immediately after the election in 2016, after the votes were counted and Trump was announced as the new president, Clinton came out and delivered her first post-concession public speech after losing the presidential election, and she did so without any …show more content…
In an observational analysis Béatrice Fracchiolla did of “the televised debate between Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy, which took place on 2 May 2007” (Fracchiolla, 2011) to see whether the different genders of the two candidates had any effect of how the debate went. In her analysis she stated that both candidates used different strategies in their efforts of attempting to interact with each other as well as winning the debate. According to Fracchiolla Sarkozy’s strategy consisted of being excessively polite while Royal’s approach is a lot more direct and combative. I think Sarkozy’s lack of “aggression” that he might have shown had be been debating another man was mainly due to the fact that Royal is a woman and he did not quite know the best way to conduct himself without looking like he was attacking