An excerpt from Time -
Kamala Harris and the Inevitable Return of ‘Not That Woman’
By Belinda Luscombe
Americans are, for only the second time in history, standing at the brink of that undiscovered country: the one where a woman is in charge. Perhaps now Sri Lankans (the first citizenry to elect a female national leader) will stop snickering. Perhaps the U.S. will finally win some respect from the Finns, who have elected four female leaders already. Maybe the largest economy in the world could catch up with Pakistan—currently ranked 142 of 146 countries for gender inequality—and vote in at least one female leader.
But don’t bet on it.
When the popular Christian author and podcaster Jen Hatmaker posted her support for Kamala Harris on social media, the reaction from her largely female following was swift, large, and familiar. There was plenty of cheerleading, with a liberal dose of LFGs (Let’s Freaking Go). And then there was the other refrain: Not her.
“I’m all for a woman, but definitely not her!” wrote one follower. “KH is the last person I want to think of as the first woman POTUS,” wrote another. “I would love a strong woman in office that is qualified to improve things for ALL hard working Americans,” began yet another. For women old enough to have lived through previous election cycles that flirted with electing a female head of state, these sentiments were as predictable as arthritis. And about as welcome.
Every time a woman draws near to getting the top job, it occurs to a certain percentage of voters, male and female, that while they, of course, are deeply committed to female leadership, they simply cannot countenance the particular female who is vying for leadership on that occasion. This was true, memorably, of people’s reaction to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. And to Elizabeth Warren during the 2020 primary race. But it’s not limited to one side of the political divide. People felt that way about Nikki Haley—that she was uniquely wrong for the job. People really felt that way about Sarah Palin. (Although in that case they may have had a point.)
~~~~~~~~~~
It’s 2024, so a lot of women are hoping we are past the era where a woman’s candidacy can be dismissed because of the way her face looks, or because she was tough on her staff and once ate salad with a comb, or because she was insensitive about her ancestry, or because her spouse with an Italian name didn’t want to release his tax returns. These used to be mountains in the way of women’s electoral path, but time and perspective have (please God?) restored their molehill status.
~~~~~~~~
More difficult to surmount than any of these, however, is the fatal character flaw of being just plain unlikable. Unlikability is a difficult trait to diagnose, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that in women, it’s usually comorbid with assertiveness and ambition. Academic studies have actually discovered the formula behind this phenomenon: the closer a woman gets to power, the less likable she is. In 1984 an aide to then Vice President George H.W. Bush called Geraldine Ferraro “too bitchy” after the VP candidates debated. It hasn’t changed much. Haley was accused of being rude, unnecessarily combative, and “a little too aggressive” during primary debates. Her opponent Ron DeSantis, meanwhile, was “sharp and feisty.” Donald Trump said that "Nikki suffers from something that's a very tough thing to suffer from: She's overly ambitious." This from a guy who sought—and won—the presidency after making his name by firing people on TV.
https://time.com/7004186/kamala-harris-not-that-woman-female-candidate/
