Meagan Malesic
Dr. McCully
December 8, 2017
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
that, English language is not neutral but supports the patriarchy insofar as it creates a patriarchal
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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,
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
verbal aggression, how women and men should really act, that women should
behave like more well-behaved, self-effacing women and men should behave
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
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.
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/.
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
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
Miller, Kevin. The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap. AAUW: Empowering Women
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,
Sadker, Myra, et al. The Communications Gender Gap. The Mid-Atlantic Center for Sex Equity,
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
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
2016. doi:10.1080/07491409.2016.1227178