Anonymous OP 6w

Policy aside, I heard that Clinton, Harris, and now AOC are all too “unlikable” to be president. It’s not a policy designation though. I’ve never heard anyone say Biden was too “unlikable”, I heard plenty of policy criticisms. I have plenty of policy criticisms with most of those candidates, (I rather like AOC’s platform). But, with female POTUS candidates there’s a “likable” metric that doesn’t get used the same way. It’s a weird extra bar to clear

1

Anonymous OP 6w

In Kamala’s case she failed to differentiate herself from Biden, whom took a lot of scrutiny for going easy on Israel during its genocide and even gave them weapons and support that were used in the genocide. I wouldn’t chalk up Kamala losing to being “unlikable”

5

Anonymous #3 6w

I agree with all of those criticisms. But you’ve never heard the additional line of “she’s too unlikable”? I hear that every time there’s a woman running for elected office

1

Anonymous OP 6w

And when you push on it, it’s every quality that we’re celebrated for having as men

1

Anonymous OP 6w

I think this is a good point, it also kinda depends how it is used. Because someone saying that might not be saying that they themselves find the candidate unlikable, but in a patriarchal world they think the candidate shows traits incompatible with preconceived notions of gendered norms, and thus would not perform well as a candidate

1

Anonymous #3 6w

But those same traits are a requirement for the position. Any female POTUS is going to have to deal with some proportion of men that would have a problem with taking orders from women, or otherwise respecting them as equals. So, she’ll have to put those in their place with the dominance and assertiveness that makes her “unlikable” to those same men.

1