Kara Alaimo
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is downplaying the fact that, if elected, she’ll be the first woman president. On the other hand, her opponent, Donald Trump, has tried repeatedly reminding voters of this fact by leveling gendered insults at her.
Both campaigns are probably taking these approaches for the same reason: Hillary Clinton played the "woman card” against Trump in 2016 — and lost. While Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million people, she didn’t secure them in states where she needed the boost the most; Trump defeated her in counties that Barack Obama had won during his election and reelection bids.
The stinging loss and polls since have left us with a damning reality: Some Americans aren’t eager to elect a woman. That line of thinking isn’t just the case in the U.S. Almost half the population worldwide believes men make better political leaders than women, according to the United Nations Development Program’s 2023 Gender Social Norms Index.
But research suggests they’re wrong. While women remain underrepresented at the federal, state and local levels of the U.S. government, they have a history of outperforming the men with whom they serve. Harris should feel empowered to play that up, but it’s probably not realistic to disabuse voters of deeply rooted misperceptions about women politicians two months before election day.
It’s smart for her campaign to keep focusing on why she’s the best candidate for the job (she is) rather than her gender. Instead, it’s on the media, political pundits, academics and community leaders to talk to the American people about what the data tells us and break down these misconceptions.
In my recently published study, I examined one of the biggest and most reliable data sets to document the efficacy of governors, compiled by political scientists Thad Kousser and Justin Phillips. It showed that women were 1.2 times more likely than their male counterparts to pass the legislation they proposed in their State of the State speeches in 2001 and 2006.
I also found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, states led by women had, on average, lower unemployment rates and fewer excess deaths due to COVID. Women have also been known to outperform their male colleagues in the halls of Congress. A 2011 study found that women get 9% more money earmarked for their districts, and they sponsor and co-sponsor many more bills.
It tracks with what studies have suggested on the international stage, too. If a nation was more diverse, it had higher rates of economic growth when women were at the helm. Countries led by women had better early COVID outcomes. Also, post-conflict societies are more likely to achieve and sustain peace deals when women are part of the process.
Why are women often more successful leaders?
One possible explanation is the "Jill Robinson effect.” The concept is based on the idea that Jackie Robinson and other early Black professional baseball players had to perform better than White players to prove to racist team owners and fans that they had a right to be in the big leagues — and couldn’t simply be replaced by White players.
Similarly, women often have to show that they are smarter and more hardworking to prove they deserve to be elected and reelected — especially since they receive less encouragement from party leaders, political activists and voters to run for office.
The women governors I studied were much more communal, too. In their speeches and tweets, they emphasized cooperation, acknowledged the feelings of others, thanked people and discussed avoiding risks significantly more than their male counterparts. It makes sense that these qualities, which girls and women are socialized to exhibit, would make people more successful in jobs that require convincing individuals to work together to achieve goals.
What’s more, organizational psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic says we often wrongly perceive traits such as overconfidence and narcissism, which men are more likely to exhibit, as indicators of leadership potential. But after people like that are elected, those characteristics can steer them to make bad decisions because they don’t, for example, accurately assess risks or respond well to feedback.
Trump’s interviews and rallies are the embodiment of this.
Exhibit A: When asked why Black voters should trust him, given his derogatory business practices and statements, he began his answer by insulting the Black journalist who asked it: "Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner.”
Exhibit B: He’s also made dangerously false claims about transgender children getting sex changes at public schools and doctors performing late-term abortions happening "after birth.” It’s the kind of rhetoric that puts doctors, teachers, students, women and families at risk by riling up his base, which has proven to be violent.
The fact that a woman like Harris — who talks passionately about LGBTQ equality, common sense gun control, women’s autonomy and voting rights — has to even run against a man like Trump tells us that the US has a long way to go to eradicate gender bias. The most strategic way Harris can help change any uneasiness Americans feel about having a Madam President now is by winning the presidency and giving the public a powerful example of women’s competence in office.
(Kara Alaimo is an associate professor of communication at Fairleigh Dickinson University. She is the author of "Over the Influence: Why Social Media Is Toxic for Women and Girls — and How We Can Take It Back.”)