Commentary: Sexism is alive and well in the 2016 election

As a woman, a feminist, a mother to a daughter, and as a Girl Scout leader, I have dreamed about electing our country’s first female president.

Breaking the glass ceiling, in the most powerful way. That is my hopeful, utopian side.

As a scholar of communication studies and gender, however, the other hat that I wear, is more of a skeptic. The rhetoric and media coverage of Clinton’s speaking style, post the most recent prime-time Democratic debate, came as no surprise. Sexist attitudes and perceptions regarding men and women’s speaking styles are supported by an abundance of scholarly research.

While men who raise their voices are often reported as more presidential, competent and viewed as leaders, women, on the contrary, are depicted as irrational, angry and emotional. But one doesn’t need to enact a literature review in academia to find evidence as to how prevalent a role sexist attitudes play in this presidential election.

Sexism, attached to Clinton, is not a new phenomenon. One needs only to recall the dominant tropes that were attached to her speeches in the last presidential election cycle: “shrill” and “nagging” were a few of the best mainstream zingers.

And let’s not forget the oldie but goodie of how her menstrual cycle would inevitably affect her presidential decision-making ability. Another salient example is the media’s treatment of her use of pathos, versus President Obama’s. When Clinton cried during her last presidential run, she was perceived as weak and vulnerable. Conversely, when Obama cried during his gun-control speech, he was lauded as empathetic and a “true family man” able to place himself square in the hearts and minds of the families affected by gun violence.

Fast-forward to 2016. What has changed? We can start off with Donald Trump’s comment about Hillary’s bathroom break: “I know where she went — it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it . . . no, it’s too disgusting. Don’t say it, it’s disgusting.” This comment functions to reduce Hillary to her feminine body parts — overt shaming of the female body.

These vile and crass referents from Trump tend to be, by the media and the public, easily dismissed. It is Trump, c’mon! What do you expect? But what happens when we examine the media’s treatment of Clinton’s rhetoric, absent a particular candidate. Let’s examine the sexism inherent within her rhetoric proper — as a candidate. Her speaking style.

After Feb. 4’s debate, the media’s sexist treatment of Clinton’s rhetoric is unable to ignore. Journalist Bob Woodward argued that Hillary is having difficulty competing with Sen. Bernie Sanders because she “shouts too much.” MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” segment read like a “Saturday Night Live” parody of women in politics. If only.

The commentators described Hillary’s communication style as “unnatural” in approach, “screaming” in tone, and “feisty” in pathos. According to the New York Times, Clinton appeared “tense and even angry at times,” while Sanders “largely kept his cool.”

Message received loud and clear: In other words, Clinton, follow your marching orders. Do not speak up or act out. Act lady-like, be deferential, embrace non-assertiveness and be amenable to your candidate’s positions. In other words, don’t act like a presidential candidate.

Imagine if this rhetoric that continues to be attached to Clinton was attached to Sanders, Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz? The louder that Trump gets, “[yelling] I will build a great wall!” his polls see a boost.

Or Cruz, during his Iowa victory speech: “Our rights come from our creator!” These words lauded by his base as reflective of a true conservative. What about Sanders? Rather than being depicted as irrational or incompetent every time he raises his voice, instead, he is the loving grandfather figure who speaks through “tough love. Let’s not even discuss Gov. Chris Christie’s speaking tenor; that one is too obvious.

Regardless of what you think of Clinton’s voting record, regardless of what you think about her take on the issues, it is undeniable that in this election, as in 2008, public perceptions of her political persona will undeniably be tainted by the media’s role in the perpetuation of double standards and blatant sexism. This fact should matter to all voters.

Costa Mesa resident NINA M. LOZANO-REICH is an associate professor of communication studies at Loyola Marymount University.