The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Alice Eagly and Linda Carli are the co-authors of “Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders.” Carli is a senior lecturer emerita of psychology at Wellesley College and Eagly is a professor of psychology emerita at Northwestern University. They wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.
Which of the presidential candidates, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, will prevail in the 2024 election? Perhaps this will be the moment when the people of the United States elect their first female president, but prediction is risky given the closeness of the polls.
The Democratic Party’s choice of Harris as its presidential nominee, together with Harris’ effective debate performance against Trump, has electrified Democrats, inspired young women and elicited considerable unease among Republican politicians. Yet, the wild card in this election is Harris’ gender, which affects voting above and beyond the policies favored by the candidates.
It is possible to be misled into thinking that gender is unimportant, for example, by the January Gallup poll finding that 93 percent of Americans reported that they would vote for a well-qualified female candidate for president from their party. But this hypothetical willingness to vote for a woman does not necessarily translate into votes for Harris.
The reason is that operating largely out of awareness and certainly not being debated or even discussed are widely shared gender stereotypes that undermine women’s access to the presidency. As polls have repeatedly shown, people believe that women are especially kind, supportive and understanding, and that men are especially assertive, bold and directive. These widely held beliefs matter because people associate effective presidential leadership more with these tougher masculine traits than the warmer and kinder feminine qualities. As a result, thinking about ideal leaders typically brings a man to mind, and this is especially true for male voters because they more strongly associate successful leadership with masculine qualities.
If Harris’ gender problem is that she doesn’t seem strong and assertive enough, it might seem that she would benefit from acting more like Trump. But that is too simple because dominant and assertive behaviors are much more acceptable in men. Many people dislike assertive women, and likability matters, especially in female politicians.
Yet, women can easily show too much warmth and kindness and thereby convey weakness. These dual concerns create a double bind with female leaders tasked with being directive and assertive enough to be an effective leader but also warm and kind enough to remain conventionally feminine, consistent with Barack Obama’s statement to Hilary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic debate that she was “likable enough.”
Men, in contrast, have no such worries because both their male gender and the presidential role call for strong, assertive behavior. So it is no surprise that Trump’s failure to convey warmth or kindness apparently does not damage his popularity, particularly with men, who especially prefer traditionally masculine leaders.
Harris’ blending of the masculine and the feminine has resonated with many in the public, particularly with women, who especially value a more androgynous style in leaders. Women are also more committed to electing a female president and more aware of the challenges faced by female politicians.
In a 2023 Pew survey, a higher percentage of women than men felt it was important for a woman to be elected president in their lifetime and that a woman president would be better at handling certain of the country’s problems. Polls have also indicated that most women, but only a minority of men, believe that women are held back in politics because of gender discrimination and Americans’ “lack of readiness” for a woman in the presidency.
Such findings suggest that Harris has finessed the double bind with most women, but much less so with men, as shown by a recent poll indicating that 57 percent of men intend to vote for Trump, and 58 percent of women intend to vote for Harris.
Harris is no doubt aware that she should express both masculine and feminine qualities but in moderation. Her efforts to project strength combined with warmth were evident throughout the Democratic National Convention, where, for example, her husband called her a “joyful warrior” whose “empathy is her strength.” He recounted their love story and her ability to cook brisket, while also noting that “she stands up to bullies.”
In turn, Harris described herself as “Kamala Harris, for the people” and spoke of love, compassion and family, but she also emphasized her toughness as a prosecutor who fought for and defended others. Harris has thus responded to the perils of her female gender by presenting herself as confident and assertive but also expressive and compassionate.
Now we wait for the outcome of this highly consequential contest of the genders.
