May the 2016 Elections Be Full of Angry Women Politicians

By Jessica Valenti, The Guardian UK

04 March 15

f there’s one word that women in politics are accustomed to, it’s ‘angry’. Throughout history - from American suffragists to those in office today - women’s strong feelings about politics have long been treated like PMS, not passion. Even when women are legitimately, justifiably angry - and let’s be honest, female politicians have plenty to be pissed about - that anger is seen as a weakness.

But times are changing and, at the EMILY’s List conference on Tuesday, it seemed as if long-brewing and well-justified anger was ready to come out - emboldened, perhaps, by an increasingly feminist-friendly culture that is not likely to take sexist swipes laying down in 2016.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, told the audience Tuesday morning that “haters will still hate”, but that she’s looking forward to “kicking ass and taking names in 2016”. Former governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm told a Dr Seuss style limerick that took hilarious but pointed swipes at Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and the GOP “clown car” of potential presidential candidates. And on a panel of “rising stars” - all local officials, all women of color -Boston city councilor Ayanna Pressley discussed her dismay that she can’t express her legitimate anger because of racist stereotypes.

“I have a strength of conviction and I have passion,” Pressley said. “I’m angry too - and that’s okay. But as a black woman, I’m discouraged from embracing that anger.”

When women give even the slightest hint of feeling intensity over a particular issue - something you’d think we’d want our elected officials to feel - it’s seen as over-the-top. Hysterical. Emotional. Anger in men is seen as strong and necessary for leadership, but there are few emotions considered worse in women.

In fact, a 2007 study found that when people viewed videos they were told were job interviews, men who expressed anger were rated extremely favorably while women who did the same were the least liked. (So much so that “angry women” were assigned a salary by the study’s participants that was $15,000 less annually than the one they gave to “angry men”.)

This disdain for female ire is widespread, but has been particularly noticeable for female politicians - who are scrutinized by the media and the public in a much harsher light than their male peers.

In 2012, for example, Todd Akin attacked opponent Senator Claire McCaskill for being “very aggressive” in a debate - whining that she “was much more ladylike” in 2006. Then there was the New York Post’s cover after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified about Benghazi: a picture of an impassioned Clinton underneath a headline that screamed: “No Wonder Bill’s Afraid!”. And just this week, Warren Buffett said in a CNBC interview that Senator Elizabeth Warren would more effective if she was “less angry”.

But female politicians shouldn’t have to smile and be “likeable” in order to resonate with voters. They shouldn’t have to hide their annoyance, anger; or pure raw fury because some sexists can’t handle a pissed off woman. And maybe they won’t have to for much longer - because these kinds of double standards won’t stand in the same way they have in past years and elections.

Thanks to social media and an exponentially increased interest in women’s rights, sexist gaffes are turned into hashtags and memes before you can say “binders full of women” and misogynist headlines are quickly skewered. If there were ever a time for female politicians to let their anger go - this is it.

Obviously - and sadly - the racism and sexism directed at female candidates isn’t going anywhere. Women running for office will still be called names, and any emotion they express will be up for mockery. Feminists have always had their backs - but this time we have it en masse and in force. I, for one, am ready for some angry women.