Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

News Clash

FEMINISM: Election ‘Gender Inversion’ Experiment Goes HORRIBLY … Wrong?

We wouldn’t want to miss out on ‘International Womens’ Day’, now would we? Enjoy!

There was a theory floating around about those Trump/Hillary debates.

It had to do with the male/female dynamics and interplay.

Would it have been DIFFERENT if Hillary’s precise words and intonation were delivered by a man?

Would it have been different if Trump’s words and intonation were delivered by a woman?

Undoubtedly, they had certain … expectations about what this little social experiment would prove.

But Few would have predicted THIS:

After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?

..Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?

The event, ‘Her Opponent’ — performed over two nights — was sold out, just days after Trump’s inauguration.

…“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

…Once we got into rehearsal and started experiencing Clinton in a man’s voice and body, Maria and I started to think that maybe Daryl had the harder job. We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.

..Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. –Full article: NYU

Doesn’t this suggest that their REAL attachments were due to some sort of unflinching loyalty, rather than the ability of Hillary to persuade? It may have been loyalty either to the Democratic party, or the Person of Hillary Clinton, Or the female candidate or some other reason.

But stripping away any pretense of loyalty, by ‘disrupting’ the narrative, by reframing it, the observers were able — perhaps for the first time — to watch the debates not as cheerleaders of one side over another, but of observers of what is being said.

The NEXT step is for observers to have that same view of debates BEFORE election day.

Share if you wish ALL Liberals need to watch this and get a ‘Hillary Reset’.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *