Words matter: Gendered language in politics weaponizes them against women

Ainsley Hillman BridgeND

One of the most striking aspects of language is its ability to be interpreted in many different ways. A phrase could mean a million different things to a million different people, and a simple change in tone, word choice and syntax could change everything.

Language and politics are inseparable. Words are the modus operandi of all politicians, and the impact of modern language on women in politics is something to be wary of.

There are 2,967 women holding elected office in the U.S. This number pales in comparison to the approximately 167.5 million women, of all ages, in the U.S. Women make up more than 50% of America’s population. Yet, they only hold 30% of elected offices on the federal, state and local levels – and this 30% is a recordbreaking high, as more than ever before women are now engaging in political office.

A meager 30% is impressively low for a “record-breaking high.” Holding the right to vote for over a century and exceeding men in both quantity and quality of persons educated, American women have all of the tools necessary for success in the political sphere. Yet, the gendered language of constituents, media and other politicians presents an almost impenetrable barrier to women running for elected office.

For decades, men have benefited from stereotypes around gender in politics, which consistently associate masculinity and effective leadership.

Meredith Conroy, a political science professor at California State University San Bernardino, engaged in a research study to examine the use of gendered language in presidential elections from 2000 to 2012. Examining a random sample of 300 print-edition news articles from New York Times and USA Today, Conroy recorded all traits used to describe all presidential candidates and created what is, in essence, a “traits database.” Relying on an existent understanding of “gendered traits” from psychology and political science, traits within the database were labeled as masculine, feminine or gender-neutral. Masculine traits might include “risk-taker” or “fighter,” feminine traits could be “compassionate” or “cautious” and neutral traits were those like “intelligent,” “old” or “liar.”

Among the articles examined, 56% of the traits recorded as describing presidential candidates were categorized as neutral, 30% as masculine and 14% as feminine. The most common masculine traits were “aggressive” and “confident,” generally framed in a positive light. The most common feminine traits were “weak” and “inconsistent,” generally used negatively. Delving further into the data, Conroy found that, among all feminine traits used to describe candidates, only 31% carried a positive tone. Compare this to the overwhelming 67% of masculine traits used positively, and it is no surprise that masculinity has become associated with effective political leadership.

Though this study was published in 2015, the use — and potential harm — of gendered language is more relevant now than ever before. And it’s no longer as subtle as character traits.

Donald Trump’s language during his presidency alone provides one of the clearest examples of the harm done to women in politics by use of gendered, and frankly sexist, language: At a news conference in April of 2016, the former president claimed that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has “nothing else to offer” beyond her “woman’s card … and the beautiful thing is women don’t [even] like her.”

Following the 2020 vice presidential debate, Trump said that “[Kamala Harris is] this monster that was onstage with Mike Pence … She was terrible. I don’t think you could get worse. And totally unlikeable.”

Speaking of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Trump said, “Goofy Elizabeth Warren, one of the least productive US senators, has a nasty mouth.”

Trump referred to former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, as “Nervous Nancy” on his public twitter account.

During an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump berated Carly Fiorina, his opponent in the Republican primary, saying that she could never be president because of her appearance. He said, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that … I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not supposed to say bad things, but really ... come on.”

Unfortunately, the above quotes are only a small portion of the long list of abrasive comments Trump has made toward women in the political sphere. From degrading women for their appearance to calling them weak or unlikeable for exhibiting very normal human behaviors, the former president made a sport of calling forth hostile sexism against women in politics.

Beyond direct attacks on women, Trump’s attempts to emasculate other male politicians by feminizing them further builds the metaphorical wall to women entering the political sphere. In an attempt to convince former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Trump said, “[Pence] can either go down in history as a patriot … or [he] can go down in history as a p*ssy.” Trump directly contrasts being a patriot — a positive and almost essential trait for any nation’s leader

— and being a woman. By evoking female genitalia in a clearly negative connotation, the former president promoted the historical tie between masculinity and political leadership.

If the executive leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world told you time and time again that you were not suited for politics because of your gender or sex, would you not eventually start to believe him?

The heavily gendered language we hear used regularly to describe suitability for the office of the president, compounded with the traditional belief that masculine traits are necessary for executive leadership, fortifies the idea that femininity and feminine qualities are ill-suited for leadership. In consequence, the improper idea that women are not capable of effective political leadership becomes more and more deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

From their youth, women are taught through history, experiential learning and the language of our culture that politics is a “man’s world” with no room for women. We are incredibly lucky to be seeing so many women run for political office right now — especially given the culture of toxic masculinity which has washed over the American political sphere.

We need to elect the most qualified candidates to office, regardless of their gender. However, the current pool of candidates is limited by the use of gendered language, as many highly qualified women are discouraged from even considering candidacy.

We cannot allow gendered language to continue socializing the notion that women don’t have a place in politics. We cannot allow gendered language to continue excluding more than half of the American population from politics. And in a time of such volatility — where change is not only necessary, but also decidedly happening — we certainly cannot allow gendered language to waste our opportunity to put more women in office.

Such minor things as what we say can impact such major effects as who leads the free world. Choose your words wisely.

Ainsley Hillman, a sophomore living in Johnson Family Hall, is studying Business Analytics and Political Science. She currently serves as the Director of Operations within BridgeND. Some of her research interests include U.S. foreign policy and the intersection of environmental and social justice.

BridgeND is a multi-partisan political club committed to bridging the partisan divide through respectful and productive discourse. It meets on Tuesdays at 5 p.m. in Duncan Student Center W246 to learn about and discuss current political issues, and can be reached at bridgend@nd.edu or on Twitter @bridge_ND.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

By MATHEUS HERNDL scene Writer

The cultural train crash known as “emily in Paris” has finally (and unfortunately) arrived in its third season after a long road of controversies and drama. starring Lily collins as the titular emily cooper, the show tells the story of a young American marketing executive who moves to Paris. While at first, that seems like an inoffensive sitcom premise, emily in Paris quickly became known for its very offensive portrayal of French culture and awful writing.

The first season was heavily criticized for how it portrayed French characters, relying on outdated stereotypes (which is ironic considering the show presents itself as a love letter to France, its culture and its people). equally problematic is the character of emily herself, who the writers desperately try to present as being an ubercompetent, ambitious and driven young woman. emily, however, is insufferable, arrogant, cocky, constantly disregards the feelings of those around her and most infuriatingly, refuses to learn French despite working at a firm filled with French people. Finally, emily’s detestability culminates when she sleeps with her friend’s boyfriend in season 1.

much of season 2 is dedicated to desperately coursecorrecting emily’s unlikability to little effect, and season 3 instead seems intent on making emily seem better by demonizing other characters around her, particularly her friend camille (camille razat).

camille is essentially the only French woman in the series who is not presented as an evil hag as she quickly befriends emily and helps her adapt to Paris, becoming my, and many others’, favorite character. emily in turn rewards camille by banging her boyfriend, Gabriel (Lucas bravo), at the end of season 1, and much of season 2 deals with camille getting back together with Gabriel and forgiving emily. Pretty noble, right?

Well, not if it makes emily look bad, apparently.

While emily certainly deserves to be put in her place, camille’s deranged and irrational behavior overshadows anything emily has done to this point, effectively turning her into the villain of the series through the worst and most blatant example of character assassination I have ever seen (and I am a star Wars fan).

And believe it or not, this is still the show’s best season, the racism and Francophobia are less obvious, emily is admittedly much less arrogant and tries to learn French, and other more interesting characters like emily’s boss sylvie are given focus. but other than that, emily in Paris continues being painfully unfunny even by sitcom standards. most of the humor comes from bad writing, like the treatment of camille’s character. The show’s “plot” is paper thin because it constantly tries to set up problems and story arcs which are resolved almost immediately by emily’s ubercompetence and inhuman luck (because this show is allergic to stakes and consequences). As a result, any professional or personal problem emily is faced with seems cheap, as we know that it will barely affect the “plot” or characters. on top of that, season 3 feels like a glorified advertisement for luxury brands like mcLaren, channel and mcdonald’s (very classy), as the characters that work in the marketing firm go on and on and on about how great these mega-corporations (who are definitely not paying netflix for product placement) are. This might as well be why netflix, a company known for canceling series for little reason, keeps supporting a show that up to this point has been nothing more than a Pr and critical disaster.

While the third season of emily in Paris is an improvement on the previous two, it is merely an elevation from offensive and harmful trash television to simply trash television, perfectly encapsulating everything that is bad and wrong about modern T v shows; I hate it and don’t want to talk about it anymore.

Contact Matheus Herndl at mherndl@nd.edu

“Emily in Paris”

Starring: Lily Collins, Camille Razat, Lucas Bravo, Lucien Laviscount, Ashley

Favorite episodes: The “wedding” one because it’s hilariously bad and no, I refuse to look up the title

If you like: Getting a headache

Where to watch: Netflix (please don’t)

By CLAIRE McKENNA scene Writer

riding on the success of its documentary series “Formula 1: drive to survive”, netflix has greenlit a slew of new sports documentary series to come out on its platform over the next two years. The first of these new documentaries to come out is “break Point” — a series that ostensibly gives viewers a behind-the-scenes look into the goings-on of a tennis player’s life while they are on tour.

since it is produced by box to box Films, the same company behind “drive to survive”, the premise of “break Point” will be familiar to anyone who has watched the former show. episodes of “break Point” follow certain players around on different tournaments of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) and Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) tours. The first half of the show was released on January 13 and the second half of the show is being released in June.

While the show was not able to feature interviews with some of the sport’s biggest names (rafael nadal, for instance). The show shines in its interviews with the players that did give the cameras behind-thescenes access. box to box Films is masterful at building storylines that endear viewers to the subject of that episode — a skill they utilize well on “break Point.” Throughout the course of the show, I felt myself beginning to support the players that I had seen before but never really learned much about, such as Paula badosa and ons Jabeur.

There were some points of the show that were less than stellar, however, and they are mostly found in the things that they did not include. some of the omissions simply boil down to the fact that the show cannot include too much about players who they are not following. For instance, one of the most exciting games of the French open was the quarter-final game between rafael nadal and novak djokovic. It is understandable that the show does not include this game because neither nadal nor djokovic were an official part of the show.

It does not make sense, however, that the show does not include information that is necessary for the viewers’ full understanding of a given situation. For instance, in the episode “california dreaming”, the show makes a big deal out of the fact that the episode’s main player Taylor Fritz decides to play against nadal with an injured foot. What the show leaves out is that nadal was also injured with a fractured rib. This omission gives viewers the impression that an injured Fritz was able to beat a 100 percent healthy nadal, something that the show has already stated is extremely hard to achieve. A casual viewer is then could be misled about how good of a player Fritz is after watching the show.

While the show is an interesting watch, it lacks the draw to non-fans of the sport that its predecessor “drive to survive” is so amazing at doing (and its poor explanation of how a tennis game works certainly does not help in the endeavor.) but if you or anyone you know ever wanted to learn about what the life of a tennis player is like, then I definitely recommend this show to you.

Contact Claire McKenna at cmckenn4@nd.edu

“Break Point”

Starring: Nick Kyrgios, Matteo Berrettini, Ajla Tomljaovic, Taylor Fritz, Maria Sakkari, Paula Badosa, Ons Jabeur, Felix Auger-Aliassime, Casper Rudd

Favorite episodes: “Great Expectations,” “King of Clay”

If you like: Tennis and “Formula 1: Drive to Survive”

Where to watch: Netflix

By NATALIE ALLTON scene Writer

“Puss in boots: The Last Wish” was recently announced as a nominee for the Academy Award for best Animated Feature Film. It’s a sequel to the 2011 “Puss in boots” film, which was so culturally impactful that I couldn’t remember anything about it even after I looked up the plot synopsis, despite the fact that I saw it in theaters when it came out. some may ask: Why wait 11 years to release a sequel to a film almost no one remembers? Why produce a new addition to the “shrek” franchise years after its time in the sun? Why make “The Last Wish” at all?

I have answers to none of these questions. All I can say is that I’m glad they did.

I’ve paid to see “Puss in boots: The Last Wish” in theaters three separate times. Frankly, I’d pay to see it again. It’s unreasonably good. The animation has received a major cosmetic overhaul since the 2011 prequel. It’s vibrant and stylized, reminiscent of a storybook in the vein of the critically acclaimed comic-book style of “Into the spider-verse.” The voice casting is phenomenal. Antonio banderas reprises his role as the titular favorite fearless hero alongside salma hayek Pinault as Kitty softpaws and their performances are brilliantly supported by a chipper harvey Guillen, an unrecognizable Florence Pugh and a pitch-perfect

John mulaney as the film’s campy and irredeemable ultimate villain. The score and soundtrack are incredible (I’ve been bumping “Por Que te vas” all week). The film respects the intelligence of its viewers, keeping the tone light for kids but exploring more serious themes of death, fear, family and abandonment. cameos, callbacks and continued storylines reward those who are familiar with the “shrek” and “Puss in boots” movies, but “The Last Wish” stands alone as a film. You don’t need to know anything about the franchise to enjoy the movie, except perhaps a basic knowledge of childhood fairy tales and nursery wrhymes. The basic plot follows Puss in boots, Kitty softpaws and their enthusiastic companion Perrito as they attempt to find the titular Last Wish. Puss in boots is down to the last of his nine lives, and he needs the Wish so he can continue to be the fearless and heroic legend he’s known as. Also after the Wish are Goldilocks (Pugh) and the Three bears (olivia colman, ray Winstone and samson Kayo) — a crime family who attempt to hire both Puss and Kitty to aid them — and big Jack horner (mulaney), who desires the Wish to claim all of the world’s magic for himself alone. Let’s also not forget about the Wolf (Wagner moura), an undefeatable bounty hunter tracking down Puss in boots as he and his companions conquer the dark Forest to reach the Wish.

It’s a classic action-adventure format, deepened by the intricate relationships between the characters. Why does Goldilocks want the Wish so badly? What’s the story behind why Puss and Kitty have split between the 2011 prequel and “The Last Wish”? how is the Wolf able to follow Puss through the dark Forest? The film, brilliantly paced, gives exactly the right amount of weight to each character as it answers these questions, resulting in an animation masterpiece greater than the sum of its parts.

The “Puss in boots” films have followed the trend of their “shrek” predecessors, with the second film far surpassing the first in story and character. “The Last Wish” has cemented dreamWorks as a major player back in the animation game and fully revitalized the “shrek” franchise in a new decade and for a new generation. In short: It more than deserves the oscar nomination.

Contact Natalie Allton at nallton@nd.edu

“Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”

Starring: Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek Pinault, Harvey Guillen

Director: Joel Crawford

If you like: the “Shrek” franchise, “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse”

By J.P. SPOONMORE scene Writer

When hbo announced that they were adapting my favorite game, “The Last of Us,” as a nine-episode T v show, I was terrified. After just two episodes, I now realize something truly special is unfolding. my goal for this article, though, is not to review the show, or to even praise the accuracy of its adaptation.

I want to talk about what adapting a video game actually entails.

It is almost impossible to convince a fan to watch a story they previously had control over. Watching video games is boring. A night of watching my friend playing “God of War” after I had beat the game was proof enough. Kratos’ ax swings didn’t hit, the enemies weren’t scary and Atreus wasn’t my endearing companion — because he was too busy obeying my friend’s button mashing instead. book adaptations are one thing, but translating a playable experience to screen is a different beast entirely. one with a health bar no film studio can truly conquer.

Fortunately, you are never in control in “The Last of Us.” every encounter acts as a pitstop on a rigid, linear path. The gamer has no wiggle room to experiment. It’s a movie that they play. some may call that a shortcoming, but it gives the perfect blueprint for television.

That’s right. Television. This project is not a shortened, feature-length rendition of the video game’s best moments. It’s a miniseries with a 90-minute premiere. A commitment of this scale has to stretch beyond the game’s original script. new scenes buttress the theme and tone, while familiar scenes intercut between new and old dialogue for deeper character interactions. Television structures mean disconnected cold opens, freer camera perspectives and more characters in tighter, condensed set pieces. A television show needs a television cast, meaning the camera doesn’t follow Joel (Pedro Pascal) exclusively. characters get original, independent scenes outside of his world, clueing us into a bigger conflict that he cannot control. It’s a bigger experience that doubles down on the character’s vulnerability.

Prestige television doesn’t run the same rhythm as a gun-toting horror game. Tutorial controls and chase sequences are cut out completely, freeing up runtime for longer character interactions. Tess (Anna Torv) and Joel’s relationship is far more important than the smuggling tunnels in boston, so one is dropped while the other is doubled. These shifting interests pale in comparison to producer craig mazin’s alterations to the story world. The fungus spreads through the ground, not spores, and its legions of infected are far more terrifying. ellie (bella ramsey) is a younger, more naive interpretation, foreshadowing a darker angle for future events. The biggest change, though, is Joel. he is no longer the one-man-army you command. he is a frustrated old man teetering on the edge of a bottomless pit of rage. he is just as fragile as he is dangerous — a bomb I cannot wait to see explode. For an adaptation of this scale and passion, change is good. It keeps me excited for next week’s episode rather than dreading a rerun of a story I’ve already seen. hbo is the perfect ecosystem for high-profile adaptations. not only is their brand founded on massive productions and top actors, but its platform vocalizes the intentions of every show’s creators. I don’t have to worry about why game elements are left out when neil druckman, the writer for both the game and show, tells me why in the after credits interviews. The communication is clear. he understands exactly what challenge he faces because he created the audience. These beloved characters are in good hands, and I, a fan and critic, cannot wait to see what happens next.

Contact J.P. Spoonmore at jspoonmo@nd.edu happy Birthday: Be open about how you feel, and resolve issues hanging over your head that are holding you back. Progress takes initiative and courage to make tough decisions. It’s time to adjust what isn’t working for you while you pave the way to new beginnings and happiness. Take command of your life. Choose to simplify how you do things, and practice moderation. your numbers are 4, 10, 22, 26, 30, 34, 42. gEMINI (May 21-June 20): gather information and put it to the test. What you discover and how you apply it to your life will inspire others to pitch in and help. Before you accept help, find out what you will owe. Maintaining equality is essential. lEO (July 23-Aug. 22): An opening will become available. Try something new. A challenge will excite and encourage you to fine-tune your skills to impress someone who can help you get ahead. Choose to be with someone you love, not someone you feel you owe. vIrgO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): A trip, meeting or networking function will be informative. The information you receive will help you adjust to changes heading your way. Don’t fret; you’ll make substantial gains if you let your work be your calling card. lIBrA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): Dress for success. Pay attention to detail and take better care of your health and well-being. hone your skills, add to your knowledge and keep up to date with what’s trending. Socialize, network or tell someone you love how you feel.

ArIES (March 21-April 19): you’ll be eager to get things done. Push forward, fulfill your dreams and promote your goals. A challenge will have strings attached. find out what’s expected of you before you proceed. romance is on the rise.

TAuruS (April 20-May 20): Sort through emotional issues before you agree to something that may be compromising or uncomfortable. find out where you stand, and assess where it’s best to put your time and effort. Don’t forget that charity begins at home.

CANCEr (June 21-July 22): Stick to the facts, and don’t take on the impossible. reach out to someone you like to work alongside, and you’ll get an opportunity to do something that makes a difference. focus on bringing money in, not spending frivolously.

SCOrPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): get approval before you make changes that will affect those you live with. If you are transparent and open regarding your intentions, you’ll be granted the go-ahead and offered suggestions that will contribute to your success.

SAgITTArIuS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): Nothing will be as it appears. Don’t act on assumptions; ask questions, explore possibilities and put your energy where it counts. home improvements will open space to new projects that can inflate your income. If you love someone, share your feelings.

CAPrICOrN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): An active mind will lead to answers that encourage you to follow your heart and head in a direction that favors changes at home that add to your financial stability. Invest more time in improving money management and curbing costly habits.

AQuArIuS (Jan. 20-feb. 18): Take your intentions and plans for a test drive by reviewing each step required to reach your objective. your colorful way of pitching your vision will make it difficult for your audience to reject your ideas. A demonstration will seal the deal.

PISCES (feb. 19-March 20): Don’t share sensitive information. focus on what you can do for others and how to solve a problem that can influence your position or income. keep the peace, but leave nothing to chance or up to someone else. Do what’s best for you.

Birthday Baby: you are responsible, eager and passionate. you are fun-loving and unpredictable.