Lawrence KilliumA recent study decided to prove that female politicians were treated more unfairly than males, and that a female would never be able to get away with some of the things the then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said in debates and on the campaign trail. They wanted to show that sexism is so prominent that women just don’t have a chance.
What they found when they analyzed the results was actually the opposite. People would have liked Clinton even less if she were a man.
(Writer’s note: I’m not a fan of either one of them. This isn’t about left vs. right, this is about feminists trying to victimize themselves and blame their failures on anything other than themselves.)
From Observer:
When Maria Guadalupe watched the second presidential debate in October 2016, she wondered how people would react to the two candidates if their sexes were swapped. Guadalupe, an associate professor at the graduate business school INSEAD, decided to find actors to play the two candidates for a live audience and see how perceptions changed. She teamed up with Joe Salvatore, a clinical associate professor of educational theatre, to write a script for “Her Opponent.”
Funny how they didn’t even try to hide how biased they were and what their goal was, you just have to look at that damn title, “Her Opponent.” They desperately wanted to show how males had the upper hand in every way, and that’s why the female candidate lost.
Guadalupe and Salvatore cast his colleague, Rachel Whorton, as “Brenda King,” the female Trump. Daryl Embry was cast as “Jonathan Gordon,” the male Clinton. The actors learned how to act like their respective candidates, and performed their play one week after Trump’s inauguration.
Eileen Reynolds, who wrote a piece on this topic for New York University’s news outlet. When observing how the rehearsal went, she claimed that the gender disparity was blatantly apparent.
“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?” Reynolds wrote. “Which one would audiences find more likable?”
Before the performance, the participants were invited to rate their feelings towards each candidate. Those who were included were said to be those who expected the Clinton would win.
According to the Observer:
Those who saw the live performances were shocked to have their perceptions so radically altered. As Reynolds wrote, many “couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton,” and found Brenda King’s demeanor and gestures to be uplifting where they thought Trump had been “flailing or lashing out.”
Well, would you look at that? Regardless of stance or politics, people didn’t take gender into account, and preferred the male, even though the odds were stacked against them. I guess it looks like their initial assumptions were wrong.
This just goes to show that data doesn’t lie, even if you try to use it to your advantage.
H/T: Observer
