Elizabeth Warren was roundly defeated on Super Tuesday in favor of the now all-too-familiar barrage of pushy white male politicians in their late seventies. Why? This article from the Atlantic sums it up well: Despite Warren’s competence, intelligence, and thoughtful discourse, our country is apparently too misogynistic to acknowledge her, an accomplished woman, as a viable candidate. Instead, they label her as “condescending” and “strident.”
Huh? In my opinion, compared to Trump and even Sanders and other Democratic candidates, Elizabeth Warren is the antithesis of condescending.
“All we want,” Warren wrote in her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance, “is a country where everyone pays a fair share, a country where we build opportunities for all of us; a country where everyone plays by the same rules and everyone is held accountable. And we have begun to fight for it. I believe in us. I believe in what we can do together, in what we will do together.”
Is this an arrogant attitude, a condescending opinion? No. It’s obvious that Warren, unlike Trump, truly wants what is best for the country, not for herself. She wants to improve people’s lives, lift up the masses. Yet, for mystifying reasons (likely the same reasons that Trump was elected to office in 2016), people can’t accept that she’s intelligent, articulate, well-educated and a leader.
Consider Sanders, on the other hand. Isn’t he annoyingly similar to Trump in his egoistic approach to politics, his obnoxious and dogged determination to steal the spotlight?
Well, no. Our country is evidently willing to accept another old white male with known health issues and a semi-narcissistic personality, as a candidate to defeat Trump. In fact, he’s seen as a principled and passionate leader, a take-charge kind of guy. We are also willing to accept Biden (another old white male). But we cannot accept Warren. The masses see her…ahem…as “shrill.”
Of all the first world countries, the US is exceedingly behind in its views and attitudes toward women. Women still get paid eighty cents on the dollar for the same work as men; they are still underrepresented in managerial and executive board positions in corporations; and they have never held the office of President or Vice President in this country.
In 2016, people dismissed Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump as a result of her personal baggage and a mismanaged campaign. I disagreed then with that reasoning, and I continue to disagree now, when clearly, the evidence points to the fact that our country simply isn’t ready for a smart, capable female leader.
As a woman who has worked in high tech for nearly thirty years, I have seen this “subtle” discrimination in multiple forms at multiple companies. Women leaders are called pushy and abrasive. They are even labeled the “b” word. Men talk over them in meetings; co-opt their ideas as their own; dismiss their successes as “luck,” and pay them less than male counterparts for the same job. Too often, women in analytical positions are held back, because their male counterparts can’t comprehend that they are equally competent in math, engineering and computer science. The female engineers are often labeled “tactical,” the ones who dot the i’s and cross the t’s - not the ones who solve big problems. As for male leaders? They are viewed as confident, respected, analytical, and above all, “strategic.”
Why this double standard? I think it’s the same reason that helped Trump win in 2016: nameless fear. Fear of losing ground. Fear of losing position. Fear of losing authority. Fear of declining earnings. Fear of losing one’s place in society.
Enough already. Fear is crippling, disabling, and thwarts people from being their best. This is why I will, in each and every novel I write (and possibly a high tech memoir in the distant future), highlight strong women and their choices.