Do a google search of images that come up when you look for 'charismatic' or to a lesser extent, 'confident' - I dare you. Of course I know google will often tailor the search results for you depending on your cookies and what they know about you - but for me at least for those two adjectives I see pages of male images.
Compare with 'sensitive' images and you'll see a fairly even mix of humans crying.
Even when it comes to a quality/skill like empathy which you might think women would excel in, you see a mix of cartoon characters.
I have often noticed people complaining that it was the DNC's fault it lost the previous election because of Clinton rather than their preferred rock star, Bernie Sanders. I personally would have supported Sanders if he'd won the primaries but he didn't, Clinton did.
But I think this is a symptom of we have to elect the 'coolest' most 'charismatic' person for the job - rather than the candidate who is best suited for the job.
And I blame TV for turning the US president into a celebrity. When the president is depicted more often than not, in movies, he's Harrison Ford or someone handsome, fit and basically a movie star and thus charismatic. Older women are never depicted as beautiful, fit and charismatic. In a twist Judy Dench is the only older woman playing a person in authority in the Bond films and she's crafty, not necessarily someone some people might be comfortable with in such a role.
Trump has been on various reality TV shows - perhaps he's charismatic too? Well perhaps he is - but it doesn't mean he was in any way the best person for the job.
The criteria that we've been using to select the presidents has been successively charismatic - it may not necessarily be the only characteristic they have but their showMANship has been demonstrable.
I think we have to take a step back and remember what the role is for president. Someone who can prove themselves to be able to deal with the stress - which Clinton demonstrated in abundance, comfortable with managing the many tasks a president has to deal with from day-to-day, have concrete plans and budgets - something no one considered essential to a candidate. Sanders, Stein nor Trump had no real policy. They relied on purely rhetoric and their charisma, and vague policy that many thought would never come to actuality.
The President should not be someone who is necessarily the cool kid you invite to your Saturday barbeque because we think we have them pigeon holed; the best person for the job doesn't need charisma, nor does s/he really need a sense of humor, a quality I was told Clinton lacked? Who cares. Clinton was just the best person for the job. Anyway that ship has sailed and now we are stuck with this temper tantrum throwing toddler masquerading as a president.
Compare with 'sensitive' images and you'll see a fairly even mix of humans crying.
Even when it comes to a quality/skill like empathy which you might think women would excel in, you see a mix of cartoon characters.
I have often noticed people complaining that it was the DNC's fault it lost the previous election because of Clinton rather than their preferred rock star, Bernie Sanders. I personally would have supported Sanders if he'd won the primaries but he didn't, Clinton did.
But I think this is a symptom of we have to elect the 'coolest' most 'charismatic' person for the job - rather than the candidate who is best suited for the job.
And I blame TV for turning the US president into a celebrity. When the president is depicted more often than not, in movies, he's Harrison Ford or someone handsome, fit and basically a movie star and thus charismatic. Older women are never depicted as beautiful, fit and charismatic. In a twist Judy Dench is the only older woman playing a person in authority in the Bond films and she's crafty, not necessarily someone some people might be comfortable with in such a role.
Trump has been on various reality TV shows - perhaps he's charismatic too? Well perhaps he is - but it doesn't mean he was in any way the best person for the job.
The criteria that we've been using to select the presidents has been successively charismatic - it may not necessarily be the only characteristic they have but their showMANship has been demonstrable.
I think we have to take a step back and remember what the role is for president. Someone who can prove themselves to be able to deal with the stress - which Clinton demonstrated in abundance, comfortable with managing the many tasks a president has to deal with from day-to-day, have concrete plans and budgets - something no one considered essential to a candidate. Sanders, Stein nor Trump had no real policy. They relied on purely rhetoric and their charisma, and vague policy that many thought would never come to actuality.
The President should not be someone who is necessarily the cool kid you invite to your Saturday barbeque because we think we have them pigeon holed; the best person for the job doesn't need charisma, nor does s/he really need a sense of humor, a quality I was told Clinton lacked? Who cares. Clinton was just the best person for the job. Anyway that ship has sailed and now we are stuck with this temper tantrum throwing toddler masquerading as a president.
RSS Feed
