If Donald Trump Were a Woman, You’d Like Him More

There was a lot of talk during the election that Hillary Clinton would have done better if she were a man, but no talk that Donald Trump would have done better if he were a woman. But, a recent sociological experiment–and interesting play–gives some evidence that Clinton would have done worse as a man and Trump would have done better as a woman. This might be one of the strangest sentences I’ve written, so hold on and see what happened:

.

This video is a clip from a rehearsal for Her Opponent, a word-for-word, gesture-for-gesture recreation of a debate between Clinton and Trump, with the genders swapped. The woman (actress Rachel Tuggle Whorton) plays Trump and the man (actor Daryl Embry) plays Clinton. It’s a fascinating thing to watch.

To keep reading, click here: If Donald Trump Were a Woman, You’d Like Him More

Related Posts

15 thoughts on “If Donald Trump Were a Woman, You’d Like Him More

  1. More than anything, this experiment demonstrates how much our perceptions are influenced by gender stereotypes.

  2. This is interesting, but I feel like it assumes no one knew who Donald Trump was before the election. The way he behaves now is NOTHING new. He’s disgusting and always has been. Whether you’re a man or a woman, the behavior pictured is rude. So I doubt I’d despise him any less. I don’t care about his gender—-it’s how he acts toward people and the constant lying, narcissism, and paranoid crap that I can’t stand.

    1. I don’t think the point was to suss out which was the better candidate. However since it’s called Her Opponent, and because the woman behind this thought it would show Hillary had been treated unfairly due to her gender, I think it was designed to showcase Hillary as the better candidate. Everyone was shocked when that wasn’t the case.

      Of course you can’t look at this in a vacuum, but I’d like to see a study done with the same concept, except using a business meeting with unknown participants instead of famous politicians.

    2. It also assumes that no one knew who Hillary Clinton was before the election, no? The way she behaves is also nothing new. She has a long history of being abusive to others (folks like the Secret Service): it’s how she acts towards people and the constant lying, narcissism and paranoid crap (“Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”) that I can’t stand.

      Basically, neither candidate was perfect, characteristics attributed to one are easily attributed to the other (plenty of documentation can be found to support both sides).

  3. Elizabeth West hits the nail on the head: these sorts of experiments do not reflect reality, because they assume that we have no prior knowledge of the folks involved when we view the debates. As this is false–to use Bayesian terms, because our a priori is not 0.5/0.5–this experiment, while interesting, does not have any bearing on the political realities of our culture.

    What it DOES demonstrate is that we as a culture do not engage in critical thinking.

  4. Amazing gender reversal and not surprising at all. I can not stand Hillary as a woman. I would not admire her as a man. This reinforces for me, why exactly I did not vote for Hillary, she is pathological lying, self absorbed politician interested in her own wallet and POWER! I am sick and tired of career politicians and their ongoing mismanagement of our hard earned tax dollars. I do admire President Trump now, during the election, and before he even decided to run. I feel he is an outstanding American patriot and his business acumen was sorely needed in the White House.

    1. Wow. So all the sexism, racism, and abuse of his employees is admirable to you? What about his many bankruptcies, and his outsourcing?

  5. I also found the NYU article about it and it is fascinating. Like a more modern Nixon-Kennedy debate, images and soundbites.

  6. If Hillary were a man, I would expect to like her much better — because then she would not feel the need to define success as “proving to the world I’m tough” (thereby actually proving to the world that she is a total pendejo).

  7. Yes, but this clip is with the understanding that female Trump has knowledge, intelligence and background in her career. Not to mention that she would be destroyed for having multiple children through multiple marriages, for rating men (or women) on a 1-10 “hotness” scale, and don’t even get me started on if she was caught saying the word “pussy” on a secret recording. I do agree female Trump is more likeable in this clip but that’s only if she is a consummate professional.

  8. I agree this is fascinating. But I’d also like to see it done simple with different people, rather than different genders and compare the two versions.

    How much of this is related to hearing Clinton’s or Trump’s words coming out of someone else’s mouth, regardless of gender? That question also needs answering before we assign too much weight to the swapped genders. As others have said, they are both famous people with extremely well-known personas. It may be that we are simply poor critical thinkers when it comes to favoring substance over surface distractions like looks, personality, or delivery.

  9. I’ve definitely noticed people censoring their criticism of HRC. I’m not sure why, but I can conjecture that it had to do with gender, because there really is no other difference. If she was just another middle aged-older white guy she would have totally blended in with the other 20 candidates we had in the beginning.

Comments are closed.