A university professor wondered what would happen if Donald Trump was a woman and Hillary Clinton was a man.
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
[…]
We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.
[…]
Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.
I would like to see more video than this short excerpt. But they are working on a film version, “shot for shot, as they were televised on TV.”
No fair minded person could seriously call Hillary Clinton “competent” – at least not in her actual work.
As for “prepared” – well (unlike Donald Trump)Mrs Clinton was given the questions in advance (by the corrupt “mainstream” media).
Still I am impressed that an academic (of all people – after all they have a tradition of lying that goes all the way back to Plato) admits that a male version of Hillary Clinton would be even more annoying. And a female version of Donald Trump would be rather endearing.
Contrary to the media impersonators Donald Trump does not normally use a threatening voice – he is indeed like a “Jewish aunt” (like my late Aunt J.) making undercutting comments (to deflate) WITHOUT any real aggression (indeed with an undercurrent of humour).
As for Hillary Clinton – a man who behaved like Hillary Clinton would indeed get a punch in the face. Mrs Clinton gets away with her aggressive sneering because of her gender.
This is going to cause a lot of heads to explode. I would not be surprised to see every media outlet (movies, TV, everything except maybe YouTube) to turn it down.
Why not swap Hillary for Justin Trudeau and the Donald for, well, Hillary?
One of those times you see academics actually admit their preconceptions can be challenged. Especially interesting how people apparently found Ms Clinton’s male alter ego to be insufferable – apparently her gender was actually important then, but only in making her less punchable. And despite getting findings that confounded their expecatations the academics concerned are pressing on with this, which is comendable.
But the major upshot of this has to be the realisation that the much put-down Trump voters were probably closer to reading the message and less taken with image than the liberals who criticise them. A fact which might upset a few people – Trump voters have less sexist assumptions… (OK, this does not really reach a standard of proof, but it is indicative).
Having watched the “short excerpt” to which Rob links in his posting, I was intrigued by a video listed in the sidebar, of a Johan Norberg (complete with mild Scandinavian accent)– of whom I’ve never heard — speaking to ReasonTV about Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. In this he is defending the idea of the free market, and also Uncle Miltie (I can’t help it if Dr. Friedman is rather an avuncular type!), from Ms. Klein’s ignorance and smears.
But the real gold is in a 6-minute video listed in that sidebar:
https://www. U Tube [code to defeat the useless, because cat-less, spam-bot] .com/watch?v=HbTEzhaXZ3w
entitled “Johan Norberg – Swedish Myths and Realities.” The real skinny on how “socialism WORKS! in Sweden.” The description:
And in the sidebar to that video, there’s a link to an hour-long talk by Mr. Norberg to FMF, whoever they are: “Johan Norberg – The Swedish Model Myths and Realities.” I haven’t watched this yet. At
[UT] . com/watch?v=2lbRkfsrt1E
Paul Marks wrote:
Paul Marks wrote:
hennesli
What is your point? The screams of abuse and threats at Mrs Cruz were from Mr Trump’s supporters in the Convention Hall, not from Mr Trump. I do not recall Mr Trump condemning any of the abuse, but I do not recall him partaking in it. I have no idea if he was aware of it, and if he was, his thinking. It was, of course, a poor show, but nothing like the Democrats.
I see no contradiction in Paul Marks suggesting that Mr Trump was happy for ‘scum like’ him to hurl abuse and threats, and in him saying that Donald Trump does not normally use a threatening voice.
It’s time someone did a Hillary/Donald Hungry Eyes mash-up. I lack the skill.
A fascinating article, on several levels. All political consultants should read it.
That the sun rises is not news. If it were not to rise, that would be news. That academics do an experiment they expect to confirm their prejudices about gender, Trump, etc. is not news. That they observe a different outcome and report it – that is news! Honest academic work in the culture wars is rare. The reporting suggests that an off-narrative conclusion was observed and reported by the creators and (significant numbers in) the left-leaning audience alike. This is as welcome as it is unusual.
I saw one possible flaw in the experimental set up:
Male Hillary was played by someone who agreed with most or all of Hillary’s lines. Female Trump was played by someone who disagreed with most or all of Trump’s lines – disagreed so passionately that achieving the skilled thespian’s ability to play ‘the villain’ (as she presumably saw it) was an effort. Although 53% of white women voted for Trump, finding one to play him amongst the performers these liberal academics knew would doubtless have been difficult for several reasons. However, now they have obtained a bit of right-wing street-cred as passably honest researchers, I wonder if that imbalance could be addressed in a second attempt.
At first glance, one might think that this imbalance would hurt the portrayal of Trump. However maybe the point could be debated. In Dorothy Sayers “Murder Must Advertise” (informed by her career as an advertising copywriter), background humour is extracted from the fact that the fashionably-communist Mr Ingoldsby is the best writer of snob-appeal adverts and the witty Miss Meteyard is excellent on everything except woman’s products, these being best handled by the ultra-conventional Mr Willis or the positively-misogynist Mr Copeland, who however can never write good copy on the new-age health products he so believes in. The very intelligent and experienced Miss Sayers seems to be saying that the best advertiser of a product is one who is in fact cynical about it. This is comedy but might there be something in it.
That said, I’d like to see the same idea done with a Trump-supporting female lead, but I guess it would be career-killing for an actress to admit to that.
My comment above must have really interested me, since I let writing it postpone my pointing out that the OP should have written:
I’m fond of pronouncing the curse “May you ever misuse the subjunctive!” against lefties but I implore my fellow samizdatans not to fall into this terrible error. 🙂 I may be a sinner in Julie’s eyes, using ‘they’ for a first person singular pronoun, but there are some depths to which even I will not descend.
I grant it’s a little subtle since in the reenactment of the debate, the actors were a woman for Trump and a man for Hillary.
Niall,
Never mind Trump. As Bertie would say, “You interest me strangely” regarding Miss Sayers. I haven’t read Murder Must Advertise, but Gaudy Night is on my Ultra-Short List of All-Time Favorite Novels, let alone Thrillers, and your remarks compel (that is, FORCE) me to abandon the present some-what ho-hum replay of the author’s [“If he is an author and has a style”] previous works and commence Advertise at once. Thank heavens, it’s in the bookshelf that I must pass whenever I go to my room.
Thanks!
Perhaps Spanish and Portuguese have corrupted my grammadar, but ought that not to have been a ‘had been‘ in place of a ‘were‘?
Albeit for Shelob, a ‘has-been‘ and a ‘werecow’.
Niall,
“When I am from him, I am dead till I be with him.”
(So sayeth Thomas Browne in 1642 — http://essays.quotidiana.org/browne/affection/ .)
And say I, along with you no doubt, “If you be hungry, perhaps you should interrogate the fridge,” odd though it sounds to so many ears currently tin to the music of the English language.
🙂
Mr Ed,
I hope your Missus (I take a chance and guess) will not mind if we take up together, since you seem to be as impressed with Shelob as I am!
It’s unpleasant, contemplating the many ersatz-human golem who are similarly minded, if “minded” they be. One might also say the Professor wrote a “false but accurate” description there. (With due thanks to Alisa for reminding me.)
Niall, “using ‘they’ for a first-person singular”? Don’t you mean third-person singular? Just idle curiosity, of course. ;>)
Now you guys cut this out before I commit another. 😈
Murder Must Advertise: “Wiffle while you work.”
Cheers
:>)))!!!
@Niall Kilmartin
but I implore my fellow samizdatans not to fall into this terrible error.
I’m sorry but I think the subjunctive is a left over from an ancient age, left in the language to enable the betters of society to tut tut at the uneducated masses, who are too busy communicating to worry too much about form over function.
I’m also perfectly happy to roll one dice, and don’t even get me started on the semicolon.
Thou shouldest get with the program dude.
Oh dear. Fraser, the die is cast. “Die” is the singular, just as “mice” and not “mouses” is the plural of “mouse.” Sorry…. :>((
By the way, speaking of function, the function of the subjunctive is specifically to indicate that the clause speaks of something “contrary to fact,” as I imagine you know perfectly well.
Everyone knows the plural of “mouse” is meeces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZGkYW4b5I0
Julie
A die is a re-usable mould used for casting (typically) metal objects. Thus childrens’ toys and various car and motorcycle parts are referred to as “die-cast”.
Julie near Chicago
Oh dear. Fraser, the die is cast. “Die” is the singular,
Oh Julie, I hate to do battle with a lovely lady such as yourself, but you have crossed the Rubicon….
Much as with the subjunctive, we the peeps think dice is also singular, even if we are strictly wrong. But fact is most dictionaries have bent to the barbarian hordes and now allow just such a meaning. As to mice… I always thought the plural was meeces, as in “I hate them meeces to pieces.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZGkYW4b5I0
Yes, Seth. As it happens I have heard of various manufacturers who’ve named their businesses “The Such-and-Such Tool and Die Works.”
Silly me, I thought the play on words was slightly amusing. :>(
.
Although I try to avoid the on-line dictionaries as a matter of principle *snark*, here is an excerpt from Macmillan’s long list of definitions of the verb “to cast”:
as well as
But tell me, have you watched any good X-Rays lately? ;>)
. . .
Fraser,
I’m afraid you are all too correct about the knuckling-under of lexicography to the Uggs and Oggs of the Barbarians. A sad, sad shame. :>(((((
However, having read your alternative to the misbegotten plural “mice” (after all, no one speaks of “hice” — I think. Although speaking of Barbarians, we do have the example of “lice,” from “louse” of couse. — Er, Of course).
Ahem. Have read your alternative plural, I had to follow the video link at once. And lo! there I saw the cat stating that he “hates them meeces,” IIRC. C’est de rire! (Lord only knows what that actually would mean to a Frenchman. By me it means, “It is to laugh!”)
It’s nice to hit the sack with a giggle in your throat. Thanks! 🙂
My take on Donald Trump is that he can be unpleasant and even stridently abusive when he is challenged but tends toward pleasantness when content.
He is also fine with lying to get his way (I know that is every politician but it does go against the narrative that he is the un-politician).
I am exceedingly amused though that it took putting her words and ideas into a male body to get people to realize how completely unacceptable Hillary was.
As is hinted at in the OP linked report, when this left-leaning audience saw the original 2nd debate, just after the october surprise vid, they were consciously thinking “politically he’s a corpse – it’s all over”, “nobody could vote for him”, “he can’t possibly win”, etc., , and at that moment probably not many were even unconsciously thinking “it’s not over yet – please, please, please, don’t let Hillary mess up”. Seeing it a second time round, there is inevitably a greater willingness in them to ponder the question “how on earth did he win?” and there is no longer the same cost (as they see it) for daring to think it: you can still lose lefty street-cred by daring to speculate but it can no longer influence a single vote.
However that does not degrade the interest of the experiment’s outcome. Since it was conceived to ‘prove’ the liberal hypothesis that “Our society is so sexist that a Trump can beat a Hillary!”, it’s a strong result that the creators and audience did not leave the theatre asserting that it had.
The rest of this comment is an aside, commenting on other comments:
Either form is correct: ‘Had Donald Trump been a woman and Hillary Clinton a man” is correct grammar (is your ‘grammadar’ Portuguese or a typo?). I can’t say anything about Portuguese – ask Sarah Hoyt. English usually offers more forms, synonyms, etc., than other languages so it may be only your form exists in Iberian languages.
That’s “Whiffle while you work” – though when I find myself correcting the purely imaginary catchphrases of almost 90 years ago, I should probably rein in my pedantic urges. Speaking of which…
I do indeed (or ‘I did indeed’?). It is probably an appropriate metaphor for samizdata that while correcting another’s subtle mistake I make an obvious one myself (isn’t that what government programmes do all the time? 🙂 ). There is a story of a mediaeval Oxford college that decided to ask the King to give them new gates. As they tried to draft the Latin for ever more complex and elegant versions of “Were your majesty to be so gracious as to fund our new gates we would be most grateful” they got into such arguments over what was the exactly correct Latin way to say it – especially the subjunctives – that in the end they paid for their own new gates rather than risk sending the King a text that a scholar at his court might be able to fault.
I have done the same, as you can probably guess from my remarks in the WH40k thread three posts below. I was roiling one or more dice when I was too young to be punctilious and facing rivals more keen to beat me than to correct my grammar – nowadays I say ‘die’ in polite company but dice with gamers. However as regards misuse of the subjunctive, there is quite a difference between “If I kill you for that solecism” and “If I were to kill you for that solecism” 🙂
My reading of Malory suggests that the double-negative, not the subjunctive, was used for this purpose. In Sir Thomas, the peasants say, ” ‘e were a great knight”, whereupon the nobles do not say, “That’s ‘was’ not ‘were’, you ignorant oaf”, but instead say, “Never nary no knight was not so noble as was not this knight”, thus awing the peasants who then say, “” ‘e were a great and fair-spoken knight”, etc. 🙂 (You will find the exact “Never nary … knight” sentence in Mallory, and many other examples of the upper-crust expressing things in doubleplusplus negative form, and sometimes revealing they are parvenues by getting the count wrong, so technically saying the opposite to their intent.)
Everyone knows the purpose of grammar is so you can judge the level of education of the writer. I would correct my subjunctive but I think that would spoil the comment thread. Instead, I have a poem to write and a tanto to sharpen.
>Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman
This assumes it’s tolerated in him. But he is getting unprecented levels of flak over it.
This is also something that only leftists who see the world through their own assumptions could seriously think. Perhaps mainly American leftists. Have they never heard of Margaret Thatcher? (Or even Theresa May?) Her supposedly masculine style was a big hit amongst the very segments of the population who are said to be sexist, and frightened of strong women. It was the enlightened leftists who couldn’t handle her style.
>and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
I have to echo Paul on this, it’s hilarious. ‘Especially ‘even more convincing’. What a giveaway.
Cal Ford (March 8, 2017 at 11:35 am): ” “Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman” … Have they never heard of Margaret Thatcher? … Her supposedly masculine style was a big hit amongst the very segments of the population who are said to be sexist …”
Good point: perhaps an example of the idea that the left project their vices onto their enemies. I recall well that the left found Margaret Thatcher’s “aggressive style” intolerable, and complained that she interrupted a lot. A study of several interviews of her by media types argued that, on the contrary, interviewers had a marked tendency to seize natural brief pauses in her speech to start arguing so her mere continuation of what she was saying appeared an interruption – at least to them.
I suppose the left’s memory hole has long buried that study – if they ever noticed it at all. It would be interesting to draw it to the attention of the people who did this. They might have been less surprised by the outcome of their experiment had they ever watched that study.
Thatcher’s ‘style’ was of course Queen Victoria / Queen Elizabeth I / Victorian governess rather than masculine. Indeed I recall labour types circa 1981 complaining that their snobbish tory rivals must have been brought up by such governesses – only childhood conditioning could explain (to these labourites) why the tories were obeying her instead of replacing her with a sane wet tory (‘wet’ = ‘RINO’ for my US readers).
Interesting, Niall. I was too young in Thatcher’s day to be terribly aware of what was going on over the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, but all I’ve seen about Thatcher has led me to a great admiration of the lady. The world could certainly have used a few more of her kind.
Niall
“Alea iacta est”
Cheers
Mr Ed beat me to the bunch.
Yes the screams of hate (and the threats) directed at Mrs Heidi Cruz were NOT from Mr Trump – they were from his “Alt Right” supporters.
Do I regret using the word “scum” about someone who would ally with people like that?
On balance – no I do not.
You (H….) could also have mentioned Mr Trump himself pushing the stuff about Raphael Cruz (a man who was tortured under Batista and opposed Fidel Castro as well) being behind the murder of President Kennedy.
Donald Trump did not raise his voice – he just presented it as possibility (based on faked up stories by his friend’s newspaper – “The National Enquirer”).
Do I regret spending about a year trying to PREVENT Donald Trump getting the nomination?
No I do not.
But I also predicted at the time that if he did win he would betray the types who had got him the nomination.
And it looks like that is what President Trump is doing.
He is betraying the “Alt Right” types – there is going to be no progrom against the Jews and so on.
Being scum cuts both ways.
It means that such a person can pretend that Raphael Cruz was behind the murder of President Kennedy (a stinking lie) and that turn his rats (yes I did use the word “rats”) on Mrs Heidi Cruz.
But it also means that he can use the Alt Right types – and then betray them.
The American defence budget is being increased and American troops are going into Syria.
What do you (H….) think that Sean Gabb and the rest of the “Alt Right” think about that?
I doubt they are pleased.
I still regard the Republican Primary and Caucus events of 2016 as a test of moral character – not so much of the candidates, as the VOTERS.
People, such as the Republican Primary voters of Wisconsin, who voted for less government knowing it would mean less GOODIES-FOR-THEM (lower spending not just lower taxes) I respect.
People, such as the Republican Primary voters of New Hampshire who voted for no real reductions in spending (who voted for Mr Trump and for the Governor of Ohio – and the Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders the same day in New Hampshire) I do NOT respect.
And (H…..) that is rather more radical than calling a single individual “scum”.
If people really do not understand (and it seems they do not) that they are going to have to give things up (not someone else give things up – them personally) then such areas are going to be very bad in such areas.
See for example the heroin epidemic in New Hampshire – the source is the same as the Trump, and the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, voting.
A denial of bitter reality – a flight into warm comforting feelings.
I may not be able to do the following myself – but it is still the right (the morally right) thing to do.
Take up the burden – embrace the bitter agony that is human life and struggle on with the burden (the agony) upon your back. Reject false comfort – whether it is heroin or the false promises of spend-spend-spend political leaders.
“Clinton’s competence and preparedness”? This is a “woman” so-called, that managed to lose an election rigged in her favor. This is a piss-poor candidate that can’t think on her feet at all, and all her rhetoric is written for her by writers including when to unnaturally laugh out loud…too loudly. This is a candidate that said, “fuck the rustbelt and the unions…I got this in the bag” during the election when a two day old retrded baby would have foreseen that unions would love Trump’s jingoistic tariff happy rhetoric. This is a woman who lost the election, not because the establishment and the legacy media love her opponent, but because half of the people who voted for Trump were really voting AGAINST this completely unlikable person who has a string of scandals dating back to her teens.
Paul Marks, no one has to give anything up. If they didn’t earn it, it wasn’t their’s in the first place. People are free to earn as much as they want. As to the leftist idea of “postive rights”…so called, the truth is no one has a right to other people’s shit…er, I mean stuff.
Indeed. Accomplishment is doing something hard, and generally, uncomfortable.
“He is betraying the “Alt Right” types – there is going to be no progrom against the Jews and so on.”
It’s obvious who hates the Jews…liberal democrat politicians who believe the “Palestinians”…so-called are the Arabic version of ‘Native Americans’, so to speak. When Iran was on the brink of finishing their nuclear tests and were currently testing missiles, Netanyahu came to America to address our congress. It was to INFORM America of Israel’s intentions and response should the worst occur. Congressional Democrats BOYCOTTED his address, INCLUDING OBAMA.
How there can be “liberal Jews” continues to boggle my mind. The “Liberals” are first to welcome in the people (Islamists) who would happily destroy every Jew on the planet, and then kill all the gays, trans, atheists and other minorities that the left feel are so much more important than everyone else. ‘Not to mention enslave women to their male-supremacy nonsense.
“Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman”.
More attempts by the leftist scoundrels to shape a false narrative. The truth is that “the right” LOVE smart, strong competent, even agressive women. (Hell, watch Fox News for 20 minutes…not that I agree with their world views, and this point is obvious in spades). The “right” love Judge Judy (even though Judy doesn’t consider herself a conservative). The right loves Kellyanne Conway, the previously mentioned “Iron Lady” Thatcher, the right love “Dr. Laura” Schlessinger. The right LOVES Condolezza Rice and even tolerates Sarah Palin, even though she’s as sharp as a bowling ball. And the right loves Omaroza.
For Sh*&ts and giggles, watch this segment of The View on youtube where Omarosa manhandles these weak-minded shrews LIKE A BOSS. Ya gotta love the “ha, you got no man” slam at the end.
Grammar Nazi Notice: Having read English language works from the early 20th century, 19th, 18th, 17th, etc, and even from the Bard himself, it’s clear that there are no “rules” to the English language. There are only rough, popularly accepted guidelines. Hell, America’s founding documents don’t even spell the names of the states correctly, and the DoI tells us of “unalienable” rights.
Thailover – there are plenty of “Alt Right” types who hate Jews. They even push the wildest old fantasies – for example that the Rothschild family controls the Federal Reserve and other Central Banks.
Real old Father C. stuff from the 1930s.
Mixed with blatant appeals to skin colour that even Father C. would have rejected.
My point is that whilst such people may support President Trump, he does NOT support them.
Of course I would have preferred it if Donald Trump had denounced such people in the Primaries.
And I would have preferred it if Donald Trump had listed a series of Federal Government Departments he was going to get rid of.
Real reductions in government spending (actually spending less money) – not the smoke and mirrors that is what is going to come.
But then Donald Trump would have been Ted Cruz.
And Ted Cruz lost.