The economy, immigration, inflation, the ongoing wars, these are all grave issues, but laughing has been central to the campaign of Kamala Harris. What she celebrated as the return to “joy” when the democrats put an end to the grim campaign of President Joe Biden, was variously seen as “cackling” like a hen or giggling like a schoolgirl by those who were not inclined to overlook the crucial issues and the anger bubbling in the population. Some women (like myself) were offended that she would buy into the stereotype—indeed, try to exploit it– of the friendly female whose smiles and giggles aim to disarm an aggressive man and defuse a threatening situation. There are times when optimism and joy may not be the best strategy.
The stereotype that women should smile to appear pleasant and non-threatening may be seen as a throwback to a time when baking cookies was a more appropriate role for them than leading a country. It’s an expectation that can be traced back to traditional roles that emphasize women’s nurturing and agreeable nature, but one that in the process, infantilizes them, robbing them of agency and self-determination.
Most of us believe that today we have left such simplistic behavior models and societal expectations behind, but unfortunately, attitudes are so ingrained in our collective consciousness that they take generations to obliterate.
Last night’s result in the presidential election shows that we are not there yet; there are still times that require gravitas instead of laughter.
The campaign of joy was seen by liberals as a nod to the strategies of the civil rights movement, the kind of “disobedience” promoted by pacifists like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Conservatives used it as further proof that the vice president is a political lightweight. “It’s so manufactured,” a Fox Nation host complained. “The joy thing is an attempt to distract people from how bad things are,” complained another.
In just one day last week three of my conversations revolved around what was labeled as Kamala Harris’ “trivialization” of the presidency. Two who made this claim were men, who by their own admission “can’t stand a cackling woman.” That’s not surprising because also stereotypically, men are suspicious of a woman who shows emotion—even if it’s “joy.” But one was a woman, who like me, believed that Harris should have run a more “masculine” campaign at such an intense and fraught time in history: “fight like a man, don’t giggle like a woman,” my acquaintance said.
Body language is a crucial part of communication, one that people respond to in conscious and unconscious ways. Trump’s typical aggressive stance–head down, fists clenched, frequently with one arm raised as if wielding a weapon– are evocative of a warrior, one who will fight for your cause.
Research has highlighted the double standard that exists when it comes to anger. While men’s anger is often perceived as a sign of strength and leadership, women’s anger is frequently seen as irrational or overly emotional. This disparity pressures them to adopt a more conciliatory manner—often embodied in a smile—to be taken seriously or to avoid negative judgment. But the paradox of this necessity becomes immediately apparent: you cannot be taken seriously if you appear to be trivializing what is the most serious role on the globe. A valid point made by another acquaintance was: “imagine Harris in a roomful of sharks like Putin and Kim Jong Un. How seriously do you think they would take her when she’d start giggling?” The implied question: does she not understand the gravity of the global situation that we are facing?
Trying to counterbalance Trump’s unprecedented anger and violent language and behavior with a smile and a laugh did not convey the required “gravitas” of the role she wanted to take on. People in this country are angry, and apparently, not even willing to leave the fury behind for “better” (read, more congenial?) times. It is an irony really, when you consider that this would indeed be one of the ways to Make America Great Again—a return to what made this nation the beacon of the world, its arms open to all who sought equality and opportunity.
What is wrong with America? While even developing countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Central African Republic (to name just three out of more than sixty) have had a woman president, the U.S.– arguably the most progressive on the planet–still seems unwilling to elect a woman leader.
The “smile to defuse” stereotype intersects with the “likeability penalty” that women face, especially in professional settings. Women leaders are expected to be assertive yet likable, a balancing act that is virtually impossible to negotiate successfully. When women do express anger, they risk being labeled difficult or shrill, which can have real consequences on their careers and personal lives. Or as in the case of a macho monster like Donald Trump, they are labeled “nasty”. Hillary Clinton was a “nasty woman” in 2016; as have been others like Megyn Kelly, E. Jean Carroll, Nancy Pelosi, the Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen, and even Meghan Markle. The list is endless.
Of course, there are some other, very cogent reasons for her loss. She alienated voters not only by taking the wrong side on key issues but by running a generally unintelligible campaign. Her much-derided style of communication, “word-salad responses,” left voters questioning her positions on crucial issues. Then there was her unavoidable association with the unpopular Biden administration’s policies and perceived failures: immigration, the economy, the wars in Ukraine and Israel.
In the end, the weight of the situation overwhelmed her, and people were not ready for joy when their driving emotion is anger. As the cliché goes, “timing is everything.” America is not in a joyful mood and Harris paid the price.
