A double standard is an interesting topic to consider for the topic of politics. While it especially pertains to this election because the democratic and republican candidates are of opposite sex, it takes on a whole new meaning due to Donald Trump’s accusations and degrading comments about women and all around inappropriate behavior. But, how would all of these actions and words be taken if they had come out of a woman’s mouth, more importantly that of Hillary Clinton? I would like to argue that if Hillary Clinton had been in the shoes of Donald Trump and completed the over the line acts and spoken the audacious words that he has, she would be criticized more and trusted less than Trump is now, which would make her a victim of the gender double standard. I would also like to argue how the narrative candidates write and their roles with the media are affected by their gender.
New York Times states, “Imagine if Clinton had said, ‘You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] writes as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” Not only is this an interesting quote to look at having to do with Trump and gender and the double standard, but it has to do with the media and consuming politics. As talked about in class, each story writes a different narrative for us to consume, which causes us to consume things besides vital world issues, example: pieces of ass. This New York Times article focuses on political happenings that do not have to do with what our potential presidents may be doing for taxes or international policy. This is an example of a how changing relationship between candidates and the media (in class discussion) can stem from the role a candidate plays in a campaign. Trump and Clinton’s roles intersect but also are independent and at the opposite ends of the spectrum, and while both untrustworthy, Trump’s role has truly gone above and beyond Hillary’s in terms of his ill-mannered commentary. Therefore, his narrative and role with the media has helped write his own story that is based around his extra fluff. More importantly, if Hillary followed the same plot, her narrative and role with the media would likely be more critically judged because she’s a woman.
Media and candidates all come full circle. In the long run, the narrative a politician writes depending if they’re male or female plays a vital role in the effect that actions and words have when it comes to their relationship with media, voters, and the democratic system as a whole.
I think you bring up a good point here highlighting this idea of a double standard in terms of the things Trump has said about women and relating it to how Clinton could have possibly been treated if she were the one’s saying those same comments about women. While I do agree with the idea of speculating how Hilary might be treated, I’m not sure I would go as far to say that she would be judged more critically. I think it’s important to look at how much media attention and scrutiny Trump has gone through because of the comments he’s made about women. Even the first 25 minutes of the second debate were centered around his comments. I’m not in any way condoning what he said or am belittled by how much the media has centered themselves around this, but I think it’s hard to gauge how much media scrutiny one would endure if we’re playing the “well if they said it” game because the media is, like you said, going to try to take each narrative and turn it into a story that viewers will eat up. Not at all disagreeing with you’re point because I think it’s a great point to bring about, but I just think it’s hard to put a finger on what may or may not happen in terms of what the media is going to do with any particular narrative.