The Likability Trap Barring Madame President

Aaditi Lele

A curveball question at the December Democratic debates tendered candidates a choice: in the spirit of the season, offer a gift or ask for forgiveness. Most offered gifts. A copy of their book, a new vision for the future, a sense of teamwork. Drawing a stark contrast, only two asked for forgiveness: Senators Amy Klobuchar & Elizabeth Warren. The sole female candidates on that stage apologized to the electorate for their ambition, for their assertiveness, for taking up space. Why did these women feel an obligation to apologize when their male counterparts doubled down on their ambition? Why did the women have to become conciliatory and apologetic to fulfill the likability test administered by the American electorate? 

The answer? Women behaving in authoritative ways risk being disliked, deemed too difficult or brusque, too zealous or pushy, or simply un-feminine. 

But here’s the problem: voters impose on candidates two tests of character. First, the “commander-in-chief” test. Candidates must prove they are assertive, authoritative, seasoned, and adept. Second, the “likability” test. Passing this second screening proves to be more operose. It’s all about image and that holds a double meaning. Male candidates must fit the bill of masculine likability with masculine coded traits: assertiveness, authority, and ambition. And the fact that the characteristics of masculine likability are largely coextensive with those of the antiquated “commander in chief” image are what make it so much easier for male candidates to pass both tests. But passing the “likability” test for female candidates is far more burdensome. Female candidates must fulfill feminine likability with feminine coded traits: demureness, deferentiality, and conciliation. And that's where the paradox comes in. Passing both tests would require women to be demure and authoritative. Deferential and assertive. Conciliatory and adept. It’s built to be virtually impossible. 

The antithetical expectations set on female candidates serve only to ice them out of a chance at the Oval Office because it is unfeasible to meet both demands. That hasn’t stopped some from trying. The women that attempt to take on the challenge face a duality of burdens. Not only do they need to master masculine coded traits but also some version of feminine-coded traits that do not undermine their perceived competence or authority. They become tight rope walkers. Searching for a fine line, an impossible balance between likability and presidentiality. Too likable and they risk seeming inexperienced or unfit for the demanding position. Too authoritative and they risk being labeled as brash, zealous, or rude. So how have some candidates come so far along this fine line? For many female candidates, balance means displaying the same ambition and assertion as their male counterparts but softening their language or behavior. The result is what we saw in the debate and everyday in the lives of women. Being equally ambitious but apologizing after. Freckling our emails with exclamation points and smiling when we ask for promotions. Doing everything possible to avoid appearing aggressive or brusque. 

And it is by no fault of their own that women are faced with these two vastly dissimilar expectations. It is entirely the lapse of the American electorate to have made masculine-coded traits synonymous with the “commander in chief” image. To have demanded candidates must not only be qualified, but likable. It’s all down to the voters. In fact, surveys from The New York Times and Siena College of more than 1,500 Democratic voters in six key states found that 40 percent of the voters believed that most of the women who are running for president aren’t that likable. Seeing that the change can only happen in the minds of the people, the onus is placed entirely on us to make the presidency a position that places value on feminine-coded traits and to not demand that female candidates have to be likable to be great leaders. These are the steps we have to take to widen that fine line female candidates have to walk. When we, as a country, value both feminine and masculine coded traits in a president, we widen the chances for a female president. When we stop asking female candidates to apologize and powder their words with sugar to avoid seeming aggressive, we widen the chances for a female president. 

Indira Gandhi. Margaret Thatcher. Angela Merkel. Sheikh Hasina. Jacinda Ardern. Benazir Bhutto. Countless countries have grown under female leaders when they began to see their highest offices as more than a gendered institution. These nations stopped making their presidency or prime ministership synonymous with masculine coded traits. They stopped asking women to be apologetic or demure or likable, they simply asked them to be great leaders. When we learn to curtail our practice of forcing female candidates to fit our molds of feminine likability, we too can reap the benefits of a Madame President.