On Tuesday night during the Nevada Democratic Debate, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post tweeted, “Mean and angry Warren is not a good look,” demonstrating the long-fought battle for female candidates to be able to campaign on their own terms without being thrown labels which are often not used for their male counterparts.
Rubin live-tweeted the debate, criticizing and praising all the candidates. So, it is clear her tweet was not meant to attack Elizabeth Warren, but it still exemplifies the larger issue of women being forced into corners when it comes to the optics of their campaign. For example, one of the moments where Warren may have come off as “aggressive” is in her refusal to back down during the discussion of Bloomberg’s nondisclosure agreements, which CBS news reports were “signed by women regarding allegations of workplace misconduct at his media company.” A woman demanding that Bloomberg be held accountable for abuse of power should not be coined “aggressive,” but rather it should be seen as positive, bold, and justified. This is especially true considering that it is unlikely that a man being just as demanded would be criticized in the same way, and we see this double standard in one of Rubin’s later tweet. During the same debate, she praised Biden for being “very tough [tonight] and focused,” saying that perhaps the Nevada debate was his best one yet.
The issue is not whether Rubin, or Warren’s other critics for that matter, agree or disagree with Warren’s policies, but rather that people seem to engage with female candidates differently than they do with men. This isn’t new, but the Nevada debate highlighted this fact in a glaring way. While calling Warren “tough” may have also implied some aggression, Rubin’s use of “mean and angry” reduces Warren’s very justified call for accountability to something childish and adds to the narrative of women being too emotional that has been perpetuated for so many years.
It is important to elaborate on the fact that Warren did also receive praise for her performance in the debate. The New York Times opinion had her as the winner of the debate with the writers saying she “dominated” and that this could offer a “second life for her campaign.” CNN reported that she had “delivered a shot of adrenaline to her wobbling campaign during a ferocious debate performance.” Additionally, under Rubin’s tweet, many came to Warren’s defense, calling out Rubin and identifying her remarks as sexist. This definitely paints a positive outlook for the public’s perception of women candidates, but we still have a long way to go in terms of the language we use to discuss them.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/20/opinion/who-won-democratic-debate.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/elizabeth-warren-debate/index.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-bloomberg-non-disclosure-agreement-how-they-work/
https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1230317991180546049
https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1230341499172380674