Character flaws only matter if you’re a woman

While being needy or a joker is fine for men at the top, female leaders face non-stop scrutiny]

Jenni Russell

Wednesday November 04 2020, 5.00pm, The Times

I was troubled when I read my colleague James Marriott’s column last week on how voters found Boris Johnson and Donald Trump’s psychological flaws attractive. Not because I disagreed with his argument, which was compelling, but because of what it unwittingly revealed about how power operates in our society.

Both men, he argued, have been driven to succeed to compensate for the emotional void left by neglectful childhoods, sick and absent mothers and critical, emotionally distant fathers. They are desperate to be validated by others, craving the approval, adulation and attention they feel starved of.

This hunger is a personal weakness but a political asset. Marriott quotes the psychiatrist Anthony Storr, who wrote of Churchill that “men who demand and need a great deal of attention from others are manifesting a kind of childlike helplessness which evokes an appropriate response, however difficult they may be”.

We have all witnessed this dynamic in action. Voters, aides and potential allies respond to the emotional connection a needy politician establishes. When a politician walks on stage craving a response from the crowd, visibly charged by their laughter or applause, making them feel delightfully complicit in what is unfolding between them, that is a radically different experience from the solemn lecture that a more remote personality — think Gordon Brown or Iain Duncan Smith — might deliver.

The depressing fact about this particular and sometimes successful character flaw is that in the West it is only a plausible path to power for a particular group: confident, socially privileged white men.

Imagine a woman being elected to the highest office because she was an entertaining joker, lousy on the details, indifferent to facts, forgetful and untrustworthy but likeable and — to her supporters — fun. Imagine her having an unknown number of children by an unknown number of men, some of whom she doesn’t see, as well as numerous affairs. Imagine a black man or woman winning the presidency or the prime ministership on the same basis. You can’t. It is unthinkable. Voters and allies would be repelled by their arrogance and incapacity. “Childish helplessness” would be an instant disqualification.

The right sort of men get a free pass because of our political and evolutionary history. In our past we needed physically dominant men to protect us. A Trump or a Johnson appears against a background of presumed competence. Their voters see them as attractive variations on a theme. Their ferocious ambition and their claimed past achievements, flimsy as they may be — intellectual in Johnson’s case, financial in Trump’s — are taken as proxies for their ability to do an utterly different and infinitely more demanding job.

It is assumed that, despite their evident failings, they will have the capacity to rise to the occasion. Think of the confident assertions by Republicans that Trump would become presidential once in office, or of Johnson’s supporters that he would run a capable government because he was an excellent delegator who would choose talented people. These beliefs trade on our folk memories of Prince Hal, the lazy, dissolute ill-disciplined young man who transforms into a steely, charismatic, powerful king.

None of these projections are available to people who don’t fit that image. Those groups face the reverse assumption; that they are inadequate unless they can prove their ability beforehand.

Consider the intense and critical scrutiny Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have been under in America. Warren was mocked for having a plan for every problem, for being essentially a girly swot, for lacking “charisma” despite her energy. Harris has been condemned for exactly the opposite; for not preparing beforehand on every policy and for fizzing with infectious excitement on campaign platforms. A formidable former attorney- general for California, she has been criticised for dancing, for laughing, for lacking gravitas. One is seen as too grown-up; the other not grown-up enough. These women literally cannot win.

Even when women have an impressive record, research shows that they will still lose out. A University of Kent study in 2015 showed that employers of both sexes preferred men they were told had high potential to women who had already performed well. Women with high potential got no credit for it. We are endlessly willing to ascribe hidden depths to men but are sceptical of it in females.

This echoes decades of research showing how women are judged more harshly than men in traditional leadership roles. They are caught in a double bind of gender expectations. Men are expected to be confident, forceful and competitive, but women who behave in the same way are judged to be bossy, controlling, arrogant, unpleasant. Women are expected to uphold gender norms by being caring, co-operative and consensual, yet when they do they are also likely to be seen as too soft, lacking dynamism, not tough enough for the top jobs. As Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard said, throughout her tenure she was simultaneously and paradoxically criticised for being both a bimbo and a bitch.

Today it looks likely that the childishly helpless Trump may have lost. But it’s just as noteworthy that a woman of Biden’s age, fragility and loss of focus would never be on the verge of the presidency. Men have many paths to power. Women are still fighting through the thickets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments are subject to our community guidelines, which can be viewed here.

Comments(563)

What a thin, silly and poorly written article. Name another Prime Minister who has been elected because of his or her buffoonery.

----------------------------------------

"Character flaws only matter if you’re a woman." What a silly statement.

The account of how certain men with certain serious character flaws reach the top, often through foul means and often with the support of women, does not justify or support the wider arguments being made here for general injustice being perpetrated only against women.

Such injustice as it is, is perpetrated against the vast majority of men too. To ignore that reality and believe that only women are affected is really to look at life through a sexist prism.

----------------------------------------

Sexism means that men judge women by harsher standards than they judge other men. Women are expected to be quieter, less assertive, take up less space, and be happy to be paid less, have fewer opportunities, be the principal parent, the principal carer, the domestic organise, the home cleaner, and the supportive partner.

Men feel free to choose how much housework they do, to be a pat time parent/carer, to have hobbies, to be fed, to take up as much physical space as they want, to asset themselves, to be unrestrained in their choice of career, to be paid more, to run the government, to run industry, to be the dominant 49% in a country which is still firmly a patriarchy.

That is sexism.

----------------------------------------

Sexism is making prejudiced judgements about people according to which sex they are. Your post is a fine example.

Couldn't agree more

----------------------------------------

Fully agree with everything you say here. Eventually the world will come to its senses but it will take some time.

----------------------------------------

Let me assure you: I am a female U.S. voter - a woman of a certain age - who most assuredly does not find Donald Trump's psychological flaws attractive. There is NOTHING about him that I find attractive; in fact, the women in circle of friends find him absolutely repulsive in every possible way.

Of course, I have rid myself of people who support Trump; life is too short to have to deal with his kind of Americans - fascist, racist, bigoted...

----------------------------------------

Hi, Payton...

Ya hafta learn to let ya true feelings out!!

So, it's Biden, not Trump--life goes on; the professional "Washington crowd" is now in control--give some of your "Trump friends" some slack--they can't be all bad!

Francis X. Browne

Westfield, NJ

----------------------------------------

Well Peyton, isn't it great that you are willing to jettison friends and acquaintances purely on the basis of their politics.

Could it be that your attitude is just a little bigoted and fascistic because you dismiss a person solely on their views of one politician?

Oh dear, what a lack of self awareness.

The public would welcome an entertaining woman politician. The moaning minnies make it hard work for even their most willing supporters.

----------------------------------------

very well put.

----------------------------------------

Absolutely spot on

----------------------------------------

Not sure I would be any more or less frustrated if female tv personalities tried to be leaders as opposed to the current buffoons. The issue isn’t their gender, ethnicity or other characteristics, but the fact that they are buffoons and the press give continually them airtime about their personal lives which boosts the egos further, rather than critically assessing policies which are often notably absent.

----------------------------------------

Neither of these men got to where they are without their personalities being eviscerated every single day. Their personalities are the relentless focus of journalists who choose this click bait gutter analysis instead of giving us poor readers some decent objective insights into their actual politics and policies. This constant, hysterical personality trashing makes me ill. Some balanced, nuanced, respectful journalism would be so very welcome.

----------------------------------------

Woke stuff....

----------------------------------------

Pertinent article Jenni. Trump and Johnson aside, I've encountered a few of these imposters in my working life.

----------------------------------------

Jenni seems to have suffered a catastrophic case of amnesia.

Two of the most appalling and dysfunctional election campaigns in living memory: Theresa May in 2017 and Hilary Clinton in 2016.

In their different ways they were each given the benefit of the doubt despite not having demonstrated deep competency. When they were actually put to the test, their respective character flaws found them sorely wanting.

Perhaps if they had been tested more deeply rather than waived through they would not have been quite so badly humiliated.

----------------------------------------

Thatcher was despised by the left for being ruthless, competitive, ambitious, thinking empirically as opposed to being empathetic. Theresa May was made out to be cold and heartless. If you look at the evidence it is the left in this country that are misogynistic. They expect women to act like stereotypical women: sympathetic, caring, non- masculine.

For all the talk of Boris' personal life, he is the first PM to openly have an ex wife, kids with multiple women. The first. The reality is we now live in a society that is non judgemental on personal morals. Theresa May was a PM with no children, once upon a time a woman with no children would have been seen as very strange and perhaps unsuited to a senior position in the life of the nation. I do think women are still judged differently to men, men are not called sl*ts very often. However, I do not think things are as dramatic as you do. And, as ever, the reminder that Boris is not Trump and the UK is not the US.

----------------------------------------

If you are trying to say that "the right" is not misogynistic, which is your implication, that is a very brave claim. What is the average "Tory wife" expected to do? The very phrase is misogynistic.

The fact that Boris has unquantified children by unquantified women is evidence that the article is broadly correct. No woman could ever become PM on a similar basis.

And the reality is that society is so divided about other things (Brexit being the prime example) that morals take a back seat. But look how many people abhorred Cummings's lack of obedience to the rules, and how many more now use him as an excuse for not themselves following them. Is society "non-judgemental" about this? I think not.

Show all 1 replies

Jenni Russell admitting to character flaws. That must be a first.

----------------------------------------

All of this is no surprise. Women know it to be so. Good column, Jenni.

----------------------------------------

The writers argument is flawed on two important points. Voters are made up of both men & women. Therefore, women must bare some of the responsibility for rejecting women candidates with the flaws described above. The same goes for the political parties who select the candidates to lead their parties.

----------------------------------------

Such as Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon, Jo Swinson, Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas.

Sometimes we are spoilt for choice.

----------------------------------------

The writers point was women of questionable character are not given the same leeway as men of questionable character. I do not think the examples you site fall into that category.

----------------------------------------

On the contrary, I think that they do.

Whilst I would hope that even her worst enemy would admit that Theresa May is a person of unimpeachable integrity, she is a deeply flawed character. She has an inability to work with others which somehow survived years as Home Secretary. You surely must accept that her unwillingness to include others led to the key errors in the 2017 campaign and in a complete absence of any attempt to take anyone with her. Especially the cabinet.

A good person oddly unsuited for politics.

As for Hilary Clinton, take your pick of character flaws. Arrogant, supercilious, ruthless, unconcerned with the truth when it suited her. Two names spring to mind to describe her, Machiavelli and Lady MacBeth.

----------------------------------------

The fact that many women fall for the same roguish male characters does not make the argument flawed

----------------------------------------

You need to read the column again.

On the same theme: elegant

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/boris-johnson-tom-bower-book-review-rory-stewart/

----------------------------------------

Sex: male: age: very old; nationality: English; race: caucasian.

Much of what you are complaining about I would regard as true. A female version of either Donald Trump or Boris Johnson - scoundrels both of them - would be laughed out of office. Compare their demeanours to those of Theresa May, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel.

I am not sure how this can be changed except by evolution and I take heart by changes in the medical profession. When I arrived in medical school in London in 1952, there were four or five girls in the class of fifty odd. There was one female, full professor on the staff. The idea of a woman occupying the role of president of a Royal College was risible. Nearly seventy years later, more women than men are to be found in the average class of medical students. Women are being appointed as consultants in all specialities at rate equal to or exceeding that of men. Heads of Royal Colleges are increasingly female. This all seems true of the UK, Canada and Australia, countries in which I have spent many years of practice.

Hitherto, the medical profession has always been deeply conservative but something has changed and I do not know what that is. It does seem likely that other professions will rapidly follow suit - even engineering!!

----------------------------------------

See Libby Purves' column today.

----------------------------------------

I am puzzled as to why any self respecting female could vote for either Trump of Johnson. Yet they do.

Female leaders have been amongst the most dominant in recent memory- Merkel, Meier( Israel), Gandhi and Thatcher come to mind.

----------------------------------------

Statistically over the centuries both men and women have been more inclined to follow male leaders. There are likely to be good reasons for that, some of them more politically correct than others.

----------------------------------------

Gandhi ?

----------------------------------------

Cambridge doesn't appear to have taught you much.

----------------------------------------

Indira

----------------------------------------

Indira

I agree with you general observation that women are judged more harshly than men in leadership roles. But the link to Marriot's piece last week does your argument no favours.

I think he has made connections that are not proven to exist. In my experience, people with the character "flaws" and difficult childhoods he describes, succeed in spite of those flaws rather than because of them.

Picking out a few leaders with uncomfortable or emotionally undernourished backgrounds does not constitute good science without some reference group.

You could argue that description applies to just about every leader who attended an English public school!

----------------------------------------

This message was deleted.

Are you also proud of not being able to write English?

Well said. Age continues to be an added barrier for women at in ways not experienced by men. You only have to look at the Rolling Stones, The Who & the rest to see how ingrained it is and imagine how a Spice Girls reunion in their 70s might be received. Older women are to be mocked, older men are to be praised.

----------------------------------------

Yep, no one ever mocks the Strolling Bones or throws that “hope I die before I get old” line back at the Who. ??

America =/= the world

There's been plenty of flawed female and black leaders

----------------------------------------

A very good article. Also, women are judged more by their private lives, and men more by what they do in the public sphere.

----------------------------------------

I don't want my PM to be perfect I want them to be effective.

May was awful but she made it to prime minister...

----------------------------------------

A significant reason could have been that she happens to be a woman. Difficult to see any other reason.

----------------------------------------

She took on the police although she was probably to blame for Windrush. She made to to prime minister because she was, by some distance, the best of a bad bunch as the last year or so of Boris has shown

Excellent observation. Another great article Jenni.

----------------------------------------

So very true, Jenni.

----------------------------------------

Women are different to men. We know that because they tell us so. If that is not the case then the whole diversity argument - women on Boards etc - falls over. There has to be a difference or diversity can’t come into play as a reason for increasing female participation.

Given women and men are different there is no illogicality in ascribing different characteristics to them and in expecting different behaviours from them.

Of course what they could do is to cheerlead their allegedly higher standards - what “buyer” wouldn’t want higher standards from their employee / boss / representatives?

But the argument seems to be that they should instead be allowed to dumb down- not a great sales pitch.

Either way, that they are different is something they have chosen to highlight to drive one aspect of their agenda. Hoist by your own petards, girls.

----------------------------------------

A very good article. I've seen this bias in action. Many industries are changing but others not fast enough. I once was speaking to a law lecturer a couple of years ago. Male graduates with exactly the same legal degrees as their female counterparts, from the same university were on average earning 20% more than the female ex students in their first job. However, in medicine this has changed in many areas of medical practice as a greater number of women enter medical degrees compared to men.

----------------------------------------

One possible explanation for the pay differential between first year lawyers, other than bias, could be the kind of jobs that women and men graduates have tended to choose to go for. Not everyone wants to go down the very long hours, high stress, high pay path. If proportionally less women did, that could explain the result. [trigger warning - I said “if”- I am not claiming that this does in fact happen or assuming it does, I don’t know either way. But it’s hypothetically possible].

Within the individual law firms, all first year trainees are paid exactly the same, needless to say.

Men are born free, while women are born into slavery, in patriarchal societies.

----------------------------------------

And then we have New Zealand. My parents were friends with one of the first women elected to parliament in 1960, Esme Tombleson; I remember parts of her election campaign and staying on her farm. Sixty years later New Zealand is mostly run by women and is doing better than just about anywhere. Meanwhile in the US more women have been elected to Congress, as well as men and women whose ancestors were not mostly European. Increasingly the new guard is unwilling to put up with entitled tantrums of colleagues.

----------------------------------------

New Zealand was also the first country to give women the vote.

Although women in the UK did have the right to vote (and some did so), if they satisfied the rules, until the 1832 Great Reform Act.

----------------------------------------

"Sixty years later New Zealand is mostly run by women and is doing better than just about anywhere."

Ok, I'll grant you that we do have a female PM, and she is doing a great job. And our Governor General is a woman and doing a great job (although that's not really a job). Ok the Chief Justice is a woman and is capable.

But apart from those women who hold the three most powerful roles in NZ, name me another.

----------------------------------------

Well those 3 are a really good start. Let me count the stars in the sky... How about: Nanaia Mahuta, Helen Clark, Sue McCormack, Cheryl de la Rey. The last parliament was 38% female.

----------------------------------------

3 out of 4 Doc.

Mahuta has been in Parliament for over 2 decades and her greatest achievement (she claim's) is getting a moko.

Ok, this is going too be a little like 'what have the Romans ever done for us'?

This post violated our policy.

Where is she wrong?

----------------------------------------

Sorry, I cannot reply. My post was deleted. I apparently violated

the paper's policy on expressing a serious opinion.

----------------------------------------

John, I always mean to copy any sizeable comment before posting, in case it gets bounced. There are trigger words. I quoted the other day what Trump said about grabbing women by the you-know-what, and that got me censored.

I don't feel conspiratorial about this (except where Melanie Phillips is concerned).

----------------------------------------

But all you did was criticise her personally.

----------------------------------------

Describing her as a Left-wing misandrist is entirely

accurate. 'Your post violated our policy' could have come

straight from the pages of Orwell's 1984. Sad reflection

of the death of free speech.

----------------------------------------

It is entirely inaccurate and could not have been deduced from the content of her excellent article.

----------------------------------------

Those who claim misandry often come across as misogynists.

The gentleman above has commented on the chic lit article.Q.E.D

Exactly right Jenni - let's hope we can make it better for our daughters, or granddaughters.

----------------------------------------

I came into this column disagreeing with the headline but was won over by the subsequent argument.

----------------------------------------

What a joy to read such a comment. Thank you.

Agreed. But I would say it also applies to confident, , socially privileged black men. Think Kanye West and similar entertainment industry men.

----------------------------------------

Character flaws only matter if you’re a woman.

A sickeningly misandrist comment.

Shame.

----------------------------------------

Of course it's not universal but there is truth in it. It's only sickening if you are, somehow, fearful of it.

This post violated our policy.

pretty women often get preferential treatment. Something they only grasp when they lose their looks and are ignored like the rest of us.

I realised that when, post-menopause, I was on my way to work. A young woman ignored a give-way sign and crashed into me. When the police (one man, one woman in a squad car)showed up they ignored the evidence of dangerous driving (the position of the cars was undeniable), comforted the pretty girl, helped her to phone her recovery service and so on. Me? They breathalysed me - negative - but not her.

There are, undeniably, drawbacks to being a woman. There are also powerful advantages. Youth and beauty trump age. Being female, in some situations, trumps being male. Honest feminism will acknowledge both.

----------------------------------------

This is certainly true. Beauty has its own currency. I remember being amazed at the rapid rise of young gorgeous professionals in the pharmaceutical industry who were unable to handle the jobs they acquired. Men and women.

Sounds like it is too late to file a complaint with the police department; the pretty girl sounds like she should not be driving.

----------------------------------------

Spot on!

In no particular order: Thatcher, May, Sturgeon, Merkel, Ahern, Patel, Rudd, Mowlem, Foster, Gillard, Frederickson, the list of women who have reached the top goes on. There are 29 female PMs or Heads of State now and there have been many many more in the past. These are all women who get on with the job instead of complaining about everything Jenni Russell does and who consequently earn the respect of both their male and female peers. As an older female who has worked in senior management in a number of organisations over many years I am fed up with these fatuous arguments. It’s mainly the media who finger point anyway.

----------------------------------------

Interesting range of comments, Jenni but I recognise much of what your article identifies. Women in many areas of life are judged by higher standards compared to men. Equality is a long way off.

----------------------------------------

Trump's character flaws are certainly going down a storm in the US, against the weakest of opposition.

Must be really female, identifying as a man, only plausible explanation.

----------------------------------------

'These women cannot win'. Yet one almost won the Democratic nomination and the other is VP-elect.

And which gender would be most critical of a woman with 'character flaws'?

----------------------------------------

In my view the most important reason for Trump and Boris getting to the top was luck. They both faced opponents who were unacceptable to large parts of the electorate, whose votes they picked up almost by default. Their character flaws were not embraced but grudgingly accepted by the voters who swung the elections which brought them to power.

----------------------------------------

Let's see. If the poles cannot decide between Trump and Biden, then Nancy Pelosi at 80 will be sworn in as president.

----------------------------------------

What about Sturgeon? Vindictive towards Salmond as she destroys Scotland

----------------------------------------

And a significant amount of criticism of leading females comes from other females. Much of it is quietly vicious, too.

----------------------------------------

Building your piece on last week's cod psychanalysis from James isn't a good start.

Perhaps some people voted for Trump and Boris because they thought they were ignored, and despised, by the metropolitan left.

----------------------------------------

This is a dreadful article and the thrust of it untrue. Jenni Russell, please cast your eyes to the right in the Comments section and read Libby Purves article.

----------------------------------------

I think this starts in babyhood as parents and schoolteachers have different expectations.

Boys tend to be more physical and enjoy fighting and so it is more tolerated.

The problem comes with the hard line that is drawn - boys are this and girls are that.

A girl that enjoys ‘rough’ behaviour is regarded as having overstepped the line.

I have to confess though that despite my principles, I find myself instinctively more forgiving of mildly roguish behaviour males as if they were naughty but charming little boys.

I have to make a conscious effort not to let this influence my response.

----------------------------------------

Mrs. Thatcher, the United Kingdom's best PM in modern times.

Mrs. May, the United Kingdom's worst PM in modern times.

Both women, wifes and mothers.

One was completely incompetent, one outstanding.

It's not about the gender so much as the quality and personality of the politician

----------------------------------------

May was better than Boris ever could or will be

----------------------------------------

It’s not relevant but Mrs May is not a mother.

I think if you were to step across the border you’d find that Nicola is revered while Boris is slated as a bumbling fool.

This is just one example. There are many successful, respected women in all walks of life and there are many men who are viewed as idiots.

----------------------------------------

One word: Thatcher. Loathed by the left, with any number of character defects ascribed to her, but won three general elections.

----------------------------------------

Women are way down the hierarchy of victimhood currently, but nice try.

----------------------------------------

What starts in school and carries on throughout society is the dominance of female characteristics and the vilification of (toxic) masculinity which has led to the feminisation of society. Women now dominate in almost every section of society. At school, at university. The earnings gap is down to just 1% and women out-earn men up to about 30 before they decide to have children. Men are now expected to apologise for being men. It doesn’t help that women are still insisting they are the victims of a male dominated society when all the evidence points to the contrary.

----------------------------------------

Thanks Vlad, back to the bot centre in downtown Petrograd.

Men, Alpha men in particular, behave and are judged differenly to women. But given that all women can vote and that women are evenly represented in the media I really can"t see the point of this article unless the writer wants to completely androgenise the world.

----------------------------------------

The flip side of your argument is the Jacinda Arden style of vulnerability. The headscarf in Christchurch, the Lady Di doleful expression, the touchy feely façade of care which no male politician could ever get away with. The insistence on breast feeding in the UN chamber, all terribly woke and right-on until she runs out of money.

----------------------------------------

“the Lady Di doleful expression, the touchy feely façade of care which no male politician could ever get away with”

Bill Clinton certainly did. Blair also springs to mind.

----------------------------------------

Show all 3 replies

She may take longer to run out of money than Rishi Sunak at current spending rates.

----------------------------------------

Only because running NZ is like running Croydon council but less

complex.

Ruth Davies broke the mold.

----------------------------------------

Who is Ruth Davies? Do you mean Ruth Davidson the former leader of the Scottish Tories?

----------------------------------------

And whatever she broke, it wasn`t a `mold`.

This is absolutely true, unfortunately. The idea of a female prime minister who left her spouse whilst he was being treated for cancer to shack up with a man 25 years younger than her is literally unthinkable. She would be torn apart by the press, especially if she then went on to have a baby with the much younger msn, whilst refusing to confirm how many existing children she already had.

A woman will NEVER be given the license to behave badly that a certain type of rich white man is given.

I don’t especially want to have that license either, but I’d like the same moral compass to be applied to everyone, regardless of gender or colour. If a person (man) shows a total lack of morals in his personal life, he isn’t suddenly going to find a moral compass in his professional dealings either.

----------------------------------------

Some truth here, maybe......but the public, if not the Conservative Party, have been equally scathing about Theresa May's and Boris Johnson's character flaws.

----------------------------------------

I thought the same whilst watching Andrew Neil's bloated, aged and gurning coverage of the US election on the BBC. No woman would have got away with that.

----------------------------------------

Bloated and aged? Wow, fattist and ageist all in one sentence, a great example of female character flaws which would be unforgiven if spouted by a man

----------------------------------------

No problem with being old or bloated. The problem is inequality.

----------------------------------------

But these things are regularly said by men. Though it's confusing for you I can see because you would never get a woman like him on tv in the first place.

As a white, middle class, (nearly) middle aged man, I think Trump and Johnson are pernicious, capricious, charlatans who humiliate our respective democracies. As always seems to be the the case with these emotve and politicised topics, there is perpetual lack of nuance in the analysis.

----------------------------------------

Surely there are many men (and women) who in fact are turned off or even repulsed by men (and women) who come across as overly competitive, aggressive, arrogant, selfish, self-promoting, self-obsessed, etc. And who are in fact more attracted to men (and women) who are thoughtful, caring, empathetic, sharing, etc.

Not sure our society will have truly advanced if we simply start tolerating unsympathetic behavior in women. In other words, I'm skeptical that the answer to men behaving badly is producing more women who behave just as poorly.

----------------------------------------

I agree - but I don't think the columnist was suggesting we should all start behaving badly. I read it differently. Surely he was saying that we don't need political leaders who are needy, overgrown schoolboys. Let's STOP finding such behaviour attractive, let's STOP tolerating it or making excuses for it. It isn't clever, it isn't funny. Etc, etc, etc.

----------------------------------------

No. We need to tackle how men ae socialised (or not.)

This post violated our policy.

I can’t see where men are being blamed in the article, this is about inequality in our society.

So true, the very traits long admired in white alpha men are deplored in women. It is still there, not as overt, but there.

Donald Trump behaves like a stroppy two year old when thwarted and ought to be a national embarrassment and yet, here we are, where larger numbers than last time have voted for him.

Over here the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage will do anything to get into power.

Whatever happened to setting an example and dignity, respect and honour in office?

----------------------------------------

Borris will do anything to get into power?

He came up with a manifesto and people voted for it.

Trump came up with a manifesto and people voted for it.

Farage came up with a manifesto and people didn't vote for it. It's all democratic.

----------------------------------------

Whatever the final result is in the US, it scares me to think that over 60 million Americans woke up and looked at at their voting paper and said “Yep, Trump’s the man for me!”, more than scary if they were women with half a brain, Hispanic or African American!

----------------------------------------

I really don't think you understand what is at stake in the US right now.

Sad to say, but I agree with every microdot of this article which is excellently written and very persuasive to this somewhat anachronistic male.

I learned many lesson from it today.

Thanks you.

----------------------------------------

That’s because you can’t jump on a pedestal and then choose not to be on it when being judged by others.

----------------------------------------

It's the elements that they're judged by that vary between the sexes.

----------------------------------------

We hear non stop, wall to wall coverage of “the problem with men.” Am I wrong? It’s hardly even debatable that women put themselves on a pedestal. So if you put yourself up there, you have to expect to be judged as someone who has climbed up there.

Why are people who claim to oppose stereotyping always the ones most likely to stereotype. Victims are the new achievers. If only I'd had a dysfunctional childhood

----------------------------------------

At last, Jenni. You've put it into words! Thanks for the clarity, even though it's so depressing.

----------------------------------------

This really resonated with me. Though no Tory, I still feel ashamed of the way Theresa May was treated and am completely convinced her being a woman was the key.

I think you are correct historically but I hope we have seen the end of psychologically flawed Alpha males. The complex world we live in now demands the sort of leadership manifest in female leaders such as Jacinda Ardern, emotionally intelligent and inclusive, leaders who can embrace uncertainty without the insecurity of needing to allow their own dogma to stand in the way of reason. Hopefully the days of Trump and Boris are now numbered.

----------------------------------------

Angela Merkel. Would that we had a single politician of her calibre.

----------------------------------------

Indeed. We are going to miss her

What Jenni Russell didn't mention is that things are changing (I hope). My daughter is a successful company owner at the age of 33 and doesn't take any cr&p from anyone. Her friends and colleagues are other feisty women of around her age who are not afraid to make their point forcefully. I admire them all. And they are also attractive wives and mothers. My son and son-in-law are gentle creatures, both teachers and good fathers who leave the cut and thrust to their wives. This is the future.

----------------------------------------

Are the men attractive too? Or does that only matter when talking about women?

I hope the future will be that both men and women can choose which role to play - perhaps both in the course of their lives - and that neither will be judged for it.

----------------------------------------

So why is a reversal of 'types' ok. If a particular characteristic has merit why should it be the single domain of either gender. All that does recreate the same situation. Your saying you dislike it that men were dominant but happy for women to be so. I thought the objective was equality

Warren may well have been mocked. By many she was/is also respected. You may have also missed the fact that while many admire Trump, he is just about the most heavily mocked politician in history. Plenty of mirth aimed at Biden as well. Boris jokes in plenty. So many other examples. Read your own newspaper. Sorry but this article is rubbish. A clear case of tunnel vision - a conclusion made prior to analysis to prove it.

----------------------------------------

Still in poet though, eh? Warren isn’t.

----------------------------------------

Poet?

----------------------------------------

Typos eh? So subtle

----------------------------------------

You have TOTALLY missed the point. I don't know how you managed that.

----------------------------------------

No, you have missed my point. Some of the points made in the article are correct. The problem is that is outrageously one sided, picking one or two examples and making no mention of the obvious holes in her own evidence.

I suspect that this article will attract dissent from the usual suspects and it's fair to say that all candidates for high office in America are subject to vitriolic attacks. However there is one inescapable fact that supports the article: women have always comprised 50% of the population but 0% of those elected to serve as President or Vice President.

----------------------------------------

When you say 'usual suspects' do you mean the 'deplorables' who have a different view?

----------------------------------------

Not deplorable but boringly predictable

----------------------------------------

As I suspect you are. Until 12 months ago 3 of the 4 national leaders in this country were women for instance and women leaders are increasingly prevalent around the world. People have the right to vote for men still haven't they if they think they are the best candidates or is that predictably boring. You are just replacing one form of prejudice with another

----------------------------------------

I was talking about America which is what the article is about. As I say, boringly predictable: "I'll change the subject to make my usual point and hope no one notices..."

----------------------------------------

Look at the title of the article. I could have sworn it was primarily about women.

Margaret Thatcher undoubtedly faced considerable sexism in her rise to the top , but those were different times. Her continuing (even after her death) status as the pantomime villain of the Left is mainly due to her being a convenient scapegoat for the collapse of manufacturing industry in the UK actually a consequence of globalisation. Her charisma was widely viewed as an asset by her supporters , just as Boris Johnson supporters do his. Contrast with Theresa May or John Major.

As for imagining a woman having an unknown number of children, well that does take some imagination. A man may not know if a broken relationship resulted in a pregnancy then kept secret from him. Rather harder for a woman not to know about her own pregnancy.

----------------------------------------

Globalisation - or cheap overseas labour certainly didn't help manufacturing and an early example is the rag trade. But there was more to it than that - policy didn't help, either. Policy was guided by lack of strategic vision.

----------------------------------------

Policy may have accelerated the changes.. withdrawal of State support, but before the State support was only delaying the inevitable. Anyway whatever the diagnosis , nobody now is suggesting we re-open the mines or the steel mills, or the car factories at Government expense.

----------------------------------------

No-one, as you say, is suggesting investment in coal mining - steel is a strategic issue (like rail) and cars are going through a paradigm shift in technology - which could benefit from encouragement in investment in the infrastructure to support new technologies.

Yawn - What drivel.

----------------------------------------

Yet supported by evidence that is in the public domain. Sideline women and we sideline 50% of the most capable people in our society.

Kamala Harris. Seriously???

----------------------------------------

This is an excellent article and of course, true.

In fact a woman with any sign of adultery or non-standard sexual background wouldn't even get accepted as a constituency candidate, whilst in men it is ignored or even feted by other men. Double standards alive and kicking.

How else to explain Johnson and Trump, both of whom have chaotic and unreliable personal histories...and remember folks, the personal is political.

----------------------------------------

But who judges them? I just checked and saw that over half of women - white women, actually - voted for Donald Trump. And in the US, conservative women continually vote for a party whose belief is that women shouldn't have the ability make decisions about their own reproductive system.

It's all well and good to blame 'white men in power' for decisions that affect women's lives, but women are continually voting for that to happen. And, of course, there are conservative women in the US government who absolutely think that abortion is a terrible thing.

In relation to judging women - whilst it's plainly obviously that the focus of the gutter press on appearance over performance when in comes to female MPs - we'll forget comments about small hands, being orange, being fat, or BoJo's hair for now - women are very much their own harshest critics. I know this as I've sat and listened to them criticise and judge other women. I've also repeatedly heard complaints from women about there being 'too many women' in certain workplaces, voicing that they don't like working with so many.

In short, women do get a raw deal. But they are also get a very raw deal from other women

Absolutely correct. See how Obama had to walk a tight rope lest he be seen as too black or not black enough, or how Theresa May got harangued like no man would.

----------------------------------------

She was also terrible. She cannot escape fair criticism because she's a woman

----------------------------------------

Yes, she was terrible. Now imagine Boris doing exactly what she did with exactly the same demeanour. No way he'd have got the same flak.

That's the point.

I think the premise of this article is wrong. When Margaret Thatcher became our first female PM it was a big deal and it was a greater challenge for her to win that position. Now society wouldn’t bat an eyelid at a female PM. As society moves on we’ll see ever more women in positions of power and I don’t doubt there will be just as many flawed personalities in high office as ever.

----------------------------------------

Thatcher was the exception that proved the rule. More male than the men. May also had to deal with an exceptional level of scrutiny. Whilst the government is full of mediocre men who get a free pass...

----------------------------------------

You mistake the oremisd of the article. It is saying that we put up with failings in men that we would never put up with in women. Maggie Thatcher succeeded because, as the joke went, she was the only man in the cabinet.

----------------------------------------

Give it time and we will see similar flaws across both genders...

----------------------------------------

Indeed - and isn’t it true that she once took her cabinet out for a meal and ordered steak, then when the waiter asked “and the vegetables ma’am?” She replied “oh they’ll have the same....”??

----------------------------------------

Ah yes - the famous Spitting Image skit.

Basically worked this one out for myself after the conservatives elected Boris as leader. I imagined his name was Barbara and the likelihood that she would be acceptable as a conservative candidate- let alone leader.

----------------------------------------

Mostly agree except that Boris is a bit of a one off. It is hardly normal. Women have an equal vote to men and he still got in. No accounting for folk.

Atilla the Hun would have got in when the alternative was JC.

----------------------------------------

Johnson was elected as leader of the Tory Party by its 75% male white elderly membership...

Which is exactly what this article says.

----------------------------------------

He replaced a woman. The article says that women greater critical scrutiny which is true. Boris is not a typical leader but he is popular with a broad spectrum of people. Not a fan myself.

Brady and the 1922 Committee, the ERG have given Boris Johnson as much leeway as possible, but with Theresa May they clamped down. But then Tory reliability, fiscal management and integrity and doing the right thing for the U.K. seem to be eluding them.

----------------------------------------

Poor wee women. Oppressed at every turn.

Still there's always the opportunity to make a good living writing nonsense for newspapers.

----------------------------------------

Bitter man who feels diminished by successful women?

----------------------------------------

You really ought to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself how you view women. Your type of condescending attitude to women is one of the problems. Treat them as equals in all senses of the word and in time attitudes will change.

Some of the comments on here just go to strengthen Jenni Russells arguments....and what I find slightly bemusing is that they dont even realize they are doing so...

----------------------------------------

Yes, you’re right! I don’t recall of anyone saying anything negative about Trump or Johnson. Universally loved for their characteristics!

Oh. Hang on.

----------------------------------------

Women vote for trump

----------------------------------------

Men with no college education are Trumps support base; that is clear from the evidence. Your view is wrong.

----------------------------------------

Show all 2 replies

Women are not all immune to the biases described in the article. Not every woman is a passionate feminist.

Totally agree, it’s impossible to imagine a woman with Trump or Boris’ most obvious flaws being head of state or Prime Minister.

----------------------------------------

Excellent commentary.

----------------------------------------

Yes agree with parts of this but have also seem some change over the last twenty years. The bigger issue is class and the unseen social capital that brings.

----------------------------------------

What a load of BS. Once you get the top job you are in the limelight, full stop.

----------------------------------------

'“Childish helplessness” would be an instant disqualification.'

It didn't prevent David Lammy or Diane Abbot becoming MPs?

----------------------------------------

But never PMs?

Interesting to imagine how Ivanka Trump would land in four years time

----------------------------------------

In four years' time the Trump name will be so sullied she would land very poorly.

----------------------------------------

Hope you are correct

Margaret Thatcher anyone?

----------------------------------------

Either you haven't read the article, or you know nothing about Thatcher.

----------------------------------------

Exactly. Her profile exactly fits the domineering father/distant mother one, but Jenny conveniently forgets her. As for a woman not knowing how many children she has, well...

Populist intellectually vacuous female? Priti Patel. Like lead soup. But Home Secretary.

----------------------------------------

"Imagine a woman being elected to the highest office because she was [unfamiliar with economics, incurious about conflicting ideas, without much sense of humour], lousy on the details, indifferent to facts...and untrustworthy but likeable and — to her supporters — fun."

It happened in New Zealand.

None of our female leaders are perfect, like our male leaders they all have personality defects.

Unlike our male leaders they more often seem good from a distance, like Julia Gillard and Angela Merkel (but not May or Sturgeon) yet when you talk to the people they rule, flaws become apparent.

----------------------------------------

It may be chicken and egg, but does the fact that girls who had some success at school were often assumed to be heading for nursing, teaching or secretarial work have something to do with this.

----------------------------------------

You must have gone to school a long time ago Alan

----------------------------------------

I did put it in the past tense, but cultural assumptions tend to have an afterlife.

----------------------------------------

Huh??

Women are their own worst enemies as ultimately their biological urges lead them to distrust their own sex. Women will only rise as high as other women let them.

----------------------------------------

How true.

----------------------------------------

I think you'll find feminism and its aims disproves this prejudiced nonsense.

After watching Kamala Harris and Mike Pence in the VP debate, it was so obvious that she would be judged on a lot more than what she said. Luckily a (female?) fly landed on Pence’s head and the comments about Kamala Harris' smiling became a lesser story than how weird Pence is!

----------------------------------------

Kamala Harris is very impressive, as is her career.

I believe Pence was some sort of radio DJ.

I have tried to imagine what the political careers of Trump and Johnson would have been if they were women. I find it hard to see how they would have won the respect and support of voters. There is a gulf between men and women in politics, and the double standards are staggering.

----------------------------------------

As an American, I have in the past found BoJo amusing. I get why you Brits don't. Same with DJT...where other people see him as someone sent to clean out the swamp, I see him as a toxic and corrosive toddler.

----------------------------------------

It is not the difficulty of the job. It is the (in)ability of the man leading that counts.

----------------------------------------

I think this is spot on.

----------------------------------------

She thinks people like Trump and Bojos flaws. Give me strength. what a total waste of space of an article.

----------------------------------------

Of course they are flawed. Even their supporters would admit they have flaws, unless their supporters are utter idiots.

----------------------------------------

So does the make author of the article upon which she was commenting. Care to comment on that article too, just to be even-handed?

We have 2 clowns in high office and your worried that female clowns or black clowns wouldn’t be allowed in ?? Is that not a good thing ? Surely the less clowns the better

----------------------------------------

Also missing the point!

----------------------------------------

Not missing the point at all just bored - stop being victims - action is required not words or self pity

Great column. Brave to put it in The Times where the usual right wing snowflakes start foaming at the mouth whenever anyone posts out inequality in the UK.

----------------------------------------

The undeniably self-evident fact that white men are evaluated differently from women and minorities is, in fact, often denied.

----------------------------------------

This post violated our policy.

The article wasn’t about physical attractiveness. If it had been, I doubt Donald Trump and Boris Johnstone would have got a mention.

----------------------------------------

Yes, but she should be seen, not heard!

----------------------------------------

And you should read, but not write.

----------------------------------------

I do hope your comment is ironic?

----------------------------------------

No - I was agreeing with the original poster who noted that she is rather fine looking. But not very likeable, so I prefer not to hear from her. Because she's Priti Patel, not because she's a woman!

Tedious and formulaic, woe is me column. Breaks no new ground and arrives at predictable conclusions.

----------------------------------------

But correct.

----------------------------------------

Yes, such a shame nothing has changed.

While being needy or a joker is fine for men at the top. But it isn't for normal men is it? No normal men have to be 2 inches taller than women so they can wear their heels. No, normal men have to balance work life and home life like their other half. Oh , the number of times dad was the disciplinarian, "Wait until your father gets home". Then he was too knackered to start an argument. Talk about people at the top all you like there is a reason they got there they trampled on everyone else.

----------------------------------------

So would that mean that normal men end up being, what, four inches taller than women, when, as you say, these men are wearing their heels? All the better for doing some trampling of their own perhaps.

Bang on by Jenni Russell as ever. Assertive women also labour under the “likeability” factor which has been well documented in a Harvard study and Sheryl Sandberg’s recent “Lean In” book.

----------------------------------------

Yes, or told one is too aloof or “schoolmarm” when one doesn’t smile sufficiently ! Or “too direct”/ even arrogant when you don’t preface every statement with “sorry” or “I may be wrong, but...”

So very true. Well said!

----------------------------------------

Trump and Johnson are certainly two examples of what is described here, but it's hard to think of many (any?) other successful politicians who fit this mould, so maybe we should be careful about extrapolating too much. And there's an argument they were both elected despite the public actively disliking their flaws - because of poor opponents, external issues like Brexit etc - rather than feeling "delightfully complicit" in anything.

----------------------------------------

Perhaps. I’ve often wondered if there was a glass cliff element to Teresa May’s becoming PM. One could possibly say similar about Boris - even absent the pandemic, trying to sort out the Brexit mess is sth of a poisoned chalice.

----------------------------------------

I agree, to a point, although andymilsom makes a very good qualifier to your comment. However, on first reading the article, both Churchill and Kennedy sprung to my mind too. Possibly rather obvious candidates, but still....

This message was deleted.

Are women so interchangeable that we're easily confused? Jenni

----------------------------------------

Oh dear, my Very sincere apologies...! I know exactly who you are and rate you equally highly, I am writing whilst watching the US election! Apologies.

Yup. You probably need to be a woman to understand this because it can be subtle and so frustratingly difficult to make visible. It starts in school and continues through career.

----------------------------------------

What actually starts in school and carries on throughout society is the dominance of female characteristics and the vilification of “toxic” masculinity which has led to the feminisation of society. Women now dominate in almost every section of society. At school, at university. The earnings gap is down to just 1% and women out-earn men up to about 30. Men are now expected to apologise for being men. It doesn’t help that women are still insisting they are the victims of a male dominated society when all the evidence points to the contrary.

----------------------------------------

Show all 2 replies

Try

Stark, Evan. Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford University Press, 2009.

This is just broad-brush victimhood.

Of course we are emerging from a history where the physically stronger male hunter/gatherer/protector dominated many areas of leadership. The nurturer's dominant biological role mitigated against most leadership positions. But the shackles of child rearing have been loosened and, in so doing, have allowed vastly greater participation across most institutions - even dominance in some, and resistance to male intrusion in others.

Equality of opportunity may never override ingrained perceptions of appearance and mannerism - and why fight that. Do we want our female leaders with hair like Boris's? Of course the haircut should not matter, but it does - as do the clothes. Ask a woman.

What we all want across our institutions is outstanding leadership, and there is ample scope for intelligent, ambitious and hardworking members of any gender. Plenty of males fail in these roles, and there will be failures among the females. The difference is that we don't expect females to fail. Yes, perception is a hard taskmaster.

----------------------------------------

Choosing a woman over Boris or Donald shows maturity. Choosing a joker or chancer shows immaturity.

----------------------------------------

Really interesting.

Both Johnson and Trump come from rich families of course, both attended private boarding school.

Both fathered children with at least 3 different mothers.

As Jenni says, it is inconceivable that a female leader could have children with at least 3 different fathers and have any hope whatsoever of being elected PM.

----------------------------------------

In terms of the difference in perceptions in regards to fathering children I believe this is mostly down to evolutionary psychology.

Men and women view a man who sleeps with multiple women as a tiny bit more impressive or understandable (in terms of our drives) than a women sleeping with lots of men simply because the former is harder to do due to women holding the keys to sex and men holding the keys to commitment.

This is also why being put in the friendzone (giving attention and resources but not allowed sex) is a rather painful place for a man but not for a woman, whereas being put in the "sexzone" (used for sex but not allowed attention and resources) is a rather painful place for a woman but not for a man.

Obviously in many ways life is more complicated than this with many exceptions but I believe this factor explains this disparity rather than simply nurture/culture.

----------------------------------------

Neither has a personality. Both are hurting their respective countries with virtue signaling.

Diane Abbot..........Long Bailey.................??

----------------------------------------

What a total load of metropolitan BS

----------------------------------------

What a typically male response.

----------------------------------------

What a typical narrow view response

Superb writing and spot on!

----------------------------------------

Nonsense.

----------------------------------------

A very shrewd and fair article and hard to see it changing any time soon.

----------------------------------------

Trump and Johnson are good examples of managers with high performance and intellect but poor values. Ok performance is debatable but they talk good game, make stuff happen and win votes you can’t argue that.

This confuses the heck out of people because they can be effective, yet offensive. In practice it is normally better to have a manager with good values and lower performance but people so often opt for the opposite. No more nice guy (gal) etc we want winners - but one thing for sure, they are absolutely judged and very severely. Both personally and professionally. Goodies and baddies,

It is no different for women. Leading is not an easy path and in a public role the bitter words and prejudice are there to be seen instead of being behind closed doors.Some of it prejudice, discrimination, spiteful and unfair- that is the way it is.

Consider Priti Patel? Effective, and quite horrible. Jacinda Ardern? Appears lovely and effective ? There are more and more leaders and most people recognise the value of female leaders.

----------------------------------------

If Biden wins the election, there will be a PoC female president in the White House in two years.

----------------------------------------

Trump high intellect. Lol.

She's got me down to a T. Women never expect me to do anything useful, ever.

----------------------------------------

I’m not sure I buy this. Yes, Harris and Warren have been under intense and critical scrutiny. Do you not think Johnson and Trump are under the same scrutiny? Do you really think the public and the media are forgiving of their flaws?! I think you would struggle to find two more criticised people in the world.

----------------------------------------

I'm not sure a potential female PM would have been let off as lightly as Johnson was when a member of the public was asked about his lying by a news journalist: something along the lines of 'oh yes, but it's ok because he is a laugh!'

----------------------------------------

Or more powerful

Excellent.

----------------------------------------

Respect.

----------------------------------------

Women in positions of leadersip is still a relatively recent phenomenon. For sure, the trail blazers met with mixed and sometimes hostile reactions. But with increasing prevalence the world is getting more used to them and they are getting more used to leading. If the trend continues, and I for one hope it does, then we will increasingly find nothing remarkable in women at the top.

----------------------------------------

Our 3 longest reigning monarchs and longest serving pm were women... so not exactly a new phenomenon! All were held to more exacting standards.. including by themselves

----------------------------------------

All recent monarchs (George V onwards) have been held to exacting standards.

----------------------------------------

If you are referring to Britain only, the two longest-reigning monarchs are Elizabeth II and Victoria, followed by George III in third. The next Queen in the list is Elizabeth I in ninth.

If you are referring to Margaret Thatcher in the PM list, she is only the seventh longest-serving.

----------------------------------------

True but I was rather thinking of women in senior management positions, senior partners in law and accounting firms, actuaries and in our public services and the like. You must allow that women have made great strides here, and haven’t relied on an accident of birth to get them there - excepting Thatcher, of course.

----------------------------------------

Except for the fact that they are still proportionately under-represented at the most senior levels.

----------------------------------------

True but over the course of my working life time I’ve seen many more women making their way to the top and I hope the trend continues.

----------------------------------------

Monarchy is irrelevant here (charisma/bad behaviour not in the equation - simply no male heir) and Thatcher is an indubitable anomaly.

Well written Jenni, you absolutely nailed this.

Respect.

Mrs MR

----------------------------------------

Thank you Mrs MR. Hard to tear myself away from the actual unfolding drama of the count to write it...

----------------------------------------

I can well imagine Jenni. Take care.

Lesley

A typical female view of the situation. All bosses are under constant scrutiny, but women seem to expect that being women will entitle them not to be judged as men are. The reason men are never heard complaining about negative scrutiny is because they accept it goes with the territory; women seem to want the top job but not to have to pay the emotional price. Toughen up, or stay out of the rat-race.

----------------------------------------

Yes, you certainly never hear Trump complain about criticism.

Oh wait….

----------------------------------------

"men are never heard complaining about negative scrutiny"? Are you kidding me? I mean, just as one example, Trump complains about negative scrutiny all the time.

I think Jenni is right. Sad to say that I see that semi conscious bias in my thinking at times. I think the problem is that it is built in and not always questioned.

----------------------------------------

Yes - a thoughtful article - I'm not sure where the resolution lies.

----------------------------------------

I find JR argument thoughtful and compelling. Trump and Johnson depend upon the complicity or, at least, the indifference of a deep pool of ageing voters to their misogyny. Women For Trump is surely an oxymoron?

In Texas the old guard have managed to preserve the status quo but woman are at the forefront of change. For example, the impressive 29 year old Judge Hidalgo (who emigrated to Texas from Colombia aged 15 ) has enabled a massive increase in voter turn out in Houston by introducing drive thru voting - successfully fending off legal action.

Generation Z are potentially the most socially liberal generation ever, naturally at ease with their diversity and shaping up,world-wide, as a force for progressive change.Texas may never resemble Scandinavia where young female PM are almost the norm - but even in Texas change is coming and impressive, empowered woman are already at the forefront.

----------------------------------------

Fascinating: I'll read about Hidalgo who is new to me - thank you

----------------------------------------

You are welcome.

Warm Regards from Texas.

There's some truth in this.

But only to the same extent as the opposite, that men at the bottom aren't allowed to have character flaws while women are.

----------------------------------------

This is why rigid gender roles are bad for both men and women.

----------------------------------------

Examples?

Mrs MR

----------------------------------------

Male suicide rates

Incels

----------------------------------------

Linking those is incendiary, though interesting. Male suicide is a product of the same power structure that coerces women into selecting their partners from those who can access the resources required for full membership of the political community. Men who see themselves as excluded from this community (without recognising the significance of the 'natural' exclusion of women) feel ineluctably worthless/suicidal. Incels bear the same grudge as the women they accuse.

Trump and Boris haven't got away with it. They are laughing stocks that I wouldn't vote for in a million years.

Except more women than men vote so you keep voting them in. Why? Do you want to mother them?

----------------------------------------

'Haven't got away with it?' One got the presidency, the other the prime ministership. What on earth are you talking about?

----------------------------------------

They’ve been elected to high office, I’d call that getting away with it.

Why any woman would vote for either is beyond me.

This message was deleted.

I think you prove my point

Seriously? A female whinge about something spurious and imagined today of all days? When this rubbish had a large part in this mess... hayzeus

----------------------------------------

I'm trying to imagine what a female Donald Trump would be like so I can understand better. I can't think of anyone close - famous or nay. Any ideas?

----------------------------------------

Sarah Palin and AOC spring to mind. Complete loony tunes with IQs to match.

----------------------------------------

Dame Edna Everage. Minus the charm, the humour, the dress sense, and a cohort of gun toting bullies in the background.

Mrs MR

Absolute bol locks

----------------------------------------

I am enjoying your intelligent contribution to the argument. It's impressive.

"employers of both sexes preferred men" It is true, even the women employers can be very judgemental about other women..

----------------------------------------

We're raised to adore men and suspect women. It's a social construct thing.

----------------------------------------

That’s because we know firsthand what we’re like.

Why not just shout "Victim!" and save some time?

----------------------------------------

Try 'target'.

Today it looks like Trump has lost??

Not what I’m seeing on the news channels, no one has a clue yet

----------------------------------------

Oh yes they do

Really interesting to read James Marriott’s interesting article and the highly complimentary comments that follow it and to compare them with Jenni’s no less erudite offering above and the largely nasty and sneering remarks below - which neatly prove her point!

----------------------------------------

Interesting that none of those in disagreement provide any sort of rebuttal - mostly just nastiness and bile.

----------------------------------------

Yep... A whole lot of “nasty woman”. Remind you of anyone?

Ouch - painful but a compelling argument. Can't think of any other reason why people would vote for these serial liars and chancers.

----------------------------------------

Charisma

dreadful article. pathetic, whiney, factually wrong.

----------------------------------------

Dreadful comment. Pathetic, whiny, makes no attempt to present a counter argument. 0/10.

----------------------------------------

dreadful counter comment. snippy, mean, small, makes no attempt to....... yawn! I'll give you a shiny sticker, as all must have prizes.

Always the victim.

----------------------------------------

Never the... person?

Blank slatism will never die, but just keep being regurgitated in polite newspaper columns.

----------------------------------------

Wow, great piece. Am I really reading the Times?

----------------------------------------

Absolutely shines a light on what we all know and take for granted. How to change it is the question.

----------------------------------------

Interesting that everyone who had made a derogatory comment about the article is a man - sort of proves the point!

----------------------------------------

How do you know they are men?

I have made several comments about the article which, while I would not call them derogatory, were certainly critical, and I am female.

True, my user name does not explicitly show this. When my husband comments under this account I demand that he call himself "Mr B Z". But I thought we had got beyond assuming masculinity as the default.

But so strong is this assumption that I have made comments very similar to this one several times in the last few days.

----------------------------------------

Perhaps I should have said ‘most’ rather than ‘all’. Certainly most of the names against such comments are clearly male.

----------------------------------------

That is true.

----------------------------------------

no. it merely proves that your idea of 'proof' is nonsense. no doubt that is also the fault of a man.

Paranoid much?

----------------------------------------

Lady Di.Damaged by abhorrent childhood.

----------------------------------------

Thatcher did OK but some of her most vicious critics were (and still are) women.

----------------------------------------

She Was a woman, sure. You can’t put her in the same bracket as Trump & Johnson though surely?

I wonder if this is true. I can well imagine that a witty, charismatic woman with a twinkle in her eye could easily charm her way into office, and for a while we would be willing to forgive her her weaknesses - but I can't think of a single woman in public life with these qualities.

----------------------------------------

I think the last part of your comment sums it up though.

----------------------------------------

Ruth Davidson? She is leaving public life AFAIK. Also, AFAIK, she has nowhere near the flaws of Trump or Boris. Few do.

----------------------------------------

And Betty Boothroyd. But again, lacking the flaws that this article is about.

----------------------------------------

Well, she's witty and quite charismatic, but I'm not sure about the twinkle in the eye.

----------------------------------------

She has a beautiful twinkle, no? Finn Paul, I believe...

----------------------------------------

Well then its obvious you’ve never met Ruth Davidson. I have, and can assure you Ruth’s eyes twinkle and dance. She’s also hyper intelligent. The only person capable of taking down Nikkers.

Fifty years ago, the likes of Trump and Johnson wouldn't have got away with it either. These things take time,!

----------------------------------------

Ms Russell wallowing in the victim’s role. Something Mrs Thatcher, Mother Teresa and the PMs of Germany and NZ would find laughable.

----------------------------------------

At least 50% of the voters are women, so the remedy is in their hands.

----------------------------------------

Really? What drivel.

----------------------------------------

People complain about Donald, but they so nearly got Hilary, whose flaws are by many standards worse than Donald's.

Whilst Hilary may not have been elected, we will never know if that was a good or bad thing.

----------------------------------------

I think that we (I.e. those outside the US despairing about Trump) don’t quite get just how much of a band candidate Clinton was and how she was almost perfect for Trump.

----------------------------------------

hilary is not great, but god help usa with trump.

----------------------------------------

Was Hilary any better?

or did we have the worst of two equals?

----------------------------------------

Why? Many look happy to re elect him? Their country, their choice not yours

----------------------------------------

trump is quite a good marketer of his policies, particularlyv to the underclass. in my lifetime I have never encountered an individual with so few redeeming features at a personal level, not a good basis for trust.

----------------------------------------

Tony Blair?

Jeremy Corbyn?

They are around, the media make out how bad Trump is because he fights the media all the way, therefore they dislike him, so everything he does is criticised. He will have a good side, but we are never told about it, it is like asking Matthew Parris to write an article where he says he fully supports Boris, it will never happen.

When the media are like that it makes their output worthless, because they use the facts to fit the story the want to write, rather than reporting using all of the available facts.

Absolutely brilliant article

----------------------------------------

She makes fair points

----------------------------------------

So true...

----------------------------------------

"..socially privileged white men"

Are you allowed to say that ? of course you are, everybody can have a pop at this group and it's perfectly acceptable, how bizarre.

----------------------------------------

By saying that you are effectively proving the point of the article.

----------------------------------------

Yes, we white men are a terribly oppressed minority. I dream that one day a white male may be POTUS or PM....

----------------------------------------

Hahaha we can only dream of such a time ????

I think Ms R makes a fair point. It’s hard to see that a woman as blatantly flawed as Trump or Boris would get elected.

Then again, not long ago it would’ve been hard to believe that a man as blatantly flawed as Trump or Boris would get elected. Recall those Tories like Parkinson or Democrats like Gary Hart, whose careers were ended because they ‘played away’.

----------------------------------------

If Margret Thatcher had been a man she would have not been given the benefit of the doubt so much.

----------------------------------------

What benefit of the doubt?

----------------------------------------

Really?

Consider the case of Nicola Sturgeon.

----------------------------------------

Yes? Whether you like or dislike her, she’s a serious politician. I’m not aware she’s ‘an entertaining joker, lousy on the details, indifferent to facts, forgetful and untrustworthy but likeable and — to her supporters — fun’. I also haven’t heard of her ‘her having an unknown number of children by an unknown number of men, some of whom she doesn’t see, as well as numerous affairs.’

----------------------------------------

Correct, but she has pursued the objective of splitting off Scotland from the UK since she was sixteen, and, like the rest of her crew, refuses to give meaningful answers to issues which would arise if she was successful in her mission.

Par for a politician ok, but to potentially affect so many peoples' lives whilst ignoring their very significant concerns?

I'd call that a major character flaw.

She is lauded highly by many who don't see past the present moment, certainly not on her lamentable record of tangible achievement.

----------------------------------------

Well said, I don't like her politics but she is an excellent communicator and is always all over the details.

----------------------------------------

He said as, not worse.

Do women do anything but whine?

----------------------------------------

Yes, but perhaps in your company they are unmotivated to demonstrate that fact.

----------------------------------------

Only feminists ....

Maybe Ms Russell should ask herself why so many women ... never mind men ... are attracted to the likes of Trump and Johnson?

Trump and Johnson, for all their faults, have the ability to entertain the crowd and play to the gallery.

I can't think of a single female politician with this ability so maybe it's just a gender thing ?

I just have missed all of this letting Boris get away with his flaws amongst all of the criticism he’s received...

----------------------------------------

His flaws were amply on display well before he was made PM, and yet he was still made PM. God help us all.

----------------------------------------

He’s the PM

Around 2001 when I was studying for a politics A level my teacher remarked that it will be interesting to see if the USA would elect a black man or a white woman first. I've thought on this a lot recently.

----------------------------------------

Don’t know why it is , but men can have 100’s of different varieties of character and get away with it.

For instance a female Tommy Cooper just wouldn’t be funny.

Don't know why.

----------------------------------------

Mainly the Fez

----------------------------------------

Seriously ?

----------------------------------------

She might if she were Susan Calman.

----------------------------------------

Not a chance

Excellent and thought-provoking article.

There are some excellent women leaders showing the way in a wide range of countries and on a wide range of issues - think Germany, New Zealand and Finland to name but three. Leaders in the UK and the USA - to name but two - further enhance your point.

Looking at the comments on this thread, many of them simply prove your point too.

----------------------------------------

I wonder. Statistically over the centuries both men and women have been more inclined to follow male leaders. There are likely to be good evolutionary reasons for that, some of them more politically correct than others.

----------------------------------------

Hmmm... as a bloke I share Silvio Berlusconi's view of Merkel (not to mention the ruinous open door to migrants policy that threatens to ruin Europe). As for NZ, they have elected an world-class virtue signaller. The Finnish lady photographs well.

Show all 3 replies

You seem to be unaware that Donald Trump self-identifies as female and is therefore judged as such.

----------------------------------------

True

Character flaws....look at Boris Johnson to see the truth of this article.

----------------------------------------

I enjoyed your thoughtful article. Unfortunately I also know that I only need turn to the comments section in any Times article about women to see the reality about sexism.

----------------------------------------

Spot on.

With knobs on.

Mrs MR

Sounds like a Guardian article.

----------------------------------------

I’m glad you read it , you must find it educational. Fortunately The Guardian isn’t the only bastion against antediluvian attitudes

----------------------------------------

Actually, I pay good money to read it. For balance. But I do often find it rather tiresome.

----------------------------------------

Well, I expect they’re pleased you don’t pay bad money. Even though you do not appear to enjoy subjecting yourself to reading it, even if it is for your betterment.

----------------------------------------

My betterment? You are insolent, young lady

----------------------------------------

Well it is accurate.

----------------------------------------

Perhaps it's not a Guardian article, then.

All true. A woman acting anything like Trump would never get elected

----------------------------------------

Man or women acting like Trump ?

Please no

----------------------------------------

Don’t bet on it. You wouldn’t have thought a man acting like Trump would get elected.

These thick-ets women are fighting through must be male.. the females being known as thick-ettes?

----------------------------------------

The Thickettes. Great 1960s soul band.....

Interesting.

----------------------------------------

I wouldn't call Trump or Johnson "manly" in an admiring sense. Both are "needy" and each is a TV performer. Without TV, they'd be figures of fun.

----------------------------------------

Clowns?

Well, Margaret Thatcher certainly had many character flaws. She was "bossy, controlling, arrogant, unpleasant" . She didn't have any trouble getting elected again and again, and by huge majorities.

Maybe the voters really don't like the policies that Warren and Harris are offering?

----------------------------------------

Thatcher was not the first choice to become leader of the party and when she did, she received voice coaching so that her voice wasn't as 'shrill'.

----------------------------------------

She Didn’t have multiple children by multiple partners (how many we dont know) or get recorded bragging about sexually assaulting people.

Not really comparable are they?

----------------------------------------

Exactly

It's a shame to constantly see women like this arguing how they are disadvantaged in a society that is totally equal under the law and women make up half the population.

There are a lot of successful women in UK politics and if one appears with great personal charisma that hides some character flaws then quite possibly men and women will vote for her.

Just stop the whining about how it's harder for women and expecting special privilege whilst having equality. It diminishes women to do so.

----------------------------------------

Yes and women make up half the voters so whatever flaws these men have women by and large seem able to look beyond them.

----------------------------------------

Legal equality is not the same as true equality. It is undoubtedly true that bias still exists as it takes time to reverse centuries of bias. And no one is expecting special privilege, just not to be judged differently for the same actions, as is the point of the article.

The premise of this peice is categorically untrue.

To take one example, in the wake of the 2016 election, Maria Guadalupe, a professor at France’s INSEAD Business school and Joe Salvatore, clinical associate professor of educational theatre at New York University’s Steinhardt School, took the words from the recent presidential debate and turned them into a play.

But they swapped the sex of the speakers.

A fictional male candidate spoke Senator Clinton's words and a female candidate spoke Trump's. With the sexes reversed, the audience suddenly noticed how self-satisfied and patronizing Senator Clinton was and how direct and, apparently, convincing, Trump was.

“When a man re-creates Clinton’s performance,” said Salvatore, “it feels like a lot of mansplaining.”

Mansplaining. A word for which there is no sexed equivalent for women and which was created by women, feminists, who say they are campaigners against sex-based discrimination. Is irony dead?

More importantly, the media spilled oceans of ink telling us how good a candidate Senator Clinton was, going to extraordinary lengths to engage in blatant cheerleading and boosterism. And yet when the sexes are reversed, her weakness is instantly clear. But the press held her to a far easier standard throughout the campaign. I say this, incidentally, as someone who loathes Trump. I would have voted for Clinton any day of the week, had I been eligible to vote. But being better than Trump is not much of an achievement. The point is, Senator Clinton was nowhere near as good as thousands of journalists and commentators pretended she was.

Another example? The Women's March in the USA. This was a, to use one of the other side's words, toxic movement. It had links with extremist and antisemitic groups, its leaders practiced intimidation and bullying. And there were some highly questionable accounting practices going on. But for over a year, the mainstream press wrote thousands of words about this organisation and never mentioned or thought to look for any of these problems. It took a small Jewish magazine, The Tablet, to break the story. ...See more

----------------------------------------

I'm completely engaged with everything you've said. The ramifications are endless/spectacular. Thank you

----------------------------------------

Thank you. That's kind of you. To be clear, I am not saying that all is right for women, we need to swing the pendulum back (I think the pendulum is the wrong metaphor in these situations) or anything like that.

There are clearly still areas in which we need to remove obstacles or barriers that stand in the way of large groups of women realising their potential.

But, it's not all one sided. In some cases, there are also unfair barriers in the way of large groups of men and, in particular, boys. And while we're trained to see the problems women face, we've developed a wilful blindness to the ones faced by men and boys.

In this instance, maybe there are areas of life in which women are judged more harshly than men. But there are definitely ways in which the reverse is true. Also, looking at the argument above once again, the writer herself is holding some of the women she writes about to a low standard. Senator Warren, for instance consistently polled worse with women than she did with men. It probably didn't help that she said she'd allow a transgender child to vet her choice for secretary of education at a time when many women were feeling distinctly uneasy about the implications for their rights of the transgender debate.

But the most salient thing about Warren, is that she failed on the most fundamental level as a politician. She went to the extremes, in order to try and secure the nomination, courting the most "woke" even of the Democrat primary voters, and in doing so alienated other large groups of voters and made it impossible to form a coalition behind her candidacy.

That didn't happen because people were harsh on Warren as a woman. It happened because of poor, and sometimes just really embarrassing, choices by Warren and her staff. Unless we're honest about this kind of thing, we'll never understand where we are now or how to make society better. And that includes understanding how to get a woman into the White House.

----------------------------------------

Very interesting. Here’s the Guardian link ... even they were concerned at the impact of the switch! Although no comments allowed on the article of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/clinton-trump-gender-swap-play-her-opponent

If Trump were a woman: play swaps presidential candidates' genders

The 2016 presidential debates were recast onstage in New York, with Trump as a woman and Clinton as a...

theguardian.com

Misogyny seems to be more a problem in the Anglosphere if we look at the treatment of female leaders in the UK, US and Australia in recent years. Miss Ardern has been clever to escape it - to a point.

No political persuasion is innocent. Hacks, for one, confuse sexist nastiness with legitimate critique.

----------------------------------------

Don Quixote writes, "Misogyny seems to be more a problem in the Anglosphere if we look at the treatment of female leaders in the UK, US and Australia in recent years."

Meanwhile much of the non-English speaking portion of the world avoids the problem of "misogyny" against female leaders by not having any female leaders.

At one point in 2018 the following UK party leaders were all female: Theresa May (Conservatives) Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Arlene Foster (DUP), Caroline Lucas (Greens), Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru), Mary Lou MacDonald (Sinn Fein).

----------------------------------------

I was thinking of the famous case of the British Labour Party. Any such leader would get bombarded with sexism from the holy Left.

May really tried her best in an impossible position and was showered with misogyny.

Maybe women do better in the Celtic or Nordic families.

----------------------------------------

Do you really believe it's just the left who are capable of sexism? Please do take a look at the kind of criticism Sturgeon, Merkel, Ardern and Marin get and tell me it's all about their policies and not good old-fashioned misogyny.

----------------------------------------

We're all aware that May was shoved up to the 'glass cliff'. This was the pinnacle of female political humiliation in the UK.

Often felt something similar about Clinton in 2016. The hatchet job the Republicans and right wing press did on her wouldn't have worked on a man as much.

----------------------------------------

Agreed

Its a bit much to indict an entire sex based on one article by a colleague that is itself largely based on one article by a psychologist, a biography, and a one-line comment each by Blair & Trump

You might also consider that women as well as men voted from Trump and Johnson, so where does that leave you?

----------------------------------------

She might also consider that many, both men and women, deplore the very characteristics she describes.

Unfortunately using generalisations to support assertions is no more plausible, to those capable of rational thought, than using hyperbole.

It depends on the men. I think you'll find that the cohort of men 'at the top' is somewhat different to the overall population of men and I do not refer to 'ability' here. Other social, behavioural, selection biases than gender are highly pertinent.

----------------------------------------

It so depends on the men. And our (cultural) raising of them...

If only it were true.

----------------------------------------

A nice piece fizzing with feeling.

Actually you (along with several of your colleagues) are not good examples of your own argument!

One only has to look at the arguments Boris has ‘won’ to see they are of the playground and few would want to own them.

Bertrand Russel lamented it was only the stupid who were so damned sure...... so take heart.

----------------------------------------

Cool to invoke the serial philanderer/latent misogynist BR...

Spot on.

----------------------------------------

A very sad and seemingly accurate indictment of our western society.

----------------------------------------

Wilf writes, "A very sad and seemingly accurate indictment of our western society."

With apologies for repeating the substance of a comment I have already made upthread to Don Quixote:

Meanwhile most of the world other than the West avoids the problem of double standards against female leaders by not having any female leaders.

In my experience bosses of both sexes gets the same level of abuse, particularly if they aren’t very good.

----------------------------------------

Exactly.

This is just typical whinging, pure and simple.