Many were disappointed by the results of the recent 2024 US Presidential Election, with 70% of Americans stating their dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. However, many were also unsurprised by Donald Trump's success which followed global political trends of anti-incumbent success due to prevailing political and economic concerns based on the previous term. Kamala Harris' experience in her run for the White House represents the struggle that many women face when attempting to enter male-dominated workplaces; ‘He gets to be lawless. She has to be flawless’.
There is a real and impactful disparity in expectations and experiences between men and women in most workspaces; women’s annual earnings averaged less than 83% of men’s in 2020, there are much stricter qualification expectations for women when compared to men in the same field, and women must significantly outperform male co-workers in order to secure promotions. This harsh reality not only impacts the numbers of women in such fields, but also has far-reaching implications for the tenure of women’s positions, their mental health, and their economic freedoms.
Intersectional Implications:
Though gender played an obvious and impactful role in the election results, it is important to take an intersectional approach when discussing situations such as this. Intersectionality, a term first coined by feminist scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, was introduced ‘to address experiences of oppression that could not be adequately understood as the result of ordinary patterns of discrimination’. In essence, intersectionality acknowledges the ways in which different forms of discrimination (such as those based on gender, sex, race, class, religion, etc.) have cumulative effects which impact people’s daily lives to create either privilege or oppression. It is also important to note that these different poles of identity interact to create ‘unique experiences’, meaning that a black woman does not simply face sexism and racism separately, she has a completely unique experience of the culmination of both. In the case of Harris vs Trump, both gender and race played a role in the outcome of the election and Harris’ lived experiences, as well as class, political affiliation and numerous other poles of identity.
The election highlighted significant gendered expectations, with Kamala Harris facing heightened scrutiny and judgment based on her gender and race. This contrasts with Donald Trump’s campaign, which was shaped by more traditional expectations of hegemonic masculinity and power. These outdated stereotypes of what a leader should be do not reflect what modern America - one of the most diverse, powerful and influential countries in the world - needs. In times such as these, we need leaders who embody compassion, emotional intelligence, collaboration and integrity rather than brute strength and dominance. These contrasting expectations had huge implications on the political discourse and public perception of Harris and her campaign.
For example, while Trump was able to gain voters with ‘concepts’ of a plan that would (theoretically) boost the economy, Harris’s economic plan - which was hailed as ‘vastly superior’ by 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists - was scrutinised and put under the microscope. We can see gendered expectations come into play here as, traditionally, men are thought of as being the more money-savvy, mathematically inclined gender. This meant that Trump could ride along on these expectations and play on his reputation as a ‘celebrity’ billionaire businessman, despite not being a very good one, whereas Harris had to actively fight the tide of the gendered biases holding her back.
Historical Impacts - ‘we did not just fall out of a coconut tree’:
As Harris would say, ‘You exist in the context of all in which you live, and what came before you’.
It is impossible to understand our society today without first understanding our past. The history of women in the workplace has been one of women constantly having to fight to get a chair at the table - or perhaps, more accurately, a chair down the hall from the table; but at least we’re in the building, eh ladies? Even these small steps forward have been adamantly opposed by certain groups such as Conservative and Fundamentalist Groups, and even some women. For example, Phyllis Schlafly - founder of the Eagle Forum - openly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s as she believed it would disadvantage housewives, lead to women being drafted into the military, and undermine traditional family structures. This phenomenon of women supporting seemingly anti-feminist rhetoric has continued into modern day politics. We can see this through analysis of Marine Le Pen’s campaign in France, as well as in the 2024 election where 44% of women voted for Donald Trump. However, voting patterns among women are nuanced, influenced by factors such as race, demonstrated by the fact that only 12% of Black women voted in this same manner compared to 55% of white women.
Women are often still thought of in the context of home and family, holding responsibilities as caregivers, homemakers, and child-rearers. This unpaid labour that women are often expected to do, constitutes between 10-39% of a given nation’s Gross Domestic Product, amounting to a staggering 75% globally - worth roughly $10.9 trillion. This exceeds the combined revenue of the 50 largest companies on Fortune Global 500 list, including Walmart, Apple and Amazon. Unpaid labour thereby upholds our society - without it, much of what we take for granted would fall apart. The need for these roles to be filled, paired with the belief that women do not need to be paid for their labour, creates an issue when women start to enter the workforce. Do we now need to hire people for these roles? How much should we pay people to do a role previously thought of as free? Alternatively, should women just have to cope with the triple burden of homecare, emotional care and paid employment? These issues are still impactful barriers for women entering the workplace - particularly women from working-class, Black, Latina, and/or religious backgrounds.
The next hurdle to women being accepted with equity in the workplace is overcoming the gendered stereotypes which enforce certain lifestyles and expectations. These stereotypes perceive women as being fragile and emotional, particularly in direct contradiction to men who are, stereotypically, seen as more stoic and logical. This is often cited as a reason women are ‘unsuited’ for work outside the home. This thought process was documented in a Cambridge University study into gender where one participant said ‘It is usually not acceptable for a woman to be seen to be angry, as she is regarded as hysterical and out of control, whereas a man can get away with it’. This, I feel, has particular prominence in regards to Harris and Trump, as political debate often becomes impassioned. If two candidates speak passionately about their campaign but one is seen as fierce and the other hysterical - an inherently gendered word originating from the Greek word for uterus - how can they be judged fairly next to one another?
Biological determinism also comes into this argument in a significant way. This refers to the misconception that there are biological and psychological reasons that certain demographics are less suited or inferior, by their very nature, for certain roles. In regards to the world of work, this could be related to a person’s intellectual, or physical abilities to carry out certain activities; from hard manual labour to selling a pitch in a boardroom. These misconceptions can lead to deep-rooted beliefs that can affect a person's view of themselves, and also the opinion of those in a position to make hiring decisions. Women, and also minority groups, are often notably impacted by this. We can therefore see how someone like Kamala Harris would have to fight against the misconception that only a man could be what a president needs to be; someone logical, non-emotional, strong, decisive, assertive, etc.
Male Dominated Workspaces - ‘It’s a Man’s World’
A male-dominated workspace is defined as those occupations held primarily by men, rather than women. Examples of such spaces include STEM fields, manual labour professions, finance, leadership roles, and high-level athletics and academics. In Europe, women make up only 8% of roles in careers such as these, and this percentage drops even further when considering minority ethnic women. For example, Black or African American women in America only make up 7.5% of positions in the finance sector in the US.
Though these fields may change over time - for example, Sociology used to be a male-dominated field but significant increases in female participation have brought this to an end - this often results in implications for the perception of that field. Sociology, though previously respected as a science in the same regard as Biology or Chemistry, is now deemed a ‘soft science’. This demotion, which some argue was a result of women’s mass involvement with the subject, now creates new ‘lesser’ connotations for the field and therefore, those within it. The new perception of these fields as ‘soft’ actively pushes people out of them and undermines their value. In essence, the value of female-dominated workspaces, and therefore the associated pay, is often lower than that of male-dominated spheres precisely because women are in them.
On the other hand, when women enter male-dominated spaces individually - as opposed to en masse - they face different challenges. Globally, women working in male-dominated industries are more likely to experience sexual harassment than those working in other industries. These horrific experiences are again compounded by other identity markers such as race. For example, Black women are less likely to receive support when dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace, exacerbating the negative effects that such an experience may cause.
So, to sum up, women are statistically less likely to be in male-dominated spaces, when they do manage to gain access to such roles en masse the reputation of the entire field decreases in perceived value. However, if they enter as the minority gender they face incredible bias, unequal treatment, harassment and criticism. In this lose-lose situation, it is understandable that many women choose not to fight tooth and nail to be in such undesirable circumstances. Yet, without the women who do choose to actively resist this divide, the gap may never close.
Women in Work - Effects
Now that we have established the context that surrounds the current working experience of women in male-dominated fields, let’s explore the effects of this and why it is so important to acknowledge the barriers it creates.
One possible outcome of a woman entering a male-dominated sphere is a steep decline in their mental health. The social influences and biases that suggest women are not suited to certain roles or career paths can lead to many women in these fields feeling a profound sense of ‘imposter syndrome’. This has been proven to have significant implications for women, through anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem, and ‘self-handicapping behaviours’ - for example, over apologising, putting themselves down or using phrases such as ‘well, I’m no expert at this, but…’ Have you ever written a professional email but felt the need to add a ‘!’ to seem more friendly? Or answered a question with ‘this might not be right but …’ when you knew you were 100% correct? If so, you have experienced self-handicapping behaviour first-hand.
This imposter syndrome may also cause ‘burnout’ for women overworking in an attempt to ‘prove themselves’ equal to their male counterparts. Women in male-dominated fields feel the need to work ‘harder and longer hours than their male counterparts so as to prevent others from realising their perceived imposter status’. This need does not subside with success; instead, many women, approximately 68% in fact, feel that they must ‘continuously reprove (themselves) to (their) colleagues and superiors’. This reinforces their burnout and traps them in a vicious and unhealthy work cycle, whilst simultaneously strengthening the conviction that women, no matter their success, must always work harder.
These effects can all culminate in women leaving their hard-won roles within male-dominated spheres. As male-dominated workplaces generally contain higher-paying roles, when women leave such jobs, they often enter into lower-paid roles. Not only should this be a cause for concern on an individual level, with women having less financial freedoms and opportunities than their male counterparts, but we must also consider the larger societal implications of this shift - the gender pay gap.
The gender pay gap is a real and impactful part of our society that is upheld and perpetuated by occupational segregation. Women earn less than men in 94% of occupations, both in well and low paid roles - even in roles that are dominated by women. Occupational segregation, and the barriers both upheld by and created as a result of, have a major impact on this. Though the gender pay gap is slowly narrowing, it still remains a huge global issue; for example, in 2022 there was an 11.6% gender pay gap in OECD countries (members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) such as England, the USA and Australia, with occupational segregation being quoted as a key contributing factor. The implications of this gap have both immediate and far-reaching repercussions. An immediate effect is that this translates to just under £10,000 in average annual earnings for women, a number that increases significantly when racial, age, parental, disability and/or LGBTQ+ identity markers are taken into account. This amount of annual financial loss severely limits a woman’s life options and creates barriers to her goals. Alternatively, the far-reaching implications of this level of financial inequality manifest in things such as women having 65% less in their pension savings at the point of retirement as compared to men. This has notable implications for the physical and mental well-being of elderly women; a cause for significant concern.
As you can see, the gender pay gap is a key barrier to women in our society, impacting certain demographics more intensely than others, with both immediate and ongoing effects. It is imperative that this gap is closed to ensure true equality of opportunity and life experiences between genders. As gender-based occupational segregation is commonly quoted as being a key factor in upholding this gap, it is imperative we tackle this issue with urgency.
Kamala Harris - Flawless
So let's bring all this back to the context of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s recent race for the Oval Office. Despite Harris’ impressive resume - a San Francisco district attorney, the California attorney general, a U.S. senator, as well as a member of the judiciary, intelligence and homeland security committees, not to mention vice president of The United States of America - she was not seen by many as an experienced and seasoned politician, clearly qualified to take office. Her loss to Trump cannot be adequately understood without noting the gendered, and racial, barriers she was up against, demanding her to be flawless.
Kamala Harris' historic candidacy as the first woman of colour on a major U.S. presidential ticket has brought her significant attention, but it has also subjected her to intense scrutiny in ways far more intense and gendered than her male counterpart, reflecting broader societal biases and expectations. For example, discussions about her clothing choices, hairstyle, and overall presentation often overshadowed her policy proposals and qualifications. Prominent news outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Time Magazine, Harpers Bazaar, and Marie Claire all reported on Harris’ style during her campaign. During the campaign run, The New York Times reported on her ‘neutral pantsuits’ and how they didn’t quite fit the ‘brat’ vibe of the summer - a key consideration for any presidential candidate, I’m sure. Hilary Clinton faced similar scrutiny over her style, something as simple as tying her hair back in a ponytail sparked an entire discourse over the meaning of a scrunchie. Male candidates do not seem to face similar inspections of their style. Instead, they are judged based on their policies and political prowess. It is also important to note that, as a Black, South Asian woman, Harris faced additional biases based on both her gender and race. It may be for this reason that Harris chose to downplay her race and gender in the election campaign, wanting to be seen as a presidential candidate in her own right rather than through a prism of her gender and race.
A further barrier to Harris’ campaign was the gendered expectations around behaviour. As we’ve established, traditional views on the ‘proper’ way for women to behave do not line up with stereotypes surrounding masculine and/or expected presidential characteristics. This created a double bind of sorts for Harris, where she was either seen as not acting enough like a ‘woman’, or not acting enough like a ‘president’. Margaret Sullivan noted that during the campaign trail the issue of ‘likability’, a stereotypical female characteristic, came up far more with regards to Harris than Trump. Moreover, JD Vance made his opinion of career-driven women known when he referred to Harris, and women like her, as ‘childless cat ladies’ who are ‘miserable at their lives’. We can infer here that Harris’ career conflicted with his gendered expectations for women to be mothers and homekeepers. Harris’ language was also criticised as being ‘too emotional (and) aggressive’, highlighting the issues discussed previously wherein women’s emotions are often seen as hysterical, as opposed to the passion perceived in men for the same (if not more emotional) behaviour.
As I have said previously, an intersectional approach is needed to fully understand this situation as, not only did Harris face scrutiny for being a woman, but she also had to fight to prove herself as a Black and South Asian woman. While on CNN, one of the ‘big three’ of America’s news outlets, US Representative Tim Burchette said that Harris was ‘One hundred percent … a DEI hire’. Suggesting that Harris was hired for the sake of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion takes away any recognition of her abilities and merit and instead shifts the conversation to her gender and racial characteristics.
Furthermore, her opposition Donald Trump went as far as to say that she had ‘slept her way to the top’; this baseless, misogynistic accusation is one many women who attain high positions in male-dominated spaces have to contend with. This comment suggests women are incapable of achieving success through merit alone. This stereotype undermines women's capabilities and distorts the reality of the challenges they face in leadership roles. With regards to Harris, this, once again, disregards her qualifications and ability to succeed in her position based on merit, and instead focuses on sexist stereotypes and beliefs.
We can see from these examples how Harris’ gender was put to the forefront of mainstream media’s narratives during the election, undoubtedly impacting the American public’s perception of her as a presidential candidate. These comments were broadcast through influential streams to large audiences and upheld the misogynistic question of whether Harris, and by extension women, are suited to the role of President. This discourse was not based on merit, but rather on her ability to uphold specifically feminine characteristics, behaviours and expectations.
Donald Trump - Lawless
By comparison, Trump was able to win this major political election based on stereotypical masculine ideals. Trump, the first former president in US history to be criminally convicted, has a long rap sheet of criminal activity - falsifying criminal records, inciting a coup (for which he has now issued a blanket pardon that ‘effectively frees all the rioters and erases the work of the largest criminal investigation in US history’), mishandling classified documents, conspiring against the rights of citizens, not to mention the numerous sexual misconduct allegations. It is extremely concerning that despite this, Trump was still able to conduct, and win, his campaign without facing adequate scrutiny for his actions; and even gaining status as a role model for many along the way.
Trump was able to attract male voters, young men in particular, by appealing to male stereotypes and ideals such as embodying an ‘unabashed machismo vibe’ fuelled by testosterone. By engaging with the ‘manosphere’ and appearing on podcasts hosted by Rogan, Logan Paul and Theo Von - whose audience and purpose typically support masculine authority and power - Trump was able to influence this demographic of voters; a group that historically tended to support Democratic candidates. It is important to note that Harris faced major backlash for reportedly avoiding hard-hitting interviews, opting for more informal settings instead - perhaps due to insinuations that this indicated she wasn’t ‘tough’ enough for serious politics. However, Trump went for a very similar tactic of utilising podcasts and chat shows to reach younger audiences, as well as pulling out of multiple high-level interviews such as ‘60 minutes’, without facing backlash of the same nature.
Though Trump undoubtedly faced some backlash, and even mocking during his campaign, this did not impact his career outcomes in the same manner that the criticism that Harris faced did. Rather, his brash, confrontational manner was seen as a strength by many, while Harris was expected to be more diplomatic. While she had to be flawless, he was able to benefit from traditional masculine ideals, reflecting outdated stereotypes of leadership and creating barriers to women entering positions of power in male-dominated spaces.
Lawless vs Flawless
From looking at broader society as a whole, as well as the specific context of Kamala Harris’ experience and outcomes in the 2024 presidential election, we can see how women in male-dominated fields face higher standards (conditioned into themselves, and imposed by others); are judged more harshly for emotional expression; and often have to navigate a fine line between being seen as competent and being labelled as ‘too aggressive’ or ‘unlikeable’.
With gender playing into the perceptions of employability, or electability in Harris’ case, women often have to prove themselves more so than men to be seen as viable candidates. Harris was held to a different standard than Trump. So much so, CNN’s Senior Political Commentator, Van Jones, noted how seemingly unfair this election was, and that Harris was ‘not taking the same exam’ as Trump.
Harris’ many qualifications were frequently downplayed in favour of focusing on her ability to accomplish certain roles and behaviours based on gendered and racial stereotypes. Conversely, Trump’s seemingly lack of qualifications and status as a convicted felon, a 6-time-bankrupted businessman, and a controversial politician did not hold him back from securing a win during the recent election.
The Future
Though our current reality forces women into an uphill battle, with dire consequences at the bottom and perils throughout, we are nonetheless on the move. With role models such as Harris paving the way, we can see a broader cultural shift toward gender equality in workspaces, particularly those traditionally dominated by men.
However, we need women and allies in positions of power to enact this change. Mentorship schemes and policy changes are two ways real, tangible change can be brought about. While these pragmatic changes are important, we also need to change the ideological beliefs our society holds about women’s roles. As we have seen, the media has incredible influence over the narrative surrounding this issue. It is concerning therefore to see that the owners of some of the largest social media platforms - Instagram, Facebook, X (previously known as Twitter), and now more recently TikTok - all attended Trump’s inauguration and have financially and/or politically supported Trump’s campaign. Public perceptions can be made or broken through the media - from national news stations to social media to independent podcasts - and until we can break from traditional stereotypes, women will continue to fight this battle.
Gendered expectations affect women in male-dominated spaces, particularly in politics, and these expectations were starkly evident in the 2024 Presidential Election. The Harris vs. Trump election underscores the broader societal need to reconsider and challenge outdated gendered norms in leadership, both in politics and in other professional sectors which create barriers for women. Occupational segregation, sexism, and gender inequality in the workplace are deep-rooted issues, with a history that goes back centuries. We need a nuanced understanding of how this affects experiences in professional arenas to enable change in our society. By framing Kamala Harris's candidacy within these broader societal issues, hopefully, we can see the need for systemic change to achieve true equality and representation for women, especially women of colour, in politics and beyond.
As Harris said in her concession speech on November 6th, announcing her loss to the world, ‘do not despair, this is not a time to throw up our hands, this is a time to roll up our sleeves’.
.jpg)
.jpg)
