Likable. Electable. Viable.
Not to mention completely unfair.
Only 48 hours after the Massachusetts congresswoman formally launched an exploratory committee to run for president, these are the characteristics by which Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been evaluated on for her potential presidential bid.
Because men are held to different standards — and because in 2019 women and their allies are having none of it — these speculations by media outlets are getting called out on the internet.
Politico, this is ridic. Why are you framing this negatively? LET WOMEN BE CANDIDATES WITHOUT ALL THE EXTRA BULLSHIT. You are the problem here.
— Aurora Browne (@aurorabrowne) January 2, 2019
In a video announcing her presidential aspirations, Warren discusses how spending her career tackling economic inequality has prepared her to “rebuild America’s middle class” and to fight the “echo chamber of fear and hate designed to distract and divide us.”
However, instead of evaluating Warren’s presidential possibilities on her merits, the internet has pointed out, coverage has unfairly focused on of Warren’s “likability” and whether her “moment has passed.” Media outlets have also begun comparing Warren’s potential 2020 presidential campaign to Hillary Clinton’s, in a way many are criticizing as being sexist.
People already comparing Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton and asking how she avoids her fate. Funny, no one is comparing Biden or Sanders to failed nominees Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry. I wonder why that is? 🤔🤔
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 1, 2019
In an article published by Politico, “Warren battles the ghosts of Hillary,” reporter Natasha Korecki interviewed Warren’s allies and advisers on whether Warren would be able to overcome “perceptions of her as cold or aloof.” In the article, Korecki writes: “Like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gendered terms like ‘shrill’ or ‘scoldy’ are already ascribed to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, as people dismiss her as a viable 2020 contender.”
“Who has established that Elizabeth Warren is cold & aloof?” Roland Martin questioned Politico on Twitter. “This is the kind of bulls*** narrative that women get saddled with, then all of a sudden it sticks. DO BETTER.”
Meanwhile, when the New York Times published an article questioning the timing of Warren’s presidential bid, former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards made the perfect rebuttal. “When @nytpolitics would it be a good time for a woman to run for president? asking for a friend.”
Following the coverage of Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign, many are no longer remaining silent about the sexism they feel played a large part in the end result of the 2016 election.
Read all the best reactions to the coverage of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s possible 2020 presidential campaign below:
When @nytpolitics would it be a good time for a woman to run for president? asking for a friend 🧐
— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 2, 2019
Elizabeth Warren may or may not ultimately be my candidate of choice.
But there is zero question that she is eminently qualified to be president of the United States.
Yet it feels like people are tearing her apart because they wouldn’t have voted for her for homecoming princess
— Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) January 1, 2019
SHE. HASN’T. EVEN. STARTED. AND. SHE’S. ALREADY. BEING. HELD. TO. A. DIFFERENT. STANDARD.
— Glam Pornel (@annpornel) January 2, 2019
Too unlikable = has a vagina.
— Ellen Hopkins (@EllenHopkinsLit) January 2, 2019
no one is required to "like" elizabeth warren but the point is that women have to be "likeable" and motherly to be "electable" and men just have to be the most horrible human beings to ever walk the planet bc it makes them "strong leaders" or something?? wtf
— chris 💚 (@cree_sto) January 2, 2019
So @Politico, who has established that @ewarren @SenWarren is cold & aloof? I've interviewed her several times. That's simply not the case. I rarely curse on Twitter, but this is the kind of bullshit narrative that women get saddled with, then all of a sudden it sticks. DO BETTER https://t.co/owaoU3eM6t
— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) January 2, 2019
I know the media’s got a lot to deal with these days, but please check yourself/your outlet on the inherent misogyny in the way we describe women in politics. Don’t talk about women’s voices just because they sound different then men’s. Stop calling women unlikeable. Period.
— Christina Reynolds (@creynoldsnc) January 1, 2019
"Electable", "likeable," and "viable" — all deeply problematic, with a side-dish of meaningless, since the #1 axiom of politics these days is that we know nothing. https://t.co/mpPrSlxR5P
— Amanda Litman (@amandalitman) January 2, 2019
Not too long ago folks said @AyannaPressley, @LUnderwood630 & others were "unelectable." Tomorrow, they along w/104 other women will be sworn into the 116th Congress. Perhaps we need to rethink "electability" & what y'all really mean when you say some folks aren't.
— Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) January 2, 2019
When did @ewarren become unlikable? Looks like you can pinpoint time of unlikability to moment she showed ambition to be POTUS. As far as women have come, people still find women w/ ambition vexing. “There’s something about her I just don’t like.” https://t.co/zfiDyCDq8M
— Jennifer Palmieri (@jmpalmieri) January 1, 2019