“Nasty” women put an end to the boys’ club

LySandra Vuong | Daily Trojan

“Such a nasty woman.”

He shook his head as he said it, smirking, his right index finger held up like a boy genius about to shriek “Eureka!” No doubt he thought his remark was fresh, even witty. Even so, perhaps the most disconcerting part of this incident was his smile, which he leveled directly at the camera. His opponent, unfazed or at least used to it, continued talking without hesitation.

Unlike Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, when the viewers of the third presidential debate heard Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s comment, they did not move on unflinchingly into the meat of the 90-minute spectacle. Instead, the Twitter backlash was instantaneous: what a misogynist, what a fool. And moreover, “nasty” — so what? Thank you, Trump, for making “nasty” a rallying cry. If nasty is what it takes to become the first female president of the United States, to reconcile power and authority with a woman’s body, then nasty is what the country is going to get.

The next day, Rep. Brian Babin — a far-off voice yelping from a corner of the media world — gave his two cents from behind a Fox News Radio microphone: “I think sometimes a lady needs to be told when she’s being nasty.” But honestly, is there a lady anywhere, by this point, who is listening?

Much like the election of President Barack Obama in 2008 didn’t herald the age of a post-racial America, the election of Clinton this November will not signal the end of this country’s rampant, systemic sexism. Nevertheless, if there is any sign at all that things are headed in the right direction, then one need only look to the response to “nasty woman” as a litmus test.

It is a challenge all women (no matter how powerful) are familiar with: how far can they assert themselves before being deemed unlikeable? The answer is, honestly, not very much. Though it has been 70 years since women rushed into the workforce and almost a century since they were given the vote, it is absolutely no secret how men still want women to behave: submissive, quiet and afraid of the status quo.

Anyone who argues that this is not true need only familiarize himself with the widely recognized phenomenon of “mansplaining” (in which a man explains to a woman, often by interrupting her, a concept she already knows or can very well figure out for herself) or, perhaps this proven statistic that male executives are lauded for being outspoken, while female executives are criticized for possessing exactly that same quality.

One of Clinton’s biggest criticisms is her cold nature, her sometimes too-calculated responses and her over-preparedness — all of which can translate into her being “unlikeable.” Maybe even “nasty,” because she’s a woman who isn’t afraid to rhetorically demolish a man in the final ring of fire before the presidency.

But the reaction toward Trump’s “nasty woman” comment is almost as revolutionary as Clinton is.

She may not act “likeable,” but she made it here. For the first time, girls everywhere get to ponder: Does being likeable even matter anymore? On a national stage, Trump called Clinton “nasty,” and nasty women everywhere laughed him into the dust.

It is important to consider, also, who Trump was speaking to the night of the presidential debate. To recall, he looked straight into the camera as he uttered “nasty woman,” shaking his head and smiling. Clearly, he thought that his intended audience was out there, probably white, probably male. They exist, he thinks, somewhere over a sea of Clinton supporters, sharing the feeling that yes, this woman is nasty, that Trump is the one to sympathize with for being forced to listen to a woman squawk about debt and entitlements in his left ear. Clearly, the man Trump is sharing his smile with must be out there — the invisible bro on the receiving end of Trump’s imaginary fist bump.

But if Trump imagined that the majority of debate viewers shared his sentiment about Clinton’s nastiness, then he is wrong. After the debate, he would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would defend his degrading remark (save for Babin, of course). What people realize (that Trump didn’t) is what desperation sounds like. And Trump’s “nasty woman” phrase stands out not only for its inherent sexism and profound lack of diplomacy, but also because it reeks of the longing for approval.

The American patriarchy is constructed from men patting each other on the back, and there was no one patting Trump’s back that day, on stage or after the debate finished. It was obvious to anyone watching that the “nasty woman” comment was Trump’s last futile attempt to paint as unlikeable a woman who the public has already accepted as such. Truthfully, the comment resembled the whimpers a child would give as he drags himself to the time-out corner, the punishment and the outcome of his bad behavior already dealt.

Again, electing Clinton to the presidency will by no means mark the end of sexism. But what it will do is signal the biggest kick to the tower,  resulting in the tumbling of the patriarchy. And if there’s any moment from her campaign the public should remember, it must be this one: Almost 100 years after women were granted the right to vote, a woman has navigated herself all the way up to the presidency. And that she can stand, on the stage of her third and final presidential debate, across from a man who can call her “nasty,” and that for once, in all of history, this will demonstrate more about his character than it will about her own.