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


LySandra Vuong | Daily Trojan

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.

4 replies
  1. Ras5555
    Ras5555 says:

    People of all colors and genders come in all packages – good and bad. That means for every “group” whether we are looking at race or gender we will have hard working, lazy, generous, greedy, kind and nasty. Yet, in recent years it has become taboo to describe certain groups with certain descriptions – even if it is accurate – because the Social Justice Warriors have deemed that to be hate speech. The only exception is heterosexual white males – it is open season of those guys – be as critical as you want with them – even if it is not accurate because they are shielded with this fiction known as “White privilege”.

    Can a black person be called “lazy” if they are truly lazy or does that mean the person calling the black person lazy is a racist? Can a black person call a black person lazy? What are the SJW rules and regulations pertaining to this situation? Can a female actually be nasty and be called out on it or should females be a protected class of people, where, if the term “nasty” is used to describe them, that automatically means the person using that word is a misogynist and needs to wear that scarlet “M” forever?

    What if a male did exactly what Hillary has done in her life and someone called that man “nasty”? Would we have op-ed’s with panties in a bunch over the use of the word? Let’s grow up people.

  2. Lunderful
    Lunderful says:

    Look into the salaries of the people on Hillary’s campaign team. The men are paid about 70% MORE than the women doing comparable tasking. Old habits die hard, eh Hillary. Typical Leftist – to wit – do as I say, not as I do.

  3. Thekatman
    Thekatman says:

    Trump called her nasty because he would not the word @$$hole. Mrs Bill Clinton has staked her career on the coat tails of her husband. she has gotten where she is today, not on the basis of her character., not on her accomplishments, but because she has used her marrage to Bill Clinton as the catalyst. She is nurturing the vagina vote, simple as that. You and others who are Hillary proponents are voting for her strictly on the basis of her gender, not her accomplishments. She has proven to you, her supporters and the world that she is not trustworthy; has failed at most of her career positions, lied to everyone, covered up her lack of leadership with the Benghazi failure, lied directly to the grieving mothers of 4 dead American heros, got caught running weapons through the Benghazi consulate and lied about the video being responsible for the attack.

    She is not worthy of the position of POTUS. She’s a thoef… stole $200,000+ in White House, US government property when Bill moved out of the White House in 2001. Whitewater, Travelgate, laughing about a rape victim, being kicked off the Nixon Watergate a committee for lying and hiding evidence. Yes, she’s not just untrustworthy, she is corrupt to her core. and this list isn’t complete. Talk to the Bernie folks and ask them if they trust her.

    Do some researich on the 47+ Clinton affil I ate Secret Service e agents, fri3nds, associates whow has died under mysterious circumstwnces. Read any of the excerpts from ex Secret Service agents who had to work the Clinton details since 1992 until now….. no one likes her, as she is mean, hateful and vulgar towards them and others. Yes she can be nice, but calculating towards those who give the Clinton Foundation money, or folks who can advance her spare of power.

    And as for women’s rights, she’s a hypocrite and you know it, though you probably refuse to acknowledge it. Receiving money from foreign governments to fun the “Clinton Foundation” that do not protect women, do not have equal rights for women, and pay her female campaign staff less money than the men…. ya know, kid… I could go on and on, but will end it here.

    I gather you are for women’s rights. Good thing, but Hillary is not the woman who is a proponent of women’s rights. She’ll tell you anything in public, but in private she is another person with alternate views.

    • GeorgeCurious
      GeorgeCurious says:

      Come on, Katman, why are you trying to complicate matters with facts and logic? This country is hell-bent on electing people based on identity politics.

Comments are closed.