- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Two Professors Have a Great Idea to Show How Terrible Trump is, it backfires
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:34 pm
LINK
Two professors, one from INSEAD and one from New York University, put together Her Opponent, a re-enactment of the Trump-Clinton debates with the genders reversed—the Donald Trump role was played by Rachel Whorton and the Hillary Clinton role by Daryl Embry.
Salvatore said that the two started the project, NYU explains, "assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they'd each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump's aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton's competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man."
As you might already have guessed, the actual performances didn't turn out that way. Instead of confirming the professors' assumptions, the performances suggested different conclusions. The style of Brenda King, the female Donald Trump character, was attractive to many of the audience members who assumed that Jonathan Gordon, the male Hillary Clinton character, would be even more clearly more competent than his opponent than under the original gender paradigm.
Two professors, one from INSEAD and one from New York University, put together Her Opponent, a re-enactment of the Trump-Clinton debates with the genders reversed—the Donald Trump role was played by Rachel Whorton and the Hillary Clinton role by Daryl Embry.
Salvatore said that the two started the project, NYU explains, "assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they'd each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump's aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton's competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man."
As you might already have guessed, the actual performances didn't turn out that way. Instead of confirming the professors' assumptions, the performances suggested different conclusions. The style of Brenda King, the female Donald Trump character, was attractive to many of the audience members who assumed that Jonathan Gordon, the male Hillary Clinton character, would be even more clearly more competent than his opponent than under the original gender paradigm.
15
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:37 pm to anc
For a real life example of this see the up coming election in France with Marine Le Pen.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:42 pm to GumboPot
How much grant money did they get for this "study"?
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:42 pm to anc
It's not about gender, it's about confidence in your position.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:43 pm to anc
Wow! So it has to do more with message than Hillary just being a shite candidate? That's really bad news for dems.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:45 pm to anc
Don't worry. They still found their SJW complaint:
quote:
The Jonathon Gordon character's effeminacy also came up with some observers. Salvatore said the actor received no notes to be more effeminate in his portrayal. "I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy," Salvatore said. "People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things."
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:46 pm to anc
quote:
Two professors
quote:
assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they'd each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump's aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton's competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man
Shocked.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:47 pm to ell_13
quote:
I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy," Salvatore said. "People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things."
"It's not fair that they made me feel this way".
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:48 pm to anc
Very interesting. I certainly found the woman to be more "credible" than I did Trump so the result don't surprise me so much. I always felt that Hilarry supporters were latent sexists because they could fathom how a woman could be more corrupt as a man in their misogynist little brains.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:49 pm to anc
quote:
Salvatore said that the two started the project, NYU explains, "assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they'd each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump's aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton's competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man."
Interesting theory. I'd agree if this were 1970 (or even 1990).
But in today's culture, people would eat that shite up.
Watch the video in the link. Seriously, it gives you the impression that she is a strong woman who isn't going to let herself be bullied by a man. I can see why the "audience" liked her so much.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:50 pm to Aristo
quote:
It's not about gender, it's about having a position.
FIFY
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:53 pm to anc
quote:
Notably, a number of Clinton supporters struggled to find in Gordon what had attracted them to Clinton. Instead, they found his style grating. "Someone said that Jonathan Gordon was 'really punchable' because of all the smiling," Salvatore said. "And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience."
"I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man's body," Salvatore said, "and also by the fact that I didn't find Trump's behavior on a woman to be off-putting."
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:07 pm to bbrownso
Literally sexist...
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:10 pm to IceTiger
so this group of clowns realized that they were literally voting for her genitalia....not her policies.
what a joke. They should all resign in shame.
what a joke. They should all resign in shame.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:10 pm to IceTiger
It just shows, people don't care about gender, they care about policy and if the candidate comes off as genuine or another BS politician
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:30 pm to anc
I would vote for the woman over that man too. My problem with trump is that he is just such a douche. His hair, his facial expressions, etc just bother me.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:33 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
His hair?
Are you kidding me? That really matters to people?
Oh yeah, Rand Paul isn't President.
Are you kidding me? That really matters to people?
Oh yeah, Rand Paul isn't President.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:14 pm to ell_13
quote:
As a gay man
Figures
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:17 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
Jesus people vote based on hair
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:33 pm to CptBengal
quote:
so this group of clowns realized that they were literally voting for her genitalia
I think it was more than that. I think they liked the idea of an alpha female who is agressive. They enjoyed their heroine.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News