Presidential Debate

Gender-Reversed Presidential Debate Reveals Trump's Allure to Clinton Voters

Organizers assumed swapping gender roles would show how unacceptable Trump's style would be in a woman.

|

via NYU

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.

Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, a global graduate business school, says she came up with the idea after watching the second debate, when she wondered what kind of reactions Trump's performance would elicit if it came from a woman. She recruited Joe Salvatore, a clinical associate professor of educational theatre at NYU with a background in adapting interviews, transcripts, and other historical media into plays.

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.

"Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn't lose," New York Times reporter Alexis Soloski, who attended one of the two performances, wrote. "This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won."

Each of the two performances were followed by a discussion where audience members' impressions of the debate were sussed out. "I've never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance," Salvatore told NYU. "For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended."

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."

"In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting," Salvatore continued. "I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke."

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."

Watch a two minute segment via NYU below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

299 responses to “Gender-Reversed Presidential Debate Reveals Trump's Allure to Clinton Voters

  1. Where are female Gary Johnson and the male Jill Stein?

    1. The same place they were in the real debates.

      1. GarJo was in Aleppo.
        Jill Stein was in the basement mixin’ up the medecin’.

  2. Damn it, you stole my PM Link!!

    Anyway, fascinating stuff. Need to keep an eye out for the video recreation.

  3. And just like the original debate, it was impossible to differentiate the candidates by their policy positions.

  4. “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 enough that society protects my rights.

    People must like me!

    1. Crushing it as always, Ken.

    2. “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough…”

    3. Where did he say that society didn’t protect his rights? Where did he say that people must like him?

      I think he brought up a great point. For many gay men, it takes a lot of work to erase effeminate mannerisms. Erasing those mannerisms is done to avoid bullying at a young age. It sucks to have those same mannerisms used against you later in life. Or are people not allowed to express these emotions just because of Obergefell now? He wasn’t using his emotions to justify an overreaching public policy position, so I don’t understand why a libertarian would have a problem with what he said.

  5. It didn’t have any effect on me. The re-enacted “debate” seemed as hollow and empty as the real one.

    1. Yep. Male or female, they were both terrible candidates.

      1. Hillary spewed out absolute nonsense and nothing of substance. She just packaged it in politician speak and with proper grammar, whereas Trump was like a 3rd grader who had never had grammar class. I can kind of see where people thought Hillary won and was intelligent, but only if they actually know very little about the world.

      2. Well thats true, but I was surprised by the extent to which Mrs. Trump came across as the plucky underdog, and Mr Clinton the condescending mansplainer.

    2. Meh, reversing genders doesn’t move the needle. Still Smiley Robocandidate Pantsuit vs. Rudus Interruptus.

  6. There was already a male analog to Hilary Clinton in this past election, his name is Bill Weld.

    1. Nah uh, he’s ‘the original libertarian’.

    2. I though Hillary was already her own male analog which made this exercise a moot point

      1. Beat me to it.

    3. “There was already a female analog to Hilary Clinton in this past election, his name is Bill Weld.”

      FIFY

  7. Hillary lost cause she is a horrible candidate with a stench of corruption and robot personality who ran on im not the other guy (lik a McCain)

    Trump was a vulgar obama who ran on hope and change (aka maga) and had a personality

    1. And now that we know Trump is actually corrupt and Hillary isn’t, and that Trump’s mental illness wasn’t actually an act, Americans feel really stupid.

      1. Is this a serious post?

        What is trumps corruption by the way?

        1. Medium to heavy treason.

            1. defeating Herself, duh!

            2. Colluding with the Russian government to fix the American election.

              1. What evidence do you have and how was the election fixed exactly? Did they hack voting machines and or did russia count votes?

                1. }}} Did they hack voting machines and or did russia count votes?

                  Well, we know Donna Brazile failed to wear her tinfoil hat, so the Rooshins had no problems using their Mind Control devices to make her give Hillary advance notice of all the debate questions.

                  There are unnamed sources who have positively identified that it was repeatedly stolen by pro-Trump supporters to enable this process.

              2. What collusion was going on and how do you know? Was obama tapping trump?

                That seems like more of a threat tapping major candidates seeing how trump is now president so taps must have found nothing and called into question reason for tapping

              3. That would be ted kennedy, but I can understand how you could confuse the two with their similar treatment of women.

              4. In what manner did the fixing of the election manifest? Was it the release of emails from the DNC showing?

                1. A constant drip of DNC emails, while exposing pretty much nothing in the way of actual malfeasance, left a certain impression of corruption in the minds of just enough stupid white people to probably swing the election. At least we’d better hope so, because this country picking Trump on purpose is an even worse prospect.

                  1. Tony|3.8.17 @ 12:42PM|#
                    “A constant drip of DNC emails, while exposing pretty much nothing in the way of actual malfeasance,”

                    Now, Tony claims some intelligence, and yet the stupid son of a bitch STILL hasn’t grasped the difference between “emails” and treating classified material like the laundry list on a server in the hall closet.

                  2. A constant drip of DNC emails, while exposing pretty much nothing in the way of actual malfeasance revealing that the Democratic primary is a sham, left a certain impression knowledge of corruption in the minds of just enough stupid white people Bern victims to probably swing the election.

                    People learned the truth and that caused them to make the WRONG decision, according to Tony.

                    1. Two snarky emails did not swing 3.5 million votes away from He Who Commands Birds.

                    2. So how did russia fix the election? Who were the authors of those dnc emails? It wasnt russia

                    3. And yet the (far more than) two snarky emails was enough to get 5 people to resign from the DNC committee and 7 others to be fired.

                      The DOJ ordering the FBI to issue immunity to all witnesses in the server investigation and then claim there was not enough admissible evidence to reach a conclusion really didn’t help the vote tally either.

                    4. Look I come here to get away from the Bernie psychos.

                    5. And you got smacked down instead, Tony. Peddle your nonsense elsewhere. When you can finally see the truth (which is 180deg from what you currently believe) feel free to come back.

                  3. So it was enough to swing six states obama won twice?

                    The dnc emails were pretty tame but i agree the dem party is a bunch of aholes

                  4. How did trump know what was in the dnc emails and why would he be involved in hacking it?

                  5. Wow, I mean I didn’t know it was the Russians that made Hillary setup her email servers in her closet. Or that they put nasty emails on Podesta computer.

                    I mean the created all those false emails right? The DNC loves everyone and doesn’t think anyone is an idiot. Oh that’s right, it was exposed (If it was Russia) what the Dems really think.

                    Tony, shouldn’t you be out protesting with with the women of privilege today?

                  6. Wow, I mean I didn’t know it was the Russians that made Hillary setup her email servers in her closet. Or that they put nasty emails on Podesta computer.

                    I mean the created all those false emails right? The DNC loves everyone and doesn’t think anyone is an idiot. Oh that’s right, it was exposed (If it was Russia) what the Dems really think.

                    Tony, shouldn’t you be out protesting with with the women of privilege today?

                  7. The Clinton/DNC emails were small potatoes. Clinton Foundation donations for access seemed a lot bigger sign of corruption to me. Political office holders and office seekers should not be soliciting donations (even for their charities) from people who may benefit from their actions in office.

                  8. }}} A constant drip of DNC emails, while exposing pretty much nothing in the way of actual malfeasance, left a certain impression of corruption in the minds of just enough stupid white people to probably swing the election

                    Oh, my. Were you ever made aware that drinking that much Koolaid inevitably lead to political diabetes? PD, unlike regular diabetes, instead attacks the brain centers responsible for rational analysis.

                    Hint: The e-mails more than amply demonstrated that, if the fix hadn’t been in for Hillary, she’d be sitting in jail right now for about a half-dozen different variations of felonious activity and outright treason — from accepting bribes (“donations to the Clinton Foundation for ‘speaking fees'”) from foreign governments to failure to properly protect State Secrets and openly violating common-sense caution while in the possession of said secrets. GENERALS have lost their jobs for far far less than what Hillary did.

              5. /facepalm — bro that was just a red herring! Does nobody remember the Cold War!?

              6. Tony shows us that fuller retard is not only possible, but inevitable.

              7. Like this as someone mention. I know it’s not a coloring book

                http://www.lifezette.com/poliz…..ubterfuge/

          1. What do you care, you live in New Zealand now.

          2. Medium to heavy treason.

            Nice punk rock album name. Because in any other context it sounds like rambling butthurt.

            and Hillary isn’t

            Butthurt AND alternative facts. Never stop being you, Tony.

            1. Of course there are no Arrested Development fans here.

              1. We are all hanging out at the Bannana stand. No free wifi there.

              2. It was Georgia Bluth, Sr.’s light treason.

                But I will give you a BIG HAND for trying to find Arrested Development fans here.

              3. Just because you defecate to the strings of Mozart doesn’t mean I want to clap the beat with you.

              4. You’ve made a huge mistake.

          3. Tony|3.8.17 @ 11:57AM|#
            “Medium to heavy treason.”

            You left out “Hitler!”, Tony. Why stop when you can go full retard?

          4. You should learn to take some breaks Tony, or at least mix up the rhetoric a bit.

            If you keep yelling Treason, Fascist and Impeachment non-stop, you’re gonna get all tuckered out long before his four years are up.

            1. Because Trump calls for subtlety.

      2. Are you a licensed doctor to determine this mental illness?

        1. Yes, and I diagnose you terminally fucking retarded.

          1. Whoa isn’t retarded against the pc code?

            Are you a nice person?

            1. I’m known as a somewhat reserved bon vivant.

                1. I like for people to be well treated when they’re around me, but I don’t like small talk.

                  1. Tony|3.8.17 @ 12:32PM|#
                    “…but I don’t like small talk.”

                    Since that’s all you got, you’re in trouble.

                    1. Oh boy is he ever. He also needs to shed his idiotic beliefs about Clinton’s saintliness and Trump’s “treason”.

      3. Why are you on here? Shouldn’t you be on strike?

        1. I’ve got a theory that Tony and the other trolls are actually the Reason interns sock puppeting.

          Because the editors fear HNR would become an echo chamber without the Sock Puppet trolls.

      4. So Trump is corrupt based on the hearsay of “unnamed intelligence officials” with no actual evidence, and Clinton isn’t corrupt because the investigation into her rather blatant pay-for-play Clinton Foundation slush fund (which took money from Russia fwiw) was dropped after the tarmac meeting between the Democrat Attny. Gen and Bill Clinton.

        1. Though how was there intelligence if obama and admin wasnt having him tapped?

        2. So you believe wholesale a bunch of Breitbartian horseshit about the Clintons, but for stuff currently actually being investigated and on the front page of every newspaper every day about Trump, nothing to see here!

          I mean, look at the man. I’d assume corrupt until proved otherwise. Why not? You people hate government and its officials, right?

          1. It gives me no end of joy to see how bitchy Trump’s Presidency has made you. The collective REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE from you dipshits has been a delight.

            1. My thought as well.

              Tony is even more idiotic than usual, and that’s a real trick.

          2. What is being investigated on trump and how are they doing it? Like what method. Did obama tap him? Seems watergate like since nothing popped up so far

          3. “Stories that confirm my bias are true, stories that do not are not true, regardless of the actual merit of either of them. If you disagree with me I’ll scream at you about how stupid and evil you are.”

            -Tony’s nuanced view of the world.

            1. Three decades of rightwing horseshit flung at the Clintons and they got a consensual BJ. At some point it looks a little obsessive.

              Trump’s a whole other ball of mafia-tied foreign-influenced wax.

              1. Thank you for providing an example to my point. I really should have also mentioned something about a lack of self-awareness.

              2. I agree with tony here. The media went really lite on hillary when covering her and corruption for the 2016 election

              3. Wow. Deliberately violation IT security protocols is ‘rightwing horseshit’.

                This ‘non-issue’ allowed the evil Russians to hack her email server.

                1. When did the Russians hack Hillary Clinton’s server?

                  1. Knowing how the Dems treat cyber security, probably about fifteen seconds after it finished booting up for the first time in the bathroom of her house.

          4. So you believe wholesale a bunch of Breitbartian Wikileakian horseshit hatefacts about the Clintons

            But the CIA, who we now know routinely utilizes false flag attacks by attributing software to foreign entities, assures us without evidence beyond what we know they are capable of planting, that the Russians did it. And the hilarious thing is, Tony thinks it’s other people who are stupid.

            1. Was it the risotto?

              1. Tony|3.8.17 @ 12:32PM|#
                “Was it the risotto?”

                Nope. Just your stupidity.

          5. Tony we don’t have to “believe” anything when we can know for certain — if the Clinton Foundation maintains it’s past levels of charitable donations than it is clean; if it cannot maintain those levels than it is and was obviously a corrupt, money laundering, pay for play, that took massive amounts of money from foreign nations.

            Facts are still real! That said, I’m not certain if the Clinton Foundation ever releases their numbers? Good charities are transparent.

            1. Well that’s certainly sound logic.

              1. If they weren’t taking bribes for political favors than the Clinton Foundation should have no reason for monetary fluctuation.

      5. And now that we know Trump is actually corrupt and Hillary isn’t

        ::Cue Amadeus laugh::

        1. I’m stealing this.

      6. Corrupt politicians are like ‘Highlander’ now? There can only be one?

        1. That’s Tony’s MO: assume there can only be one. If you criticize affirmative action he’ll snark ‘right, white guys are the real victims of racism.”

          If a phenomenon exists, it can apply to only one person or one group. In his febrile mind it’s like a basic law of logic.

      7. Remember how Tony’s line during the election was that Clinton was corrupt, but that was fine because she’s just as corrupt as any other politician. Funny how that changes.

          1. I never said that?

            1. You alternated between denying any corruption and claiming that anything Clinton’s done is just on par with other politicians. Which is really just an obvious tell indicating that you’re fully aware that you’re lying and can’t be consistent.

              1. So tony basically you just believe what you want to believe cause your team?

              2. She’s not corrupt, but she is a politician, meaning she’s changed positions from time to time for reasons of expediency.

                Since the only other option was an incompetent mentally ill fat moldy grapefruit, it seemed like a rather small issue.

                1. And you continue to attempt to redefine what you said in order to weasel out. Classic pathological lying (no wonder you’re a fan of Clinton).

                  1. *Blinks eyes*

                    “Obama wiretapped me!”

                    What lie has she ever told that beats that one?

                    1. Tony|3.8.17 @ 12:45PM|#
                      “Obama wiretapped me!”

                      What lie has she ever told that beats that one?”

                      Pwheeet!
                      Illegal goal post motion!

                    2. In Tonyville, the badness of a lie (a dubious accusation would only qualify as a lie if he knows for a fact it isn’t true) is determined by how much badfeel it makes Tony feel.

                    3. Strangely I know several people who have dodged Serbian sniper fire. Clinton wasn’t one of them.

                      *Blinks eyes*

                      Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

                      Lo! I show you the Last Man.

                      “What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” so asks the Last Man, and blinks.

                    4. Also, this whole “durr if I deflect to Trump I’m winning the argument” tactic really just highlights how pathetic your attempts at misdirection are.

                    5. So how was there intelligence from fbi and cia showing collusion if obama didnt wiretap him?

                    6. Lie: that benghazi was done because of a youtube video

                    7. Wow. Benghazi? And I’m still talking to you?

                    8. We really wish you wouldn’t, the whole ‘I’m either a pathological liar or openly delusional’ thing you’re going for isn’t great.

                    9. Was it a lie or not? Or an alternative fact?

                    10. In Tonyville, Benghazi is ancient history but consensual BJs are a worthy target of deflection.

                    11. I have always found this “consensual BJ” defense to be disingenuous.

                      As those of us who work for living know, the EEOC, at the urging of “liberals” and the courts, are all over private industry over “hostile workplaces”. One of the key issues raised in EEOC training is that consensual relationships between different levels in an organization are not possible because of the disparate levels of authority.

                      It goes further, in that they tell us that even if there is consent, if gives the appearance of being coercive, and therefore leads others to believe that consent to these relationships is a necessary part of success in the workplace. Hence, it is a sexually hostile workplace to people not even part of the relationship.

                      As President, Clinton was responsible for enforcing these laws/regulations. The claim that his relationship with Lewinsky was ok because it was consensual required that he, and his supporters ignore the very principles they supposedly held dear.

                      I point this out, as just another example of Tony’s, and other liberals of his ilk’s, dishonestly. It does not appear to me that they actually have an principles of any sort unless they are convenient. Pretty much “the ends justify the means” covers it for them.

                    12. Wasn’t the creator of this video put in jail because of this lie?

                    13. Just to point it out, but the New York Times ran a story a while back about how senior officials in the Trump campaign were being investigated about their ties to Russia and that it involved evidence gained through wiretapping. Oops.

                      So yes, the campaign was indeed wiretapped and that information was obviously leaked. Odd how Obama didn’t crack down on whomever leaked that information since he did love to prosecute the bejezzus out of those who leaked information.

                      You’ll need to have a conversation about how acceptable that is, but the facts are that it happened. This is exactly the kind of thing we should expect when we create a deep state with the ability to largely ignore any and all transparency. It will be used against us and, make no mistake, Trump will use it as well. It’s a bad thing, no matter who wields it, but you’re far too partisan to recognize the root cause of it.

                      Maybe one day you’ll actually have some principles or consistency Tony, but I don’t think anyone around here is holding their breath.

                    14. Tony is a sock puppet.

                2. When the word doesn’t fit, you must redefine it!

                  1. Sometimes forrin people stay at his hotels, the paying for which is totes the same as “emoluments” according to some derangoids.

      8. Tony, you prove again that sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from stupidity.

  8. This kind of stunt would be meaningful only if the audience members had never heard of the candidates and had not seen the original debate. As is it, their biases and expectations undermined the performance art, turning it into a fourth-rate SNL sketch.

    1. Yeah, I remembered this exact exchange and kept picturing the originals. Plus the woman here sells Trump’s lines better than he did.

      1. I think the point somewhat stands though. Watching live, I thought Trump was a grade-A moron and couldn’t believe that anyone would vote for him. But this woman’s performance of his style actually made some sense.

        My perception of the Clinton performance didn’t really change. I thought she was wooden and programmed and not very effective. And I thought the same thing when the male actor was speaking her lines.

        So perhaps my anti-Trump bias tainted my read on his performance. Or perhaps Trump’s persona just grates on me so much that I couldn’t objectively see what was right in front of me.

        Either way, neither of them was going to get my vote.

        1. A lot of people hate Trump because Orange.

          Charles Murray is a good example. Trump is the politician actually addressing prime concerns of Murray that no other Republicans do, but REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

        2. Similar to my take away.

          Trump the candidate was relatively unfiltered Trump, and the actress did a very good job of conveying his persona. I especially liked the body language, which I thought was quite a trick for her to pull off.

          Candidate Clinton meanwhile was obviously over coached and incredibly focus group sanitized. So much so that the actor really didn’t have much to work with other than forced smiles and repetition of poll tested phrases. IMO the actor had the tougher job – trying to impart life to a largely lifeless and ersatz persona.

        3. At least you’re self aware enough to recognize your bias, although not thoughtful enough to see past it. Cool. You’re almost ready to handle the responsibility of voting. Maybe in another 20 years, when you hopefully hit puberty.

    2. Alright, we got DildO and Tony’s hot takes

      1. It’s rather amusing that they both deliberately and gleefully missed the point of the whole project.

  9. This was really interesting. And possibly for the opposite reason that the researchers found it interesting. It plays exactly into my stereotypes – that college professors and progressives are a bunch of sexist douche-bags.

    All my life they’ve been lecturing me that a “strong woman” is considered a bitch but an asshole dude is considered “a strong leader”. And all my life I’ve been wondering where they’ve met these people who think like this.

    I’ve worked with and for plenty of strong women who are great leaders. Even a couple who were also grade-a bitches. And I’ve also worked with some terrible women executives who were enormous assholes. The same goes for the men. As far as I’ve been able to tell, there is no gender correlation there – other than the one outlier who really was a crazy bitch. But nobody associated that with gender …. she was just flaming nuts and needed a good firing years before they finally pulled the trigger. (true story – she had her secretary bring in a sexy french maid outfit and promise to wear it all day if the sales team met their goal. Didn’t get fired for that. Also told one of the cute paralegals to email the sales team that she would have sex with the first guy who closed a $20k deal. Didn’t get fired for that either. Like I said, flaming nuts.)

    1. Progressives project their own feelings onto others…see tony

    2. Watson’s comment about being offended when she was called bossy for ‘wanting to direct the plays’ they put on as kids always got me. It was probably because she was bossy, and telling her siblings what to do in a bossy way. it wasn’t because she was the ‘director’, but her way of directing.

      1. the “bossy” thing is weird too. As far as I can recall, it’s never been a term used exclusively for girls.

        1. Wah!
          I wanna be the boss, but don’t you dare call me bossy!
          Wah!

      2. I also think, at least with younger children, it has to do with where their sense of ‘power’ and leadership comes from. With young boys the ‘leader’ tends to be the one who can actually pull the boys together either through charisma or threat of force, because in a ‘boys hierarchy’ if you show weakness you get beat down hard. Girls can also pull girls together through charisma, but many are more willing to go to higher authority figures (teachers/parents) in order to get people to comply with their demands. Boys tend to lose a massive amount of social capital doing that. Girls, less so, but it’s still seen as the ‘leader’ acquiring unearned power. Hence ‘bossy’ girls are not girls who achieve ‘power’ legitimately, but those who supersede those requirements and demand it.

        1. Thanks for this. I’ve been trying to put a phrase to how all the current interest groups are grabbing power for themselves… It’s not by achievement, it’s by appeal to authority. That’s what really differentiates these individuals… They make their place in the system not by winning it, but by shaming/forcing the system to create a place for them.

    3. My experience is similar. If there is a sex-relted difference it’s that men are more likely to be called “asshole” or “dick” and women more likely to be called “bitch”, but for pretty much the same reasons.

      1. That is a part of my standard rant on this complaint. The “SJW” line is that “bitch” is gendered and therefore misogynistic.

        But that just flies in the face of reality. If calling Tom an asshole and Mary a bitch carry the same meaning (they do), then there is no gender-based content.

        But then I’m one of those computer-guy libertarian types who gets all technical about stuff like this. I’ve had the same conversation with Christian friends who shun cursing. One of them likes to say “praise the Lord” or “praise Jesus” as an exclamation. I’ve told her that her “Praise the Lord” is used exactly like the construction worker’s “holy shit”, and therefore means exactly the same thing. She did not take this well. But I maintain that it is the meaning conveyed that counts, not the form of the words.

        This is why I don’t get invited to cocktail parties with the Reason staff and their journalist friends.

        1. “Dick” is gendered too. Guys get called “dicks” all the time.

          But I’d be willing to compromise and just call them all assholes.

          1. Men also get called cunts and women get called pricks.

            Ain’t English grand?

        2. But I maintain that it is the meaning conveyed that counts, not the form of the words.

          This is why my dad didn’t allow us to say “darn” or “gosh” or “goshdarn”. “He” knows what you’re *really* thinking!

          Christianity was the original PC language police.

          1. You mean that, if not for Christianity, Jews could actually say the word G-d?

            Weird.

      2. Gays getting angry at other gays tend to use “bitch” too. It’s not gendered in the way that weepy identitarians want it to mean. It’s an insult, and it derives from the bitchy behavior of female dogs in heat, but it’s not an insult to an females in general.

        1. Which is an interesting usage, because it is intended as a mild insult while also being an in group acknowledgment.

    4. Also told one of the cute paralegals to email the sales team that she would have sex with the first guy who closed a $20k deal

      Well, don’t be stingy with the details–did she deliver?

      1. She politely told her boss that she wouldn’t be doing that. Which is way more polite than I would have been.

        Same lady was taking photos at an office party and gathered the 3 openly gay guys in her department together for a photo…. and then called over a not-gay Latino dude in his late 50’s and told him not to be shy and get in the shot with the other gays.

        That one did cause some trouble. They ended up “downsizing” the group that had the not-gay Latino in it – firing 5 people to put an end to his complaint. And then they hired another 5 folks to do jobs that were suspiciously similar and put them in the same desks.

        Like I said, she was nuts. We used to joke that she must have had photos of the owner banging a goat. There is no way that ordinary compromising photos would have gotten you that much leeway. Had to be bestiality or kiddie diddling to stay around with that kind of behavior.

        1. There is no way that ordinary compromising photos would have gotten you that much leeway. Had to be bestiality or kiddie diddling to stay around with that kind of behavior

          Probably could have been related to one of the board members or VPs. “We can’t get rid of her, Mr. Nepotist will have a fit!”

          The woman sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

        2. Monkey. It’s always a monkey (or possibly an oragutan). Never a goat.

    5. This was really interesting. And possibly for the opposite reason that the researchers found it interesting. It plays exactly into my stereotypes – that college professors and progressives are a bunch of sexist douche-bags.

      Exactly. The result was entirely predictable from the Vote Vagina identity politics driving the Clinton campaign.

  10. Interesting.

    I find it really odd that people would be wrong about their own expectations like this. And the whole “people wouldn’t tolerate the same behavior from a woman” thing never made much sense to me. And in the case of Trump. there were a lot of people (including, I assume, most people at NYU) who didn’t think his behavior was acceptable from a man.

    1. a lot of people (including, I assume, most people at NYU) who didn’t think his behavior was acceptable from a man

      A point that would seem confirmed by a hefty fraction of Trump’s own voters having a negative opinion of him or otherwise saying he was unqualified for the position.

      1. What is this hefty portion? Last i saw republican voters overwhelmingly approve of his job so far at 86 percent

        1. I’m a bit surprised it’s so high, given that he isn’t really much of a Republican. Partisanship is a hell of a drug, I guess.

          I think there are quite a few people who may approve overall of his performance, but who don’t think much of him as a person.

          1. I fall in to this category.

            I don’t think much of him, but the people he has in his cabinet and his supreme court pick are great.

            1. Same here. I actually have some admiration for Trump’s success and style, although I think he could have gone further and gotten richer with a slightly softer tone. But I have trouble arguing with results that are plain as day. As for President Trump – he wasn’t my first choice, or even my second, but when he came out against illegal immigration in a big way he became my third and moved up from there. But his Cabinet, his SC pick, and most of his policies so far seem pretty damn good to me. Again, so far. That could change.

              1. Actually, this is kinda what I expected from Trump. It is easy to forget, that asshole or not, he is a gifted businessman who hires very good people and lets them do good work. I actually expected to find him repeat this in office.

    2. I find it really odd that people would be wrong about their own expectations like this.

      Interesting. Brings to mind Haidt’s finding that the Left was much worse about accurately representing the arguments of the Right as the Right would describe them. Haidt took it as a failure to understand. (Though thinking about it, it could just as well have been willful, or habitual and reflexive, painting the Right in the worst light.)

      Maybe they don’t really understand *anyone*, themselves included. Or maybe they actually *believe* their own bullshit.

      This seems like a very interesting, and potentially useful effect.

      1. In my armchair opinion it’s because these people have never actually examined anything using logic, facts, or reason. Since they are driven almost entirely by utopian ideals of ‘fair’ and ‘from each according to their ability; to each according to their need’ and they view those goals through the lens of personal emotion it really does make a huge difference when you simply exchange the individual saying the same words.

        In other words, the actual statements don’t matter but rather the incidentals like the race and gender of the speaker make the biggest impact sans other information. An example would be hearing badthink words from a known Republican who happens to be black. He or she can be ignored because Republican trumps black in the identify politics pile.

        Another, perhaps more potent example, is that Trump is a Democrat who ran as a Republican. He agrees with people like Bernie Sanders on trade yet the Sanders people still hate him even though he’s pushing for exactly what they wanted. Proof, in my mind, that there is no consistent ideology on the part of the leftist voter. I also wouldn’t say that this is isolated to the left, it’s just that it’s more out-in-the-open obvious if you’re at all paying attention.

        1. I’m copying your comment to send to a leftist friend of mine who is on the brink of switching party allegiances because he’s THIS CLOSE to finally getting why BOTH parties suck, but the Dems suck WORSE.

  11. Tony are you miserable? You seem angry and bitter with every post

    Put down the politics and enjoy life dude. Progressivism is toxic and parasitic…it is ruining your life

    Be free be free

    1. It’s the burden that comes with having read at a higher level than Dr. Seuss in one’s life.

      1. Yeah, but Judy Blume is only marginally higher than that.

      2. Can you elaborate? What field are you in?

        1. Tony, you’re not feeling great?
          Can you please elaborate?
          Could you please elucidate?
          Please do not prevaricate!

        2. I’m a certified polymath.

            1. You’re not to good with words are you?

              1. Im just trying to determine if you have a mental illness based on thinking hillary does not lie and isnt corrupt

                1. Relative to Trump?

                  1. Tony,
                    It is not a relative thing. Hillary can be a liar and Trump can be one too.

                    You consistently attempt to minimize or deny Hillary’s lies and magnify Trumps. Since the people you are talking too generally try (none of us are perfect) to identify lies without regard to who said them, you destroy any credibility you might have by being so clearly, over to top, biased.

          1. I don’t believe that. Do they let certified inmates have computer access?

          2. Certified by whom?

            1. It says so right on the laminated certificate he got in 10th grade.

          3. Is that certification from from the American Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society?

          4. Ha. Sure you are champ. Sure you are.

      3. Yes, I can see how being able to read would be a burden to someone who is always wrong.

      4. Pray tell: at what level did Dr. Seuss read?

  12. The GOP ran Mitt Romney with more credible claims of experienced competency but had a “meh” personality. Why did they expect to better with HRC’s anti-charisma and rationalizations of incompetecy to excuse her ignoring rules?

    1. It is ok when team blue members dont follow the rules apparently because they have good intentions

    2. Because she’s a woman. And, they thought they could rally everyone to make history (like they did with Obama) by ‘breaking the glass ceiling’.

    3. Because Mitt didn’t have twenty years of relentless cheerleading from the legacy media to carry him over the finish line?

  13. This is a commonplace in theater, & most audiences hardly even notice it.

    1. No, switching the gender of characters is edgy. And important! It breaks down stereotypes and gender roles! See: Ghostbusters (2016)

      1. Yes, gender switching is so edgy. Take any work of art and flip the genders to see the inherent sexism of the original. And it’s edgy so you look cool by doing it. Let’s do an example:

        Moby Dick – Make it a ship full of females. Our heroine, Ishmaela becomes fast friends with the dark and exotic Queequee, with her full body tattoos. They soon grow to be fast friends and they frequently go around shirtless. But their captain with the wooden leg gets obsessive and forges a big spear to goes hunting the Big White Dick. In the end she is dragged deep inside by the muscular white beast…

        1. Almost there…

        2. Go on.

          1. Something something Ricardo Montalban quotes something something

  14. So the professor’s expectations were violated.

    But to anyone who noticed the rampant manhating, Vote Vagina sexism of the Clinton campaign, the outcome was trivially obvious.

    Vagina good. Penis bad. No mystery at all.

  15. I have known a number of women who say/think things equally if not more offensive than Trump and they are more convincing, perhaps because you don’t expect women to say such things, so it seems more sincere. The corollary is that a guy, in this case a gay guy, impersonating a female candidate is probably going to seem effeminate no matter how hard he tries not to be.

    1. The acting coach, Salvatore, is gay. It’s not clear if the actor is.

      1. Dammit, I misread that too.

  16. “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.”

    *bangs head against wall repeatedly*

  17. Tony i went to the gun range this morning and spent a half hr after idling in my car burning fossil fuel reading breitbart on my phone while eating my left over chik fil a

    1. I also bought some soda at walmart with my food stamps

      1. 2 liter mountain mist

        1. ugh, more fake dews.

      2. And a pack of smokes?

    2. I also bought something on amazon via 3rd party so i could get of sales taxes in California

      1. I live in WA.

        Always working tax at Amazon.

        Sure would be nice if Amazon just showed the associated sales tax with the price.

  18. 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.”

    Maybe a lot of them had an unconscious anti-male bias?

    1. “unconscious anti-male bias”

      I would say unconscious female bias. If Hillary didn’t have a vagina (reportedly) she would have suffered a Dukakis-like defeat. A large portion of her voters only pulled that lever because of the “first woman president” thing.
      Her entire career was based on being a woman with behaviors that would have condemned any man to irrelevance.

      1. Vote Vagina!

  19. What ive noticed about lefties is they are obsessed with style (intentions) and dont really care for substance or results. Which is odd to me

    Like this british pol who doesnt want trump to come visit and speak (insert name calling here) while opened his arms to the guy from china

    Trump hasn’t really done anythig of consequence (action) while the chinese guy is an actual authoritarian

    To lefties i think they care more about what is said then actuallY done. See why they never walk the walk to pay more taxes

    1. When a lefty argues for higher taxes, it’s with the unspoken knowledge that it’s only for people more wealthy or privileged then they.

      1. Except for sin taxes, which are for the lower classes.

        1. Tony why do you support regressive taxes?

  20. Nope, still getting the urge to set them both on fire, so same as the actual debate.

    1. Yeah, for me it was the same too. I didn’t watch or listen to a single word of the real debate. Afterward, I felt calm, peaceful and very pleased with myself for the choice I had made.

      Same thing this time.

  21. It’s nice to see them come to a realization that most Americans grasped years ago: Hillary Clinton’s personality is as appealing as a steel-wool washcloth.

  22. a clinical associate professor of educational theatre at NYU with a background in adapting interviews, transcripts,

    Say what now?

    1. Someone made up his own major.

    2. That’s what a degree in intersectional puppetry gets you…

    3. This “research” was probably funded by government grants too…

      1. Yeeesss. Surprised?

  23. It is refreshing to see that they were open about rethinking their assumptions.

    However, it is sad that they even had those assumptions in the first place. Hillary is/was a horrible person/candidate, with behaviors that would have been wholly unacceptable in a man.

    1. She was so bad, she lost to TRUMP, FFS!

    2. It may be a sort of a light “mugged by reality” moment for some of them. The alternative facts about gender they all learned in college only hold up to scrutiny in their sterilized belief ecosystem, which is why views that challenge these assumptions are best not heard at all.

      How long until people realize that sending your kids to college to learn things that aren’t true is a bad investment?

      1. It has turned into a total waste of money.

      2. There are only a few places (in a university) that have value anymore.

        Engineering in general (except for fake engineering like “Environmental Science” (which is properly just some Chemical Engineering with environmental religion mixed in).

        The Mathematics Department.

        The Physics Department.

        The Chemistry Department.

        The Biology Department.

  24. Now try it on Trump voters. They wouldn’t be fooled because they heard both sides already as opposed to the students who were hearing Trump’s words for the first time.

  25. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law wiz like actually making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twenty months and at present cleared the dept on there apartment and bout a great new Citroen CV . look here…..
    _________________+_+_+_+_+… .. https://www.cashneways.com

  26. I agree with tony above where he says hillary was horrible candidate above and benefited from lack of thorough vetting as opposed to trump who went thru it all

  27. Let’s have just one day where everyone replies to Tony, “You are absolutely correct.” “You are the most influential poster on this blog.” “You are the greatest.” “You are huge!” “Preach it, brother.” Or just ignore him.

    1. “You’re the champ!”

    2. “You look marvelous!”

      “You are so good looking!”

  28. wimpy cosmo Hillary is worse than smug prog Hillary

  29. Tony how bad do you feel that the most qualified candidate in the history of the world lost to donald trump?

    Lololololol

    1. She lost only the electoral college, one of several obsolete American institutions meant to shield people who owned slaves from democracy. Otherwise the American people, by a lot, chose wisely.

      1. How is it obsolete when it was used this year?

        I am confused

      2. Fyi more people actually voted against hillary than for

        Just fyi

        The most qualified in history should have got 75 percent

      3. What are the other obsolete institutions since ya know the electoral college is still around and in fact met this past December

      4. She won the popular vote only because of massive turnout in deep blue states like CA and NY. The EC exists so that big states don’t get to call the shots for the rest of the country, same now as it was 200+ years ago.

        1. By big states you mean states that didn’t allow ownership of other people.

          1. Wasnt ny based on a slave trader?

            There were chinese slaves in cali fyi

            1. There still are Chinese slaves in NYC and Cali too. They are trafficked in and housed 10 to a room, and required to work to pay off their traffickers. If that isn’t slavery, I don’t know what is.

          2. Virginia was the biggest state in the union at the time, idiot. North Carolina was 3rd.

          3. You might want to get your basic facts straight if you are going to go around claiming to be smarter than everyone.

            1. I’m not the one defending the electoral college while being a libertarian only because it elected Donald fucking Trump.

              I mean how embarrassed you would be for yourself if you had the requisite self-awareness.

      5. how many counties did she win? how many states?

      6. shield people (this part is irrelevant) from democracy.

        Say it with me, Tony. “The United States is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a ‘Democracy'”.

        1. I think the outcomes in this election and the last one where the winner lost the actual vote do not exactly endorse the concept.

          1. The last one was in 2012 and obama won the popular vote (over 50 pct)

            What are you talking about?

          2. The national popular vote is not the “Actual vote”. There are no national elections in the US.

          3. There are no national elections in the US.

            ^^^ See this, Tony? The US presidential election is really 51 elections so that States (and D.C.) elect the president of the States. Why? The US is a Republic.

            1. Federal Republic, specifically. The federal part being the relevant thing when it comes to how the president is elected.

            2. And that’s a good thing because it went against the actual will of the people to give us W. and Trump?

            3. I really don’t get why people think screaming “I don’t understand how a federal system works!!!” is a winning argument and doesn’t just make them look like morons.

              1. There is something about you people that makes you really struggle with the difference between is and ought.

      7. Take California out of the equation, and she loses the national popular vote too, because most Republican voters in CA don’t bother voting because they know it’s a wasted effort there.

        Also, 7.8 million people who voted third party. Of those, 4.5 million went for Gary Johnson, while 1.5 million voted Stein and 110k wrote in Bernie. Change Trump to any of the other GOP candidates and they peel GayJay votes back to Team Red in droves.

        Hillary was doomed.

        1. Arbitrarily remove millions of voters from the equation and Trump wins the popular vote!

          1. Take California out of the equation, and she loses the national popular vote too, because most Republican voters in CA don’t bother voting because they know it’s a wasted effort there.

            This.

            Arbitrarily remove millions of voters from the equation and Trump wins the popular vote!

            Way to completely miss the point. You seem to think that a few densely populated cities in new england and the left cost should be able to dominate the country. The electoral college serves the purpose of preventing this.

            1. You seem to think that a few densely populated cities in new england and the left cost should be able to dominate the country. The electoral college serves the purpose of preventing this.

              The majority of the people in portions of the country representing the majority of the population voted for Trump. That the sum total of Clinton’s voters are greater than the sum total of Trump’s is mere trivia.

            2. Because there’s something wrong with people who live in cities? Why do Montanans get like 20 times the representation in national government than Californians? What possible excuse for this is there, other than you being a partisan Republican with no principles?

              1. Because the power of governance is reserved to the states, not individual voters.

                Come on, man. This isn’t a complicated concept.

          2. Yeah, but arbitrarily changing the rules of the election after it has passed is totally kosher. Speculating as to how the results would differ in the setup you favor is completely reasonable, not that this sort of second-order thinking is anything you’re at all capable of.

            Plus, there’s a no way a national popular vote system for an office as powerful as the Presidency would be put into effect without a runoff arrangement of some kind. So, does Hillary win the second round? when those third-party candidates are not in play and the discouraged voters from non-swing states show up? Who knows.

            1. I’m only suggesting that a system that defies the democratic will of the people to deliver a fat orange treasoner as president might be, like, flawed.

      8. And the Atlanta Falcons only lost on points.

      9. Sub-question: How do you defend the Democrat parties use of anti-democratic mechanisms like superdelegates to decide their candidate?

        Could it be that you don’t even know how your own party operates? That’s kind of extra sad considering you also believe the election was hacked, yet this is precisely the thing that was leaked. Oops.

        FACT: The Electoral College is more fair than the Democratic primary process.

        Why bitch and moan about the EC, and not mention the elephant in the room where the candidate is pre-selected no matter what the grassroots of your party might think. This must be awkward for you.

        1. The primary selected the winner of the most votes; the general did not. I’m not saying every election everywhere has to be a 51%+1 deal, but I do think the burden of defending the system is on those of you endorsing the EC, which has served no purpose in anyone’s lifetime except to deliver the two worst presidents in history.

      10. Tony is doubling down on stupid again, I see.

      11. Yep, cooked up that Electoral College thing just this year. Being a new idea there was NO WAY Hillary could have known she needed to win Wisconson! I mean, even being the smartest person EVERRR, who knew you had to win in the Electoral College!

  30. american socialist|3.8.17 @ 11:44AM|#

    Is this a serious post?

    What is trumps corruption by the way?

    reply to this report spam
    Tony|3.8.17 @ 11:57AM|#

    Medium to heavy treason.

    Tony, you fucking retard. You wouldn’t be able to define TREASON even if I showed you exactly where to look. (article 3, section 3 of the federal constitution) On that, hilldawg took a functional bribe to sign off on a foreign entities (russian company) purchase of a strategic resource (uranium) while secstate. Using regressives logic when considering russia is now their biggest enemy boggieman, I can get pretty close to meeting the actual definition of treason.

    1. Do any of you have anything other than rightwing lies? You can debunk your bullshit with a single Google search dude. I do not understand why that is so difficult for you people.

      1. What was the treason?

        And did hillary lie or not about benghazi being due to a video?

      2. Which google link did you hit? The one going to the dnc bylines that basically stood up a strawman to knock it down? Because even the NYT admitted the Clintons got paid for the Uranium deal.

      3. So she didn’t sign off on a Russian company buying up American Uranium? Since Russia is our boogieman again now that Hillary went full-retard during the election, that would tend to make one wonder since we all know what can be made out of Uranium.

        Lets boil it down for you:

        Hillary Clinton signed off on allowing us to sell more Atom Bomb ingredients to the nation that you believe hacked the election in favor of a guy that didn’t sell them more Atom Bomb ingredients. You’re a laugh riot, but it’s actually very sad to see someone with so much cognitive dissonance. People like you will be responsible for the actual apocalypse, and you’ll smile the entire time about how you’re helping.

        Let us not even speak of that cringe-worthy photo op she had with the big red ‘reset’ button with the Russians. Irony, much?

        1. Hillary Clinton and only Hillary Clinton, unilaterally, all by herself, huh?

          1. “Hillary didn’t act in corruption alone, she was part of a larger conspiracy to sell atom bomb ingredients to putins new soviet superpower!!!”

            Isn’t exactly the air-tight defense you think it is.

  31. The russian angle is merely an excuse for why the most qualified candidate in history lost to a vulgar cheeto

  32. Tony i voted for the most qualified candidate in history of women…jill stein

    1. Why vote for the ersatz pinko when you can vote for the real deal?

  33. Tony if it was just based on popular vote i suspect the cheeto would have won since he would have campaigned everywhere

      1. Could be, after all, since California was not in play, Trump never when there. ALL of Hillary’s popular margin came from California and even a small inroad from Trump might have swung the popular vote.

        We will never know because Trump learned the rules and ran his campaign based on the rules. If the rules were different, both candidates would have run their campaigns differently.

    1. People who vote strategically would have made different calculations as well. If the popular vote were what counted, you can’t just assume that the results would have been the same.

      1. And at any rate, HIllary DIDN’T win the popular vote, as she only got 48% or so.

      2. California’s new primary system likely accounted for over a million of the gap alone. Because most ballots saw every race being Democrat vs. Democrat, without a single Republican other than Trump, Republicans had absolutely zero reason to vote. The Dems thought Texas and Georgia were in play (bless their hearts) so Dems had plenty of reasons to vote there. New York Republicans didn’t have any reason to vote either. In a true popular election, I believe there were more Republicans in blue states that would have voted than Democrats in red states that would have.

        Also, what few people have talked about is that the Republicans won the national House vote by 1.5 million, and that is arguably more similar to a true popular election than the presidential one.

  34. My Uncle Nolan recently got Infiniti G Sedan by working part-time from a macbook… go to
    the website…………. https://tinyurl.com/5days-job

  35. There are too many names here. I can’t keep straight who is who. I’m just going to vote straight party.

  36. The academy doesn’t actually wonder why the citizenry largely distrusts and loathes them, right?

    1. They have tiny penises and are threatened by book lernin’?

      1. Did a Southern Baptist decline to give you a ride on the tower of power?

  37. And if Hillary were a male? She’d be booted from politics a long time ago.

  38. Is there any chance I could could convince you to write the standard English “each was followed” instead of “Each were followed”?

    Each of the two performances were followed by . . . . .

  39. This is very interesting. I’d like to watch the whole “debate” if it’s available. Anyone know where to download?

  40. Re: “People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.”

    But if they thought the female version of Trump was masculine, why didn’t they think this, too, is bad?

    If people are turned off more to a man being feminine than to a woman being masculine, might that not tell us which sex is more restricted? Another gender expectation upended.

    Take a look at:

    “We often have different responses to the sexes for the same behavior” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-behavior/

  41. as Joel said I’m alarmed that some people can get paid $8414 in a few weeks on the internet . visit this site right here…………. {{{{{ http://www.cash-review.com }}}}}

  42. I guess it wasn’t the vagina then?

  43. So, where is the whole video? Why not make the whole thing available?

  44. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.moneytime10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.