At Last, a Likable Bitch!
Kamala Harris is ambitious and aggressive. And downright mean to Trump. So why isn't she getting slammed as a cold, angry woman with an unnatural appetite for power like Hillary?
I’VE BEEN MULLING OVER what exactly Kamala Harris achieved during that pivotal debate, and I think I finally figured it out: She’s made being a ballbuster socially acceptable. She went after the Orange Monster like an attack dog (may I say “bitch”?), yet somehow managed to project likability.
In effect, she performed magic.
As any woman who’s worked in a male-dominated profession will attest, there’s an unspoken penalty for a woman who pursues power. She’s often perceived as being too driven, too cold, too angry, too loud or just too much.
And yet, despite being blatantly ambitious, aggressive, and hard charging, Harris seems not to be paying the price. Remarkably, there’s been few complaints about her “strident” style, “overbearing” tone, or “unnatural” tendencies—the stuff you usually hear about women who aim for the brass ring.
A cultural shift?
So what gives? Are we now more accepting of the alpha woman? Has our culture evolved since 2016 when Hillary Clinton was relentlessly pilloried as a despicable specimen of womankind for her audacity to run for president?
Make no mistake, misogyny is alive and well—as the continuing appeal of Donald Trump vividly demonstrates. At the same time, though, it’s hard to deny there’s been a general cultural shift in which sexism is less tolerated.
One recent example was the immediate backlash faced by Republican pollster Frank Luntz who criticized Harris for her facial expressions during the debate. (“If she wants to win, Harris needs to train her face not to respond,” tweeted Luntz. “It feeds into a female stereotype and, more importantly, risks offending undecided voters.”) Would that kind of sexism be quashed so quickly in 2016? I doubt it.
Perhaps women striving for power no longer have to behave like uptight church ladies who keep their legs crossed but that doesn’t mean they’re exempt from “likability.” That’s a female mandate that never seems to die. Luckily, that’s where Harris shines: She baited Trump, punched him in the gut, and effectively emasculated him—all with a winsome smile.
She was not nice.
Indeed, there was nothing soft or oblique in the way she attacked Trump. It was full frontal. Consider what she said straight to his face:
That he not only lost the election in 2020 but was “fired by 81 million people;”
That he’s ridiculed: "World leaders are laughing at Donald Trump;"
That he’s stupid and corrupt: “These dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again, because they’re so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favors;”
That he’s a faux strongman: Vladimir Putin “would eat you for lunch;”
That he’s boring: “[P]eople start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”
Harris’s attacks were personal. She hit below the belt. She was not nice. In the hands of a less skilled [female] politician, she’d be accused of being a horrible, nasty woman with a craven appetite for power (cue Hillary). But Harris made it look effortless, natural, and delightful—which, again, was never the case with Hillary.
Cool mom v. unruly toddler
How did she do all that? Well, I think she learned from Hillary’s mistakes. (People don’t want to hear about glass ceilings or how it’s high time to elect a woman.) Harris also deployed the oldest weapon in a woman’s arsenal: she played the mommy card.
When Trump ranted or spewed outrageous lies—such as the one about Haitian immigrants eating family pets in Ohio—she looked largely bemused and dismissive, like a mom unfazed by her unruly toddler. I mean, what can you do with a three-year old who keeps throwing fits or refuses to be potty-trained?
And like the archetypal wise mother, she didn’t need to say a word to convey her disapproval. The side glance, the raised eyebrow, the hand at her chin, and the overall look of incredulity delivered the message loud and clear. Harris projected an unmistakable air of condescension–that she’s the adult in the room, that she’s in control, that she’s simply superior to Trump.
But what she never let slip was any hint of anger. Throughout Trump’s tirades, Harris kept her cool, often sporting a sweet, knowing smile. So don’t even try casting her as some angry Black woman.
Hillary’s avenging angel
I’d like to think that Harris has ushered in a new era for female politicians and all women gunning for the top. In many ways, she’s the avenging angel for Hillary, recasting female ambition into something that’s not only normal but appealing.
But Harris was also singularly deft—a mini Nancy Pelosi in her own right—who chopped Trump down to size without losing her feminine charm. That’s a ridiculously difficult feat, requiring a balancing act that would be unimaginable for men to perform. So are women really winning in this game?
Contact: chen.vivia@gmail.com
Twitter (X): ViviaChen
Related post: Kamala Harris and the Curse of Female Perfectionism
I believe that another important factor is that people can see the clearly affectionate relationship between Kamala and her husband Doug. It shouldn't matter, but it does. Powerful women are all too easily labeled as women who do not like men, but that is an impossible label for Ms. Harris.
Very well observed. I would add that she demonstrated a sense of humor, which always takes the sting out of confrontation.