By Maxine Todd, NOW PAC Intern
Even with a strong feminist history, it is still hard to fully deconstruct implicit biases we’ve all been socialized to have. Since elementary school girls who talk too much are looked down upon as social butterflies or chatty cathys who gossip too much, while boys can talk just as much and no one says a thing. Little girls who try to take leadership roles are seen as “bossy,” a stigma that is often carried into adulthood. Throughout human history words and phrases have developed connotations far beyond their actual meanings. That said, just because a meaning isn’t listed under the word in question in the dictionary, doesn’t mean that connotation doesn’t shape the effect the word has.
Accusing women of shouting has long been used effectively to silence women in the workplace and in the public sphere. This is especially prominent with the societal trope of the “angry black woman.” This trope has been used over and over to tell the majorities that it’s okay not to listen to the valid complaints and outcries of black women over issues such as systemic racism and sexism if the listener deems woman’s “tone” or “volume” unacceptable or impolite. I was in the crowd during the Hillary Rally in Alexandria, VA, the day after the Benghazi hearing, when she said “[b]ut sometimes when women speak, people think we’re shouting.” This resonated with me, not because of a connection to Bernie Sanders’ comment during the debate about “all the shouting in the world” but because her statement describes real, lived experiences for me.
I have had fellow student leaders tell me to “stop shouting” when I was simply speaking about subjects I am passionate about. I have heard teachers chastise fellow female students in classes for “being too loud.” And I have seen headlines like this one from the Daily Mail based on research from Yale confirming that societal stereotype that when women are assertive they’re seen as aggressive. When women take charge they’re seen as bossy.
Even if Bernie Sanders wasn’t intentionally being sexist during the debate, he was utilizing a tactic that has long been used to silence women. Senator Sanders responded to Hillary’s calmly made points against him on gun rights by saying, “[a]s a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want…” That response implicitly links Hillary Clinton’s previous statement with “all the shouting in the world” even though she wasn’t shouting, and that link implies that it’s okay to ignore her remarks on his voting record because they were meaningless shouts.
His response to Governor O’Malley, “[h]ere is the point, governor. We can raise our voices. But I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not. Our job is to bring people together around strong, common-sense gun legislation” would have worked equally well in response to Clinton. So why didn’t he say this instead? Possibly because portions of our society still believe that men like Sanders and O’Malley can, in fact, “raise [their] voices” and still be taken seriously. Madeleine Kunin, the first female Governor of Vermont points out, “[m]en can shout and Bernie is a very good shouter. But we’re women. Women raise their voices and it’s considered unseemly. We’re still subconsciously seeing women as different — Bernie should just be careful. To accuse a woman of shouting makes her unattractive.”
I would echo her statement. Bernie, please be careful with the language you use and the subtle biases they can reinforce.