Swapping Genders for the Trump & Clinton debates

[marshmallow]

Some professors reenacted parts of the 2016 Presidential Debates, except with gender swapped actors. They thought if a woman acted like Trump she would seem ridiculous, and if a man acted like Hillary he would seem strong. Watch the excerpt below before reading anything else and gauge your reaction:

Debating gender: what if Donald Trump was a woman?

Read the article here:

What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?

The professors and the liberal audiences who watched it had their expectations proven wrong.

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. 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. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

So supposedly some liberals have the scales fall from their eyes when viewing this. I had similar opinions for the gender swap as in real life: male Hillary is fake, condescending, and talks like a lawyer trying to hide something, and female Trump is like male Trump, she’s more relatable because she talks like a real person, but she’s obnoxious. Real Trump comes off as slimier than this female Trump, maybe due to the closer camera during the debate, maybe due to the so-called “women are wonderful” effect, or maybe because there’s more to judging a person than their body language and speaking style, i.e. as far as I know this woman isn’t a creeper who stiffs contractors.

On conservative and lefty sites the reaction about what this says about liberals is about what one would expect.

I’d like to see the full show instead of the small rehearsal excerpt.

Trump is often portrayed as the height of masculine braggadocio, but the interesting thing is Trump talks like a woman, which may have helped people trust him:

But academic research has picked up something that thousands of hours of campaign punditry has missed completely: Donald Trump talks like a woman. He might be preoccupied with grading women’s looks, penis size and “locker room talk,” but the way he speaks and the actual words he uses make for a distinctly feminine style. In fact, his speaking style is more feminine by far than any other candidate in the 2016 cycle, more feminine than any other presidential candidate since 2004.

Candidates who spoke in a feminine style were perceived as considerably warmer, more likable and more trustworthy than those whose style was more masculine. They also were more likely to earn the participants’ votes.

I don’t have a thesis statement or debate point (other than gender politics being complicated, I guess), but I thought it was interesting and wanted to share and see what you folks thought.

There was a liberal contingent during the election who thought Hillary should go full “ice queen bitch mode,” which supposedly matches her private demeanor where she’s more sarcastic and has a dark sense of humor. I don’t know if that would have helped or hurt, but I’d be curious to see what that would look like (maybe similar to the “we came, we saw, he died” clip).

[AK84]

Interesting. Certainly puts a new face on it.

[John_Mace]

The lady doing Female Trump had the hand gestures down pat! I’d have to see Trump and her back-to-back to see if she was upgrading his speech patterns at all. I could be wrong, but I don’t remember Trump enunciating so clearly, and not stumbling over words.

Male Hillary is actually Hil-arious. He would be dismissed as a weakling.

[Ravenman]

The weird thing is that Clinton was the winner of all three debates. That’s a fact.

So she wins the real debates, but a man is said to be unable to “win” the mock debate using her exact words. The thesis of the play’s producers is clearly off, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t still see (or expect) important differences in how each sex communicates.

Maybe an improved thesis is that Americans hate a “feminized” man more than anything.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

The weird thing is that Clinton was the winner of all three debates. That’s a fact.

So she wins the real debates, but a man is said to be unable to “win” the mock debate using her exact words. The thesis of the play’s producers is clearly off, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t still see (or expect) important differences in how each sex communicates.

Maybe an improved thesis is that Americans hate a “feminized” man more than anything.

As bad as Hillary could come across in those debates, male-Hilary is 10x worse. BTW, her VP pick suffered from that very problem.

[Okrahoma]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.

[Johnny_Ace]

I don’t buy the female Trump. (Granted, this is a short excerpt, but…) I don’t see the unsubstantiated personal attacks and ‘catchphrases,’ the massively exaggerated gesturing of a Trump, or the presentation of wild conspiracy theories. She’s easily more believable to a reasonably-intelligent observer than Trump ever was.

[Chronos]

I see no way to draw any conclusions from this. Were both actors equally skilled at reproducing their character? Were both actually even trying to reproduce their character, or just their own perception of their character? If actor-Clinton seems “fake”, does that mean that the actor is fake, or that the actor is doing a good job of replicating a “fake-seeming” Clinton?

[John_Mace]

@Johnny_Ace

I don’t buy the female Trump. (Granted, this is a short excerpt, but…) I don’t see the unsubstantiated personal attacks and ‘catchphrases,’ the massively exaggerated gesturing of a Trump, or the presentation of wild conspiracy theories. She’s easily more believable to a reasonably-intelligent observer than Trump ever was.

Watch it again. How could you have missed the “massively exaggerated gesturing”? You’re free to compare it to video of the actual debate, too.

@Chronos

I see no way to draw any conclusions from this. Were both actors equally skilled at reproducing their character? Were both actually even trying to reproduce their character, or just their own perception of their character? If actor-Clinton seems “fake”, does that mean that the actor is fake, or that the actor is doing a good job of replicating a “fake-seeming” Clinton?

The linked article answers a lot of those questions.

[CarnalK]

@John_Mace

The linked article answers a lot of those questions.

Don’t worry, Chronos isn’t worried about answers. He’s just asking questions.

[Chronos]

OK, I’ve now read the article. The closest thing I can find to an answer is that they were able to give the performances while TVs behind them showed the real thing. Which supposedly somehow proves how accurate the performances were, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to prove that, because I could act a part with a TV screen behind me, too.

[foolsguinea]

“Clinton” here the man playing Clinton’s role, “Trump” the woman playing Trump’s role:

Clinton’s words sound intelligent, but spoken with a certain uncertainty, like a student or underling trying to deliver a report. Trump’s words may be factually wrong but are delivered forcefully and passionately.

Clinton’s delivery is too… submissive? No, weak and uncertain. More striking coming from a man than from HRC.

Trump’s delivery is cocksure, a bit abrasive, and strong, in a way I (irrationally) find attractive in a woman, personally. I personally have a bias toward strong women, so it makes sense that female!Trump would appeal to me more than DJT himself.

So, maybe it’s not that HRC was a woman, so much as she had a uncertainty perhaps born of her “mere female” status.

Fascinating.

[marshmallow]

@Johnny_Ace

I don’t see the unsubstantiated personal attacks and ‘catchphrases,’ the massively exaggerated gesturing of a Trump, or the presentation of wild conspiracy theories.

That portion is verbatim from the debates. It’s also less about content, but presentation. That’s probably also the point when Hillary looked the weakest. I’d like to see FemTrump’s “no puppet, no puppet” moment.

@John_Mace

BTW, her VP pick suffered from that very problem.

I don’t remember Kaine seeming disingenuous. My caricature of him from the VP debate would be one of those little yipping dogs chewing on someone’s pant leg. I know the media crowned Pence the winner of that debate, despite him denying accusations against Trump that had video tape evidence and some of which had happened recently. But Pence looks presidential and speaks in a measured, authoritative tone, so it’s all good.

[CarnalK]

@Chronos

OK, I’ve now read the article. The closest thing I can find to an answer is that they were able to give the performances while TVs behind them showed the real thing. Which supposedly somehow proves how accurate the performances were, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to prove that, because I could act a part with a TV screen behind me, too.

WTF? They were being directed by people who wanted them to recreate the actual debate performances. Both their performances and the real debate is utterly available for review. If you want to complain they didn’t recreate it properly, then point out some examples instead of this entirely bullshit JAQing off.

[Aspidistra]

The thing that immediately jumps out at me is that Trump does one thing that’s very un-female-like - he interrupts. And Clinton lets him do it. That puts this re-creation way outside normal male/female interaction parameters (see for instance this experiment)

The interesting thing, however, is that the interrupting really doesn’t make woman-Trump look like an arsehole - which is what I would have predicted that taking on the male behaviour of interrupting would subconsciously do if a woman tried it - it makes her look determined.

Man-Clinton allowing himself to be interrupted by Trump, however, is an absolute death-knell to his credibility. He looks unbelievably weak and useless standing there politely as Trump, having interrupted and snagged the ball, steamrollers away as long as she pleases.

Also - I’m not sure how accurate my perception is here, but it seems to me that woman-Trump is fairly low-voiced for a woman (and lower than real Clinton) and that man-Clinton is more tenor than real Trump. This is also a plus factor for Trump - both real and fake - low voices are more authoritative

[John_Mace]

@Chronos

OK, I’ve now read the article. The closest thing I can find to an answer is that they were able to give the performances while TVs behind them showed the real thing. Which supposedly somehow proves how accurate the performances were, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to prove that, because I could act a part with a TV screen behind me, too.

I think you are proving their point. People find their pre-conceived ideas about this disturbingly challenged. But if you really want to see how “bad” they were, just watch the actors and the actual debate back-to-back, or simultaneously. They aren’t trying to hide anything.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

Did man Clinton come with the same pre-conceived reputation as a corrupt DC statist? Did woman Trump come with her reputation as a lying, misogynist blowhard? Call me skeptical about these exercises.

[emcee2k]

I guess maybe I watch these things differently or something, but it seemed about the same to me. Clinton came gave a few rehearsed statistics that were probably true, but not really meaningful with no context, and Trump countered with a bunch of inane gibberish. Same as the original.

[AK84]

The poster who said that women never interrupt has clearly never met a woman. (And yes men do interrupt as well, I don’t see interruption as a gender issue).

The excerpt is interesting, but in the real debate this exchange was one Trump was thought to have won, his attacks on Mrs Clinton’s ever changing opinions on trade and their effects on the erstwhile industrial belt.

So, what about the ones where Donald was thought to have been steamrolled?

[astorian]

Cute exercise, but it doesn’t prove much.

“A woman who acted like Trump would be regarded as a real jerk”? True, but practically any other MALE who acted like Trump would have been regarded as a jerk. Trump broke ALL the rules for politicians of both genders and got away with it. Trump is an extremely unconventional candidate. It’s silly to expect all the conventional rules to apply to him.

Hillary WAS a very conventional candidate, with all the strengths and weaknesses of a conventional candidate. She’s not that different from Mitt Romney- seriously, both are smart, capable, detail-oriented people who might well have been good presidents… but who just aren’t particularly charismatic or likeable. Even Republicans who voted for Mitt weren’t excited about doing so, and no Democrat was getting Chris Matthews’ “leg tingles” for Hillary…