A gender-swapped version of the recent presidential debates

March 5, 2017 10:39 PM

Actors did a meticulous recreation of excepts from the debates, and there was discussion from the audience afterwards. "Salvatore cast fellow educational theatre faculty Rachel Whorton to play “Brenda King,” a female version of Trump, and Daryl Embry to play “Jonathan Gordon,” a male version of Hillary Clinton, and coached them as they learned the candidates’ words and gestures."
posted by Nancy Lebovitz (38 comments total)

Hmm, i wonder if they had the female Trump stalk the male Clinton around the stage like Lurch?
posted by benzenedream at 10:56 PM on March 5, 2017 [6 favorites]

I'd really like to watch it, but it's not loud enough to hear on this laptop's speakers. 8(

Also, why didn't they edit out the 16:08 of stuff off the front?

I hope they can edit it, boosting the audio on the way... and I've posted that into the comments on the Youtube video as well.
posted by MikeWarot at 11:01 PM on March 5, 2017

MikeWarot, I found I had to crank the sound up pretty high to make it audible on this laptop, and it was still much softer than it should have been.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:02 PM on March 5, 2017

Here's a version that's just the core content.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:08 PM on March 5, 2017 [7 favorites]

Whoa. I'm just watching a small snippet (that's all I can take) but... I agree with the commenters in the article, his smiling comes off as extremely threatening and dishonest, and her bluntness about his previous involvement in NAFTA and the TPP feels straightforward and refreshing, like she isn't letting him get away with something.

I didn't watch the original debates--I don't know how this would have changed my perception? But this is not at all what I was expecting to see.
posted by peppercorn at 11:19 PM on March 5, 2017 [1 favorite]

I watched all three of the original debates. Watched the cropped version of this because I wanted a clean take on it. The audio is very low, especially at the beginning. If one has a background or interest in media studies or communications, well, it is both fascinating and depressing.

The actors did a stunning job, and took one for the team. It took deep dedication to watch those debates enough to get them down so well. Though in my opinion, Rachel Whorton is far more eloquent with Trump's words than he was, and Daryl Embry was a touch more nervous in affect than Clinton.

This is both masterful, and chilling on so many levels. I'm glad that it was made so soon, because it should be a signifigant part in case studies as a teaching tool in a lot of disciplines as quickly as humanly possible.

I'd like to think that this country would never have elected a woman, or anyone, who acted the way Trump did or said what he said. But the cult of personality, both positive and negative, and the power of hate and fear are strong.

Anyone who can get elected to the presidency, at this point more than ever before in history, probably shouldn't be allowed to take office.
posted by monopas at 1:39 AM on March 6, 2017 [4 favorites]

From the article: I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.
As women, we are taught we need to always be smiling, and that's the exact thing that is then held against us. There really is no winning here, is there.

I wonder if it would have looked differently if they had used older actors, especially for the Gordon character, and surprised that age is not even mentioned in the article.
posted by blub at 2:25 AM on March 6, 2017 [21 favorites]

This is an absolutely fascinating example of experimental research. Thanks

FWIW, Marine le Pen is a woman, lots of the far right leaders in Europe are women and they are actually very similar in appearance to female Trump character here. They (their parties) also get about the same number of actual votes, the big difference being the electoral college and the winner takes all system in the US + that in many European countries, there is much larger voter participation. So far right populists get something between the 27% and 40% in most countries.

That said, Trump deliberately used sexism as well as racism in his campaign, which this doesn't show, and which I am certain fired up his base.
posted by mumimor at 4:04 AM on March 6, 2017 [3 favorites]

Maybe some of the tendency for people to see the flaws in Clinton's debate performance in this that they didn't see originally is due to the gender swap, but I bet a lot of it is just seeing it done by someone they haven't invested a lot of time and energy believing in and supporting.
posted by sfenders at 5:43 AM on March 6, 2017 [5 favorites]

During and after the election I thought a lot about #NeverTrump people. And I asked myself - if the democrats ran someone as distasteful as trump.... would I allow the opposition to take office? Just because they were more professional?

Watching this brings up those feelings again. How do I balance my inherent bias towards women with my bias towards democrats, when instead of complimenting each other, they conflict?
posted by rebent at 6:30 AM on March 6, 2017 [3 favorites]

For what it's worth, I hated both of them, but this seems to be an unusual reaction.

The man playing Clinton seemed robotic rather than effeminate. (Now I understand the complaints about Clinton seeming robotic!) However, the woman playing Trump also seemed robotic. (Presumably a different programmer.)
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:34 AM on March 6, 2017

I watched this, honestly expecting to feel the exact opposite of what I ended up feeling. Somewhat smugly perhaps, I was expecting to see Trump's mannerisms and words coming from a woman and say to myself "There is no way America would have voted for a woman that aggressive. That's what they invented the word 'bitch' for." Instead, King seemed competent and confident, but not especially overbearing. Among other things, it made me realize that Trump had not performed nearly as badly in the debates as I recalled.

I largely felt that King came across as a refreshing straight-shooter who knows the relevant facts and isn't coming in with a prepackaged committee-tested plan, but rather a good understanding of how the existing system was deeply flawed and an intent to rebuild it from the ground up.

Gordon on the other hand came across as a phony and entitled stooge, talking down to King and not-so-subtly telling her to go home and let the men get on with the men's business.

When I watched the actual debates, I felt like Trump was a bumbling mess displaying his unfitness for the office and general ignorance at every turn, while Clinton seemed like a consummate professional who knew exactly what the job required and had given the thought necessary to make a plan that would work.

Of course, there's a chance that some of this is down to the actors. Maybe Whorton delivered Trump's lines better than he did. Maybe Embry's body language was stiffer and more condescending than Clinton's was. But that can only go so far. I think that even with the most perfect performance imaginable (and this one was very good), I would have had roughly those same thoughts.

This makes me face two things in self-reflection. First, I have to realize that I watched the original debates with a lot more bias than I realized. That's not necessarily bad, of course. We watched the debates already knowing a lot about Trump and Clinton. Of course Trump's unabashed arrogance and misogyny is going to inform the way we feel when he interrupts Clinton. Of course, decades of seeing Clinton do good work as a politician and statesman is going to affect how we receive her pronouncements about what needs to change. But seeing these same thoughts presented with new faces forces us into the troubling realization that a lot of how we felt about these ideas boiled down to how we felt about the person presenting them. Certainly I preferred Clinton (preferred is not nearly strong enough of a word) going into the debates, but I would have thought I would still have been able to recognize a Trump debate win if I saw one. Maybe not.

The second uncomfortable thing this experiment suggests is that, while sexism obviously played a huge role in this election, it may not have been responsible for all the things we laid at it's feet. There are infinite criticisms of Clinton for being shrill and overbearing and robotic. Those adjectives seem almost mutually exclusive, and I was happy to call them out as sexism during the campaign. But goddamn if Gordon doesn't come across as a shrill, overbearing, robotic mansplainer. Similarly, I felt during the campaign that Trump came off as a hyper-aggressive and extremely-entitled predator in every public appearance. And yet, not only does King not seem like a bitch, she seems pretty reasonable (mostly, some of Trump's lines like "Not a puppet. Not a puppet. You're the puppet." are just ridiculous from any mouth).

Absolutely, I still find myself agreeing with the ideas that Gordon puts forth, and disagreeing with the ones that King offers, for the most part. But of these two candidates, separate from their positions, I prefer King, and that shocks me.
posted by 256 at 6:41 AM on March 6, 2017 [13 favorites]

I mean, King came off as almost Churchillian in affect (though certainly not in eloquence), and that's not an adjective I would ever have dreamed of applying to Trump.
posted by 256 at 6:51 AM on March 6, 2017

Gestures and mannerisms aside, King just does not map for me to "a female equivalent of Trump." Her voice is pleasant, her pronunciation is more standard, her appearance is far more conventionally pleasing. I feel as though I have met and have seen female equivalents of Trump (Coulter, Conway, Palin), but this is mostly not it - and I still find her rude and overbearing, because she is - interrupting, overspeaking, dismissive, etc. The issue of smiling: it reads as a negative when a woman does it, and a negative when she doesn't do it. And I absolutely agree that it's not possible to disregard the impacts of age. This is interesting, but I don't seem to share the same complicated responses as others.
posted by Miko at 7:05 AM on March 6, 2017 [10 favorites]

if the democrats ran someone as distasteful as trump.... would I allow the opposition to take office? Just because they were more professional?

Well, I did a mental comparison for myself: if it had been Trump vs. Anthony Weiner, a man who literally can't think about anything besides LOOK I HAVE A DICK AND IT CAN GET HARD and I think is a fucking moron... I think I'd still end up voting for Weiner because at least he's not a racist sexual criminal and that's the better of two evils when comparing these two.

I feel dirty now.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:06 AM on March 6, 2017

Okay, so I can't get through all of this before leaving for work, but my first impressions are that she's abrasive--maybe it's the accent and all the small hands waving around--and he comes off a bit prissy. I'm still finding her way more irritating and aggressive, though. The actor also has kind of one of those creepy little bullet heads and I tend to not like weaselly little bulletheaded dudes, so I may be biased.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:34 AM on March 6, 2017

"She lives in an alternative reality" comes off really bad out of a guy.

OH MY GOD THE PART WHERE SHE'S STARING AND GLARING AND LEANING BEHIND HIM. "Bunny boiler" comes to mind.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:38 AM on March 6, 2017

Some folks here seem surprised by their reaction to this performance. I wonder what conservatives think when they watch this?
posted by rebent at 7:42 AM on March 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

Whoo, so, I have some mixed thoughts about this and here they are in no particular order:

• Of course Clinton's smiling comes off as "effeminate" and thus threatening in a man . . . Clinton smiled a lot because women are told to smile a lot because it makes us non-threatening. It comes off as opposite in a guy because our homophobic cultural programming teaches us to inherently distrust femininity in men.
• Switching the mannerisms someone has adopted to ascribe to a culturally determined gender role is always going to come out looking worse for the guy performing as "female" than the woman performing as "male" for the above reason. The woman will be perceived as gruff but fair; the man as smarmy and untrustworthy. Femininity is a fraught arena in a heteropatriarchial world.
• Clinton's issue has always been that she performs gender norms poorly. She's Hermione Granger without the benefit of a Yule Ball makeover to remind us that deep inside she's a Pretty Girl. She's too assertive and smart to be "ladylike" and "feminine", but not laid-back and "folksy" enough to be acceptably tomboyish. The perfect Female Trump already exists, and her name is Sarah Palin. All the attractiveness and smiling agreeability we expect from our women, with the assertiveness and beer-loving mentality we love in our tomboys and politicians.
• Not that Palin was the first to figure out how to straddle that line between tomboyishness and femininity to great political effect. See: Ann Richards. (Note: Ann Richards is a hundred times the human that Palin could ever hope to be, I'm just talking about mannerisms here)

I dunno, there's a coherent essay in there somewhere. But I guess I think it's a mistake to paint Trump and Clinton's mannerisms on the opposite genders and necessarily assume that reveals something inherent about the candidates themselves over how they fulfill our different gendered expectations. I always took the "Clinton would be seen differently if she were a man" argument to not refer to her specific mannerisms, but to the entire track of her career and how different scandals and political choices were perceived by our society.
posted by Anonymous at 8:07 AM on March 6, 2017

I also kind of felt similar to how the audience felt, at least about Brenda and how it was kind of refreshing to see a woman who throws her weight around and take no shits--though one has to wonder if it's because she's a woman, and the underlying perception of women as inherently weaker/less threatening, that creates that feeling. It kind of reminded me of when I hear trans guys talk about their post-transition experiences, and they find that now all their actions and tones are taken more seriously, and when they get angry it's now perceived as more intimidating than before. Or when a woman commits violence towards a man it's seen as less of a big deal than the reverse, because of those aforementioned biases and cultural contexts.

The audience seemed to lean kind of left/progressive-ish. So, I'd actually be more curious to know how a socially conservative audience would perceive Brenda, especially if they're the type who expects women to be demure.

As for Jonathan, I wasn't really surprised by the outcome. I was more surprised that the audience was surprised--but of couse I was too optimistic. Even in "progressive" circles people perceive effeminate men negatively because they're policed just as much as women, if not more so, to fit in their masculinity boxes. I noticed the feminine body language but wasn't bothered by it. there was this feeling of disingenuousness and stiffness, though I don't know if it's a gender thing (I guess it must be if people are only noticing it on a guy). I can't really put it into words well, it's just this sort of "I'm a smarmy business person trying too hard to be personable and it's super fake" kind of trait and I totally saw it in Clinton, but I also see it in most politicians, and upperclass white people in general.
posted by picklenickle at 8:16 AM on March 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

The femi-Trump came across as a no-nothing idiot (no change there) while the man-Hillary came across as wonky and hyper-competent, which is unexpected but understandable. I could not watch the whole thing.
posted by fiercekitten at 8:17 AM on March 6, 2017

The biggest issue with this is one that commenters are bringing up without necessarily realizing it, and that is indeed context. Knowing Hillary is knowing Hillary's context. Knowing Trump is knowing Trump's context. When it comes to politicians, it's a lot harder to divorce spoken argument from the person – this is for very good reason, intent being just one example we could name. That we interpret a woman-we-don't-know's intent as being more benevolent than Trump's can, indeed, also be viewed as an aspect of sexism.

This is also, and not at all incidentally, a huge issue with the elections and the fallout we've been seeing re: fake news and false accusations of fake news. Context. We've become so inundated with easily-digestible, context-light news on the one hand, and a quiet, slow chipping away at the importance of context on the other, that we're too easily swayed by contexts we're no longer aware of (precisely because we're no longer aware of them).

You can't take Hillary Clinton out of her own context. You can't take Trump out of his.

You can't take a man who was handed a gold platter, and put a random woman in his place. Instead, comparing contexts is more informative: Marine Le Pen is a woman who was handed a gold platter. We do indeed see her being treated favorably because she, a woman, comes across as softer, thanks to the stereotype-context of "women are kinder". Plus she purposefully plays on that. She keeps saying she's not her father when, for goodness' sake, she was literally raised and indoctrinated by him. She can swagger and bluster because she's had the lifelong privilege of getting everything she wants and needs. She doesn't pay much for negativity for other reasons as well, among them punching down on outsiders. It's apparently easier for people to rally to a woman when they get to punch other people in the process. (See also: Sarah Palin, Kellyanne Conway, Ann Coulter, etc.) Hillary has never played that cowardly card.

You can't take a woman raised by working-class parents, who has had to weather storms of hypocritical controversy that have sunk other men, while she did her best to rise above them, and put a random man in her place. Likewise, comparing contexts would be more informative. How many men with Hillary's background have risen to her level of experience and success? The major difference being: they don't have to perform feminity.

We're still living in a world where "Nevertheless, she persisted" has become a meme for all the reasons we know.
posted by fraula at 8:23 AM on March 6, 2017 [16 favorites]

Seems the video has been removed
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:05 AM on March 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

Mammabearfeisty demented Shetrump is more likeable than cokedoutabuserdad demented Hetrump, I was utterly unsurprised to discover.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:07 AM on March 6, 2017

Yeah, I do have to say that there is an essential sliminess to Trump (even if you know nothing about him before hearing him speak) that probably doesn't wash off, and that even the best actor in the world might be hard pressed to reproduce.
posted by 256 at 9:09 AM on March 6, 2017

The actors did a very good job here. I don't think the flip made much of a difference for me. The smiling, wild hand waving, attacks, interruptions, etc. were all strange, annoying, or ugly for various reasons originally and the same reasons now. I actually find it odd that Clinton smiling while Trump was speaking during the debates just came off to people as performing 'normally' by a woman. It was super weird to me and also didn't read at all effeminate when “Jonathan Gordon” did it - just creepy and weird for the same reasons both times. The same can be said about the aggressive interruptions by Trump/King.

I'd agree with the comments on age. The most obvious difference in both of them was their age which was noticeable for me in their appearance, but also their voices. They both sounded softer in tone which gave the words a different spin I think.
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 9:13 AM on March 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

Part of the issue, I should think, is that these actors rehearsed their performances, whereas Trump did not.
posted by Autumnheart at 9:38 AM on March 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

here's the thing: I don't understand why Trump hasn't been sitting in jail for years, now. He's been behaving like Genghis Khan ever since I can remember. He does twelve massively illegal things before breakfast every morning and gets away with it his whole life for reasons that I and other peons are not entitled to know. So when he becomes a candidate for president and rants about how he's going to destroy the underpinnings of civilization, I look at that and I believe it, because he's been busily doing exactly that in his own limited personal sphere for decades. I can't look at a woman I've never seen before wearing a red skirt suit and saying exactly the same things and believe that she'll do what she says. Did Obama do what he said? Did he close Guantanamo? Did he turn out to be Moses and lead us all to peace and prosperity? Nope, they didn't let him! A subaltern candidate for president is a lot less scary because you just know they're not going to let him/her.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:49 AM on March 6, 2017 [2 favorites]

Not having seen the original debate(s), here's what stood out for me:

Trump / King wasn't even trying to debate. This wasn't an argument about ideas or policies but a performance geared to key messages.

When Clinton / Gordon was speaking, Trumpking's body language was one great big eye-roll: "Oh God, here we go again with the blah blah blah, when will they ever stop blathering, amirite?"

What Trumpking is most likely doing is waiting for a cue to launch a key talking point. He's not listening to the substance of the argument at all, but scanning for a springboard, eg: "Oh, so is Obama behind this? Is Obama behind this? Is Obama behind this? Because Obama is pushing it!"

[Key talking point: Obama will be pulling the strings behind the scenes of a Clintongordon administration. Repeat it many times just in case anybody missed it]

That's a clear tactical win. Economics and trade deals are confusing and hard to understand & evaluate. But "Careful! We haven't gotten rid of Obama's spectre yet!" is easy, and plays to large sections of his supporters.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:46 AM on March 6, 2017 [1 favorite]

I am so disappointed all the videos just got removed.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:31 PM on March 6, 2017

Wish I could have seen this.
posted by lizifer at 6:13 PM on March 6, 2017

Anyone have any inkling why these would be removed?
posted by Miko at 6:19 PM on March 6, 2017

I actually find it odd that Clinton smiling while Trump was speaking during the debates just came off to people as performing 'normally' by a woman

A lot of people noticed it and thought it was weird. There were articles.
posted by jpe at 6:38 AM on March 7, 2017

I actually find it odd that Clinton smiling while Trump was speaking during the debates just came off to people as performing 'normally' by a woman

Women are told to "smile more" from the time they are children. If you dress up babies in identical, gender-neutral clothing, people assume the ones that smile more are girls. Clinton has been chastised her whole life for not smiling enough or smiling too much (during the primaries she caught flack from anchors and pundits for not smiling!). I have absolutely no doubt that her pre-debate prep team drilled into her that she had to keep smiling as a direct response to the way women's facial expressions--including her own--are policed by the media and general public. You may not like it, but I'm guessing she felt her choice was between putting on the smile and being called a scold.
posted by Anonymous at 6:58 AM on March 7, 2017

I realize that's why she was smiling like that, but what seems odd to me is that is seen as preferable to not doing it. I am terrible at reading facial expressions and body language cues and she came off to me as very unnatural during the debates. In many other public appearances there was nothing fake or performative about her (to me) and she was quite likable.

You may not like it, but I'm guessing she felt her choice was between putting on the smile and being called a scold.

I sure don't like it but I long ago stopped thinking I was in the majority there. I guess I'd rather elect an honest scold (though I don't see Hillary that way when she's not smiling) with good ideas than a fake smile-o-tron.
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 2:48 PM on March 7, 2017

A lot of people noticed it and thought it was weird. There were articles.

The Atlantic one, in particular, shows how sexist the people who think it's "weird" were and how entrapped Hillary was between the rock and the hard place. The Samantha Bee segment is spot on: "Save us from fascism, but don't be a bitch about it."

A lot of her smiling was very recognizable, to me. Look for it in your next mixed-gender meeting where there's disagreement. It's the female smile of patient, vexed tolerance when you can't speak at the moment.
posted by Miko at 4:03 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]

Haven't watched the videos, but I definitely remember thinking Hillary's smiling during the debates communicated something like: "really? I have to debate this guy? Why am I not up 30 points in the polls right now?" I thought it was a sort of horrified bemusement.

Then again, I'm probably projecting my own thoughts about the situation onto it.
posted by breakin' the law at 8:23 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

alidates what Scott Adams has been saying

Please tell me more about this Scott Adams! He seems like an exceptionally intelligent indivudual!
posted by Miko at 10:02 AM on March 16, 2017 [1 favorite]