If Donald Trump was a woman... 5 ways her campaign would be impacted

[This blog post was originally posted June 7, 2017; I'm reposting it April 12, 2025]

There is a claim that Donald Trump would have been even more popular in the campaign for presidency in 2016 had he been a female candidate [21]. This is based on documentary theatre (reported in The Guardian) in which Trump was played by a woman, and Clinton by a man in re-stages of parts of the presidential debates.

But would this have been the case for the entire campaign, and now also his presidency?

Gender parody of the Nina Agdal Super Bowl (2013) advert for Carl's Jr.

Gender swapping in this way is a useful thought experiment. It reveals truths about gender that we're blind to because they're normal. It makes the familiar unfamiliar to reveal hypocrisy embedded in the broader cultural system that sees the same behaviour differently depending on sex and gender.

You can do it in adverts, where a man behaving provocatively becomes cringe-worthy. You can do it with the characters of movies, where a female protagonist in a vigilante movie like Taken just wouldn't hit the same "male protector" buttons. And you can do it with parenthood, where a man being asked how he balances work life with being a dad would be kind of absurd.

Now I’m using it for Trump. So, what if Trump was a woman?

1. Trump would look even more corrupt and incompetent

According to social psychologists, there are two core traits that particularly affect how we see others: warmth and competence [5, 7, 8, 10, 32].

• A person who is perceived to be warm tends to be considered nice and non-threatening (non-competitive). They are also liked more by others.

• A person who is perceived to be competent (or high in capacity) tends to have higher status and tends to be respected more by others.

Warmth communicates trustworthiness, good intention, and reliability. These are traits often demonstrated through kindness, integrity, compassion, and vulnerability [37]. We generally expect women to be more warm and trustworthy than men [8, 28]. This means that any hint of corruption, and female Trump would've been more likely to be pushed out before she even began, whether because she had Russian ties, refused to release tax returns, or simply lied out of habit.

Competence involves displaying ability, often through dominance, confidence, physical stature, and material resources [37]. We generally expect men to be more competent than women [8, 23], and, in leadership roles, male competence is more readily perceived than female competence [9, 36]. This is because stereotypes of masculinity more closely align with stereotypes of successful managers (and powerful people in general) than stereotypes of femininity [36], leading to the "think manager, think male" cognitive bias [11].

The BIAS Map Framework [6, 7] showing the relative position of the prototypical man and woman in terms of competence-warmth stereotypes, the associated emotional prejudices (pity, admiration, contempt, and envy), and the associated behaviours (active and passive facilitation and harm).

In politics, voters generally place more importance on competence over warmth [32, 34]. This is a problem for female candidates, who are expected to be less competent leaders than men even when they demonstrate the same abilities, have the same credentials, or display similar characteristics [19, 20, 36]. As a result, women are held to a higher standard of competence in leadership roles, and male-dominated roles more generally [9, 20, 36].

This would make it more difficult for female Trump to be accepted as a competent leader, especially with multiple bankruptcies, a history of not paying workers, a penchant for conspiracy theories, and a shaky grasp on global alliances (like calling NATO obsolete before even knowing what it is). She would be pushed out on the basis of being financially irresponsible, exploitative, dishonest, and ignorant.

Meanwhile, people reinterpret male Trump's actions in ways that support gender-based beliefs about male competence, and ignore or excuse evidence of his corruption. Confirmation bias paints male Trump as decisive, bold, strong, dynamic, straight-talking, and even charming. And that other stuff about bankruptcies and not paying workers is just smart business if you really think about it.

Female Trump on the other hand –– exposed as both untrustworthy and incompetent –– would be labelled a criminal, unqualified for leadership and emotionally unsuitable given how disagreeable, brazen, impulsive, and aggressive she often proves to be (certainly not charming in the context of being a woman).

2. Trump would need to smile more and scowl less

Leadership traits in women are presumed to accompany a lack of warmth (an expected 'communality deficit'), inferred from her success in a male-dominated role [16, 20]. This elicits feelings of threat, dislike, and distrust [8], despite evidence that female managers tend to be more communal than male managers, as well as more warm, democratic, and agreeable [9]. We also have a tendency to see dominant women in leadership roles as more extreme because their dominance is discrepant with stereotypes of femininity (the 'dominance penalty') [28, 39]*. For example, female managers are more likely to be perceived as selfish, devious, and hostile than male managers who engage in the same behaviour [17, 29].

The perceived mismatch between leadership status and femininity ('status incongruity') results in women who display competence, dominance, and leadership being negatively evaluated and liked less [17, 28, 29, 36], especially by those who endorse traditional gender roles [9], as many of Trump's base do. So, female Trump would have to find ways of making herself more likeable and trustworthy.

Women tend to do this by smiling more, especially when they are being observed or evaluated [23]. Indeed, women are expected to smile more [18, 23]; women who smile less tend to be liked less [18].

A female politician needs to smile to help maintain perceptions of trustworthiness, friendliness, and affiliation. She must do this on top of displays of high competence for high-status positions.

Generally, smiling makes people appear more trustworthy, compliant, kind, cooperative, and non-aggressive [35]. For men, smiling tends to also signal capability. It gives the sense that he is confident and relaxed [35], but it's not strictly necessary. Competence is already conveyed through other, prescriptive stereotypes of masculinity, such as assertiveness, dominance, and independence.

This is relevant to the first point in this article –– that the same behaviour is perceived and valued differently depending on whether a man or a woman is doing it. Men, unlike women, aren't required to smile to attain high-status positions. In fact, they're free to do the opposite. Frowning (with low eyebrows and thin lips), for example, allows Trump to display stereotypically masculine traits, as well as male-appropriate emotional states (such as anger, dominance, and hostility [1, 32, 41]), while still being liked.

As a woman seeking presidency, female Trump should smile more instead.

3. Emotional outbursts would be classified as evidence that women shouldn't be in leadership positions

It’s not as simple as “if you’re emotional, you can’t be a leader”. It’s that if you’re female and emotional, you can’t be a leader.

Trump being a woman by itself would not necessarily activate the “females are too emotional to be leaders” stereotype. But Trump’s emotional outbursts and unpredictability in combination with being a woman would.

We associate displays of anger with dominance, lack of warmth, competence, and status [3, 33]. This backfires in professional women, regardless of her status [29]. While we tend to attribute anger in men to the situation, we tend to attribute anger in women to personality-based or internal causes (e.g., she's irrational, emotional, hysterical, etc.) [3].

Anger can even increase a male professional's perceived status [31] who may otherwise expect a backlash for failing to conform to masculine norms, however detrimental these norms may be [25]. This reinforces gender differences in power by constraining both men and women to displaying status in 'gender-appropriate' ways.

So, as a woman, female Trump would need to be more strategic and controlled in how she presented herself, keeping displays of emotion in check. That means no irrational accusations, no early morning tweeting to publicly berate people, and no sudden hirings and firings.

4. Trump would have to adapt her communication style

For the same reasons a female leader shouldn’t be seen as emotional, she also shouldn’t be heard to shout. But for the same reasons she needs to drive home her competence, she can’t speak too meekly or too tentatively [27, 36]. She should also be careful not to be too ‘shrill’ or too ‘horsey’. And while she must endeavour to not sound too much like a nagging wife, she must also not sound robotic.

Female Trump’s biggest challenge might be to simply stop yelling. It’s passion when done by Bernie Sanders. It’s straight-talking when male Trump does it. But it makes female Trump sound out of control and angry.

Female Trump should also interrupt less.

Contrary to the stereotype that women love the sounds of their own voices, research shows that men interrupt women far more than women interrupt men [22, 30, 42].

Women can also expect to be reprimanded more for interrupting, since, by maintaining control over conversation time and topic, such interruptions display dominance. Although frowned upon, men face fewer repercussions for interrupting than women; sometimes their interruptions go unnoticed [26, 40].

When repeated, interruptions severely upset the flow of the conversation, allowing the interrupter to exercise further control [38]. This isn’t going to work for female Trump.

Male Trump’s direct, confrontational, egoistic, and self-promoting speech is typical of many successful male managers [36], but female Trump is going to have to be more modest, moderate, and accommodating. She may also consider expressing more agreement, complimenting others more, and being more encouraging to others.

Female Trump will still need to speak-up, but without being too forceful. She will have to ask more questions, make fewer direct assertions, and put more effort into keeping conversations going.

Although women with an assertive communication style tend to be considered more competent and intelligent than women with a tentative communication style, they also tend to, paradoxically, be less influential [27]. Despite being seen as less competent, tentative women tend to be liked more, are more persuasive, and tend to be considered more 'hireable' [27].

So, to overcome her status disadvantage and to be a more effective leader, female Trump should consider using more tentative language –– but not too tentative, because this would also undermine her competency [36]. She must walk a tight rope that male Trump can just skip over.

5. Trump's family history would be a serious issue

In modern politics, where increasing gender equality threatens male power and status (patriarchy), women can expect to receive more hostile sexism. This is because women who reach positions of power or leadership violate status expectations and challenge the established gender hierarchy, and are more likely to face discrimination and social penalties as a result [8, 16, 20, 28, 29, 36, 39]. This is “the backlash effect”, where women engaging in traditionally masculine behaviours are more likely to encounter resentment and resistance [28, 29].

At the same time, heterosexual men desire and depend on women for intimacy, reproduction, and domestic labour [4, 12, 13, 15]. To deal with this tension –– both loving, and having power over, women –– there is a tendency to group women into one of two polarised categories: 'good' versus 'bad'. This tendency is widespread but varies according to levels of male dominance in a society or institution, enforced by gender roles and occupations [13].

• ‘Good girls’ who conform to traditional gender roles, like caregivers or homemakers, evoke benevolent sexism (paternalism) [4, 5, 14, 24]. These women are rewarded with positive evaluations and chivalry, but they are also considered weak and in need of protection. They are not seen as leaders [2].

• Hostile sexism is often reserved for women who ‘deserve it’: ‘bad girls’ who violate traditional gender roles. These women are often viewed as trying to control men or steal their power through feminism or their sexuality [4, 14, 13, 24].

In reality, women rarely fit into such neat categories. But, with the bar set so high when it comes to expectations of "appropriate" female sexuality, most women are likely to disappoint [24]. This makes it easier for women to fall into the ‘bad girl’ category, leading to hostile sexism.

Welcome, Trump, to the receiving end of the Madonna-Whore dichotomy**, which groups women into one of these two subtypes: good (Madonna) or bad (Whore) [5]. For those who prescribe to this mutually exclusive view of women, female Trump firmly belongs to the "whore" category.

She's unfaithful. She’s had three marriages, with five children spread across them, even seemingly forgetting some of them. She talks about the opposite sex only in superficial or disparaging ways. And "locker-room talk" about sexual exploits isn't really a legitimate excuse if you're a woman.

It would be hard for the public to trust such a woman given her apparent lack of morals, or her decision-making skills more generally.

Trump's wives: Ivana Trump (left); Marla Maples (middle); and Melania Trump (right).

The struggle for genuine democracy

Science tells us that we're all driven by conscious and unconscious biases. They cause us to judge people differently based on a range of factors, including gender. This has an impact on how we view leaders and politicians.

Take all five points made here, and consider how much more outrage there might have been had female Trump mocked a disabled reporter, made racist comments, or had rated others on their levels of attractiveness. Her insensitivity and sexual escapades would've socially disqualified her from running.

Consider, also what this double standard for women in politics really means for democracy.

Democracy is meant to be a system of government under the representative rule of all its citizens, regardless of sex and gender.

You don’t need to be a feminist, a female, or a politician to care about and fight for democracy. Many men supported the suffrage movement in the name of democracy. Indeed, the campaign would not have been successful without them. But the wider goal of equality is not yet reached.

Gender equality is crucial to democracy if it is to defend the rights, participation, and inclusion of all social groups. Currently, we have a biased form of democracy based on patriarchy. This adversely affects women, not only in politics, but as citizens.

It took great effort and persistence to introduce women into the political arena as part of the suffrage movement. To maintain and improve women’s position there, we need to keep devoting energy to tackling the same social prejudices that underpinned denying women the right to vote in the first place. These prejudices are simply manifested in a different way today and need to be identified, revealed, and addressed.

----------

Footnotes:

* This isn't solved by simply finding a balance between displays of competence and warmth. Women must often choose between being liked but not respected, or being respected and not liked [8, 29].

** Not to be confused with the Madonna-Whore complex, which refers specifically to difficulty with sexual arousal due to an inability to see their romantic partner as both virtuous and sexually desirable.

----------

References

​[1] ​Adams, R. B., Jr., Nelson, A. J., Soto, J. A., & Kleck, R. E. (2012). Emotion in the neutral face: A mechanism for impression formation? Cognition & Emotion, 26 (3), 431–441.

[2] Bauer, N. M. (2014). Emotional, sensitive, and unfit for office? Gender stereotype activation and support for female candidates. Political Psychology, 36 (6), 691–708.

[3] Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19 (3), 268–275.

[4] Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60 (11–12), 765–778.

[5] Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (4), 701–718.

[6] Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (4), 631–648.

[7] Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149

[8] Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98

[9] Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109 (3), 573–598.

[10] Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149

[11] Ginige, K., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (2007). Gender stereotypes: A barrier for career development of women in construction. Built Environment Education Conference.

[12] Glick, P. (2013). BS at work: How benevolent sexism undermines women and justifies backlash. In Gender and Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom (pp. 1–22). Harvard Business School.

[13] Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), 491–512.

[14] Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes towards women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135

[15] Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 763–775.

[16] Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 81–92

[17] ​Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 416–427.

[18] Hess, U., Senécal, S., Kirouac, G., Herrera, P., Philippot, P., & Kleck, R. E. (2000). Emotional expressivity in men and women: Stereotypes and self-perceptions. Cognition and Emotion, 14( 5), 609–642.

[19] Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Social and emotional competencies predicting success for male and female executives. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 13–35.

[20] Isaac, C. A., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2012). Deconstructing the glass ceiling. Sociology Mind, 2 (1), 80–86

[21] Jamieson, A. (2017). What if Hillary Clinton had been a man? A play imagines her opponent as a woman. The Guardian.

[22] LaFrance, M. (1992). Gender and interruptions: Individual infraction or violation of the social order? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(4), 497–512.

[23] ​LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2011). The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (2), 212–230.

[24] Landau, M. J., Goldenberg, J. L., Greenberg, J., Gillath, O., Solomon, S., Cox, C., Martens, A., & Pyszczynski, T. (2006). The siren's call: Terror management and the threat of men's sexual attraction to women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (1), 129–146.

[25] ​Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.

​[26] Orcutt, J. D., & Harvey, L. K. (1985). Deviance, rule-breaking, and male dominance in conversation. Symbolic Interaction, 8 (1), 15–32.

[27] Reid, S. A., Palomares, N. A., Anderson, G. L., & Bondad-Brown, B. (2009). Gender, language, and social influence: A test of expectation states, role congruity, and self-categorization theories. Human Communication Research, 35 (4), 465–490.

[28] Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (1), 165–179.

[29] ​Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.

[30] Smith-Lovin, L., & Brody, C. D. (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The effects of gender and group composition. American Sociological Review, 54 (3), 424–435.

[31] Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (1), 86–94.

[32] Todorov, A. (2009). On the richness and limitations of dimensional models of social perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32 (5), 402-403

[33] Todorov, A. (2011). Evaluating faces on social dimensions. In Todorov, A., Fiske, S. T., & Prentice, D. A. (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind (pp. 54–71). Oxford University Press.

[34] Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545.

[35] Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Smiling reflects different emotions in men and women. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32 (5), 403–405.

[36] Vial, A. C., Napier, J., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (3), 400–414.

[37] Vigil, J. M. (2009). A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32 (5), 375–390.

[38] Weiss, E. H., & Fisher, B. A. (1998). Should we teach women to interrupt? Cultural variables in management communication courses. Women in Management Review, 13 (1), 15–22.

[39] Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142 (2), 165–197

[40] Youngquist, J. (2009). The effect of interruptions and dyad gender combination on perceptions of interpersonal dominance. Communication Studies, 60 (2), 147–163.

[41] Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2 (3), 1497–1515.

[42] Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129). Newbury House.