|
For those of you who aren't old enough to remember the Nixon/Kennedy debates, they were the first to be watched live by most voting Americans over television, as opposed to previous years, in which most heard debates via the radio. Those debates have become famous for their psychological effect - Kennedy received a big artificial boost because he was better-looking and had better mannerisms. In fact, studies showed that those who listened on the radio believed that Nixon won the debates, while those who watched them on TV believed that Kennedy had won.
Now, as any good sexist will demonstrate on a near-daily basis, one of those biggest criticisms of how women are treated by chauvinistic men is that they are judged only by their looks and not for their intelligence, personality, opinions, etc. Because the only difference between the radio and television debates was that the television viewers actually got to look at Nixon and Kennedy, that crowd's preference of Kennedy over Nixon stemmed from what they thought about how the candidates looked, rather than what they actually said. If a similar situation happened in a debate between Obama and Hillary, there would no doubt be many ready to decry the television viewers as sexist, pre-judging everything Hillary had to say because they were watching a woman say it, because they have been socially trained to not like older women, because they respect a man's mannerisms and facial expressions more than a woman's, and so on and so forth.
Thus, because Nixon was judged by how he looked, rather than what he actually said, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that he was a victim of the terrible scourge of sexism that has this country in an iron grip. After all, as many posters here could tell you, it is utterly impossible for two different standards to be imposed upon candidates for any reason other than gender.
Guess Nixon was our first female President. You'd think I would have learned that in school.
|