Kavanaugh-Ford hearing: A dramatic lesson on gender roles |

Kavanaugh-Ford hearing: A dramatic lesson on gender roles

The Associated Press
In this photo combination, Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 in Washington. (Pool Image via AP)
In this photo combination, Supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (Pool Image via AP)

NEW YORK — He let his anger flare repeatedly, interrupted his questioners and cried several times during his opening statement. She strived to remain calm and polite, despite her nervousness, and mostly held back her tears.

Throughout their riveting, nationally televised testimony on Thursday, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh served as Exhibits A and B for a tutorial on gender roles and stereotypes. Amid the deluge of reaction on social media, one prominent observation: Ford, as a woman, would have been judged as a far weaker witness had she behaved as Kavanaugh did.

“Imagine a woman openly weeping like this on a national stage and still getting elected to the Supreme Court. Or any office,” tweeted Joanna Robinson, a senior writer with Vanity Fair.

Kavanaugh, nominated to fill a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, mixed tears with fury in his statement forcefully denying Ford’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her in 1982 when they were both in high school. He choked up at several points when referring to how his family has been affected by the tempest surrounding allegations by Ford and other women.

Opponents of Kavanaugh’s nomination said his behavior demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament. Some supporters said they were moved to tears when he broke down.

Later, during questioning by some of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democratic members, Kavanaugh aggressively interrupted his interrogators and even asked sharp questions of his own.

“Have you ever drank so much you didn’t remember what happened?” asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat.

“Have you?” countered Kavanaugh. He later apologized.

Ford, in contrast, sought to present herself as cooperative and respectful, expressing her wish that “we could collaborate in a way that could get at more information.”

“I’m used to being collegial,” she said at one point.

At another, she said when asked about her emotional state: “I think that’s a great question.”

Zoe Chance, a marketing professor at Yale School of Management, said that in terms of winning over public opinion, Ford and Kavanaugh “are both doing the right thing.” She cited research indicating that men could seem more influential and competent through shows of anger, and women less so.

“When women express strong emotions, we judge them to be emotional — or, in the extreme, ‘hysterical,’” Chance said in an email. “When men express strong emotions, we infer that they must be facing extreme situations.”

However, Chance was unsure that Kavanaugh’s anger was effective in this case.

“In this particular situation, the emotional display casts doubt on his ability to be dispassionate and objective as a judge,” Chance suggested. “If we value the ability to separate emotion from facts, then Ford has behaved more judge-like than Kavanaugh has. “

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said some of Kavanaugh’s statements “were more consistent with one’s expectations of a partisan than a judge or prospective associate justice of the Supreme Court.”

“It is unusual to see a middle aged professional —male or female—experience the range of emotions in public in a formal setting expressed by Judge Kavanaugh,” Jamieson said in an email. “We expect judges to sound and seem dispassionate.”

Michael Cunningham, a psychology professor at the University of Louisville, said he found Ford’s body language and tone of voice to be persuasive.

“Her generally calm and soft-spoken, yet firm, voice seemed consistent with the feminine sex-role,” he said. “At the end, I believe she retained her credibility.”

As for Kavanaugh, Cunningham said the nominee “was successful in conveying the emotions of a man who has convinced himself that he has done nothing wrong.” But the professor had doubts about the impact of Kavanaugh’s show of emotions.

“Judge Kavanaugh tearing up when mentioning his daughter conveyed a man who was feeling sorry for himself,” Cunningham said. “Society wants men to be sympathetic, and even tearful at times, but not for themselves.”

Glenn Sacks, a commentator who writes often about men’s issues, expressed dismay at social-media derision being directed at Kavanaugh due to his emotional displays.

“The mocking of his demeanor is indicative of the restraints still upon men — no weakness allowed, suck it up or get laughed at,” Sacks said in an email. “Men are taught this at an early age — when women cry, we sympathize. When a man cries, it’s so unseemly we can barely stand to look at it.”

Jo Langford, a Seattle-based therapist who works with men and boys who have committed sexual offenses, said he was struck by the contrast between Kavanaugh’s anger and Ford’s “stable and straightforward cadence.” He concluded that Ford may have fared better in the court of public opinion.

Among those closely following the hearing was Danielle Campoamor, a New York-based writer and editor who says she was sexually assaulted by a co-worker five years ago.

Ford “was calm in a way every sexual assault victim is asked to be, lest they be written off as ‘unhinged’ and ‘emotional’ and, as a result, no longer credible,” Campoamor said. “Kavanaugh, by contrast, was unapologetically angry. … He embodied the anger so many sexual assault victims fear; the anger that keeps so many of us from coming forward.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.