Why do you think that women have historically been pushed to the side during times of radical change despite showing they are capable leaders? ANSWER HURRY!!!

In the US, Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 2008 led to some interesting political-science findings about explicit versus hidden hostility toward women presidential candidates. In one study, more than a quarter of survey respondents admitted to being angry or upset at the thought of a female president, when this question was nestled among other ones. This was considerably higher than what the traditional polls suggested at the time. Similarly, 2019 research showed that women became more than twice as likely to express misgivings about female leaders – and differences between Republicans and Democrats almost vanished – when questions were more masked.

Deep-seated biases

There’s a common belief among men and women alike that women are too delicate to lead. This matters because, according to a Wilson Center report on women’s public leadership in the Middle East and North Africa, “Public perceptions regarding women’s ability to lead is a key driver of how much power they will have while in office.”
Political scientists have found that when asked direct, explicit questions about prejudice against women leaders, many survey respondents deny their prejudice
Some people who don’t consider themselves sexist believe that because the world is sexist, women leaders are likely to be weaker. Sean Nguyen, a 33-year-old living in Los Angeles who runs a website that compares internet service providers, believes that “male leaders tend to have more authority. It’s wrong and I’d like to see that change, but … we have to work within the system we exist in.” Nguyen also admits that this preference extends to politics and business. “If I were completely honest, I would prefer a man to lead my company over a woman.”

These kinds of beliefs aren’t surprising, according to Alice Eagly, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. “The stereotype is that women aren’t agentic” – or decisive and authoritative – “and their voices aren’t as loud and they’re kind of small.” Because those are the types of traits traditionally associated with men and with leaders, notions of leadership have become bound up with perceptions of masculinity.

In working within and against these gender norms, women leaders may find themselves in a double bind. Political scientist Ono explains, “Female candidates face a more difficult time figuring out what would be the good strategy to win the election or get more support from people, because deviating from gender stereotypes might be bad for women. At the same time, conforming to gender stereotypes punishes them as well. So, it seems very difficult for female politicians to find the sweet spot when they plan their strategy.”

This double bind also applies to other groups that may be criticised whether they adhere to or push against biases. In multiracial societies, women of colour are often particularly penalised. For example, black women are stereotyped as too abrasive and Asian women are stereotyped as too docile to lead. Among women and minorities, “tokens” are highly visible within organisations and especially within positions of power, which creates an additional dilemma: excel, and become even more conspicuous and scrutinised; or moderate their achievements, to fit into dominant groups’ expectations.

How either some or all of the organisms in this activity are related to one another based