How Hillary speaks matters, unfortunately

Hillary Clinton has led a life of firsts, both for society and women. And whether you like her or not, she has confronted sexism unlike any other.

Every move she makes is tweeted, every word she speaks is recorded and every interaction is life changing. Meryl Streep once honored her for saving the lives of women merely by having photos with them.

{mosads}Now that is power.

I observe people with power and how they use influence, especially those who don’t fit the leadership stereotype. Clinton is the gold-standard.

No matter how much of an establishment candidate she may be on paper, being a woman in office — at any level — is still far from standard.

Female politicians are easily labelled. The Economist recently considered how women in politics are characterized. Focusing on speech, they pointedly reminded that authority was viewed as male. If women are perceived as emotional, or in Clinton’s case use a high tone, they lose voters and are labeled “shrill”. http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21702161-women-are-judged-way-they-speak-war-words?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/warofwords

On speech, The Washington Post recently reported on new evidence which changed the voices of candidates for jobs. Female candidates were given lower than standard voices to sound more masculine. Given that there is an aversion to higher tones surely this would be a good thing?

Well, no. Women were judged more harshly and penalized as it challenged the stereotype. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/15/this-tool-gender-swapped-the-voices-of-tech-job-candidates-heres-what-happened/

When people step out of the norm and into roles which disrupt the comfort zone of archetypes, they are assessed more deeply and critically than any other.

This piece, in and of itself, may be part of the problem. There have a been a barrage of published pieces on Clinton challenging gender norms rather than on her policy. And while voters tend to consider character and experience alongside policy positions, we are edging undue attention on Clinton being a woman.

Not meaning to defend myself, but Clinton really is an exceptional candidate. She has walked the global stage for decades yet her presidential campaign is different.

When she came out on Thursday night and hugged her daughter Chelsea, you could see a look on her face that we have not seen before. It was a mixture of nerves, hope and contentment. Her dream, and the dream of women like her, was coming true. 

The speech she gave delivered what her base wanted. She positioned herself as a fighter for the people, a warm caring heart that enflames a passion, a forward-thinker who can manage the difficulties of politics.

But underlying in was a masterstroke of gender politics. Her voice. 

She was excited and engaging, but not too much.

She was forthright and frank, but considered.

She was warm and womanly, but did not alienate more macho men.

The years ahead will consider that speech and the way she presents herself, that is just a fact of being a woman in power. 

Clinton sets a gold standard because she knows how to engage women by burning the feminist flame and men because she welcomes them in. She talks to communities as if she lives there and send her grandchildren to their schools. She has the confidence and consideration to sit across from Vladimir Putin and not get angry.

Clinton in the way she presents herself defies the stereotypes of women which are millennia old but can still call them on. She is not hysterical, she is not unduly emotional and she is not a nagger.

She is a person with a plan who happens to be a woman.

Conrad Liveris is a workforce diversity specialist and expert on women in leadership

The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.