The not-so-subtle gender battle during Clinton-Trump debate

America doesn’t like its women too smart. That’s why Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had a near-impossible task Monday night as she stood to debate Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump in the first of three debates. 

Her handlers had told her to show her personality in order to get the audience to connect with her, but to be careful of seeming like she was lecturing. Standing at the podium in front of her biggest television audience in this campaign to date, Clinton had to simultaneously seem likable and knowledgeable; assertive but not shrill or hectoring. Women, according to Robin Lakoff, are supposed to communicate indirectly, while men are expected to communicate directly.

I watched the debate with men from a variety of political persuasions (and only one other woman). Perhaps as we might expect, the first comments in the room focused on the vivid color of Secretary Clinton’s pantsuit.

{mosads}Comments about her appearance quickly dissipated, however, as Clinton met the very high bar set for her against a completely unpredictable opponent. Nevertheless, gender continued to play a role in the debate as Trump, unable to match Clinton’s poise, started to unravel within the first 30 minutes.

Trump sought to avoid a disastrous debate appearance with the first major woman candidate for the presidency. Appearing mindful of past dustups with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and former candidate Carly Fiorina, he attempted to be solicitous, asking his opponent if calling her Secretary Clinton was okay because he wanted her to be happy. But as Clinton continued to bait Trump into focusing on defending himself, Trump resorted to interjecting “wrong!” as Clinton spoke, drawing admonition from debate moderator Lester Holt. Trump’s dozens of interruptions are consistent with a strategy that has long been interpreted by communications experts as a one men use to preserve their power in the conversation.

While post-debate flash polls indicated positive results for Clinton on trustworthiness with regard to nuclear weapons, trustworthiness remained Clinton’s main Achilles heel on compelling issues like racial and gender equality. Her attempts to assume the moral high ground fell flat compared with the rest of her debate performance in these areas. Clinton’s demand for an apology from Trump to all the small business owners who had been “stiffed” by his repeated use of bankruptcy laws and her attempt to bring up Trump’s treatment of women like former Miss Venezuela Alicia Machado were both interrupted by Trump, making them both illustrations of “manterruption” and lesser impact in winning the debate. 

Moreover, her own claims about the need to resolve racism were effectively rebutted when Trump shot back, “I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words super-predator about young black youth…”

Unfortunately, neither candidate could claim the moral high ground when it comes to race and criminal justice reform. None of the right words here – Clinton’s smarts or Trump’s snark – could effectively address issues that disproportionately affect black and brown people in the United States like immigration or criminal justice reform. Let’s hope the next two debates are able to better address these critical topics and require a critical examination of how race and gender together shape the world we live in, and the opportunities and barriers we and our children face in today’s America.

Hancock is an associate professor of gender studies, political science and sociology at the University of Southern California and the founder of RISIST: The Research Institute for the Study of Intersectionality and Social Transformation. Follow her on Twitter @AngeMarieH

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