Center for Media at Risk Visiting Scholar and Northwestern University Professor of Communication Studies Moya Bailey coined the term “misogynoir” in 2008 to describe the combined anti-Black racism and misogyny that Black women/femmes experience. This week, Bailey sat down with Center steering committee member Liz Hallgren to take stock of how misogynoir is playing out in the 2024 US presidential election, in which Vice President Kamala Harris is making history as the first Black woman to receive a major party’s presidential nomination. Misogynoir is pervasive this election cycle – just as it was in 2020 – with pundits questioning Harris’ readiness to take office and opponents taking audacious digs at her racial and ethnic identity. Days away from voting, how should we understand misogynoir’s role in Harris’ career, her candidacy and in the office of the presidency, should she take the White House next year? Read on for Bailey’s insights.
Hallgren: I want to start by looking backwards. You’ve commented extensively over the past several years on how misogynoir has factored into Harris’ political campaigns – especially her first run for president in 2020. How has the misogynoir Harris faces today changed since 2020 (and before)? What have you noticed about the rhetoric used to describe Harris from her time as a VP candidate to now, as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee?
Bailey: To be honest, I don’t know that there’s been a shift in the content. I think that people are still very much harping on the same kinds of tropes, like hyper sexualizing her, or people perhaps thinking that they are very lovingly seeing her as a mother figure. All of those things are happening again. One thing I will say is that the alliteration is working to some of the misogynoirists’ advantage. I just saw “Trump or the Tramp,” as something that is circulating in this moment. So, I am impressed at the fortitude of people who are committed to the misinformation around her, as opposed to actually dealing with her record. I’ve said this before, there is attention to her body and her identities, much more so than her policies. And there could be critiques waged there that are legitimate. But that’s not where we go.
Hallgren: Absolutely. You’re making me think of the comment from the Madison Square Garden about how Harris is “Samoan Malaysian.” Obviously, these are time tested dog whistles, invoking the “DEI hire” and those kinds of tropes. It seems like there were several points throughout this campaign where we could have shifted the conversation, but the misogynoirists double down. The idea that there’s not necessarily anything new here definitely resonates.
Bailey: I am still so frustrated that this election has just completely jumped the shark in terms of issues at all. You know, it’s all about appealing to potential voters and the substance of either candidate’s profile is just not even part of the conversation.
Hallgren: To that point, I want to ask about Harris’ initial campaign strategy that felt more self-referential, tongue in cheek and playful (think “coconut trees” and “brat”) than any campaign in recent years. She regularly pokes fun at herself, and a key theme of her campaign is joy. Could you talk about how you see misogynoir interacting with this campaign ethos? Is Harris’ joy a salve against this rhetoric?
Bailey: Yes, I think it was definitely a tactic to deal with a potential characterization of her as aggressive. She becomes more palatable if she is portrayed as just someone who loves to laugh and dance and have a good time. And I think she’s still leaning into that. Even the kinds of interviews that she’s done with non-traditional media outlets are designed to help her appeal to audiences who don’t want to actually think about the seriousness of her platform. They want to decide if they like her or not. And I think unfortunately, that says a lot about this election and what it means for a black woman to get elected. She’s obviously closer than any black woman who’s run has ever been. And part of that is because I think she has positioned herself as the acceptable alternative to a diminished Joe [Biden]. And then also somebody who you may want to hang out with. She’s very much not leaning into her political record and her work in an attempt to appeal to both sides of the aisle.
Hallgren: Exactly. It’s pretty incredible watching her navigate this campaign, because it does feel like she has to contort herself into something for absolutely everyone. You have this campaign ethos that promises she’s going to be a president for all Americans; she’s trying to align herself with progressive leftists, moderates and anti-Trump Republicans…and also maybe even Trump Republicans. She’ll do it all for everyone. She’s tough on crime, yet she’s empathetic and fair. She’s a “lethal” commander in chief, yet concerned about human suffering. It strikes me that she’s responding to critiques that we don’t know her. In your estimation, how are expectations different for Harris as a candidate than for Trump, who notoriously doesn’t have a platform?
Bailey: I mean, this is one of the reasons that I think Trump is so successful. His narcissism is something he leads with, and he’s very clear that he’s out for himself. There was a New Yorker cartoon of these sheep looking at a campaign poster of a wolf, and the wolf says, “I will eat you.” And the sheep says to the other sheep, “he tells it like it is.” I feel like that is part of the appeal. Trump is not hiding his disdain for the rules and his willingness to do whatever is needed to be elected. And on the other hand, I think because Kamala Harris is part of a party that at least publicly tries to present itself as a party that is concerned about people and society and community, she’s had to waffle because it’s really hard to make a compelling argument about wanting to or being concerned about human suffering when you’re funding and arming, making possible, a genocide – amongst multiple other atrocities. One thing I will say about this election is that it makes clear what people have only thought about in the back of their minds, in terms of the presidency. Ultimately, this job is to maintain a nation-state that was created and built on oppression and hierarchy. Her candidacy makes that very clear in a way that you can’t really turn away from. I think people are struggling with how to hold that and what that means for the Democratic Party. And then also folks on the Left who have a more progressive vision for what we want the state to actually do for us.
Hallgren: You mentioned that recently Harris has been doing media appearances with non-traditional news outlets like “Call her Daddy” or “Breakfast Club.” Her campaign also has an incredible command of social media. I’m curious if you see mainstream versus social media or, non-traditional media spaces, as being different in terms of the kind of rhetoric about Harris that is allowed to thrive?
Bailey: I think she is trying to appeal to certain demographics. She’s really trying to make inroads into spaces where there’s at least been reporting that she’s not going to do well. On the one hand, I’m like, that’s what you do, that’s part of the job. But I do think it does a disservice to the actual issues that people care about. This election really, to me, makes clear the limits of presidential politics. Using both traditional and mainstream media is helpful in showing that. Unfortunately, the position [of the presidency] has now demanded a level of charisma and social charm that does not actually match the work required. I struggle with what the Left is going to do after. Whether she wins or loses, the question for me is what’s the plan for what comes next. And I don’t think that traditional media or even independent media has the bandwidth to ask those kinds of questions.
Hallgren: Exactly. It reminds me of the more existential question circulating around this campaign, which is that if Harris doesn’t win, it will be because the US wasn’t ready for a black woman president. It points to your comment about the limits of presidential politics. It leaves one wondering, if the president we are ready for is Donald Trump 2.0, what does that mean for the country and for democracy? And the future of the Left? And how does misogynoir factor into this concern about the US not being ready for a black woman president? By recognizing that racism and misogyny might prevent Harris from winning, are we also promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Bailey: If she loses, the Dems can say, well, “we weren’t ready for that.” They can blame the misogynoir, as opposed to really grappling with the reality that she’s so much more right of center even than people thought. I think misogynoir is playing such a pivotal role in this election because it allows misinformation to flourish on both sides. There’s a way that she is touted as too leftist and too radical when that is not the case at all. And then there’s a way in which her embrace of Israel has been very much diminished as people try to make the case that she does have these progressive values. Misogynoir helps each side tell a tale about her, but neither is the reality. You know, Toni Morrison talked about racism as a distraction. And I really think misogynoir is a distraction here again.
Hallgren: I mean, it’s back to that notion that if you have to be something for everyone, or if everyone is seeing something for them in you, who are you actually? Who are you allowed to be? Her political record, which we’re all supposed to be voting on, gets totally obscured. This brings me to a question about several major US newspapers’ announcements in recent days that they will not endorse a candidate this election cycle. Most interestingly, they’re citing political and journalistic neutrality as the reason. I don’t think it’s an accident that this is happening now, with these two candidates. I’m curious what you think about the default to neutrality at this moment?
Bailey: It’s interesting that they’re claiming neutrality when we know that the billionaires who own these papers have actually made real, impactful decisions that prevented these editors from making a statement. The resignations of many of the editorial board members of respective papers to me says that it’s not about neutrality, but about the outsized weight that billionaires have in our electoral processes and in our news media. And that’s something we should all be very, very afraid of. I did a talk on NPR over the course of the summer during the DNC, and I mentioned something about Palestine on the show. And afterwards, one of the interns was like, “oh, thank you so much for saying that. We’re not allowed to talk about Palestine, really.” So I, as a person coming in from the outside, can say what I want, but the host and people working there have some kind of gag order around saying certain things. To me, that really speaks to a problem, because we think of NPR as perhaps one of the last truly neutral spaces, but even that is not the case. I want us to be more honest that most of the media that we’re consuming has a particular bias or slant. The question is, does that bias or slant help us get closer to reality or not? And I want us to consider the world that we’ve created for ourselves where we have allowed money to dictate all things, even something as simple as an endorsement of a presidential candidate.
I can’t remember her name, but the person who owns the LA Times’ daughter claimed that this was a decision about Palestine. That got a lot of attention. And I think even though her father quickly came out and said she had nothing to do with this, which I’m inclined to believe, that’s the kind of misinformation that I think can make people assume that people have a more critical stance than they actually do. And again, whether true or not, in these circumstances, the fact that none of these papers have been honest about the fact that the billionaires have really been the driving force…or if they claim that it’s neutrality, that message hasn’t been put forth with any type of certainty that makes people believe it. I want to reiterate that there should be no billionaires, and billionaires should not be in a position to decide whether the papers of record endorse or don’t endorse a candidate despite potentially having a legitimate reason. The fact that it’s coming down to the people who have the most money is the problem.
Hallgren: Zooming out, how should we understand Harris’ nomination within the ongoing history of misogynoir in the United States? What does it mean for Harris to be a major party nominee at this historical conjuncture? And what would it mean for the US to have a Black woman president?
Bailey: I’ll answer the last first. I have to say, I’m not super excited about it. I’m not super excited about a black woman being the face of empire. I wasn’t too excited about Barack either, to be honest. At least there was plausible deniability in terms of people’s relationship to power…when we weren’t the face. But I think it just shows how successful these systems of power are, that they can absorb the very people and allow the very people who have been most exploited and oppressed by it be the face of it.
I do also hope that it reinvigorates our questions about the world we actually want. Because I am clear, I don’t want another president in general. You know, there’s this famous poem, “I Want a Dyke for President,” and I don’t. I want an end to nation-states. I want people to be in communities where they get their needs met, and I want a redistribution of wealth. And whoever is in that seat [the presidency] is not interested or invested in those types of realities. And so I want the Left to use this as an opportunity to maybe think through what we could imagine. How do we use the position strategically? What’s the plan after? I do think that there is this sense that if she is elected, there’s more possibility. At least we’ll hold on to the status quo for a little longer. But I feel like that’s what the Democrats continue to promise, is more of the same. And I want us to want more for ourselves. My hope is that this moment will force us to come up with something new and force us to move out of complacency and into a space of action. Mariame Kaba has this quote, “let this radicalize you;” let this not send you to despair, let this move you. And so that’s my hope, is that this moment brings into sharp relief that we need something else.
Hallgren: This summer, you wrote a piece for Yes! Magazine detailing how we can levy political critique against Harris and her record without engaging in misogynoir. Beyond this election, what can we do to implement large-scale cultural, discursive change that recognizes and limits rhetoric dealing in misogynoir? What can we do so that we’re not back in this seat again?
Bailey: I think people need to think about the black women who are in their own life and how they show up for them or don’t. I think that’s one of the first ways that we can address misogynoir. Who are the black people who are near you? Who are the black women who are in your sphere? What’s your relationship to them? How do you support them? But then in addition to that, in what ways are you engaged with the community of people that is most close to you? I’m thinking about recent climate events that have been happening across the country. And what becomes clear is that we have to save ourselves. Unfortunately, we can’t rely on the things our tax dollars are supposed to actually give us. I am interested in the ways that we’re actually building the communities that we want to see in our everyday realities. Even as I’m critical of Harris, I don’t want that criticism to be something that keeps people separated and makes people distrustful of the Left, because, you know, part of the critique of the Left is that it’s only critique. How do people actually build or try if they’re always wrong? I want us to make room to build actual relationships that can hold contradictions and hold disagreement so that we don’t just dispose of people because we disagree. And I think the Right being able to rally around Trump is unfortunately a great example of people who don’t agree but can all come to one accord to try and get this man elected again. So, there are things to be learned from the Right.
Hallgren: If Harris were to win the 2024 election, how might misogynoir factor into her presidency? What should we look out for? How does Harris’ multiracial identity factor in the misogynoir she faces?
Bailey: This is another damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I can very easily see her win being marred with objections and legal fights and perhaps actual violence. I don’t think we can assume that Trump’s following will just go gently into the night. I think even before we get to the question of how misogynoir is going to impact her presidency should she be elected, the question of the election itself is still on the table. Will it be accepted?
Hallgren: Right – will we get to the presidency?
Bailey: I don’t know. And that to me is the ultimate in misogynoir: to deny the voice of the people. We’ve already seen this; we’ve already had a ballot box that has been set on fire. That’s unusual, as far as I know that hasn’t happened before. I think we’re going to see more examples of behavior that is beyond what we have expected or seen before. And I think she’s going to get a lot of pushback. And I think there’s going to be a lot more name calling and a lot more fighting of her policies. And many more negative portrayals of her in in media.
Hallgren: In talking about what the Left can learn from the Right, and how the Right has managed to do some pretty impressive coalition building across an unusual group of stakeholders that includes billionaires and the working class, and in thinking about how the election will be received, I’m curious if it’s too simplistic to say that what unites people around Trump is, in part, misogynoir? The common denominator does not actually seem to be money.
Bailey: I would frame it differently. I would say that white supremacy and perhaps patriarchy are the common denominator because no matter what kind of person with relative privilege you are, if you can see yourself somehow in a privileged class, then it’s worth trying to hold on to that little privilege that you do have. Which is why I think white supremacy has been so successful amongst poor and working-class white folks, because it’s the one piece of privilege that people can hold on to. And there still is this idea that “I could one day somehow move in class status,” or “because I’m a white man, I can somehow ascend some of these social hierarchies in some way.” I think that’s a very compelling reason to stay locked into an ideology that ultimately doesn’t serve you. I think the Left has a harder time because the Left is trying to imagine something else. And we’re not all clear what that something else is. For a lot of people, it’s just having access to what already exists. And then there are some of us who are saying, actually the whole thing needs to be undone and reimagined. And we’re not on one accord. And those things are very different in terms of how you approach them. So, it’s a bit easier on the Right to rally together, and the Left unfortunately eats its own and doesn’t seem to have room for people who are in different parts of the journey, with different stakes.
I feel like humans always resist. Humans find a way to imagine and move things a little bit. Always. And if we stop thinking about things happening in our lifetime, then I think that really opens up the possibilities. So, in spite of this, I am hopeful, because I do think that even in moments where things seem really dire, there’s so much that has been illuminated and so many people have been forced to question their assumptions. And I think that puts us in a better position going forward. So, all is not lost. There are things to learn. And there’s always possibility when we come together and try to imagine together.
Hallgren: What a hopeful way to end. Thank you so much.
Moya Bailey is Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University Visiting Scholar at the Center for Media at Risk. Her work focuses on marginalized groups’ use of digital media to promote social justice. She studies race, gender, disability and sexuality in media and medicine.
Liz Hallgren is a doctoral candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication and a Steering Committee member at the Center for Media at Risk. Liz studies the cultural work of journalism, particularly as it relates to issues of national identity, race and ethnicity.