Mics, Mills, and Misogyny: A Utilitarian Analysis of Gendered Political Discourse

Why is the trope of the evil woman so powerful that it’s still with us today? Why do we so often still give appalling men a pass with “boys will be boys” and “it is only locker room talk” while we demonise, belittle, shame, ridicule, vilify, slander, and silence women? - Eleanor Herman

Introduction

Women across history have been demonised as they gain any semblance of power. From Eve to Hilary Clinton, from Cleopatra to Elizabeth I, from Catherine the Great to Catherine De Medici, from Anne Boleyn to Jillian Gillard to Kamala Harris, personal attacks have plagued powerful women throughout history and into modern politics. Women’s ambition is criminalised, their appearances awarded disproportionate scrutiny, and their political acumen and statecraft are reduced to matters of sexuality. When we consider the principle of free speech, which is often invoked to defend such controversial or offensive rhetoric, the choice between protecting free expression while at the same time safeguarding women in politics from discriminatory rhetoric presents a challenging ethical dilemma. In this context, a Utilitarian approach provides a valuable perspective since it requires us to weigh the benefits of unrestricted political speech against the negative impacts of this rhetoric on overall happiness and utility. This analysis aims to explore and answer questions such as: Does the societal benefit of unrestricted political discourse outweigh the harm caused to women leaders and aspiring politicians? How does the silencing effect of such vilification impact the overall quality of political representation and decision-making? What are the long-term societal implications of perpetuating gender biases in politics?

Free Speech, but at What Cost? A Utilitarian Dilemma

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist political theory, which refers to the view that the morally right action is the action which produces the most good, i.e., the right actions are evaluated in terms of their consequences. It aims to achieve the maximum sum total of utilities, irrespective of how it is distributed. While free speech is a core right, particularly in the United States of America, where the First Amendment guarantees this right, misusing it as a tool to perpetuate gender discrimination and tear down female political leaders creates significant problems. The utilitarian approach holds freedom of speech important in terms of its instrumental value. According to Mill, it must be protected since it enhances the attainment of truth, and thus, such a marketplace of free ideas maximises the truth available to society as a whole. However, Mill also introduces the Harm Principle, which limits free speech when it directly harms others. This principle is particularly relevant when speech is used not to foster debate but to marginalise, incite violence, or reinforce systemic oppression. In the modern context, hate speech, gendered political attacks, and racial vilification challenge Mill’s ideal by demonstrating how free speech can be wielded as a weapon rather than as a tool for truth-seeking. Mill’s marketplace of ideas assumes that rational discourse will naturally correct falsehoods, but this assumption does not account for power imbalances in political discourse. In a world where marginalised communities often lack equal access to platforms of expression, harmful speech is not always met with an equal counterforce of truth. The utilitarian approach thus evaluates the consequences of unrestricted speech in politics, specifically when it is focused on slandering female politicians. In the next part, the paper evaluates the consequences of unrestricted free speech in the political sphere, positing that the overall impact of the same in politics and society is negative. 

There are three primary consequences of allowing such behaviour, actions, and rhetoric to permeate the political sphere: Firstly, the effect of silencing women, which impacts policy and governance; secondly, the reinforcement of patriarchal norms and creation of unequal standards with long term societal implications for gender equality; and lastly, perpetuation of violence leading to safety concerns. 

1. Shutting Women Out: The Silencing Effect

   
   

The first consequence is the silencing effect, i.e., the prevalence and perpetuation of misogynistic rhetoric in politics has a chilling effect on the political participation of women. Most Australian women who had considered a career in politics were less likely to pursue one due to all the misogyny thrown at Julia Gillard. This deterrent effect further leads to a reduced representation of females in the political sphere. This reduction in diverse political representation not only diminishes the overall quality of governance and policy-making, but also leads to an increasing divide between genders by reducing the say of women in pro-equality policies. Studies have consistently shown that diverse political bodies make better decisions because they incorporate a wider range of perspectives. For instance, parliaments with more women tend to pass stronger social welfare policies, better workplace protections, and laws addressing gender-based violence.

Further, it may lead to a lack of talent in politics as well. When talented women are deterred from entering politics or are forced to operate under constant scrutiny and threat, the quality of people in power suffers. Countries, where gendered hate speech in politics is rampant, tend to have higher political disengagement rates among women and young voters.

The role of media, both social media and news outlets, leads to further negative consequences. Journalists have the duty to give the objective truth having received training in this regard. Instances where Hilary Clinton going out without makeup make news headlines, and on the day of Theresa May’s takeover announcement, her leopard print heels making front page with the headline ‘Heel Boys’ are instances of popcorn journalism. This practice of headline mongering by news outlets is unethical by and of itself, since it goes against their duty to give the public significant objective truth. However, such focus on their behaviour and actions unrelated to work and competence also distract the public from substantive policy debates and issues. They lead to the erosion of public trust in political discourse and news propagation by the media, thus having long term negative consequences. 

2. The Old Boys’ Club: Reinforcing Patriarchy

   
   

Patriarchy in society is majorly perpetrated by males in power, who reduce women for their selfish utility as women and not individuals. This behaviour reinforces broader societal biases, especially since the majority of such rhetoric stems from powerful leaders, institutions and media houses themselves.

It is important to point out here that these personal ad hominem attacks by political leaders are unethical of themselves. Not only do public figures have the duty to tell the truth, they are held to a higher standard of integrity and truthfulness in the public sphere. Yet, as soon as Trump heard that Kamala Harris was Joe Biden’s Vice-President pick in August 2020, he tweeted that she was ‘a mad woman’, ‘extraordinarily nasty,’ and ‘so angry.’ By throwing around misleading statements, under-communicating, and sometimes outright lying, political leaders (majorly male) use deliberate tactics to manipulate their voter base in their favour. These actions lead to a perpetuation of gender stereotypes, which may lead to an increase in discrimination and violence against women in various spheres of life, not just politics. 

Another result of this reinforcement is the creation of an uneven playing field in politics. By disproportionately focusing on women's personal lives, appearance, and family responsibilities,  females are subjected to villainization that male counterparts are not, but are lauded for. Even in India, Mamata Banerjee has been publicly derided for her appearance and speech, with opposition leaders questioning her character and making comments about her clothes. Male politicians are excused for behaviours that are career-ending for women, as evidenced by the contrasting public reactions to Bill Clinton’s scandal, New York congressman Anthony Weiner’s tweeting photos of his privates, and New York governor Spitzer’s trysts with prostitutes compared to the constant scrutiny faced by women for non-scandalous aspects.

Imagine if a woman president got on Twitter every morning to complain about people being mean and unfair to her. ‘Donna Trump’ would then be weak, hysterical, shrill, unfit to lead, emotional, but Donald Trump could never be so. These standards then have another unintended consequence on long-term societal implications through the widening of the persistent gender divide. They reinforce the idea that leadership is inherently masculine, and women are not capable of leading societies, limiting progress towards gender equality in other areas of society. Moreover, words themselves have power, and especially in the political sphere, are taken at face value, which can be dangerous.

3. Tweets, Threats, and Terror

   
   

The third consequence of choosing to use free speech to perpetuate these ideas is the safety concerns which follow. During the 2020 US congressional races, female candidates received significantly more online abuse than their male counterparts. On Facebook, female Democrats running for office received ten times more abusive comments than male Democratic candidates. In a 2016 Inter-Parliamentary Union study on sexism, harassment, and violence against women parliamentarians, which surveyed female MPs from thirty-nine countries, more than 80 per cent of the respondents said they had experienced abuse, and 44 per cent had received threats of murder, rape, brutality, or the kidnapping and murder of their children. The prevalence of violent threats not only affects the well-being of individual politicians but also creates a hostile environment that discourages political participation.

Conclusion

A strict utilitarian analysis reveals that unrestricted free speech does not always maximise collective well-being. The harm caused by such discourse, both to the individuals targeted and to society at large, outweighs any potential benefits that might arise from unrestricted political speech. By fostering an environment that discourages women from taking up political roles and reducing the quality of political dialogue, the long-term consequences of gendered attacks diminish overall societal well-being. The state has a duty to regulate speech when it directly incites harm or violence against vulnerable groups, reinforces systemic discrimination, thereby reducing overall democratic participation and spreads misinformation that distorts rational public decision-making. The utility of free speech diminishes drastically when used to systemically disadvantage and silence female leaders for selfish gains and through untrue intangible opinions. The consequences of such actions, as highlighted above, lead to reducing the utility and happiness of society. They seem to do the greater harm in the long run by having wider negative impacts on individuals, the public, and politics. The silencing of women's voices, reinforcement of such misogynistic and harmful stereotypes, and the creation of hostile political environments lead to a reduction in collective utility. Thus, democratic governance must balance free speech with ethical boundaries that prevent harm and promote inclusive participation. Restrictions on speech that perpetuates discrimination are not violations of democratic principles but rather necessary measures to uphold justice and utility. In modern societies, ensuring a fair and balanced discourse is essential for sustaining democratic integrity and collective progress.

The author, Arushi Singh, is a student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.