Chapter 1
When Powerful Women Pay the Price
Throughout history, powerful women have faced a remarkably consistent pattern of attacks designed to diminish and destroy them. From ancient Egyptian pharaoh Hatshepsut to modern political figures like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, women who dare to seek or wield power encounter identical sexist takedowns: they're labeled whores, witches, ugly, shrill, unlikable, and power-crazed. This organized vilification transcends time and culture, enforcing patriarchal control through what Eleanor Herman calls "the Misogynist's Handbook." Most shocking is that this pattern has persisted for over three thousand years, revealing deep-seated fears about women in positions of authority. Even more disturbing is how this hatred manifests not just in criticism but in calls for violence - the modern "Lock her up!" chants are merely civilized versions of "Off with her head!" The bloodlust directed at powerful women exposes misogyny's most dangerous face, with figures like Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer facing threats of lynching, beheading, and even a kidnapping plot. Perhaps most surprising? Women perpetuate this hatred too-52 percent of misogynistic tweets come from women, revealing how deeply we've internalized these ancient patterns of control.
Chapter 2
The Ancient Roots of Female Vilification
Western culture's twin pillars-the Bible and ancient Greek myths-both blame women for the world's suffering. In Genesis, Eve's ambition led to humanity's fall when she ate the forbidden fruit and persuaded Adam to join her. By 200 CE, church father Tertullian called women "the devil's gateway" responsible for mankind's suffering and even Jesus's death. Similarly, Greek mythology gave us Pandora, created by Zeus as punishment for mankind after Prometheus stole fire. Given a jar with instructions never to open it, she predictably released all the world's plagues.
In both stories, women are created differently than men-Eve from Adam's rib, Pandora by Zeus to destroy the world-establishing their secondary, harmful nature. The Alphabet of Ben Sirach adds that Adam's first wife Lilith demanded equality but was replaced by the more docile Eve when she refused subservience. Throughout history and mythology, from Delilah to Jezebel, Helen of Troy to evil queens in fairy tales, women are blamed while men's failings are excused.
The origins of misogyny likely stem from women's unique ability to create life. Ancient peoples recognized women's supernatural connection to nature and the moon through menstruation and childbirth. The earliest human sculptures, "Venus figurines" dating back 35,000 years, emphasized female reproductive features. Around 3500 BCE, Malta became a religious center where enormous statues of pregnant women were worshipped. Men likely suffered from uterus envy, viewing women's life-giving power as threatening to social order. Over time, the Patriarchy dismantled women's magical status-Aristotle reduced women to mere vessels for men's seed, Saint Thomas Aquinas declared women "misbegotten men," and religious texts demanded women's silence.
When women hold positions of power, the reaction has historically been outrage. Sixteenth-century Europe saw an explosion of misogyny as France, England, and Scotland fell under female rule. John Knox's venomous pamphlet condemned female leadership as "repugnant to nature" and "contumely to God." When powerful women fail, patriarchy celebrates with "I told you so" satisfaction. Yet when they succeed, like Elizabeth I, the backlash intensifies to prevent them from becoming examples. After Elizabeth's death, misogynistic literature flourished under James I. Catherine the Great's remarkable 34-year reign was posthumously smeared with false horse rumors to tarnish her legacy.
Chapter 3
The Unforgivable Sin of Female Ambition
The Misogynist's Handbook exists to keep women in their culturally assigned place, viewing female ambition as dangerous to society. Throughout history, ambitious women had to disguise their desires for power by claiming they were merely being helpful and dutiful-qualities the patriarchy approved. In 1479 BCE, Hatshepsut became pharaoh of Egypt but felt compelled to justify her position by claiming the god Amun told her to rule while her toddler nephew was too young. Similarly, when Elizabeth Tudor became queen of England in 1558, she portrayed her ascension as a burden that "fell upon" her rather than something she desired.
The misogynistic portrayal of Anne Boleyn contradicts historical evidence about her character and motives. Far from being a manipulative seductress, Anne was a religious reformer who introduced Henry to "heretical" books and debated scripture with him. As queen, Anne focused on philanthropy and reform, personally sewing clothing for the poor, carrying coins to dispense to the needy, and funding education for underprivileged students at Cambridge. When Catherine of Aragon died, contrary to legend, Anne didn't celebrate but retreated to her chapel and wept. Anne's "crime" was ambition-using intelligence and charm to improve her position, something admired in men but condemned in women.
Nearly five centuries later, ambitious women still face deep suspicion. Hillary Clinton's approval ratings demonstrate this pattern perfectly-her popularity soared to 67% as First Lady but plummeted when she pursued healthcare reform. Her ratings climbed again when she appeared as the "long-suffering wife" during her husband's scandal, fulfilling a traditional female role, but dropped when she ran for Senate. Clinton herself observed that "the more a woman is in service to someone else" the more likable she becomes, but when she says "I'm going in this for myself," public perception changes dramatically.
Even women running for supporting roles face harsh judgment for showing ambition. When Stacey Abrams openly acknowledged her interest in becoming Biden's running mate, she was savaged by critics who called her "obsessively ambitious" with a "thirst [that] borders on threatening." Democratic congressman William Lacy Clay found her behavior "offensive" and "inappropriate"-criticism Abrams correctly noted would never be directed at an ambitious man.
Chapter 4
The Impossible Beauty Standards for Female Leaders
As queen of France, Marie Antoinette was expected to lead fashion trends with her elaborate three-foot-high coiffures and sumptuous gowns. Yet the underground press ridiculed her for these very fashions, especially as France faced economic crisis. When she tried dressing simply in a cotton dress without jewels, she was criticized for looking like a commoner and lacking queenly dignity. It's a lesson modern female politicians know well: no matter what you do with your appearance, you'll be harshly criticized.
Men face no such scrutiny. Bernie Sanders wore a casual windbreaker and mittens to Biden's inauguration and became a beloved meme, while Boris Johnson's perpetually disheveled appearance somehow became a badge of authenticity. For women, similar choices would spark outrage.
Female politicians report constant appearance pressure. Hillary Clinton lamented how male colleagues "can just shower, shave, put on a suit, and be ready to go" while she faced news coverage for appearing without makeup. Pat Schroeder found voters more interested in her earrings than her policy speeches. Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard maintained records of outfits worn to avoid repeating them, while conducting briefings during makeup sessions to save time.
Media coverage of female politicians is plagued by appearance-focused reporting. When Julia Gillard became Australia's deputy Labor leader, the Daily Telegraph criticized her "frumpy '80s tapestry print jacket" instead of celebrating her achievement. Research shows that any mention of a female politician's appearance-even positive comments-damages public perception. A 2013 Name It. Change It. study revealed that descriptions of a hypothetical candidate "Jane Smith" lowered voters' impressions of her competence and likability compared to identical coverage without appearance mentions.
Female politicians face an impossible wardrobe dilemma: dark colors appear threatening, pastels suggest weakness, bright colors seem attention-seeking, baggy clothes look frumpy, and tailored outfits appear cold or extravagant. Many have adopted the pantsuit as their uniform-a feminized version of masculine power dressing that says "listen to me, don't look at me," as Hillary Clinton explained.
Chapter 5
The Harrowing Politics of Hair and Voice
While the media occasionally mocks powerful men's hair, women face relentless, systematic criticism about their hairstyles. Female politicians have developed "helmet hair"-a smooth bob between earlobe and shoulder that attracts minimal commentary. Anything too long, curly or feminine makes them appear unserious; too short suggests they're tough or lesbian. Hillary Clinton has endured criticism for every hairstyle-headbands were unprofessional, butterfly clips lacked "gravitas," and scrunchies sparked media coverage. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders' disheveled hair was praised as making him "authentic" and reflecting his "anti-materialist, egalitarian beliefs."
The silencing of women's voices runs deep in Western history, from Homer's Odyssey where Penelope is commanded by her teenage son to be silent and return to women's work, to the scold's bridle-an iron cage forced on "troublesome" women in the 16th-17th centuries to prevent speech. Throughout centuries, women's voices have been described as "shrill," "nagging," or compared to animal sounds. Modern female politicians face relentless voice criticism. Hillary Clinton's voice was called "an ice pick in the ear" and her laugh a "cackle," while commentators rarely criticize men like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump for their shouting.
Many female leaders have sought voice training to counter criticism. Margaret Thatcher worked with a coach to lower her pitch but was still called "too headmistressy." Hillary Clinton consulted a linguistic expert who advised her not to match crowd energy with volume-advice that doesn't apply to male politicians. Women in positions of power are routinely interrupted and talked over. During the 2020 vice presidential debate, Kamala Harris had to repeatedly assert, "Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking" when Pence interrupted her. The fundamental issue remains: society expects the Voice of Authority to be male.
Chapter 6
The Mysterious Unlikability of Female Candidates
Despite winning the vice presidential debate according to multiple national polls, Kamala Harris was immediately labeled "unlikable" by Republican figures and media commentators. This pattern affects virtually all female candidates - a mysterious "unlikability" voters can't quite define but instinctively feel. From Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren, accomplished women in politics repeatedly face this nebulous criticism that seems to hover just beyond concrete explanation. This intangible discomfort often masks unacknowledged misogyny, reflecting deeply ingrained societal biases about how women should behave in positions of power. As former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell explained, everything a female politician does "is judged at the highest possible scrutiny so people can validate their own sense of discomfort."
Unlike male politicians who can be personally disliked but still supported for their policies - think Richard Nixon or Bernie Sanders - research consistently shows voters simply won't vote for women they don't like, regardless of their qualifications or platform. Female candidates must perform an impossible balancing act - demonstrating strength and authority while maintaining traditionally feminine qualities like warmth and approachability. They must project confidence without appearing arrogant, show emotion without seeming weak, and demonstrate ambition without being labeled calculating. Studies show women in politics face contradictory expectations about authenticity, humor, and self-promotion that their male counterparts rarely encounter.
One persistent demand placed on female candidates is that they must smile - and if they don't, men will tell them to. When Carly Fiorina ran for president in 2016, she was repeatedly criticized for not smiling enough during debates, despite discussing serious policy issues. Similar criticism was leveled at Hillary Clinton throughout her campaigns. Men telling women to smile is fundamentally about control - a smiling woman confirms patriarchal expectations of feminine pleasantness and compliance. Meanwhile, women who don't maintain a constant pleasant expression are accused of having "resting bitch face" - a clearly sexist term with no male equivalent like "resting asshole face." This double standard reflects how women in public life are expected to perform emotional labor that men are not.
Powerful women are often viewed as inherently untrustworthy, perhaps because their very existence in positions of authority violates patriarchal expectations. This distrust manifests particularly strongly when women challenge male leaders in parliamentary systems, where they face accusations of betrayal and treachery that men don't experience in similar situations. When Helen Clark became New Zealand's Labour leader, she was introduced on television with "Mike Moore's blood still fresh on her hands" after winning a standard leadership vote. Similarly, when Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Australia's prime minister through normal parliamentary processes, media outlets claimed she "killed," "decapitated," and "executed" him, with sensationalist headlines like "Nice Girls Don't Carry Knives." These violent metaphors, rarely applied to male politicians in similar circumstances, reveal deep-seated anxieties about women wielding power.
Chapter 7
The Hormonal Weapon Against Women's Leadership
Donald Trump's 2015 comment about Megyn Kelly having "blood coming out of her-wherever" exemplifies how menstruation is used to discredit women's rationality. Similarly, he labeled Kamala Harris "mad," "nasty," and "angry"-suggesting she was controlled by her hormones.
To prevent catastrophe from "maniacal, foaming-at-the-mouth creatures" ruling kingdoms, Salic Law excluded women from inheriting thrones in several European countries. Ironically, this caused unnecessary wars, like when Maria Theresa's succession sparked eight years of bloodshed despite her eventual forty-year reign of wise reforms.
Even into modern times, female hormones remained suspect. The British Medical Journal debated whether menstruating women could turn ham rancid (1878), while researcher Bela Schick claimed they released "menotoxins" killing nearby plants (1919). A 2015 study showing testosterone causes risk-taking and irrationality in men has done little to change these ancient prejudices.
Female politicians face harsh judgment for showing emotion while male counterparts receive praise for the same behavior. Pat Schroeder pointed out that President Johnson sobbed during a White House civil rights ceremony, Reagan cried when leaving office, Bush Sr. cried at sad movies, and even George Washington and his generals were "suffused in tears" at a farewell dinner. When Prime Minister Theresa May's voice slightly quavered during her resignation speech, headlines falsely proclaimed she was "in tears," while May later noted that a male PM would have been praised for patriotism.
The double standard persists across politics. When Kamala Harris questioned Attorney General Sessions professionally, Trump advisor Jason Miller called her "hysterical" despite her measured tone. Meanwhile, critics rarely objected to Donald Trump's daily "foaming-at-the-mouth ranting." As Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal observed, "This whole myth that you have to be dispassionate was constructed by men in power" when in reality, emotional connection to policy issues leads to better governance.
Chapter 8
The Impossible Family Balancing Act
Female politicians face impossible double standards regarding family life that create a no-win situation in the public eye. Julia Gillard astutely observes that for women politicians, "it is impossible to win on the question of family" - they're either branded as "out of touch" without children or condemned as neglectful mothers if they have them. Gillard faced extraordinary scrutiny over her personal life, including the infamous "empty fruit bowl" scandal where media outlets dissected photos of her kitchen. The sparse countertops were interpreted as symbolizing "an empty womb" and "an icy, selfish heart" - criticism that would be unthinkable for male politicians, who are rarely subjected to such domestic surveillance.
The burden of domestic responsibilities haunts female politicians uniquely. Pat Schroeder's groundbreaking congressional campaign in 1972 was repeatedly derailed by questions about household management. When repeatedly asked who would "do the laundry," she delivered her now-famous retort to a colleague: "I have a brain and a uterus, and I use them both." Decades later, Jacinda Ardern faced relentless interrogation about balancing motherhood with her role as New Zealand's Prime Minister, including intrusive questions about breastfeeding schedules and childcare arrangements. Meanwhile, her male counterpart Bill English, father of six children, sailed through his political career without a single question about his parenting capabilities.
The scrutiny intensifies for women with multiple children or special family circumstances. When Sarah Palin emerged as McCain's running mate, critics launched immediate attacks questioning whether a mother of five, including a baby with Down syndrome, could possibly serve effectively in high office. One commentator pointedly asked if she would be "a bad mother or a bad minister" - presenting a false choice that male politicians never encounter. Even accomplished professionals like Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced questions about laundry during confirmation hearings, despite her impressive legal credentials.
The double standard extends beyond immediate family to grandparenting roles. Hillary Clinton faced extensive speculation about how her daughter Chelsea's pregnancy would affect her presidential ambitions and availability for office. Critics suggested she should prioritize grandmothering over leadership aspirations. In stark contrast, male politicians like Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, both grandfathers many times over, never faced questions about balancing political duties with grandparental responsibilities. The message remains stubbornly consistent: women in politics must constantly defend their family choices, while men's domestic arrangements are considered irrelevant to their capability for leadership.
This persistent double standard reveals a deeper societal bias: the assumption that women, regardless of their professional achievements or aspirations, bear primary responsibility for family care. As one commentator sardonically noted, "It's only female politicians who should give up their careers to take care of children. And grandchildren. Maybe even great-grandchildren." This gendered expectation continues to create barriers for women in politics, forcing them to navigate an impossible balance between public service and private life.
Chapter 9
From Witches to Animals: The Dehumanization of Women Leaders
Calling powerful women witches is perhaps the oldest tactic in the "Misogynist's Handbook." When Kamala Harris became Biden's running mate, she was immediately depicted as the Wicked Witch of the West. Margaret Thatcher was caricatured as a broomstick-riding witch for cutting school milk subsidies, with "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" becoming a hit when she died. Julia Gillard faced "Ditch the Witch" protesters, Nancy Pelosi appeared on witch-themed merchandise, and Hillary Clinton has endured more witch comparisons than any modern figure.
In the early fifth century, Hypatia of Alexandria-a renowned pagan mathematician, scientist, and philosopher-gained significant political influence as officials sought her ethical advice. Her opponents claimed she had "enchanted" the Roman prefect Orestes through "Satanic wiles." When conflict grew between Orestes and Bishop Cyril, Cyril's followers blamed the 65-year-old "witch" for preventing peace. In March 415 CE, a mob dragged her into a church, carved out her eyes and flesh with oyster shells, tore her limb from limb, and burned her remains.
Female politicians aren't just called witches-they're routinely dehumanized as meat and animals. Australia's "Menugate" scandal featured a fundraiser menu describing Prime Minister Julia Gillard as "Kentucky Fried Quail - Small Breasts, Huge Thighs, and a Big Red Box," referencing her genitals. Similar bumper stickers appeared in the US advertising the "Hillary Meal Deal: two fat thighs, two small breasts, and a bunch of left wings." Despite political rancor, no one reduced Trump to food parts like "Donald Duck a la Orange, stuffed with lard, with a fat rump and tiny testicles."
When Representative Ted Yoho called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a "fucking bitch" on the Capitol steps in July 2020, he unleashed a term loaded with centuries of misogynistic history. The term "bitch," referring to women who need to be controlled like hunting dogs, emerged in the 15th century alongside witch hunting. Its usage doubled between 1915-1930 when women gained voting rights. As Professor Karrin Vasby Anderson explains, "bitch is a metaphor that signals backlash" when women approach real political power-"a tool of containment" for boundary-transgressors.
Chapter 10
Breaking the Cycle of Misogyny
What would a world without misogyny look like? Francesca Donner, former gender director of the New York Times, described it as "an emoji with its brain exploding." With half of political positions and Fortune 500 CEOs being women, legislation would prioritize childcare, healthcare, and working women's struggles. "We would start hearing from families about what mattered," she said.
After thousands of years of beheading, silencing, and shaming powerful women, ending misogyny requires action. One approach is forcing social media platforms to prevent sexist disinformation about female politicians. In 2020, over a hundred female politicians worldwide signed a letter to Facebook demanding action against sexism, noting that "hateful content directed at women on Facebook is amplified by your algorithms."
Creating more diverse newsrooms, especially among senior editors, is crucial to reducing media misogyny. As of 2018, 90 percent of top editors at widely distributed newspapers were white and 73 percent male, statistics that influence how women and people of color are covered. Women of color made up just 7.9 percent of traditional newspaper staff.
Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard initially chose to ignore the sexist attacks against her, hoping they would "peter out." Instead, "the longer I served as Prime Minister, the more shrill the sexism became," with every negative stereotype imaginable-"bitch, witch, slut, fat, ugly, child-hating, menopausal." Research now shows that when women respond to sexist attacks, it benefits them. Amanda Hunter of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation advises linking responses to larger belief systems, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did in her landmark speech responding to being called a "fucking bitch."
Men-journalists, politicians, commentators, CEOs, and community leaders-need to stand up against sexism. Julia Gillard has often speculated how different her experience would have been if leading Australian men outside politics had publicly stated, "As Australians we do not do our politics this way. Let's have a political debate that is respectful and free of gender stereotyping."
Electing more women normalizes female leadership and breaks the "imagination barrier" that makes voters struggle to picture women in power. Amanda Hunter explains that seeing women in office "chips away at the imagination barrier and takes down stereotypes. Women governors often open the door to other women governors."
The journey from Hatshepsut being erased from temple walls to Kamala Harris facing racist memes spans millennia. Throughout history, powerful women have been caricatured as untrustworthy trollops, shrews, witches, and monsters. Today, they're labeled as shrill, ambitious women with bad hair who neglect their families.
The internet amplifies misogynistic attacks but also creates powerful movements for equity. We're increasingly recognizing the tactics of the Misogynist's Handbook-things we overlooked years ago now stand out starkly. Hope lies with younger generations who grow up seeing multiple women and people of color on debate stages. Despite the backlash-which grows more vicious as progress threatens the status quo-Julia Gillard remains optimistic: "What I am absolutely confident of is it will be easier for the next woman, and the woman after that, and the woman after that."
