Katie Porter and the cost of being an ‘unlikable’ woman in CA politics | Opinion
Did Katie Porter blow her shot at being the first woman governor of California because she was rude to a reporter? In a recorded interview that surfaced late Tuesday, the testy conversation went viral for all the wrong reasons. So the answer to that could very well be yes — but I think the reasons behind the public’s reaction may tell us more about ourselves than her.
Women seeking the most coveted elective offices in the nation often have to fight their opponents and the public’s double-standards of behavior at the same time; double standards that penalize women while exonerating men for the same behavior — or worse.
When I watched the video of Porter’s terribly awkward interview with Julie Watts, a TV journalist whose work airs on CBS affiliates in California, I knew immediately that this temper unleashed wasn’t going to play well with voters, straining her already thin margin of lead over the leading men in the race.
I’m not defending her: Porter was rude and defensive, and it was completely unnecessary. Her conduct was inappropriate and unbecoming of a public leader, and perhaps says something overall about how she would behave as governor.
But of course, the candidates (mostly men) running against Porter immediately piled on — instinctively sensing that the public would punish her for her behavior.
“We need a governor who will work to solve hard problems and who is not afraid to answer simple questions,” a spokesperson for Antonio Villaraigosa, a former Los Angeles mayor, said in a statement.
“No candidate for governor should hide from the press or mistreat them — we owe it to the public to be transparent,” said state schools superintendent Tony Thurmond in a statement to Politico.
Women candidates walk a gendered tightrope often known as the “double bind,” where they must balance voter expectations of masculinity and femininity, and often come out the worse for the comparison.
Western culture still thinks of gender as a binary, and historically has defined a man’s world as public and a woman’s world as private. (Thus was the rationale for women’s disenfranchisement: How could women, whose place was in the home, possibly know about the complicated public sphere of politics? Better not let them vote at all.)
Today, women who cross that intangible boundary are either too soft or too tough, too loud or too timid. When men take charge of a situation, they are strong and self-confident; when a woman does, she might be considered competent by her peers — but all too often called a “bitch” behind her back.
Women in the workplace, much less in politics, demonstrably spend extra time proving they are qualified for the job over and over again. Studies have shown women often devote twice as much work to monitor and compensate for stereotypical perceptions of themselves as leaders, and yet often reap smaller rewards than men.
In politics, a recent poll by American University found that voters under 50 are the least likely to elect a female president, and four in 10 Americans personally know someone who would never vote for a woman to the White House. The “Harris Effect” remains a contentious point of debate between scholars, wondering if her run last year made it easier or harder for a woman to become president — with Republican and Independent voters often reporting they think she made it harder.
And yet women who lead in politics are found to more often work across party lines, be more highly responsive to constituent concerns; help secure lasting peace and compromise; encourage citizen confidence in democracy; and prioritize health, education and other key development indicators above male politicians, according to research by the National Democratic Institute.
“Women candidates (need) to be both ‘tough’ and ‘likable,’ a standard not typically applied to their male counterparts,” the American University poll found. “Skepticism regarding merit is present, with Republican men more likely to believe women achieve leadership roles due to quotas or manipulation. Structural barriers, such as the ‘old boys’ club,’ negative media scrutiny and self-doubt, are cited by women as key deterrents to running for office.”
Plenty of male politicians have barked at reporters, cutting off interviews and storming out. Gov. Gavin Newsom famously did it in an interview nearly 15 years ago with Hank Plante of CBS 5, where he threw a snarky parting shot over his shoulder “off the record” — which, by the way, is not how that works. And that snotty guy not only got to be governor of California, but may run for president one day. Still now, he routinely gets away with blowing off the entire Capitol press corps because he doesn’t want to talk to us. And don’t get me started on how President Donald Trump treats journalists every day, especially women, berating, insulting and demeaning them to the delight of his most rabid followers.
From Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to Sarah Palin, Amy Coney Barrett, Tomi Lahren and Liz Cheney, I challenge you to name a woman working in politics today who hasn’t been accused of being shrill, bossy, a harpy or hysterical — for the same behaviors that would be considered strong, decisive or assertive in a man.
Porter’s real sin, then, perhaps, was not just that she was caught being rude, but that she was rude while being a woman.
And that’s something the American public is yet unwilling to forgive.
This story was originally published October 8, 2025 at 2:45 PM with the headline "Katie Porter and the cost of being an ‘unlikable’ woman in CA politics | Opinion."
