A reminder that this had to be shut down because it was opening eyes.
A stage performance where to actors take the mannerisms and speeches of Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton and switched the genders giving us Jonathan Gordon and Brenda King
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html>Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.>But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?here's a performance
[YouTube] Her Opponent--Full Archival Version, January 28, 2017![]()
[Embed]>1,5 years old article
>Shilling for clinton
>"she would have won if she was male"
pretty sure this is a shill threa,d maybe even a bot
>>171884>a performance that devastates claims of sexism and shows that Trump is more likeable while Hillary is a creepy worm>this is shilling for HillaryWhat are you smoking Hanz?
>>171884It's an old article, but I found it interesting anyway.
Leftists love to say that Hillary only lost because she was a woman, but that's really not the case; and the feelings you get from this performance prove that.
Brenda King (Trump) comes off as snarky, confident and clever.
Jonathan Gordan (Clinton), looks like a punchable cuck who doesn't know how to act before a crowd.
The project wasn't intended to have that affect, but it still did. They discontinued the performance after their worldview was proven to be so wholly incorrect.
>>171890>>171904Oh, I see. I apologize for my premature judgement, my gut told me otherwise.
>They discontinued the performance after their worldview was proven to be so wholly incorrect.Tragic but expected of these people. That explains why i never heard of this before. we live in a time of biased science. The results only matter when they fit certain expectations.
>>171907It was all over /pol/ before the election. The performance was organized by lefties to prove sexism. To their credit, the actors were true to their roles. They were flabbergasted that the results of their experiment were the polar opposite of what they set out to prove, so they eventually just stopped.
If anything, they showed that Trump would have been more popular as a woman and Hillary would have been even less trusted as a man.
>>171918>If anything, they showed that Trump would have been more popular as a woman and Hillary would have been even less trusted as a man.Naturally. SJWs define self worth by the meaningless identity tags they affix everyone with. Most of them are shit humans and if you take their identity status away they have nothing left but themselves to fall back on. Without a vagina there was literally no reason for anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton.
>>171904>Leftists love to say that Hillary only lost because she was a woman>>171938I've notice a theme again and again. The Left competes by using "I am a bigger victim, than you, so I deserve a free hand out". I've read stories of school kids literally arguing over who is the bigger victim, because the bigger victim get the most free support.
When utopia goes wrong.
>>171976Why do you think they keep making up genders, and all claim to have PTSD from nonsensical things? It's so that they can climb the victim ladder.
