Since we cannot know if a woman is going to overcompensate on machismo — as Hillary did on the unjustified Iraq invasion — we may want to look at it a different way. It may be more relevant to ask if someone is a cat or a dog....Ugh. I don't need cutesy animal stand-ins for masculine and feminine stereotypes. You've already made it clear that you think and want to write in terms of these stereotypes (with the understanding that a man can be "feminized" and a woman masculinized).
Farther down in the column, female/cat becomes head and masculine/dog becomes gut.
W. was all about the gut and Obama is all about the head and now Donald Trump is soaring by being the opposite of Obama, all about the gut again. Both Hillary and Trump have been emphasizing that they will do a lot more schmoozing with lawmakers and others who disagree with them, vowing to be dogs with a bone, eager canines offering paws, and not a cool cat stalking away at the first sign of difficulty or when affection is most desired....Hillary is like Trump? If that's where your framework gets you, you need to question the framework. Those two are so different! Hillary is planned, programmed, and controlled. That doesn't seem Trump-like... or dog-like.
ADDED: Speaking of dogs, remember "Wally meets the press"? "What? My position? (Uh oh, here it comes) On what? — my position on CATS ??? Uh... well, cats are... uh, cats are... wait, hold on a sec... (must check with advisor).... My position is that cats are people too and that cats are equally deserving of living their lives with dignity, care, and happiness."
"There. I think I handled that well....."