Features > February 25, 2008

Cutting Women Out (cont’d)

Physical descriptions have included such irrelevancies as the New York Sun’s description that Woodhull’s “hair was carefully parted,” or that she wore “blue silk stockings.” They also included the Bangor Daily News’ observation that Chase Smith was “not a glamour puss” and the Colorado Rocky Mountain News’ report that Schroeder was “attractive.”

Each of the eight women received about four physical descriptions for every one that described a man. And between 1872 and 2004, a substantial change in the media’s pattern did not occur. In fact, the newspapers described Democratic candidate Moseley Braun physically more often in 2004 than did the newspapers from Woodhull’s race in 1872. In 2000, newspapers described Dole’s physical appearance as often as papers described Chase Smith’s in 1964.

The press included physical descriptions of men in just 14 percent of articles about them. For women, it was a whopping 40 percent.

Clinton did better on this front than women who preceded her, but still the media did not treat her in a way that was similar to a typical male candidate. About 29 percent of stories about Clinton contained a physical description.

Though most physical descriptions of Clinton focused on the fact that she was a woman—as in, “female presidential candidate”—her attire still made it into the press.

The Chicago Tribune described her this way: “Clinton was well-dressed without being overly showy. Pale pink top and jacket. Jacket with stylish Euro-Mandarin collar. Black shoes and slacks. Beautiful silver earning and necklace. Makeup just so, as one might expect from a well-to-do Park Ridge girl.”

When men were described, they were likely to be described by their age and facial expressions. For example, Steve Forbes was regularly described as a “51-year-old” and Bob Graham as “66.” Nelson Rockefeller “flashed his biggest grin.”

Traditionally, women’s appearance has been assumed to be a primary measure of a woman’s value, especially in regard to her ability to find a good husband. Though few in contemporary American society would publicly agree with this, the persistence with which the press has commented on the physical aspect of women candidates perpetuates this value system’s ideology and legacy.

One concern is that women may be less likely to run if they feel their appearance will become the subject of public dialogue. And voters may conclude that candidates with more physical descriptions should not be taken seriously. Perhaps more coverage of appearance reinforces the prejudiced view that women are first and foremost objects, whereas men are actors.

Chronicling emotions

Historically, the press has also reported on women’s emotions more than those of men. Again, in the eight races, women received twice as many emotional descriptions as did the men. Given this, it is not surprising the media is obsessed over Clinton’s passionate reply on Jan. 7, 2008, in Portsmouth, N.H., to a question about the challenges of campaigning.

What was surprising, however, was that much of the mainstream press focused on the possible benefit Clinton may have derived from showing the depth of her motivation. This is at odds with traditional coverage. Typically the media focus on emotion in women as a sign of their unsuitability for office.

But this was not entirely absent from the contemporary discourse either.

Former Sen. John Edwards’ widely quoted response to Clinton’s Portsmouth moment was indicative of the way women’s emotionality has been negatively viewed. When asked for his response to Clinton’s display of emotion, Edwards said, “I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business.”

The idea that women are too emotional for leadership is part of the stereotype that women have a biological drive toward nurturing and child-raising that makes them emotional and irrational, rendering them incapable of logic and reason—and therefore incapable of leading and legislating.

Going forward

Although it is easy to get demoralized by these findings, we must keep in mind that studies of non-presidential races show that when women run for political office, they win just as often as men do—despite media bias.

In 1997, three researchers—Richard Seltzer, a professor of political science at Howard University, Jody Newman, former executive director of the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) and Melissa Voorhees Leighton, former membership director at NWPC—conducted a study in which they compared two things. First, the actual success rates of men and women who were candidates in general elections for state legislatures in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992 and 1994. And second, the success rates for men and women running for the U.S. House, U.S. Senate and governor from 1972 to 1994.

They found “no differences between success rates for men and women in the general election.” This suggests that women are perfectly capable of overcoming bias in the press, and these findings should not deter women from running.

For female candidates aspiring to run for elected office, a media strategy plan that compensates for bias is essential.

First, to overcome the press’s tendency to ignore their policy positions, women should run campaigns that emphasize issues.

Second, candidates should project an image of rationality and minimize emotional expressions to overcome the press’s heightened attention to this.

Third, women candidates and their supporters should monitor the media and be vocal against coverage that is sexist, unfair or biased.

And finally, women should frame their candidacies as normal, natural and common in order to overcome the mainstream press’s propensity to portray them as unusual.

We should not tolerate press bias just because women can overcome it. The idea that the media systematically—even if unconsciously—put a class of people at a disadvantage strikes at the very heart of our assumptions about our democracy.

America prides itself on being the freest, most equal society in the world. But for that to be true, people must have equal access to power. A press that does not give equal measure to men and women suggests a fissure in that ideal.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I want to “talk” about how I was such a Hillary Clinton fan until I saw two acts that caused me to turn away.  First, the crying scene where she said that she was just so emotional because she cares so much about the country.  I saw no men cry in their telling about their qualifications.  I was disgusted that she would cry to show she was overwhelmed about anything.  Other women leaders that were mentioned in the article weren’t depicted as ones who showed their ability to lead their countries by crying.

  The second act that turnd me away from Hillary Clinton was the interview with Katey Couric in which she is asked what is the worst advice she was ever given.  She seemed unprepared for such a question, and she immediately talked about her hair style.  I was waiting to hear about advice in a political event, as was told by her competitors.

  I also thought it unfair that Bill Clinton got coverage as he campaigned for his wife when other candidates’ spouses did not.  Why didn’t we see Michelle Obama on he news each time we saw Bill Clinton?  The other candidates were seen as strong enough to be the focus.  Hillary was using her husband as a crutch.  I think he actually hurt her more than helped her.  But the point is that the extra coverage for the previous president showed media bias for the woman who couldn’t stand on her own.

  Posted by Larraine on Feb 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM

  Your study and your analysis are greatly appreciated and needed. But full disclosure is also important. Such as in the case of the example from Robin Givhan, whose cleavage comments I at first thought had been included in a news story about Hillary Clinton. Why did you not explain that Robin Givhan is a fashion journalist for The Washington Post and has commented on the apparel of many powerful people in politics, including the parka that Dick Cheney wore to an anniversary ceremony for the liberation of Auschwitz that she found screamingly inappropriate? Somehow attention to appearance in a fashion report is less offensive than in a news story or editorial.

  Posted by emmonskaren on Mar 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Member Login

Also by Erika Falk

• Cutting Women Out
  The media's bias against female presidential candidates