I was going to post this in the summer, but it got by me and has suddenly popped up on a list of what's currently being read on the site.
One area of life in which women have struggled to achieve much of a presence, and which it is really important for women to achieve some presence is the realm of politics and government. As with the discussion about the number of female characters on screen and the number of female experts and news readers, this is one of those things where we (I think) almost instinctively feel as if there has been an explosion of female presence, to the point where they seem to be everywhere - but when you actually analyse it they've a fraction of the presence of men. We just don't realy notice the number of men, because they are the standard - we notice the presence of women.
One of the ways that sexism manifests in our culture is not just the number of women in politics and government, but how we discuss and understand female politicians. It is worrying to me how little that has changed, in some ways, since I was a child. Any woman in the public eye in any kind of a position of power, influence, or the potential of either gets taken down a peg in the language used to describe her. I don't meangets taken down a peg, as an individual - that happens to all politicians in the media. I mean taken down a peg as a woman. Everything about the way female politicians are discussed, interviewed, described and reported on underscores their femininity in a way that is weakening.
For example, the way a candidate in this year's Labour Party leadership contest was treated by the national political press.
Quote:
How much do you reckon Jeremy Corbyn weighs? How does he measure up if you compare his looks to Prince William’s? How stylish would you say Andy Burnham is? And, if you had to guess, what kind of product would you say he uses in his hair?
The answers to these questions do nothing to help us decide who would make a better leader of the Labour party. But they do influence how voters perceive candidates.
The Mail on Sunday’s profile of leadership candidate Liz Kendall describes her as a “slinky brunette” and a “power-dressing Blairite” with a “lithe figure” who “remains New Labour to the tips of her stilettos”. The paper’s political editor, Simon Walters, asked if she wants to “get married and have kids”, quizzed her about her fitness routine and twice compared Kendall to Kate Middleton. At one point, Walters speculates that “she looks the same weight as the Duchess – about 8st”; later, he disingenuously asks her to discuss “the cruel comments about being a ‘childless spinster’”, neither telling readers who made those “cruel comments” in the first place, or where.
|
Quote:
In any case, sexist media coverage has a real impact. A 2010 US study, commissioned by a non-partisan coalition of women’s groups, asked 800 likely voters to listen to descriptions of two hypothetical congressional candidates, Dan Jones and Jane Smith. Half of the voters then heard a sample back-and-forth debate about the candidates, which included sexist descriptions such as “mean girl” and “ice queen” and “prostitute” to talk about the female candidate. The other half heard a similar discussion without the labels. The findings of the study were stark; when sexist language was included, Jane Smith lost twice the support compared to the discussion that focused solely on her policies. Her initial support rating was 43%, which fell to 33% after policy based attacks, compared to 21% after sexist slurs.
The study also found that sexist language undermines the public perception of the female politician, prompting voters to see her as less empathetic, effective and trustworthy.
A follow-up study in 2013 by US organisation Name It Change It presented 1,500 likely voters with the media profiles of two fictional political candidates, one male and one female. Voters were divided into four groups: one quarter heard no reference to the female candidate’s appearance, while the other three groups were presented with either neutral, positive or negative descriptions of how she looked. The study itself used real quotes taken from media coverage of female candidates in 2012 elections. The conclusion? “When media coverage focuses on a woman’s appearance, she pays a price in the horse race, in her favourability, in her likelihood to be seen as possessing positive traits, and in how likely voters are to vote for her.” Importantly, all references to appearance, even apparently positive coverage that seems to praise a female politician’s looks, still result in a detrimental impact on her candidacy – a fact especially worth remembering when a journalist comments on the appearance of a woman in power and disguises it as a compliment.
|
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...er-perceptions