The 2008 election brought the issue of women in politics to a whole new level, with both Hilary Clinton running for president and Sarah Palin running with Joe Biden as his vice president. More than ever before, the media focused on the personal characteristics of the candidates, namely gender, and with all of this attention came an abundance of stereotypes used when discussing both Clinton and Palin. While it is true that women in politics is still a relatively new phenomenon, the glaring disparity in the way men and women are discussed in the media is still surprising. If one was to compare the coverage men receive to the coverage women receive during a political campaign, it would be obvious that men receive more issue coverage, while women receive more attention for their appearance and personality instead of their political stance.
www.dailymail.co.uk
The difference in how Palin and Clinton were discussed is also interesting, because while they share the fact that they are both women, that is where the similarities end. Palin’s physical attractiveness was the focus of the media’s coverage of her, with constant references to her past as a beauty queen. On the other side of the coin, Clinton was often painted as the “anti-seductress.” In both cases, the coverage of both women would occasionally cross the line from typical political attacks to rude personal attacks. Together, these two women almost perfectly illustrated the “double bind” that many women face. A women who is considered attractive, or too feminine, will be thought of as incompetent and inferior to men. Women who are less feminine, however, are not received any better, and are often judged by different standards than men of equal qualifications. This problem is not limited to politics; women in all careers are forced to deal with this double bind.
No comments:
Post a Comment