Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Democracy and Elections

Cutting Women Out: The Media Bias Against Female Candidates

By Erika Falk, In These Times. Posted March 15, 2008.


The mainstream media treats female presidential candidates as novelties instead of serious contenders -- just like they did 100 years ago.
women
women
Advertisement

Victoria Woodhull wore “dainty high-heeled boots,” observed the New York Times in an 1872 editorial on the Equal Rights Party candidate for president. In that editorial, titled “A Lamp Without Oil,” the Times had this to say about the successful stockbroker and women’s rights activist:

Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull has been married rather more extensively than most American matrons, and hence it might be deemed inappropriate to style her a foolish virgin; yet the characteristics which have made the foolish virgins of the parable famous for nearly 19 centuries were mental rather than physical, and in her inconsequential method of reasoning. Mrs. Woodhull closely resembles them.

More than 130 years later, the Washington Post, in an article about presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), reported, “There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.” Although Clinton was talking about education policy, reporter Robin Givhan noted, “She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.”

Despite striking advances over the last century in women’s social and political rights, and in attitudes about women in politics, press coverage of women candidates is not much better today than it was in 1872. The most significant consequence of this is not that, should a woman run, the press would make it less likely for her to win. Rather, the real problem is that such press coverage may make women less likely to run.

Though the mainstream media tend to frame women who run for president as novelties, they are not. Women have led nations such as Canada, France and the United Kingdom, not to mention Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many others. In fact, there have been so many historical and contemporary women heads of state that one has to scroll through pages to get a complete list.

Here at home, women have been running for the presidency since before universal suffrage, as Woodhull’s candidacy demonstrates.

In his comprehensive list of people who have run for president, James Havel, author of U.S. Presidential Candidates and the Elections: A Biographical and Historical Guide, included more than 100 women’s names. Some of these women were serious candidates, qualified for federal primary matching funds, and even received substantial press coverage. Here are a few:

Woodhull ran as the Equal Rights Party candidate in 1872. She owned her own newspaper, was the first woman stockbroker on Wall Street, and presided over and supported her extended family.

The second woman to run for president was Belva Lockwood in 1884. As an attorney and partner in her own firm, and as the first woman to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court, she had a profession consistent with those of other presidential candidates. Lockwood had also campaigned for presidential candidate Horace Greeley, and drafted a piece of legislation making it illegal to take into account a person’s sex in determining pay for civil servants. Congress later passed the bill.

Former Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) sought the presidential nomination of the Republican Party and was the first woman already holding federal office to run. She ran in 1964 after serving nine years in the House and 15 years in the Senate. Smith placed third in popular votes in the Republican primary, but she received only 27 delegate votes at the convention that ultimately nominated Barry Goldwater.

In 1988, former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), a Harvard-educated attorney who had served in Congress for eight terms, ran for president. At the time, she was a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Twelve years later, Elizabeth Dole sought the Republican nomination. Also a Harvard-educated lawyer, Dole had served in the cabinet of two different presidential administrations (as secretary of transportation and secretary of labor) and had executive experience as president of the American Red Cross. She is currently a U.S. senator from North Carolina.

In 2004, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.) ran for president, making her the most recent woman to seek the nomination until Clinton’s 2007 declaration. A Chicago native, Moseley Braun had served six years as an assistant U.S. attorney, 10 years in the Illinois House of Representatives and one term as U.S. senator. She was the ambassador to New Zealand during President Clinton’s administration.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: elections, gender, election 2008

Erica Falk is associate program chair for the Master's Degree in Communication at John Hopkins University. She is author of Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Some interesting statistics!
Posted by: Verjenie on Mar 15, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides actual press coverage in airtime & column space allotment, it's amazing how often the coverage is a vicarious identification with the male candidate, and a treatment of the female candidate as 'other" or outside of the norm, in a questionable rather than applaudable sense. It's still too vague, still being researched, but it's fascinating how HRC's "ambition" translates into her being seen almost as a wolverine, whereas it is expected that McCain "wants" to be president, wants it bad, but in a desexualized, less animistic manner in the media's viewpoint. He has a civilised right to his ambition. He is handled tenderly. I wanted Carol Mosley Braun to get the nomination. She was so incredibly qualified, well-spoken and yet if I remember correctly, she received a minimum of questions during those debates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gosh! Not a whole lot of interest in this topic.
Posted by: Longdream on Mar 16, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
*slams door*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Teri B.
Posted by: Teri B. on Apr 4, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is typical though. Gender bias is very acceptable. I think it's a good thing for the most part, that our society has an open, friendly, often humorous dialog about gender. It's better that tip-toeing around our differences, as we often do on racial and religious issues, afraid of saying the wrong thing and causing offense. Most of the time, I wouldn't find a lot of this stuff offensive.

On the other hand, we have allies, such as Saudi Arabia, where women are beaten for being raped, aren't allowed to drive a car, or attend school. There are practices like arranged marriages, honor killings, forced abortions, sexual slavery, and female castration that we, as a world power, should be more outraged about, more proactive to end than we are.

I wonder how many people know the percentage of women who are raped and/or victims of domestic violence during their lifetimes? I believe it's 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. Women in some countries are still treated as property.

Women have had to fight for the right to vote, own property, and a lot of other rights men took for granted and still do. You can say a lot of things about Hillary Clinton, but you can't say she hasn't been an advocate for women and children her entire life.

So, yes, I take gender slurs against the first woman to have a serious shot at the presidency of this country seriously. I don't think they have a place in the discourse any more than racial slurs against Obama. Denigrate her for her policies or her integrity, but not because she's female. Not this women - not at this moment. It denigrates all women. Like her or hate her, all women deserve this one small concession in the dialog. Women's suffering is usually the last to be acknowledged or addressed.

In this election, for once, we should be as sensitive to gender slurs as we are racial slurs and be proud of these historic candidates we've selected.

I'm not some rabid feminist, but I am extremely proud that a women has broken through and come so close to leading this country, but just like there are ignorant people who won't vote for Obama because he's a black man, there are people who won't for for Clinton because she's a woman, and I've encountered quite a few of them. They call me "honey" and "babe" and tell me not to get emotional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]