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.

What She Wore: The Prevalence of Gender Bias in Reporting

By Lucinda Marshall, Feminist Peace Network. Posted December 14, 2006.


Not only is it possible to write about women in power without referencing their appearance, it should also be the standard.
Advertisement

Writing about fashion is not my style. Recently, however, I felt moved to write a critique of Marie Clare's November issue which took on the unique task of looking at the impact of militarism on women's lives from the point of view of fashion (lost an arm and a leg but can still wear 2-inch heels ...). I had devoutly hoped that would be the end of my career in fashion commentary, but those hopes were dashed by two recent articles about noteworthy women.

The first is an in-depth look at women to watch for in the House and Senate by Allison Stevens of Women's eNews. Refreshingly, the article contains not one itsy-bitsy bit of information about what these powerful women wear or what they look like. In a no-nonsense, just the facts and nothing but the facts, approach, Stevens delineates the roles of women like Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, cochairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Lois Capps, a possible cochair for both the Democratic Women's Working Group and the Congressional Caucus of Women's Issues. We also learn that Rep. Louise Slaughter and Sen. Diane Feinstein will chair the House and Senate Rules committees, and what the implications of these posts are for issues, such as the right to obtain an abortion.

Stevens does a fine job of demonstrating that in fact you can talk about the importance of women's lives without trivializing them by assuming you must mention their hairstyle or what they are wearing.

Not so the December issue of Esquire, which contains an article that takes a lengthy look at "five exceptional American women" who have done significant work that has received little attention. But hold the applause. This after all is a magazine with a long history of preferring to present women in a scantily clad light. So it is not surprising that the author of "The Women of America," John H. Richardson, is scrupulous in making sure that his readers really get the picture. The very first sentence of the article reads, "Naomi Halas is wearing a clingy green blouse with tight black pants and two-inch black pumps, looking as if she stepped off the set of a Pedro Almodovar movie."

This in what way relates to the fact that she invented nanoshells?

And then there is Doris Voitier, the school superintendent in St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana, who has done extraordinary work getting her schools back in business since Katrina, no thanks to FEMA. Richardson makes sure that we know that she is "a round woman in a lime-colored suit." How very illuminating.

But on to Rose Ann DeMoro, a California nurse who led the fight to lower nurse-patient ratios in California hospitals. Aren't you dying to know what she looks like? No problem, we get a description right in the first paragraph: "A woman in black pants and a yellow sweater."

When it comes to Patricia Mulroy, the general manager of the Las Vegas Valley Water District, we get the description before we even know her name, "a stylish older woman with short hair and discreet gold jewelry. That would be Patricia Mulroy." Richardson repeats the clothes-first, name-second structure with the last woman featured in the article, "a young woman in white slacks and a jean jacket" named Stephanie Herseth. Only then do we find out that she is a member of the United States Congress. Not once does Richardson refer to her as Congresswoman Herseth, she's just a young woman wearing white slacks and a denim jacket.

While the media occasionally offers us a description of how men of power appear, it is much more prevalent in the descriptions of women. If you doubt this, consider that within a week of the election, it was common knowledge that Nancy Pelosi digs Armani, but quick -- who is Harry Reid's favorite designer? Who knows and who cares.

It is unfortunate when the media continues, with all its damaging and misogynist implications, to insist by inclusion that what women wear or how they look is related to their capability. As Allison Stevens demonstrates, it is in fact possible to write about women and what they have accomplished without trivializing their empowerment by asserting such spurious connection. This is the standard to which journalism should be held in regard to gender.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: stereotypes, gender bias

Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the founder of the Feminist Peace Network. Her work has been published in numerous publications in the United States and abroad, including Counterpunch, In These Times, Dissident Voice, Off Our Backs, The Progressive, Countercurrents, Z Magazine , Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse. She blogs at WIMN Online and at Sheroes.

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


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:
trivial
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 14, 2006 1:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When trivial magazines hire trivial writers to write their articles it is no wonder that they create trivial pieces that are not worth reading by thinking people. Women are, after all, quite as capable as men when it comes to creating a decent society, and usually more so in these days of men as warmongers.

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

» RE: trivial Posted by: Spot
This is so common
Posted by: HeroesAll on Dec 14, 2006 2:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it still gets right up my nose. Here in Oz, the proud birthplace of Rupert Murdoch (nonononono, you can have him, really!), we're always treated to a description of what our women pollies look like, including clothes, hair, makeup, size, and general demeanour.

Not only that, but any of those aspects which fail to meet with the rather antiquated approval of the rather antiquated newsroom are roundly criticised. There's a bizarre assumption that how a woman looks and comports herself is a direct reflection of her political and intellectual capability.

And it's a no-win situation for women: any behaviour that mimics that of male politicians (such as being shouty in the House) is condemned heartily for being unfeminine or desperate or god knows what. If a woman wears too little makeup she's dowdy and careless and obviously unable to deal with the realities of cut'n'thrust life as a pol; if she wears too much makeup she's either trying to win her way through tartiness (if she's young), 'mutton dressed as lamb' (if she's not), or cares more about her looks than about the country (any age). If she wears bright colours or casual or fashionable clothes, she's politically naive; if she wears suits with skirts she's an uptight bitch; if she wears pants she wants to be a man.

One of our standouts was Bronwyn Bishop, a Margaret Thatcher wannabe who had the political views and the look without the political savvy. While I detest Bishop, I couldn't fail to notice how the media castigated her constantly, not on her views or her statements (which were frequently atrocious) but on her behaviour. 'Strident' was a popular word. So was 'rottweiler'. If she'd been a man, she'd probably have been PM instead of that weasel Howard.

Oddly enough, there was one female pollie who got taken at least half-seriously. This fact is made even more astonishing given that she's young, attractive, and quite left-wing (and quite outspoken). But for some reason, the media beagles were less savage with Natasha Stott Despoja than with other female pollies. Possibly because she's clearly intelligent, articulate, and confident enough to always come up with a snappy comeback.

It's a cryin' shame that she's getting out of politics. She could have been another South Orstrilyan to spark a revolution in our politics, like Don Dunstan (I'm choosing to ignore the appalling Alexander Downer, our current Foreign Monster).

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

» RE: This is so common Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: This is so common Posted by: HeroesAll
Trivializing their empowerment?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 14, 2006 3:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of writers do that for some reason. They include a visual description of their victim: "...a tall woman...commanding in her presence, yet..." Cheesy.

I guess it reflects our obsession with appearance, and the herd instinct that's inevitable in any business.

But to say it necessarily makes a connection between looks and capability is a bit much. You take the journalistic tendency toward fluff and infotainment and turn it into this big thing against women...Take a deep breath and count to ten.

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

What is a nanoshell?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Dec 14, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A little more information on the women presented would have been nice.

As for Sen. Diane Feinstein, I have a trouble not seeing Sen. Diane Feinstein as a republican. Maybe I am wrong. I would not doubt it.

This same bs seems to happen with presidential elections too. I sometimes think it is a beauty contest. I for one can not understand how any women could find bush attractive but then there's a sucker born every minute. Substance does not seem to be valued at all anymore when it comes to our choices of presidential candidates. I'm tired of these bullshit popularity and beauty contests. Beauty has its place but substance should be valued over style when it comes to governance.

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

It's not just appearance either...
Posted by: polyquat50 on Dec 14, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of all the times you read/hear "mother of three' or "Sydney mother". Never hear "father of two" or "Brisbane father"

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

the author of this piece...
Posted by: mwildfire on Dec 14, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well the blurb at the bottom told us her name and who she works and writes for, but--what's she wearing? How old is she? Is she slender? Does she have nice bazongas? What's going on in her love life?
(just kidding)

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

» lol... 'bazongas' Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Lucinda Lighten Up!!!
Posted by: faultroy on Dec 14, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand some women can be frustrated with these kinds of comments about a woman's appearance, but to imply this style of lead within an article pertains only to women is totally inaccurate.
It is done with men also. Particularly in the Entertainment industry. Furthermore, for any writer to manifest this style with respect to women in positions of authority and power is perfectly acceptable.
By far, the majority of women like these kinds of comparisons. Look at the old Virginia Slims commercials with the chic models holding cigarettes.
Note also Liquor commercials with beautiful women in bars flirting their pretty little derriers off (Oh My Gosh!!!!--I did it too!!!----I am so SORRRYYYY!!!!!-not!!!).
For me and for the majority of women, the tacit reference to powerful women that can also be sexy and Mommies is what feminine society wants to really hear.
And trust me the only time I want to here about what a woman is wearing is when she isn't wearing anything...but that's a guy thing...
So lighten up Lucinda and find something truly relevant to cast those dark, deep, smoldering, flickering luscious eyes upon. And keep that haughty pouty lip glossed sneer reserved for something that truly deserves your statuesque
curvy disapproval...

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

» RE: Lucinda Lighten Up!!! Posted by: kelt65
How much do female journalists do this?
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Dec 14, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading this I'll be more on the lookout for this sort of thing, but I wonder if female journalists maybe are guilty of it as often the men. Perhaps in somewhat different ways -- as they observed on "Seinfeld," men don't notice eyebrows much but women do!

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

And they think they are being objective
Posted by: godsbedamned on Dec 14, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story gives lie to the taken-for-granted notion that many reporters have that they are being objective...or, even rational. When it (the focusing in on women's appearance in stories such as these) is highlighted, it makes the reporting quality look so god-awful, doesn't it? And, while the writers and editors who endorse such writing always presume themselves to be professional, they would, I am sure, label someone who writes from a feminist standpoint as biased and irrational, even unprofessional.

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

True, but misogyny?
Posted by: YogiBear on Dec 14, 2006 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is unfortunate when the media continues, with all its damaging and misogynist implications, to insist by inclusion that what women wear or how they look is related to their capability.

I hate to be reading an article about an important political or business figure and have it segue into a description of their dress. I see it enough in newspaper articles to make me cringe. But you know what I've noticed? Three times out of four the writer is female. If that's misogyny, it's institutional.

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

» RE: True, but misogyny? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: True, but misogyny? Posted by: YogiBear
They do the same thing @ protests/ actions
Posted by: fanny666 on Dec 14, 2006 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate media outlets love to describe the "colorful cast of characters" at protests- pierced noses, dredlocks, etc. while never asking about what they know.

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

What she wore?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Dec 14, 2006 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you think men care about what she wore, or would even remember it five minutes later? Unless it was something bizarre like a clown outfit?

It's women that are interested in this little tidbit, and the media knows it. Some women might even go so far as to emulate what an admired public figure wears and buy the same outfit.

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

» MB, you're back! Posted by: fork
ummm....whats the point?
Posted by: chaos-abounds on Dec 14, 2006 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
feminists constantly reference many percieved and real injustices that are present to discriminate against women and the best you can come up with is some completely irrelevent article about talking about clothes? honestly. address a real issue. people notice what other people wear, and this can often provide readers with a way to associate with the topic. this seemed like nothing more than a scramble to fill a deadline.

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

Oh it's Esquire? WTF?!
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 14, 2006 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Esquire is a bad bad strawperson for the argument on gender bias in media. Lucinda needs to write a more involved piece with way more examples and relevant ones at that. Esquire?! An overpriced ad-rag. Who cares what they say anyway, they're the schlumps of the social heap. The posers, as it were. Now, if the Times does it, now I'm uppity, yeah?

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

» RE: Oh it's Esquire? WTF?! Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Oh it's Esquire? WTF?! Posted by: YogiBear
Author is missing a key distinction
Posted by: H_H on Dec 16, 2006 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women's suits are usually chosen to look distinctive- in many cases made to make them stand-out. Men's suits tend to look rather uniform. Many women, especially those in the media spotlight, choose their clothing very carefully. It's dishonest to pretend that women's outfits are designed to make them NOT stand-out and commenting on it is a form of prejudice. It's also pretty damned dishonest to pretend that many women want to be unindividuated tools defined solely by their function rather than how they look, especially when if put conscious effort into creating a distinctive look for themselves.

But this kind of author tends to get offended by everything, doesn't she? There's always something puts her in a satisfyingly angry little huff. "Oh! Well, I never! Oh! Beastly!"

Oh, and when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier in the flight suit with the harness pulled tight around his trinkets, the Liberal blogosphere was abuzz about it for weeks afterwards. If a man wears something memorable, we most definitely hear about it. Give me a break.

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

Mark Twain
Posted by: dkm on Dec 19, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his brief career as the reporter for the weddings page for a newspaper (I believe his career ran to a single article before he was yanked), Mark Twain went into great detail describing the suit, hat, gloves, shoes, etc. that the groom was wearing. After spending more than half the column on the groom's outfit, he mentioned that the bride "wore the traditional white."

May I suggest that it might be appropriate to do the same thing to the point of ridicule, especially to the men responsible for the fascination with women's appearance? It might also be a good source of ridicule for the politicians who put a great stock into their faux appearance such as Bush with his rolled up sleeves and whatnot pretending to be a "real man."

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