Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Commander in Chic

By Jennifer L. Pozner, TomPaine.com. Posted November 10, 2005.


Women audacious enough to seek political power are routinely dogged by gender-specific coverage that focuses on their looks, fashion sense and familial relationships.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Jennifer L. Pozner

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

EMILY's List, the fundraising PAC for pro-choice Democratic women, turned 20 last month. Founded one year after NBC's Tom Brokaw described vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro as a "size 6" at the Democratic National Convention, the group has since helped to elect 80 female governors, senators and representatives, and hundreds of women to state offices.

Their anniversary comes at a time when America seems fascinated with the concept of female political leadership, from the fictional ("This fall, a woman will be president," proclaimed towering billboards publicizing Geena Davis's ratings-smash Commander in Chief) to the fantasy (pundits salivating about a potential Hillary Clinton/Condoleezza Rice horse race in 2008 on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, NBC's Meet the Press, and ABC's Good Morning America).

Two recent Gallup and Roper Public Affairs polls show overwhelming support for female politicians among the general public: between 79 and 81 percent of Americans say they would feel comfortable with a female president, and similar numbers believe a woman would handle homeland security and foreign policy issues as well as or better than a male president. So, if the public is ready for a female president, why is it that the closest a woman has come to the Oval Office is Geena Davis on a Hollywood backlot? And, for that matter, why are women still stuck with token representation in the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court?

In part, this continued inequity can be traced to a media climate still mired in outmoded attitudes echoing Tom Brokaw, circa 1984. Women audacious enough to seek political power are routinely dogged by gender-specific coverage that focuses on their looks, fashion sense, familial relationships and other feminizing details that have nothing to do with their expertise. Which brings us to the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers -- who, according to the Associated Press, bakes a mean sweet potato pie.

Well before Miers' withdrawal, a lengthy AP profile informed readers (often via quotes from relatives and colleagues), that Bush's embattled sycophant "likes to play tennis, run and take in a movie," is "not somebody who is a gossip," "always remembers everybody's birthday," and that "her royal blue suit shined with a brooch her mother gave her" when her nomination was announced in the Oval Office.

No news to date from the AP on what dish Bush's new nominee Samuel Alito might bring to a SCOTUS potluck, or whether Antonin Scalia's cufflinks carry sentimental value. The AP was hardly alone. The Los Angeles Times referred to Miers as Bush's "work wife," described her mother's recollection that she was "a blond-haired 'perfect angel'" as a child, and quoted her preacher as saying she is "a gracious, Christian lady" who embodies the word "meek" (apparently, he meant that as a compliment).

Meanwhile, in "The Eyes Have It," the Richmond, Va., Times Dispatch called for Miers to get a "makeover" because she "succumbed to the Whoopi Goldberg Eyebrow Theory: It's better not to have any." Tongue-in-cheek tone aside, there's nothing funny about statements such as "It's entirely possible that Miers figures it's more important to lawyer good than to look good. That would be wrong, of course. When the eyes of the public are upon you, nothing is more important than how you wield instruments of beauty. Well, nothing other than accessorizing. And maybe shoes."

But the top prize for misogynistic Miers mumblings goes to the San Diego Union Tribune, whose columnist (and former congressman) Lionel Van Deerlin wrote, "In judging persons for public office, there are certain routine tests... in assessing a feminine prospect, I have to wonder -- would I wish to be married to her?" It's difficult to imagine more chauvinistic and irrelevant criteria for vetting a candidate for the nation's highest court. Yet while the Beltway buzzed about Miers' political opinions and crony status, Van Deerlin labeled her unsuitable not because of her lack of judicial experience but because, as a workaholic, "she doesn't meet my exacting standard"... as a potential wife! "Can it be any wonder she's single?," he asked, "What relationship could flower with a woman who works from 4 a.m. to 10 at night?"

If Harriet were named Harold, it's likely the Union Tribune would have praised Miers' long hours as proof positive that Hard-Working Harry would make a dedicated jurist. Instead, we got a regressive screed about a professional woman doomed to a life of solitude because no man should want such an ambitious wife.

Nor did W do his nominee any favors when he called her a "pit bull in size 6 shoes" -- a phrase that quickly made its way into headlines. Oh, how that size 6 has haunted women leaders in the press, from Brokaw cutting Ferraro down to size in '84, to the day Condoleezza Rice became America's first African-American female national security adviser -- and a front page New York Times story reported that "her dress size is between a 6 and an 8." And earlier this year, after Rice happened to wear tall black leather boots, here's how the Washington Post described the single most influential woman in the current administration:

"...the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual."
Orwellian, isn't it? The Post brands the secretary of state a dominatrix, then feigns concern that sexualized stereotypes rob female politicians of their power... never acknowledging that their paper is a prime purveyor of these double-standard-laced stereotypes.

Don't let the examples of Miers and Rice fool you: Trivializing female leaders is a bipartisan media pastime. Take, for instance, the Washington Post style story about the hairstyles, housekeeping preferences and "hootchy shoes" of California Democrats Loretta and Linda Sanchez, the first Latina sisters to serve together in Congress. Or the Larry King Live debate about whether Hillary Clinton's "fat legs," "bottom heavy" figure, bad fashion sense and "bitchy" demeanor would torpedo her N.Y. senate bid.

This sort of media marginalization reinforces the regressive notion that women are more emotional, less knowledgeable, less qualified to lead -- and, by proxy, less electable -- than their male counterparts.

To be sure, media is only one major cause of women's underrepresentation in public office. Even if every major American media outlet devoted itself tomorrow to fair, ethical coverage of female leaders (and they should!), women might still be less inclined -- or less able -- to enter politics in the first place due to contributing factors that include persistent economic inequality; the fact that women still disproportionately shoulder child care and elder care responsibilities; and good old-fashioned stereotypes that can steer boys toward leadership and girls toward support roles.

Nevertheless, media have the power to encourage women to overcome such obstacles to leadership -- at the very least, they have the responsibility not to perpetuate those barriers. It's time to demand journalism that is respectful and informative, not insulting and frivolous. Harriet Miers' lack of judicial experience and her "best governor ever!" fawnings over Bush were more than fair game for critique; the way she chose to apply her makeup, and her single status, should be not have been up for review. Likewise, the secretary of state's war-intelligence failures -- not her boots and dress size -- should be the subject of journalistic scrutiny.

So, the next time you stumble across this kind of coverage, get out your poison pens and write those letters to your editors. Because if media coverage of female politicians doesn't catch up to public opinion, the possibility of a Clinton v. Rice presidential faceoff will remain as much a fantasy as Geena Davis's Commander In Chief.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Jennifer L. Pozner is executive director of Women In Media & News (WIMN), a media analysis, education and advocacy group.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
Concluding statement?
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Nov 10, 2005 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't want to see Clinton vs Rice, nor do most of the commentors I've seen here. So, that wasn't the greatest of parting arguements.

But I do agree with the overall thrust of the piece, which is that we really should treat women seeking power as job candidates, not fashion plates.

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

Blame the gals
Posted by: saramarie on Nov 10, 2005 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't mostly us women who behave this way? There are so many of us who like to point out each others beauty flaws and basically act like mean schoolgirls. Men just aren't half as interested in a woman's clothes (unless she's not wearing any!) than us gals.

Personally, though, Meiers did freak me out with her "nice, Christian lady" stuff. She's just a cheerleader for the Bush team. Go Iraq! B - U - S - H! Yay! Eww.

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

» RE: Blame the gals Posted by: porgygirl
» RE: Blame the gals Posted by: lissajayne
Size six shoes
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 10, 2005 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree with this article that women are trivialized unjustly, I don't think that shoe size as an issue is any worse than the issue of who you would rather drink a beer with. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a woman, the candidates are only figureheads. Do you really think that Bush is strong or in charge? The real power is the party and, both parties are owned by the special interests that finance their campaigns. When both parties are financed by many of the same interest you can't expect them to be very different. Their role is to carry out the agenda of the contributors. The voters must take control of both parties or we'll always be voting for shoe size or beer buddies. Click on do it now

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

Was that...
Posted by: BillC on Nov 10, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boxers or briefs?

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

It's the media
Posted by: BlueTigress on Nov 10, 2005 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seem like journalists just do not know how to write about female politicians. Or if that's not the case, editors are not comfortable with printing stories that do not mention the candidate's physical appearance.

Supposedly Coco Chanel said, "Dress imperfectly, and they notice the dress. Dress perfectly and they notice the woman."

The fashion and cosmetic industries make billions of dollars a year off their female customers, so there is going to be the push on appearance.

Personally, I agree with the author. We should start hammering on newspapers and magazines that allow writers to get away with stale old stereotypes. Or start pushing for them to write about male candidates in the same way.

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

commander in chic
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 10, 2005 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that right wing criticism of Hillary Clinton ALWAYS mentions her so called heavy thighs or hips. That illustrates where the right wing's head is when it comes to women. ...either Madonnas (the traditional one, not the singer) or whores. And this is Christian morality???? like hell!

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

Or her lipstick...
Posted by: catherinec on Nov 10, 2005 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this perspective! I am sick of hearing comments from self-proclaimed feminists about Mackenzie Allen's lipstick. Do real politicians have to resort to wearing paper bags over their heads to be taken seriously? Because I don't see us treating Hillary and Condi any differently than we treat Mac.

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

women in the media
Posted by: ooki on Nov 10, 2005 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read two stories on Alternet, this one, and The Woman Behind Arnold's Defeat.
Jennifer L. Pozner was able to point out how ridiculous it is to mention the dress size of women in politics, and Kathleen Sharp uses "petite" to describe a nurse protesting Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Is it okay to use dress size when trying to get the reader to sympthize with women? Would it be okay that she was interrogated if she were Amazonian?
Obviously, more needs to be done to get journalists on the same page on this issue.

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

Well, my first thought was....
Posted by: churchofone on Nov 10, 2005 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If female candidates are {still} judged on appearances - can we make the male candidates drop their drawers for measurement?

I mean, that would help even things out between the genders, wouldn't it??

LOLOL

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

» RE: Well, my first thought was.... Posted by: Asses of Evil
balance
Posted by: kancha on Nov 10, 2005 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i agree that some of the comments about female politicians in the media are inappropriate and the tendency to focus on recipes, kids, etc. in interviews with female candidates drives me nuts. as far as i can tell, women are far more likely to be judged by their appearances than men. still, this article slightly overstates the degree to which men are exempt from personal comments. just this week, the washington post had a long article about alito's lack of fashion sense and his social awkwardness (contrasted, no less, with roberts' golden boy, gq looks and manners). a while back, several media sources gave dick cheney flack for wearing a puffy parka and goofy boots to a memorial service/dedication. bill clinton was constantly getting picked on about his weight, eating habits and exercise habits. we discuss the physical appearance of male political figures all the time, we just don't seem to notice it or allow it to influence our judgements as much.

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

What if a Condaleeza Rice had written Scooty Libby's bear rapist and deer raping book?
Posted by: janvdb on Nov 10, 2005 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to get a grip on the latitude we grant men and deny women, please imagine the reaction there would have been if Harriet Miers or Condi had been found to be the author of a piece of utter filth like the Scooter Libby erotic novel, which is discussed below by The New Yorker:

"Libby does not shy from the scatological. The narrative makes generous mention of lice, snot, drunkenness, bad breath, torture, urine, “turds,” armpits, arm hair, neck hair, pubic hair, pus, boils, and blood (regular and menstrual). One passage goes, “At length he walked around to the deer’s head and, reaching into his pants, struggled for a moment and then pulled out his penis. He began to piss in the snow just in front of the deer’s nostrils.”

Homoeroticism and incest also figure as themes. The main female character, Yukiko, draws hair on the “mound” of a little girl. The brothers of a dead samurai have sex with his daughter. . . . [An excerpt:] At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest.
And, finally:
He asked if they should fuck the deer.
The answer, reader, is yes."


Yep, this sort of publication -- and under his own name, not a pseudonym -- is A-OK for a man in this far right-wing outfit, the same people who want to stop sex ed and reduce the 3-per-man-per year supply of condoms to Africa in favor of more abstinence instruction instead.

I think that if a female member of Bush's staff were found to have written something like the Libby book, they would be fired or, more likely, never hired to begin with. An uproar would ensue. But, a man can do it and no one bats an eyelash. It's regarded as sort of normal for a man to be that weird.

Jan VanDenBerg

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

» Lesbian novel Posted by: BlueTigress
  • 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