Excerpt from column by NOW President Kim Gandy
Editor’s Note: Herland does not endorse any political candidate or party. However, we thought the general topic of this article would be of interest to our readers.
My email runneth over. I can’t tell you how many people have emailed or called me, outraged by the sorry display of sexism in the media these days. Much of this venom is currently directed at one woman — Sen. Hillary Clinton — though as we have pointed out before, no woman in the public eye, from Nancy Pelosi to Michelle Obama, is exempt.
For the first time in our nation’s history, the idea of a woman president is no longer limited to the fantasy world of TV or movies. Possibility could become reality this November, and some folks are just having a hard time dealing with it. That many of those people have high-profile jobs at major news outlets is a cryin’ shame.
We’ve been down this road before –- yes, NOW called out the media’s bad behavior several times last year, and thousands of women and men demonstrated their agreement by signing our petition demanding serious and fair election coverage. Well, we’re barely into 2008, and already we have plenty of fresh examples of the media’s failure to clean up its act.
The press have been brutal to Clinton, no doubt about it. Whether consciously or not, too many reporters, commentators, pundits and the like appear unable to critique Hillary Clinton without dusting off their favorite sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults. Some of these remarks seem mild, while others are offensive and truly outrageous. Taken together, they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Senator Clinton. At this moment it feels like she is a stand-in for every woman who has ever tried to get ahead and be taken seriously by the powers that be.
There are four common themes in media coverage of Clinton’s candidacy: First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system. The media evaluate how she looks, dresses, talks, laughs and even claps. She is held to double standards familiar to working women. A man demonstrates toughness and strength; a woman who behaves similarly is called icy and rigid. His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?
Second, our society still has not come to terms with ambition in women — it is suspect. Clinton is frequently charged with doing or saying anything to win. But I think it has an extra sharp anti-woman overtone as it is used against Hillary. In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election — strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting — is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil. But when a man campaigns hard, refusing to cede an inch, they call it . . . running for office!
For the full article please go to www.now.org/news/note/021408.html.
