Response to Carlin and Winfrey Article

"Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage"

I knew I was going to like this article as soon as I read the title. I LOVE that title!

Not only did I love the title of this article, I loved the article itself. The first thing that came to my mind when I started reading was the documentary "Miss Representation." The documentary is about the portrayal of women in the media and there is a segment dedicated to the women in politics. I truly believe that everyone needs to see that documentary at some point, it's incredible. If you haven't seen it, here's a short trailer:

In their article "Have You Come a Long Way Baby? : Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage" Carlin and Winfrey discuss the way the media chose to portray Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. They argue that women in politics are judged much differently by the media than men, and I definitely agree with them. Carlin and Winfrey argue that there are four stereotypes of professional women: seductress or sex object, mother, pet, and Iron Maiden. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were judged based on appearance, their ability as mothers (juggling work with family life, exploiting their children through the campaign), they were spoken to and about as if they were children or ridiculously fragile, and whether or not they were too masculine, too tough, or considered to be a "nut cracker" or "ball breaker."

Carlin and Winfrey discuss a photograph that was taken of Sarah Palin that falls under the category of being stereotyped as a seductress or sex object. If I am correct, it is this picture:

(Photo Credit: thethirdcity.org)

The fact that someone, somewhere had a camera and thought that this picture was a great idea astounds me. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Carlin and Winfrey discuss the response to Sarah Palin and explain that her appearance and her past as a beauty pageant contestant was discussed more that her stance on issues and that she was placed into the stereotypical role of the seductress or sex objects. They even claim that there was a Sarah Palin blow up doll. I honestly didn't know that and when I came across that point in the article, I had to re-read it to make sure that I was understanding it correctly.

Carlin and Winfrey' also describe the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton in regards to her appearance. They recall comments directed towards Hillary Clinton and responded negatively toward her because they felt that she wasn't as attractive or young-looking as Sarah Palin. I have to question what does any of this have to do with a woman's ability to be a leader? I'm sorry, but in my opinion George W. Bush is not the most attractive man. However, when he was running I don't remember anyone commenting on his appearance and scrutinizing him for his choice of tie. Yet, somehow, Carlin and Winfrey show that Hillary Clinton was constantly insulted because she chose to wear pantsuits as opposed to skirts. I always scowl when I hear the "talking heads" criticizing a female candidate's wardrobe choices or comment on their body types, it's utterly ridiculous. If a female candidate decided to show up to and event wearing a garbage bag or a bustier then I could understand why someone would choose to comment, but how is the fact that a candidate choose a pantsuit over a skirt relevant to their campaign at all? It's not. It is interesting to me that both women were nearly opposites, Sarah Palin was portrayed as being much more feminine and Hillary Clinton was portrayed as being more masculine, yet neither women were able to benefit much from either choice. Sarah Palin was not taken seriously and wasn't seen as a leader, and Hillary Clinton was seen as a "nut cracker" or "ball buster" and she was note taken seriously either. So what exactly is it that men would deem a serious female candidate for a high office in government?

When I read the section of Carlin and Winfrey's article that discussed the emergence of the Facebook group "Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" I remembered encountering similar opinions. On several occasions, I've heard people discussing women in political positions and heard many misogynistic jokes (coming from both men and women) on the subject similar to the "make me a sandwich" kind. When I would become angry and defend those women, I was ALWAYS confronted with the same response "You have no sense of humor, we're just kidding." Am I missing something? Because I really don't think jokes of that nature are funny at all. This idea is connected to another point that Carlin and Winfrey discuss in their article. The way in which he media responded to Hillary Clinton when she got "emotional." I really don't think that there is any greater stereotype women face than that of being "too emotional." Carlin and Winfrey describe a debate in which Hillary Clinton becomes angry and the scrutiny that followed her after the fact because she had a "meltdown." The article also makes a valid point that male candidates get angry and have "meltdowns" during debates quite consistently yet they don't come under attack for their emotional state. Hillary Clinton was also criticized because when see was seen crying and then things like this began to surface: 

While there are men in politics that are criticized for crying (such as Obama and Bush) they are not criticized as heavily. In class we discussed the several mistakes that politicians have made on campaign trails and how those mistakes affected their campaigns, but when a women makes a mistake (not matter how small or large) it is criticized much more heavily. I think the media sits around and waits for women politicians to shed a tear. I will never forget Marc Rudov's comment when asked the downside to a female president on "The O'Reilly Factor" and Rudov's response about PMS and mood swings. Now, I know that one must consider the source and the fact that he said he was "kidding" but honestly, that seems to be what the media means when they discuss how "emotional" a female candidate is. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING makes me more angry than a woman being criticized and the words "PMS" "mood swing" "that time of the month" come up.

In my opinion, Carlin and Winfrey's article was brilliant. They shed light on the treatment of women in the political world by the media and the way in with they are criticized, scrutinized and sometimes even insulted. This is a very important issue. Unless we (the viewers) take a stand to stop this, it is going to continue. Carlin and Winfrey make a very important point, they argue "...women candidates and their campaign staffs need to decide to attack sexism and to attack it early and consistently" (Carlin and Winfrey 339). They relate this to Obama'a speech on racism and call the women in politics to action, challenging them to face the issue of sexism in the same way that Obama faced the issue of racism, head on. I think that one of the most alarming things about the way women in politics are treated by the media is that this treatment is most likely steering away young women that dream of holding office because they do not want to face the harsh and unfair criticism.

I enjoyed this article. I believe what Carlin and Winfrey are saying about female candidates and their need to address this issues, but I also think that we, as the public, have a responsibility as well. Without an audience, they media is worthless. Without us, the viewers, they cannot continue. Therefore, if we take a stand against this treatment and refuse to watch or engage media outlets that objectify, overly criticize and insult women in politics unfairly, we can introduce change. As viewers we have power over the media, and I really believe that this is an issue which we need to use that power. I, for one, am DYING to hear the words "Madame President" and to see this country in the hands of a powerful woman for a change. Someday soon....

Trent, Friedenberg and Denton Chapter 2

      When I was younger, when George W. Bush was president, I remember watching several of his speeches on television with my parents. Although I was much too young to fully understand what he was talking about (I was only 12 or 13 at the time) I remember hearing him say the word "nucular" instead of "nuclear" over and over again. Even as a child I remember thinking "That's not right, he should at least be able to pronounce his words correctly" (perhaps I didn't necessarily think it so eloquently. Most likely I thought something along the lines of "He totally just screwed that up big time"). Even as a child my brain made a connection between how George W. Bush spoke/communicated and his role as the president. That is when I began to understand that the way in which a person communicated effected how others viewed them.
     After reading Chapter 2 in Trent, Friedenberg and Denton's "Political Communication" the idea that communication plays a major role in politics was even more apparent. It was interesting to explore the four stages of a modern political campaign: Pre-primary (or "surfacing"), Primary, Convention and General Election. In the "Surfacing" stage, communication is obviously vital because if no one knows who you are, how can they support you? Trent, Friedenberg and Denton give examples of those who chose not to involve themselves with this stage  and in each example of this, that candidate did not last far in the election. It is clear that one of the focuses of this stage is to gain media attention. By gaining media attention, candidates are able to reach a larger audience and get their name out to the public much quicker. This reminds me of something we were discussing in class about the other parties in the elections that generally do not get much media attention, such as those in the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. Reading this made me wonder. Do the candidates in parties outside of the Democrats and the Republicans not put enough emphasis on "Surfacing"? Or do the media outlets simply not give those other party members a chance because (as history seems to show) they most likely will not will the election? Just a thought. I was also interested to learn that the ritual/symbol of the announcement of a candidates intention of running for election was clearly important to the citizens. As Trent, Friedenberg and Denton point out, hose who chose not to make formal announcement, usually end up leaving the race. Such a fact is quite an affirmation of the importance of participating in the ritual part of a campaign. Citizens expect to see that formal announcement.
     Trent, Friedenberg and Denton also explain the importance of communication in the Primary stage of election. It makes sense to me that this stage relies heavily on communication because at this stage, candidates MUST gain the trust and support of the citizens. The communication is not only important for the candidate at this level, but also for the people as well. As Trent, Friedenberg and Denton point out, at this stage we are able to see a candidate for ourselves. We are able to observe their mannerisms and character and form opinions on our own. Communication is (once again) obviously of vital importance at this stage because in the end it's all up to us, the voters.
     The Convention stage is a bit different. Communication is obviously important in this stage, why else are so many of us glued to our televisions watching the events of the conventions? It is simply a different type of communication. Personally I find this stage to be quite fun. The speeches are uplifting, the atmosphere is electric and we feel a sense of pride to play such an important role. Even reading the speech in "Political Communication" that John Kerry read in 2004 made me smile and gave me a sense of pride and not only was that 8 years ago, I didn't even see it for myself, simply reading the words was enough. I truly think that the Conventions are extremely important. Although they are symbolic now, they give people the feeling that their vote counts, that this is a great country to live in, that they are the audience and that all of this is really about them.
     Of course the last stage, the General Election (or as I like to call it, Politics on Steroids) communication is the most important. The names and faces of the candidates are EVERYWHERE, television, internet, newspapers, magazines, cars, buses, signs, EVERYWHERE. And although we may become annoyed when a political ad interrupts our favorite television show, we can't deny that those ads do effect us. On the outside we say "Not another one of these again" we are also thinking "Wait, is that true? Did he/she really do that? Hm, I  have to look that up!" This kind of communication does affect us. My e-mail inbox is already flooded with mail telling me about upcoming events and where to go to donate money and my door bell has already started ringing. But it's exciting isn't it? I certainly think so!
     I wanted to point out a theme that weaved through Chapter 2 of Trent, Friedenberg and Denton's "Political Communication." They gave several examples about ways in which candidates have either ignored the importance of communication or the effect that bad communication had to their reputations with the people. They discussed that the people want a candidate who is trustworthy, honest and competent, not sketchy or mean. Candidates have to present themselves in a certain way (an idea we began discussing in class on Monday) but what happens when a candidate shows a side of themselves that the people find distasteful or inappropriate? Bad, bad, bad. In an age where information spreads like wildfire, this can be especially problematic. When a candidate (especially a presidential candidate) is caught doing or saying something that they should not do or say people find out about it, FAST. As you can imagine, this is a sort of "negative communication" greatly effects people's opinions and can be a turning point in a campaign. Having said that, there is a perfect example of this happening right now. Mitt Romney was caught on camera making some seriously insulting remarks regarding Obama supporters. Someone caught Mitt Romney on film and posted the video to YouTube on Monday, it already has over 2 million views, and it will most likely have several more by the time anyone reads this. So this incident, as well as many others by candidates of every party, shows that communication, used in a positive or negative way, clearly effects political campaigns. When it is used properly it is one of the most powerful tools a candidate has to gain support. Conversely, when candidates are not careful, lack of communication or irresponsible use of communication can be detrimental.
   

Response to Hauser's "Public Judgment"

Response to question: What are some of the advantages vs challenges in using polls and surveys to determine public opinion?

     After reading Hauser's "Public Judgment" I was particularly interested in the question above. As an example for how an issue/problem can be defined as public or private, Hauser begins by discussing how the state of education has become a public problem because of the many people actively involved in discussion of the issue. He continues by discussing those involved; parents, students, teachers, etc. He then goes on to discuss some of the solutions that have been proposed for the problem by different groups. One of the solutions he mentioned was the way that schools are ranked based on standardized test scores. Having taken several standardized tests in my long career as a student I immediately said to myself "That's ridiculous, most students don't really care about those tests or see them as relevant (especially considering they are generally not a part of the final grades)." I went on to read the rest of the article. Then, I came to a section of the article in which Hauser discusses polls to determine public opinion and I (rather oddly) related those polls to the standardized tests that were discussed in the opening of the article. Although there are several differences between polls/surveys and standardized tests, I began to see a similarity in the way in which they are viewed. For instance, a student who does not really care much about the standardized test, isn't aware that the test scores will influence their school/education, and simply wants to get it over with (probably because they have a half day of school and know that as soon are they are finished they will be able to go home) is not going to perform to the best of their ability and will most likely mindlessly fill in the bubbles. On the other hand, a student who is concerned with their education and is aware that the rank that their school receives based on the scores of the students will directly affect them, will probably take the exam more seriously and answer the questions as best they can. This is slightly similar to what Hauser said about polls and surveys.

     Hauser explains that researchers give out polls and surveys in hopes of gaining knowledge of public opinion on issues. The issue with this is oddly similar to the standardized test example. For one, there will be (without a doubt) people filling out the polls and surveys that do not feel that the results will have any affect on them at all, and simply "fill in the bubbles" to get it over with. Hauser explains that while polls and surveys are valuable tools to gauge public opinion, they can not be relied on alone. Hauser brings up a great point that polls and surveys cannot document discourse and he argues "... public opinion without discourse loses the sense of context and reasoning that provides the basis for holding an opinion in the first place..." (94). Hauser also discusses the fact that a poll cannot gather any information regarding whether the person filling out the survey has any knowledge of the issue that the poll is aiming at, or whether or not they even have any interest in it. This lack of information from a poll causes the data collected to be flawed and incomplete. There are several details that need to be taken into account when trying to gauge the opinion of the public on certain issues. The polls and surveys that attempt to gather information of opinion relating to current issues are missing very important details. I agree with Hauser's statement that there is a difference between popular opinion and public opinion and that some opinions (particularly those from people who are actively involved in issues, or seek all information regarding them) have more weight than others.

     On the other hand, I think that polls and surveys can be valuable to an extent. Some people are not comfortable taking about policy, issues, currents events or politics in general. Sometimes, that quiet person in the group who hasn't engaged in discourse or discussion isn't ignorant of the issue, they just simply do not want to engage in the discourse because they are intimidated by the other's opinions and worry that the discussion may become an argument. For someone in that situation, a poll or survey is a safe place to have your opinion heard without concern. Therefore, these surveys and polls on opinion can be a valuable way for someone to (though very indirectly) state their opinions and concerns.

   In class, we discussed the importance of enlightened understanding of public issues and thinking critically about them. In order to have the opportunity to think critically, your opinion may have to be tested through discourse. To take the words from a famous internet meme "one cannot simply..." test their opinion without voicing it and perhaps defending it. The biggest issue (in my mind) with polls and surveys to collect data on public opinion is the issue of ENLIGHTENED UNDERSTANDING. If there are people filling out these polls and surveys regarding their opinions of public problems and issues without being informed of their causes, effects and consequences can these polls and surveys ever truly gauge the public opinion? I have to say, respectfully of course, no.

     I agree with Hauser, active involvement and discourse (whether it be public meetings, on college campuses, demonstrations, or even just between a group of friends) better reflect public opinion than data collected from surveys. I have to agree with Hauser's argument that our best course of action as citizens to get the issues that are important to us heard and solved is through the rhetorical process.