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....