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.

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.
Advertisement

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?"


Digg!

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 Media and Technology! 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:
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