Posts Tagged ‘women in politics’
The other day I found this post on Sociological Images about the use of breasts in political ads in Germany. The CDU party of Germany has been running this ad:
This ad features two women from the CDU party: Vera Lengsefeld (right) and Angela Merkel (left). Both women are wearing rather low cut tops/dresses. The text on the left, over the picture of Merkel, reads “We have more to offer.”
By choosing pictures of these two women in low cut tops and using the phrase “We have more to offer” (and I’m sure it was purposeful), the ad is drawing attention to these women’s breasts as their one feature to offer that is distinctive. They have more to offer because they have breasts.
It’s really interesting to me that the CDU would use these women’s breasts to an asset where as Hillary Clinton was criticized to no end for showing the slightest amoung of cleavage. Oh my god! Hillary Clinton has breasts! She is obviously not equipped to handle being president. It’s not just that breasts unqualify a person for being president, but focusing on her cleavage in news reports is a way of silencing her intelligence and qualifications for the presidency.
How do the breasts of women in politics function differently in different societies. In Germany, they are obviously viewed as an asset and a good way of differentiating these candidates because they have “more to offer.” But in the U.S., breasts are seen as a death sentence for anyone hoping for a career in politics. The U.S. does not want their leaders sexualized in any way. They are apparently just supposed to be asexual beings. Or they are supposed to be men, because it seems to be the problem is with breasts. But breasts will help the women of the CDU in Germany rise above the rest of the competition.
This Week in Blogs: August 16-22
Posted on: August 23, 2009
- In: Link Love
- 2 Comments
Happy Sunday! As you may have noticed, I have started posting some link love on Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as Sundays now. Sunday’s link love posts will be slightly different now. I will include some of my favorite posts since Thursday, but I will also feature some of my favorite posts from the week overall, including posts that were already loved previously. Just a disclaimer: I have been kind of lazy about my reading this week, so the list is not as long as it normally is. I’m always looking for new posts and blogs to read, so don’t forget to leave your links in the comments!
New link love:
The Girl on page 194 – Below the Belt
A look at how we judge women’s bodies by examining the “real woman” picture in Sept’s issue of Glamour magazine.
Sex is scary (at least to some journalists) – Clarissa’s Blog
How our fear of sex is a result of the patriarchal culture.
But men aren’t pretty – o filthy grandeur
Challenging gender norms through language.
Today’s WTF: Fragoli – The Undomestic Goddess
About how lesbianism is portrayed in advertising
Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist – Womanist Musings
Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of the development of our country, but should we forget that he was also a rapist? Also posted at Feministe.
Weekly Link Love:
Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories – Feministing
“Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term “friend” with a description of that person’s sexuality.”
Michelle O.: “Intellectual Lightweight”? – Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama is not as smart as she thinks she is…
“Blinded by privilege”: ableist language in critical discourse – Deeply Problematic
A reflection on how the language we use contributes to the oppression of others.
***********
There is a new blog on the block: Fiercly Independent
The blog is run by Leftunder Books and focuses on indie publishing, writing, reading, feminism, illustration, and some other stuff. Check it out!
Have you heard the news? Michelle Obama wore shorts! The world is coming to an end!
Apparently Michelle Obama wore shorts (of a modest length) while on vacation at the Grand Canyon. Why am I talking about this, you ask? Well, I’m talking about it because it seems to have been deemed newsworthy.
Is it really that big of a deal that Michelle Obama was wearing shorts? Especially considering they were on vacation…at the Grand Canyon…in 106 degree heat.
I’d like to say the reporting on this is a result of a slow news day. But even then, it’s not really worth talking about. So why does the media think it is their responsibility to comment on Michelle Obama’s inconsequential fashion decisions? I can kind of understand a commentary on a decision to wear shorts if it was to a political function or something, but on vacation…really?
The Huffington Post had a poll asking if Michelle Obama has “the right to bare legs” (via Jezebel). Most people in the poll said yes, but does this question even warrant a poll? And even the phrasing of the question: the right to bare legs. I’m pretty sure she has the right to wear whatever she wants.
It is pretty disrespectful to comment on Michelle Obama’s fashion decisions (especially such inconsequential ones) instead of the intellectual weight that she adds to the White House and politics. By commenting on her fashion, the media is saying that she doesn’t really have anything to add to the equation other than just looking pretty while standing next to her powerful husband. And do we hear anything about what Barack Obama was wearing? He was probably wearing shorts too, but apparently his legs aren’t as important as his wife’s.
A very similar thing happened during the 2008 presidential campaign. Many media outlets devoted a lot of attention to Hillary Clinton’s pant suits and cleavage. Did these media outlets analyze the fashion decisions of Obama, McCain, or any of the other male candidates? Not really. So why is it so important to consider what Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama wears? It’s just a way to draw attention away from the actual issues at hand and discredit the intellectual assets of the person at hand.
By focusing on the wardrobe of Michelle Obama (and this is not the first time that her outfits have been the subject of news), the media is saying that she has very little else to offer besides her looks and great fashion choices. Aren’t we pass the point where First Ladies (and wives/girlfriends/partners in general) are only there to look pretty? First Ladies have always contributed to the politics of their presidential husbands and they have evolved into a political entity in and of themselves. It’s about time that we stop look at how attractive they are, what they wear, etc. and spend more time focusing on the intellectual and politics of that person.
The focus on clothing instead of intellect is just another silencing technique used against women, particularly smart, powerful women. Like I said, focusing on clothing places the value of a person on their looks instead of their intellectual possibilities. The media is scared that women might actually have something worthy to say that they instead focus on inconsequential things about their appearance to take the attention away from what they might say.
Further Reading:
First lady’s shorts draing long, hard, looks [Today Show]
Link Love
Posted on: August 18, 2009
Due to the large amount of amazing posts that are written throughout the week, I have decided to change my “This Week in Blogs” feature from once a week to three times a week. It will now simply be called “Link Love” and will be posted on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Sunday’s will usually be a little longer because I will highlight my absolute favorite posts from throughout the week, including posts that might have already been highlighted in previous “Link Love” posts. I decided to do this to keep the lists shorter than they have been, because including too many links in one post can be a little overwhelming…at least for me.
Movie Posters: Are You Ready for Death/Love/Prison? – Bitch Flicks
Bitch Flicks continues to look at how movie posters reflect gender norms and women.
Privilege – Clarissa’s Blog
A little old, but still good. A look at the overuse of the word “privilege.”
Michelle O.: “Intellectual lightweight”? – Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama isn’t as smart as she thinks she is…
Costco and the Lil’ Monkey Doll – Womanist Musings
Looking at how black dolls and white dolls are marketed differently. Also posted at Feministe.
Is Faking an Orgasm Anti-Feminist? – BlogHer
Pretty self-explanatory — Do your feminist beliefs align with faking orgasms? Does faking an orgasm do a dis-service to yourself and to other women?
The F Word – Clutch Magazine
I bet you can guess what “f word” they are talking about!
Kate Blatt required to give pictures of genitals as a condition of employment – Deeply Problematic
About how trans people are dehumanized on a daily basis.
Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories – Feministing
“Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term “friend” with a description of that person’s sexuality.”
A First Name Basis
Posted on: August 12, 2009
- In: Feminism
- 5 Comments
Have you ever noticed that politically powerful women are usually referred to by their first name in the media where as most men are not? Well, I have.
Let me first say that I have been thinking about this for a while (which I will discuss in a little bit), but what really prompted this post and this moment in time was an email that I received from one of my best college buds who is now in D.C. This is what the email said:
I’m really curious as to if you’ve noticed or why you think that women in politics or really any well know women are known by their first name. Hillary, Sonia, Michelle to name a few. I recently read a subtitle in the Economist magazine which was “Judging Sonia” or the movie about Jane Austen “Becoming Jane”. Both great women both only referred to by their first name. I very much doubt that a male justice would get such a headline. Thoughts?
I’m so glad that someone else picked up on this (though I’m sure many have).
During the latter part of my college career I was a research assistant for a professor doing research on the role of gender and race in the 2008 election. As I was gathering articles I often noticed that Obama and McCain were referred to either by solely their last name or as Senator Obama or McCain. But for Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, the media almost always referred to her as Hillary, very rarely as Clinton or Senator Clinton.
I brought this up in the comments of a post on Small Strokes titled “Women and the Family Name” and got some thought-provoking responses. One such response suggested that the media referred to her as Hillary in order to differentiate her from her husband because for 8 years Clinton meant Bill Clinton. I think that the context of the article would make it pretty clear that the were talking about Hillary Clinton. Or they could have referred to her as Senator Clinton because Bill was never a Senator. I think there is more to it than just trying to differentiate Hillary and Bill Clinton.
As my friend pointed out, I have also seen this trend in discussing Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I have often read the “judging Sonia” phrase. I don’t, however, think this case was as “severe” as it was with Hillary. Or maybe I just didn’t notice it as much because it wasn’t put against the stark difference of the referrence to male candidates. But referring to Sotomayor solely as Sonia was pretty widespread throughout the media.
So why is this? Why are women referred to by their first name instead of their last? I see this as a sign of a lack of respect for women in politics; as a way to diminish the power they really have. Men are generally threatened by women with power and this is a way for them to diminish that power.
I also had a discussion with someone a while ago in which it was suggested that Clinton was referred to as Hillary in order to make her more relateable to the general public. If the public is on a “first name basis” with her, maybe it will make her seem more approachable and down to earth. I can kind of see this, but I don’t really buy it.
By referring to powerful women by their first name, the media and men in power are showing that these women are not on their level; these women aren’t good enough to be referred to by their last name or as Senator, Judge, etc. It also takes away some of the legitimacy that these women have. Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor are both incredibly smart women, but by referring to them by their first name, they might not be taken as seriously as their male counterparts who are referred to by their last name or title.
This Week in Blogs: August 2 – 8
Posted on: August 9, 2009
My has this been an eventful week. On the good news, Judge Sotomayor was finally confirmed to be a justice on the Supreme Court. A definite piece of history. Then there were the misogynistic and racist shooting in Pittsburgh. Horrific. And the loss of one of my favorite 80s icons, John Hughes. Bloggers have been busy this week, reporting and analyzing this news as well as creating fantastic blog posts. Honestly, posts from everywhere this week were fantastic (not that they aren’t always). I had a hard time choosing posts to feature here. The list is especially long this week, but these are some really great posts, so make sure to read through them! And leave links to what you have been writing and reading this week!
50 Books for Problematic Times – Deeply Problematic
There has also been some other great things going on at Deeply Problematic this week, so I suggest that you just go on over there and read through her posts. If I had to pick one to display here, I guess I would pick her feminist defense of Megan Fox. But seriously, just go over there
Movie Posters: A Bitch Flicks Verbal Beatdown – Bitch Flicks
Stephanie R looks at how women are represented in movie posters.
Am I a”good woman”? – Choice Campus Blog
Ellen asks what it means to be a “good woman” and why people can’t just be “good people.”
Girl Politics – Small Strokes
A new series examining why girls (and women) often “turn on” the most successful one of their peers.
The 20 Life-Changing Lessons in September’s Cosmopolitan – Glossed Over
What you can learn from reading Cosmo.
Esquire Writer Explains It’s Okay To Watch Chick Flicks – Jezebel
While I have objections to the term “chick flicks,” do you think that men can enjoy them? Esquire and Jezebel do!
Race and the White Man – Womanist Musings
All about racism
Breastfeeding doll will lead to horny 5 year olds, pregnancy – Feministing
Because about caring for a baby can lead to 5 year olds having sex. Have these people ever played with a doll, that’s what they’re all about.
EWW! Is That Period Blood? – Jump Off the Bridge
About the creation and beauty that can come from menstrual blood.
Another magazine another photoshopped woman – Feministe
Self magazine photoshopped Kelly Clarkson to make her more skinny.
On Hollywood’s Strong, Self-Hating Women – NPR
Strong business women in movies still hate themselves because they are unsuccessful in their love lives. Heaven forbid a woman succeed in business and be happy in her personal life.
Once more with feeling: Media Must Report Gender Motivation for Mass Shootings – WIMN’s Voices
Some more on the misogynistic shooting in Pittsburgh.
Who’s your favorite John Hughes heroine? – Salon Broadsheet
Pretty self-explanatory and and read through her posts.
Books for the Anti-Princess Girl-Feminist – Bitch Blogs
A list of children’s books for the feminist-minded girls.
New Hosts for At the Movies – Another Couple of Guys – Women & Hollywood
Why is that movie critics are generally male? Women know stuff about movies too!
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to endorse Judge Sonia Sotomayor with a 13 to 6 vote! All that’s left is a full Senate vote which is expected to take place by the end of next week.
Further reading:
Senate Judiciary Committee Endorses Sotomayor [Shakesville]
Senate panel endorses Sotomayor [Feministe]
Sotomayor Approved for Supreme Court by Senate Judiciary Committee [RH Reality Check]
Committee Approves Sotomayor Nomination [Jezebel]
Senate Judiciary Committee Votes for Sotomayor [Feministing]
Senate Panel OKs Sotomayor [Appetite for Equal Rights]
White Men's Objectivity
Posted on: July 14, 2009
- In: Feminism | Privilege
- Leave a Comment
Why is it that white men think that they are the only ones that can be objective?
I must be honest, I haven’t been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but I have been doing my blog reading about them. From what I have been reading, it is obvious that these hearings are not being as “objective” and respectful as they claim to be.
But one of the things that really bothers me is how they are focusing on her often misquoted “wise Latina” speech (which can be read here). In this speech she talks about the importance of embracing cultural differences in reaching decisions on court cases. Women and people of color have different experiences than white men and these different experience influence their court decisions.
Many far right wing-ers think that this shows her lack of objectivity and inability to reach “fair” decisions. But I’m right there with Judge Sotomayor. Realizing how one’s experiences influence their decisions is important. For some reason, many white men think that they are the only ones who can be objective because their life experiences don’t effect them. But they do.
Everyone’s experiences effect the way they think and the way they approach an issue. White men’s privilege effects them, even if they don’t recognize it. On Feministing, Samhita says…
Session’s attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.
When women or people of color (and especially women of color, it seems) use their experiences as a basis for their decisions they are emotional and biased, whereas white men reach the “truth” through their experiences.
I think what these men are delusional of is that there is actually something called objectivity. I don’t think objectivity exists. Maybe you can try your hardest to be objective, but your experiences will always influence you. Only people who have the privilege of not noticing their privilege (white men) would believe that their experiences don’t effect them because they can reach the “truth”.
(Note: I just want to make a comment that this is not all white men. There are many white men who work towards realizing their privilege and how their experiences effect them and the people around them. But it is usually white men who make these assumptions about objectivity and bias because these white men do not realize their privilege.)
In addition to the idea of objectivity within the hearings, the media is still attacking and misrepresenting Sotomayor. I just read a post at Shakesville about The Colbert Report last night. Normally I appreciate Colbert’s sarcasm and satire, but last night he went too far. In discussing Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, Colbert placed Sotomayor’s head of the clip Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct where she flashes her “nethers” during an interrogation.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Stephen’s Sound Advice – How to Bork a Nominee | ||||
|
||||
This unnecessarily sexualizes Sotomayor and further demeans her to the point that she is seen as in a lesser standing than men. Why can’t Sotomayor just be valued for her professional qualifications rather than focusing on her gender and race as some sort of “disability” to making effective cour
t decisions.
I hope that the confirmation hearings will change in tone after the first day, but I’m not so sure that they will. Conservatives will continue to focus on her experiences as a Latina as a “disability” to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice and the media will continue to make jokes about her qualifications or straight out support the conservatives treatment of her during the hearings.
Note on the cartoon:
I’m sure many of you (if not all) have seen the cartoon that I chose to include in this post. While it is straight out racist, there is some truth in it considering the first day of the hearings. Conservatives are attacking Sotomayor because she is Latina, which I assume this cartoon is trying to say. While it is racist, it does portray how conservatives and the media are treating Sotomayor. But I’m not saying that I agree with the message that the cartoon sends.
Sarah Palin's Leaving!
Posted on: July 3, 2009
Well, not really.
She’s stepping down as Alaska’s governor. Palin announced today that she would be leaving the governorship at the end of this month.
Good news, right? Who wants Sarah Palin to be in control of anything? Well, it might not be as good as we might hope. What is she going to do with her free time now? She’s going to campaign for others. A canada.com article quotes Palin saying,
“I’ll work hard and campaign for those who are proud to be Americans and are inspired by our ideals and won’t deride them,”
There’s also talk that this is a strategic move on her part to position herself to run for president in 2012. I don’t really know what is going through her head in this one. Does the amount of criticism she got while running for vice president tell her anything about how people feel about her in national office? The day Sarah Palin is president is the day that I would leave the country. I don’t think I could handle that.
Well, I guess we will see where Sarah Palin’s road goes as she lays it out for us.
Further reading:
Palin stepping down this month [CNN]
Palin to resign as Alaska governor [MSNBC]
Alaska Gov. Palin, ex-VP nominee, resigning [USA Today]
Palin quits as Alaska governor [Fox News]
Electing Women Can End Sex Scandals
Posted on: June 27, 2009
Ever since the details of his affair came to light, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s indiscretions have been all over the news. I’m kind of sick of it. Yes, he had an affair. Yes, he used “state business” as an excuse to visit his mistress in Argentina (please explain to me how there can be South Carolina business in Argentina). But does it really grant so much press coverage?
But, when I came across this article in the National Review Online, it made me smile a little about the whole situation. Dana Perino argues that by electing more women, we will avoid the GOPs who are “hypocrites in their personal lives.”
There’s one common denominator, and it’s not partisan. It’s a chromosome named Y. Why? Could someone please explain?
While I am not able to explain, I do think I know the answer to all of this: Elect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.
While there are many reasons to elect women to public office, this is another great one to add to the list – no more sex scandals!
Fighting with the Sky 