“You can’t be what you can’t see.”

That’s how the award-winning film Miss Representation begins, a movie that takes a critical look at negative portrayals of women in the media and how that undermines the ability of today’s generation of girls to see themselves as future leaders.

As the mother of a daughter, I’ve always been sensitive to the media imagery my husband and I exposed her to, from cartoons to commercials to Disney princesses, and how they would impact her view of the way women are valued in our society. But as parents, we can’t be everywhere or keep all potentially negative images away from our children. And to be honest, I didn’t think I’d have to worry about that in our 21st century world. As someone who came of age at a time when I thought the battle over women being viewed as less competent, smart or capable as men were over, I didn’t think I’d be worrying about whether women leaders were a rarity or would routinely be mocked with sexist criticism.

Miss Representation is the brainchild of Jennifer Seibel Newsom, an actress, mother and the wife of California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. Through interviews and stories of notable activists, women leaders and high school students, the film explores how the ways women are portrayed in movies, television, and pop culture seriously undermine their ability to achieve power. The film also explores how this phenomenon makes it tougher for young girls to even consider the possibility of being leaders themselves. Even though the teen girls in the movie lived through Hillary Clinton’s historic presidential candidacy, as well as Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination and Michele Bachmann’s current run for the White House, they speak openly about their concerns that women are still valued more for their faces, their bodies or their outrageous behavior, rather than their brains, their ideas and their abilities.

I have to admit, even though I was familiar with the statistics discussed in the movie that show women still lag far behind in positions of power across all professions, I was a little depressed that Miss Representation reminded me in such stark fashion that the world is not a friendly place for our daughters. And it doesn’t look like that’s going to change anytime soon – unless women step up to be more pro-active. For the girls interviewed in the movie, the idea of actually managing to break those stereotypes and becoming leaders for their generation seems almost too large a task to imagine in the face of pop culture portrayals of women as sex objects and a serious lack of real leadership options to change that.

Fortunately, the movie is more than a lament that nothing will change for our daughters and granddaughters until more women occupy the full range of leadership roles in media and across the full professional spectrum. “Miss Representation” is also a call to action, to take it upon ourselves to be the change that we want for the future. One simple way parents can start is by focusing on how much time our children are actually being bombarded by these themes and images. Consider yourself strict when it comes to media consumption in your household? Your children might be seeing a lot more than you think. According to the Miss Representation website, each week American teens spend “31 hours watching TV, 17 hours listening to music, 3 hours watching movies, 4 hours reading magazines, [and] 10 hours online. That’s 10 hours and 45 minutes of media consumption a day.”

After viewing an advance copy of the film, I want to watch this movie again with my daughter, even though as a sixth-grader she might be a little on the young side to really absorb the reality that despite the advances women have made, we’re still fighting an uphill battle. And I’ll be making sure that she does “see” the women who have blazed a trail so that her generation has more seats at the power table.

Originally posted at iVillage

The editors at Newsweek outdid themselves with their most recent cover featuring Tea Party favorite and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann with a glazed over, deer-in-the-headlights gaze with the caption calling her “The Queen of Rage.”  No matter what you think of her politics, or whether you’re a Democrat who’s been brave enough to lunch with her, how about if we try something refreshing like, I don’t know, using our words to show why we think she shouldn’t be President instead of using a crazy photo and name calling to get your points across?

Clearly, the choice of photo and headline – which I have to assume came with the blessing of publisher Tina Brown -  was done with superb effect not only to boost magazine sales but also to send the message through political shorthand that Bachmann is an unstable crazy woman.  That’s what much of our “news” has become — find ways to sensationalize to bring in more ad money through tried and true sensationalism.

Bachmann is in good company.  She’s not the first woman, and I am sure she won’t be the last, the media will use this strategy with.  Instead of portraying Hillary Clinton as a highly educated woman with a natural political ability the press turned her into a wrinkly hag who looked weak when watching the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Instead of focusing on whether former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was qualified to be vice president, the media resorted to overly familiar shorthand sexist imagery to turn her into nothing more than a babe in short shorts.

Most recently, the New York Times portrayed Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was elected to head the Democratic National Committee, as a nothing more than mom in a pink sweatsuit packing lunches for the kids, instead of as the powerful political player that she is, as former DNC Chair Tim Kaine was portrayed just two years earlier in a photo of him with the President, not with his kids in his kitchen.

Editors around the country continue to make women leaders the brunt of  not-so-subtle sexist mockery, rather than taking the time to dissect whether it’s fair to portray political women as misguided chicks who are nothing more than outdated stereotypes of womanhood.

I had an even longer post percolating in my head about all this, but then I read David Wescott’s fabulous essay at his place, It’s Not  a Lecture, and realized that if I had a friend who so wonderfully wrote about the big picture problem with the current Newsweek cover of Michele Bachmann and other political women, why reinvent the wheel?  Plus, it’s pretty refreshing to have a guy take on these issues.  But then again, David is a “Father of Intention!”

Image via Huffington Post/Newsweek.

“Flake” and “balloon head” are just the beginning from those who can’t get their own heads around the idea of challenging Bachmann on her political views rather than dusting off the usual sexist political playbook.

Many GOP leaders were huge Bachmann fans as she rallied her Tea Party base on their issues, but as she started making noise about going head-to-head with the “more serious” or “more likely” Republican candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and others, her GOP BFFs have gotten a little distant.   They don’t call, they don’t write.  Once upon a time Republican Congressional leadership was happy to bask in whatever conservative spotlight Bachmann provided for their political agenda, but that all changed when the upstart mom of 28 made it clear that she wasn’t afraid of the big boys.

I hope that Bachmann knows it’s going to get a lot worse than that.  Of course she’s going to have to get out her history book and brush up on a few facts as some of her critics have pointed out, but that’s an easy fix.  If Bachmann is  really in this race to win (which I’m not sure she is — I think she wants to position herself for a role in the future  GOP leadership espcially after the current crowd snubbed her in 2010), she needs to steel herself for the full Hillary treatment.  I’m not sure Secretary of State  Clinton would be comfortable commiserating with Bachmann on how to navigate the entrenched sexism against women who seek political power, but in my head I’m imagining that her advice would be something like this:

1. Let other people deal with the whole “balloon head” thing and ignore it. The Hillary Nutcracker got lots of coverage, but I don’t remember her dignifying it with a response.  No matter what you say, those old boy male pundits are going to keep finding ways to suggest that there’s no need to take political women seriously, and they’ll use whatever adjectives or questionable collectibles to do it.

2. Some things will call for a snappy retort, so be ready. Remember ” iron my shirt”? Best not to leave that one hanging out there, so you might want to brainstorm with your staff about keeping a few good soundbite-sized responses at the ready for the hecklers.

3. Don’t believe them when they tell you you’re making excuses for other things if you call out the sexim when it happens.  High-profile media men and women alike scoffed at the suggestion that the never-ending sexist comments had an effect on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.   Clinton may not have lost as a direct result of the constant drum-beat of anti-woman rhetoric, but she was certainly undermined to an extent that when other things happened, voters were able to use the barbs as another reason to turn away from her.

4. Don’t think you’re safe with your GOP brethren.  Immediately after the recent CNN debate you participated in your fellow candidates were damning you with faint praise.  You pretty much won that debate for preparedness and staying on message,  but when asked what he thought of your performance, one of the guys said in a dismissive tone, “She did alright” — the political equivalent of what husbands say when their wives ask if their pants make their butts look fat.

5. Remember to pay it forward. If and when you call out the media or another politician for their sexist jabs, do it not just for your Tea Party sisters, but for all women who take those hits.  Even if we don’t agree on anything else, we ought to be able to come together on the idea that no woman, especially an elected representative who’s running for president, should have to put up with the same treatment that Hillary (or Sarah Palin or any other woman) got when she was audacious enough to say, “I’m running for President of the United States.”

We know all candidates, men and women alike, should be ready for questions on their experience, policy positions, demeanor and world view to the extent that they impact decisions that would effect the whole country.  But for any woman who dares to think she can channel her inner Geena Davis, she’d buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Image via Minnesota Public Radio

The media love to mock women in the political world by using sexist terms that demean us and make us out to be something not worthy of serious consideration.   We saw that time and time again during the 2008 presidential election as talking heads not-so-subtly suggested that Hillary Clinton was only a viable candidate for national office because we felt sorry for her after Bill cheated on her. And instead of focusing on Sarah Palin’s qualifications, or lack thereof, as John McCain’s running mate, the media focused on her looks and questioned whether a mother of five with young children still at home was up to playing with the big boys.

There’s still plenty of that when it comes to powerful women — one of the most recent examples is an article in the Washington Post about Elizabeth Warren, where they question whether she is a “zealot” because of her passion to help middle class families in these horrible economic times.  When I see things like that, it’s hard not to wonder whether a man in that position would have been described differently — I’m betting a male counterpart would be described more positively as something like a “devoted advocate” rather than a “zealot,” which has such a negative inference.  (Not to mention the fact that the article was, yet again, another story about a politically powerful woman that got placed in the Style section.  But that’s another post for another day.)

Another increasingly common phenomenon I’ve been noticing is that some news outlets just act like we don’t exist, implying through omission that it’s just the big ol’ menfolk who are out there trying to make change, with hardly a woman to be found!

The most recent outrageous example is a Politico article entitled, More Bloggers Throwing Hats in Ring.

The article explores the “phenomenon” of political bloggers deciding to take their voices beyond the bloggy world and actually try to get elected to office.  When I learned that the piece was being written, I was excited because I know several women bloggers who are doing just that!

When I saw a call for information about the piece from someone I now know was involved in the research for the article, I e-mailed him with several names — my friend Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks who ran and was elected to her city council last year in Pepper Pike, Ohio; my former D.C. Metro Mom blog colleague Aimee Olivo who is running for School Board in Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Ariana Kelly of MomsRising blog who has tossed her hat in the ring for a seat in the Maryland State House of Delegates.

11 men got included in the article, but only two women were mentioned, even though the reporter had at least three more names, and I’d have to bet he had more.   So I have to ask — how does that choice get made and why?  One of the men highlighted in the article is Judd Legum, who is a blogger running for the Maryland State House of Delegates.  He’s talked up in the article as a big money raiser and his head shot is prominently featured just under the headline. Yet Ariana Kelly, who is also running for that same elective body and writes for a very prominent blog and organization that has over one million members is found nowhere in the article.

If one is truly interested in writing an article that fairly represents the growing movement of bloggers running for elective office, why leave out the numerous women and pen an article that implicitly suggests it’s mostly a guy thing?  I certainly hope it’s not because these three women are moms.  Because that would tick me off even more.

When the article does get around to tossing us gals a little bone, it’s with a tone of dismissal with its offhanded reference to the recent BlogHer conference half-day session with The White House Project, that may as well have said, “Oh, isn’t it cute that those lady bloggers are starting to think about running!”

So, other than beating our heads against our computers as it becomes clear that even when we try to step up to the plate with the boys, what do we do to combat the fact that they’re just ignoring us?   I guess we keep fighting — fighting the likes of Politico, who also doesn’t seem to recognize just how many of us women pundits are out here, fighting the Sunday talk shows, fighting NPR, fighting the Washington Post and the media in general that refuses to see political women where they are.

Maybe I should send the writer and his editor each one of these hats as a little reminder?

Or I could just send them an advance copy of this little baby! As the Politico piece said in its opening line, “The blog might be the new on ramp to American politics.”  Politico is right on that one — but we “powerful blogger ladies” will try our best not to run over the menz as we accelerate past them onto the political highway!

Image of MOMocrats at BlogHer ’10 courtesy of Stephanie Himel-Nelson

]]> http://www.punditmom.com/2010/08/whats-worse-when-the-media-mock-political-women-or-ignore-them/feed 5 http://www.punditmom.com/2009/11/november-is-adoption-awareness-month-there-should-be-no-give-backs-in-adoption http://www.punditmom.com/2009/11/november-is-adoption-awareness-month-there-should-be-no-give-backs-in-adoption#comments Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:29:23 +0000 PunditMom http://www.punditmom.com/?p=2903 “Give backs” are for bad holiday gifts, not for children.

There are few things that truly make me lose it, but sensational media coverage of adoption is one of those things.  So bear with me as I explain my visceral …

NOW’s EqualiTEA, the Unconventional Women forum being put on by a variety of organizations, including The White House Project and the Women’s Campaign Forum, and the EMILY’s List reception, just to name a few, are places for progressive, activist women to gather and start planning the next phase of their political lives and agendas.

The Women’s Media Center is also presenting their report called, “From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election,” and apparently we need it, and not just for the guys who insisted on giving Hillary Clinton short shrift during the presidential campaign.

In an article called Hillary Clinton Fans Tough to Woo, Christy Hoppe of the Dallas-Morning News wrote about the increased number of women’s gatherings in Denver, referring to them as an “estrogen-fest.”

An estrogen-fest.

Is that supposed to make us think about hundreds of hormonal women creating a ruckus like a bunch of sorority girls? Because I hardly think it’s the right turn of a phrase to describe gatherings with the likes of Senator Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the scores of other high-profile Democratic women, especially when one Clinton almost became the party’s presidential nominee.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you read anything written about a political event populated by men called a “testosterone-fest?”

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

The fact that the media, women members included, continue to write about gatherings presented and attended by women — especially political women — in derogatory and dismissive terms like this one never ceases to amaze me. I guess that’s my problem. I should be used to it by now.

But if we can’t even get other women to stop describing serious women and serious events with a vocabulary that can only diminish and mock us, how will we ever get the likes of Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, or the whole team at Fox News to stop referring to us as “bitchy” and “castrating?”

If any of you run into Christy Hoppe at the DNC, let her know I’d like to have a word with her. I just hope that she doesn’t run into Gloria Steinem or Nancy Pelosi first. That just won’t be pretty.

It’s about me and my fellow MOMocrats and my sister. It’s about my mother and my aunts and my daughter. It’s about mothers and friends and women who haven’t even become the next generation of leaders, yet.

Of course, as the Women’s Media Center rightly points out in its new video called Sexism Sells, But We’re Not Buying It Anymore, we’ve been focusing on the wrong thing. The MSM doesn’t limit its use of terms like “soppy,” “bitchy,” “castrating,” “nagging,” or “Wicked Witch of the West” to Hillary.

The most famous and infamous TV pundits aren’t reserving their ‘looks are everything’ moments to talk of Hillary’s cleavage or wrinkles. There are no limits. We are all fair game.

I have no doubt that, as usual, in response to this sort of challenge to how women are treated in the news media, there will be many who rush to say that we aren’t the targets. That it really is about Hillary Clinton.

As my grandfather used to say, do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck?

But don’t take it from me. Take a few minutes and watch the video. Then tell me with a straight face that I’m doing the wrong thing by not letting my second-grader watch any television news “analysis.”

Comments like, “If you look hard enough for sexism, you’ll find it” or that any sense that the media critiques of Clinton are infused with sexist undertones are mere propaganda, abound in the comments section here and at MOMocrats.

I didn’t start out being a Hillary supporter, but ended up being one after John Edwards dropped out of the race. I suppose some people think my opinions on the gender discussion are because I support “the woman” candidate and I’m upset about any attacks on her. It’s not the case — I’m a feminist from way back. But trying to convince people otherwise has been a futile act.

So for the naysayers, I wanted to link to this piece by Jessica Wakeman at The Huffington Post, On Sexist Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton. Jessica, a supporter of Barack Obama, attended an event at The Paley Center for Media in New York (I am so bummed I missed it!), where the discussion, “From Bella to Hillary: Women, Media and Politics” was a lively one.

The upshot from an evening with so many notable women who are experts on this subject?

There is no absence of “sexist male punditry” in the media today. But a lot of people don’t want to see it, because if they do, they’d have to take some responsibility.

This isn’t just about Hillary. This is about the rest of us, too. This is about any women who want to have a voice in the political conversation and a place at the table. Because if the media can get us to believe that we don’t have to take Clinton seriously because she’s a shrew and the word that rhymes with “witch” or that she should be taken into a room and beaten up so Obama can get on with the race, they won’t have to pay attention to any of us down the road.

Wakeman writes in her post:

Most of the panelists seemed to be saying that if more women were in positions of power — mayors, senators, representatives, presidents, heads of media companies, TV pundits, op-ed columnists, radio show hosts — then the discourse would de-frat boy, bullying of females and ridicule of serious issues would cease and sexist commentary would be met with shock and embarrassment, rather than naughty smiles. That may or may not be true, but I’m inclined to believe it is mostly true. I can’t be the only one having those frustrating conversations where I feel protective of Hillary Clinton.

Pretending that the ongoing and relentless negative comments made about Hillary are only specific to her and that they don’t negatively impact other women – or our daughters – is naive at best. Those of us who have lived that brand of gender discrimination know it and understand that it will continue if we fail to put a name on it or to talk about it.

Some of it may be more subtle than it was when married women reporters (read: me) got paid less than their male counterparts because there was a husband’s salary in the picture, but it’s still there and the Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermanns of the world don’t seem to
care. Sometimes it may not be as blatant as using the words we hope noone will ever say to our daughters. But it’s there.

Even some non-Hillary supporters see it.

Cross-posted from MOMocrats.

Not the schedule per se. The interest was to use it as a tool to go after her. That’s what it looks like today.

Don’t believe me? Then go read this:

Hillary At White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day

I knew that MSNBC was out to get Hillary, but I didn’t know that ABC was on that anti-woman bandwagon, as well. That there is some serious “investigative” work by “Brian Ross and the Investigative Team” over at ABC. Is there a legitimate news reason to run that story with that headline? Go ahead — try to convince me.

Just as I’m sure we as a nation couldn’t care less about the innumerable ladies’ lunches I’m sure Hillary had during her stint as First Lady, this nation is way past Blue Dress Fatigue.

But here’s the thing I don’t get — why is there such an insistence to criticize Clinton for the sins of her husband? Sure, she thought it was all a right-wing conspiracy, but PLEASE!!! There is one reason and one reason only to have this headline, and that’s to help tank her race.

One’s memory doesn’t have to be too long to know that when it comes to anything related to sex and elected officials, the perpetrator of the sin isn’t the only one the media consider fair game. Just ask Silda Wall Spitzer. And Dina McGreevey.

Just promise me this, MSM — no matter what happens this time around, in the 2012 presidential race, stories like this will be buried, just like the blue dress should be.

(Thanks to my pal MOMocrat Debbie for alerting me to this craziness).