Because she isn’t currently a candidate, Obama’s remarks didn’t necessarily hurt Kamala Harris. But if she had been running, they would have hurt her. Not just what the President said, but the media coverage of his words. Name It, Change It says that male candidates are just not affected in the same way (of course, their appearance isn’t covered in the same way, either).
This should startle those of us in the media who routinely mention what women candidates are wearing (A pantsuit! A designer dress! Killer heels!) without a second thought. It turns out that writing about a woman candidate’s appearance is never neutral. And if it’s never neutral, then it’s never appropriate. We need to cover the uproar, of course, when the President makes a miscalculated remark. But the next time a woman is running for President—or any office—what we don’t have to do is mention her pantsuit, her hair, or her lipstick. Because how she’s dressed and how attractive she is has nothing to do with her competence or her views. And we shouldn’t sway voters, no matter how unintentionally, into thinking that they do.
On the pages used for 'news,' the media can bemoan "benevolent sexism" and shame "benevolent sexists." On the pages used for 'advertising,' the media will powerfully reinforce sexist attitudes. Which message is more skilfully presented? Which message is absorbed more?
This story is about the attractiveness of women and our response to that attractiveness. That theme is one of the most pervasive themes in world literature. The attractiveness of a woman, or a man, is always an entirely fair topic--in any context.
Look at all the pretty boy Congressmen we elect. We don't elect those pretty boys because we're NOT talking about THEIR attractiveness. We're electing them because of a whole complex of underlying attitudes that shape that attractiveness and make it relevant to our individual voting decisions.
I want to understand how an image of attractiveness is used to help or harm a political candidate. I want to understand how a common group understanding of attractiveness can be reshaped or directed by advertising to the benefit or detriment of a political candidate. Stating the obvious--that attractiveness matters--isn't very interesting.
This is the age where sophisticated commercial marketing data is used to help sell political candidates in ways that are often very subtle and pervasive. That's what I want to read about! I want to be inoculated!
So long as sexist attitudes are manipulated to effectively sell stuff, we are also going to see that same manipulation in politics. Sex sells. News at 11.
#1 Posted by Mark von Wahlde, CJR on Sun 14 Apr 2013 at 01:01 PM