“The wife of World Wrestling Entertainment Czar Vince McMahon and the former WWE Chief Executive Officer Linda McMahon is running again for the United States Senate for the State of Connecticut.” (emphasis mine)

While there are certainly worse things a woman politician can be called, it would have been more effective, less sexist and more grammatically sound, to have written that Linda McMahon’s husband is Vince McMahon. By introducing her as someone’s wife, Linda’s own accomplishments and status are devalued. Linda McMahon is the one running for office and it makes more sense to talk about her relevance in a political news piece. Also to say she is the “wife of” kind of implies Vince owns her, doesn’t it?

Sometimes it makes sense to note a candidate’s spouse, but no woman should be labeled as being the “the wife of” someone. Readers and voters alike are not looking to elect someone’s wife; they want to elect a leader who stands on his or her own.

You may remember the lovely article we talked about last week where Mr. Carr referred to the senatorial candidate as “Granny Warren” and attacked her appearance. Real hard hitting journalism there, Howie…

It’s great to see people that care about this issue and call out sexism when they see it. If we keep this up, we can all work together and eliminate this kind of language from media all together. So remember, if you see something suspect, name it and change it.

If you live in Boston you might not be aware that the newspaper Boston Herald doesn’t seem to be fan of Elizabeth Warren. But politics aside there’s no reason to attack her for simply being a woman.

For example columnist Howie Carr’s opines:

There’s something about Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren that reminds me of Granny Clampett of the Beverly Hillbillies. She’s younger, I know, and her face isn’t as emaciated. But she’s got the same hair and glasses.

Of course he goes on to call her “Granny Warren” throughout the rest of the column.

If we have said it once we have said it 1,000 times, criticizing Warren for what she says or does is fine, healthy in fact. But criticizing her for her hair, her glasses and her apparent resemblance to Granny Clampett is sexist. Not to mention irrelevant. Use some of that news hole for non-sexist arguments, why don’t you Howie?

As if that’s not enough for one day, the Boston Herald decided to throw a little gendered language in for good measure. This article, located in the news section is titled, “Liz Warren is darling of Tinseltown crowd.” It goes on to call Warren, “a lefty darling.”

We’re thinking there are several more creative and less gendered ways to write this supposedly unbiased article. The term “darling” is sexist, unnecessary, and used twice in the article. Sexism does not make up for lack of creativity.

Jill Miller Zimon is responding to the racketeering trial of former county commissioner Jimmy Dimora, in which secretly recorded phone calls reveal unsavory details about Dimora and his especially negative names for women.

Dimora’s behavior was apparently nothing new to most city employees, but Zimon refused to let the blatant sexism just slide. In an interview with The Cleveland Plain Dealer she says:

“That anyone would say ‘it’s just Jimmy being Jimmy’ only serves as an indictment of other people’s acceptance that it is OK for a person with power and money and influence to speak about and treat women as he did.”

Zimon goes further, to say that tolerating this behavior is only slightly less vile than sexism itself and gives a shout-out to Name It, Change It when she advocates women stand-up to the sexism.

“This tolerance – only slightly less vile form of sexism – is, in large part, why such sexism continues to exist, after all these years of other people continuously calling attention to such rampant, ingrained, shameful and indefensible sexism in our societies’ circles of leadership.”

Name It. Change It.’s research clearly shows that calling out sexism when you see it only helps women and it brands the aggressor a sexist. Misogynists like Dimora are a dime a dozen, so don’t let them get away with it. Dimora may be on trial for racketeering, but by Name It, Change It standards he should be charged with Severe Misogyny.

Murphy asks “...whether the praise for Santorum, compared to the derision for Palin, simply reflects our different views about the roles of mothers and fathers, or whether a woman running for the presidency, and even the vice presidency, must only apply with grown, happy, and health children campaigning by her side. That prerequisite would make the glass ceiling downright bulletproof.”

It’s true. Santorum is praised for making this priority decision to take a day off for his daughter. Meanwhile, Palin and other female candidates would likely have been criticized long ago for deserting their family for a political career. Gender stereotypes run deep: women raise kids, men run for office. That’s pretty damn sexist. 

So, thank you Patricia Murphy for calling out the hypocritical coverage. When it comes to families, male candidates shouldn’t get a different kind of treatment from the media.

Dear Deputy Parks Director Leslie Knope,

Name It, Change It, a project dedicated to ending sexist and misogynistic coverage of female candidates by the media, is writing in response to your recent altercation with a Pawnee voter at a local bowling alley (15:20). We want to applaud the way in which you responded to the voter’s verbal attack.

After you defeated Derrick in a round of bowling, his reaction was to call you a “bitch.” Would he have said that to a male candidate who so soundly defeated him at his favorite sport? Most likely not. In fact, his problem with you had nothing to do with his claim that you “didn’t look like someone he could go bowling with.” He was just plain sexist.

By holding a press conference (19:29) and refusing to apologize for what happened and instead criticizing your aggressor and his use of the term “bitch,” your campaign saw a positive reaction from potential voters, as evidenced by the focus group. Men and women alike found you tough and principled when you stood up to the sexist remark. Name It. Change It.'s groundbreaking research shows that when women stand-up to sexism, it makes them and their candidacy stronger. Your reaction is a great example for female candidates running for office. If you are ever confronted with this kind of language again, don’t hesitate to call it what it is: sexist.

Congratulations on your successful campaign thus far and best of luck in the race.

Sincerely,

Name It, Change It

Holmes is incredible perceptive about how we view women’s anger, even to the point of when it’s called “anger.” It's worth reading because it applies to all public women, celebrity and politician alike.

But she also highlights a tiny moment from Elizabeth Warren’s interview on Tuesday with Jon Stewart.

As writer Litsa Dremousis asserted in “I’m Mad at You Because You’re an Idiot, Not Because I’m a Woman,” a recent and highly trafficked post on the women’s Web site Jezebel, it’s “time for more men to understand our behavior isn’t aberrant, and for more women not to feel ‘guilty’ for not staying in the narrow range of traditionally accepted emotional responses.” (Full disclosure: I used to edit the site.)

On Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren did just that. The Senate candidate and Harvard professor, appearing on “The Daily Show” to discuss the state of the American economy, didn’t skip a beat after her ire over corporate lobbying in Washington was called into question by host Jon Stewart. “For a second, it does seem like you’re a little mad at me,” interjected Stewart, leaning away in apparent discomfort with the zeal on display.

Warren responded by tilting her head to the side — as if to say, “I’ve heard that one before” — then delved into an animated discussion of Chinese vs. American infrastructure.

If you missed the moment watching the interview, you can see it below.

We’re called “Name It. Change It” because we believe that by calling out sexism we can change the media. But we also understand that not all sexist coverage is intentional. Members of the media sometimes just haven’t thought about the differences in how they cover women compared to men. It doesn’t make it right, but it does mean that sometimes people respond positively when you point the sexism out. (Of course, it doesn’t always work).

But in this case we’re happy to say that Williamson does get it. She wrote a follow-up column entirely about the differences between Elizabeth Warren’s coverage and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown's. And we finally got the answer to “what color are Scott Brown’s eyes.”

Here’s an except but definitely read the whole column:

In my column on Sunday, I wrote the following about Warren, the Democratic candidate who will likely face off against Brown: Warm, personable and engaging, Warren excels at the meet-and-greet. Dressed on Thursday in a brown, quilted knee-length coat and simple gray pants, granny glasses perched smartly behind intelligent blue eyes, she hardly filled the “elitist hypocrite” moniker recently hurled her way by Scott’s Brown campaign man.

In hindsight, I, too, found that description cringe-worthy, mainly because I messed up and indicated that Warren somehow managed to position her granny glasses behind her intelligent blue eyes, which several alert readers were eager to point out would be quite an optical feat.

“Is this operation available at UMass, and if so, do you know if our health insurance would cover it?” asked Jeff and Jane Kelly. “What if we waited for Obamacare?”

I deserved that. But the Name It Change It project overlooked the flub and dressed me down — no pun intended — for writing about Warren’s clothes and eye color, calling it “just plain sexist.” Ouch.

Gutfeld didn’t react well to being called out on his sexism.

Now another Fox News The Five host, Kimberly Guilfoyle, has jumped on the sexism bandwagon. On the The Five last night the panel was talking about the State of the Union speech and what’s been dubbed “Date Night” for Congress. After speculating about what a great “bad” pair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Congressman Allen West would make, co-host Guilfoyle titters "Yeah, if you're into that Frizzilla thing. I gave up perms a long time ago."

It’s a shame that Guilfoyle, another woman in the public eye and under constant scrutiny for her appearance, wants to impose the same unfair and sexist standards on other women. As we said before, they’re free to mock Schultz’s politics all they want (this is Fox News after all) but insults that go to a woman’s appearance is sexism. We’d hope that Guilfoyle, as a woman herself, would understand that.

Interestingly, columnist Dianne Williamson wrote the article, striving to support Warren and Brown’s alternative approach to campaigning. However, Williamson dedicates the beginning of the article to Warren’s physical appearance during a recent meet-and-greet with supporters and the press. Instead of including meaningful excerpts from Warren’s conversation with her supporters, Williamson only adds that a voter said she was “even more beautiful in person.”

Warm, personable and engaging, Warren excels at the meet-and-greet. Dressed on Thursday in a brown, quilted knee-length coat and simple gray pants, granny glasses perched smartly behind intelligent blue eyes, she hardly filled the “elitist hypocrite” moniker recently hurled her way by Scott's Brown campaign manager.

Williamson uses Warren’s physical appearance to speak to her character in this article while Brown is given much more depth (and no clothing review) right from the start. While Williamson was probably trying to discredit the claims that Warren is an intellectual elitist, this could have been done by talking about what she was doing, not what she was wearing.

Women are much more than the attitude they portray through physical appearance. Warren has well-known resume. Any of her past positions, statements, or jobs would have been a fair representation and could have provided material for Williamson to show she’s not an “elitist hypocrite.” By summing up a female politician by her physical appearance we disgrace all the credentials that truly mark her political relevance.

After asking the question many are thinking about lately—what the next steps for the Occupy movement look like—author Phil Bornstein answers,

One hint passed through San Francisco last week, a woman called by her enemies ‘the Mistress of Mayhem’ or ‘the devil incarnate’ and who herself takes some credit for the intellectual midwifing of the OWS movement: Elizabeth Warren, the bare-knuckled Harvard law professor, financial-industry regulation advocate and scourge of Wall Street now running for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts.

Let’s just be clear. When it comes to Occupy Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren “created the intellectual foundation for what they do." Using a word like “midwifing” to describe a woman’s involvement in the creation of one of the most important movements affecting our current political climate seriously diminishes her accomplishments. Finally, we all know that the word “midwifing” would never be used to talk about a male candidate—making this a clear violation of the reversibility test.

When it comes to repeating the sexist term “mistress of mayhem” that Warren’s “enemies” use to describe women, Name It. Change It. just has a few questions: Why? What is the point of perpetuating language that has been crafted to hurt Warren? Whether this is just careless and lazy writing, or a more intentional move to weaken Warren’s stature, it’s just plain sexist.

Author S.E. Cupp criticizes Gingrich’s reaction to Romney’s attacks by writing ‘hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.’ She goes on to characterize Gingrich’s arguments with Romney as catfights and to refer to Gingrich as ‘Miss’ and ‘her’ throughout the article.

Cupp uses a barrage of female stereotypes to disparage Gingrich, saying ‘the poor girl [Gingrich] is an emotional wreck.’ Cupp plots an intervention for the candidate, writing ‘…it’s therefore my duty to give Ms. Gingrich a serious reality check, and save her from herself. Because…I care.’ Not only does Cupp reinforce sexist stereotypes about women, she chastises Gingrich and resolves to help save him from what she sees as weak and embarrassing female behavior. Her recommendation takes the sexism one step further, suggesting Gingrich do what “all” women do when they are down: make a bubble bath, eat a tub of ice cream and watch a ‘Toddlers and Tiaras’ marathon.

Cupp is drawing an analogy between what she thinks is bad behavior and that of an emotional woman. In making an argument for Gingrich’s failing candidacy, Cupp insults women by characterizing his actions as somehow being distinctly female. Disliking a candidate is one thing, but using ignorant gender stereotypes to criticize and belittle Gingrich is sexist and shows a lack of respect for women.

These nicknames use Schultz's appearance to demean and mock her, a strategy mostly reserved for women, especially women in power. Gutfeld has no problem attacking politicians for their beliefs and political affiliations, so why does he feel the need to degrade female politicians by focusing on physical appearance?

We used our twitter account @nameitchangeit to appeal to Gutfeld (you can read the whole Twitter conversation here):

Gutfeld’s response?

Name it. Change it. asked:

.@greggutfeld So commenting on a female politician's attractiveness is not #sexism to you? Do you really believe that?

Here’s the dialogue that followed:

From Gutfeld:

@nameitchangeit if you feel u must defend women, not men - then you are truly must apologize for your subtle, toxic sexism.

From Name it. Change it.

.@greggutfeld We're looking forward to hearing what you think is #sexist if putting women in power down for their appearance isn't.

From Gutfeld:

@nameitchangeit wed, i cited ron paul's eyebrows and david gregory's hair. why were u silent? Do women need kid gloves? Sexist.

@nameitchangeit sexism is treating 1 sex better than the other. U do that. i don't. How does it feel to be sexist? How do u sleep at night?

When we asked others to weigh in on what they thought about this exchange:

(There's more to the exchange which you can read here).

Gutfeld’s sexist commentary on Schultz's physical appearance—rather than on her politics—is a clear demonstration of misogyny in mainstream media, not to mention his attempt to invoke a reverse-sexism defense, which inherently lacks any understanding of oppression and discrimination at the institutional level. His refusal to accept responsibility for his sexism and consequent failure to identify any sexism in his behavior is a powerful indicator of how much further we still have to go before gender equity in the media is a reality.

Once again we have a long (2,500 word) profile of a woman politician. And once again we have the ever-so-literary description of what she happed to wear to the photo shoot (as if the picture won’t be evidence enough). I might have forgiven The Advocate for mentioning her pearls, because they are a kind of trademark, although only because reporters can’t seem to stop mentioning she wears them. (Although I do think “countless online jewelers” is stretching it a bit. There’s basically one article from 2007.)

“Barney Frank was wearing a navy blue suit and his trademark glasses.”

Can you picture this sentence being dropped into a 2,500 profile of Barney Frank? Look back through The Advocate’s archives. Look for the longer pieces about Frank. Do any of them mention what he wore on the day of his retirement? On the floor of the House? Or during an interview?

There’s exactly one. And it starts this way.

“What Barney Frank is wearing is rarely the subject of news reports.”

In the Green Bay Press Gazette there’s an interesting article about Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin, noting that if she wins it’d be a first for the state.

“Wisconsin voters have never sent a woman to the Senate or elected a female to serve as governor,” writes reporter Michael Louis Vinson.

Sadly that’s true. The Center for American Women and Politics (source for the image above), shows that 23 states have never had a woman governor.  Four states have never had any Congressional Representatives or Senators. And since there have only been 39 women Senators in history there are a LOT of states that have never sent a woman to the Senate. (Definitely check out this link to see more information about women’s current and past representation in Congressional seats and state legislatures.)

In any case there’s lots of interesting quotes in this article about the gender imbalance in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) but it was this quote by former Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton, who was the first woman elected to that position, caught our eye.

Lawton said a lack of access to high-quality, affordable child care sometimes restricts women from entering public life.

"If you serve in the Legislature either at the state level or at the federal level, you're going to need overnight baby sitters," Lawton said. "Certainly a state legislator's salary isn't going to pay that … As more women necessarily have to be in the workplace and more families absolutely have to have two incomes and more women are heads of households, they can't afford it."

Why aren’t young children a barrier to male state legislators? Presumably male legislators with young children have the same child care needs that women legislators do. Oh that’s right, because child care is primarily a woman’s responsibility in this country and holds back women’s careers but never their partners.

But definitely read the rest of the article.

Wrong.

The writers of The Reliable Source column for the Washington Post seem to disagree. In their piece yesterday titled “Michele Bachmann raises the fashion bar for female politicians,” columnists Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger write:

Fashion experts say Bachmann raised the bar for all women politicians with a classic, feminine style — without letting her clothes become the story.

One then has to wonder, if Bachmann's clothes weren't the story why does this article need to be written?

They continue:

People obsessed over Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits and Sarah Palin’s open-toed shoes. Not so much with Bachmann, who created a signature look with done-but-not-too-done hair and makeup and clothes that were flattering but never flirty.

Whereas Clinton and Palin failed, Bachmann succeeded! (By wearing conservative clothing). “Flirty” clothing is code for revealing or feminine clothing, both of which underlie sexist critiques that marginalize female politicians. As a woman, their clothing choices are either too feminine and “flirty” or “severe” and “masculine.” The tone of this article is one of pity, intended to comfort the fallen Bachmann by complimenting her appearance. Unfortunately, distracting from political and cultural accomplishments by redirecting attention to physical appearance is unabashedly sexist.

Michele Bachmann lost the Iowa caucus--but won the fashion race.

In this brief statement, Roberts and Argetsinger divert the reader’s attention away from that pesky presidential race and toward the fashion race. The writers not only diminish Bachmann’s notable achievement in her campaign for the GOP presidential candidacy, they also infantilize Bachmann by congratulating her on an imaginary beauty pageant. (It’s ok, Michele! You lost that stupid president thing. But you are totally a great dresser!) We are extremely disappointed with this kind of reporting from The Reliable Source and hope they will reconsider publishing sexist articles and accompanying fashion slideshows on female political figures.

In an article titled “Michele Bachmann: The XX Factor. Is sexism to blame for the Minnesotan Congresswoman's decline in popularity?” Schecter actually writes an okay piece that asks why Bachmann’s campaign wasn’t embraced the way Rick Perry’s or Rick Santorum’s was.

He concludes:

“…but no "conspiracy theories" are even necessary for me to conclude that sexism still plays an active role in our politics - particularly on the extreme right of the GOP.“

The Name It. Change It. project doesn’t disagree, but sexism isn’t confined only to conservatives.

Because Schecter opens his article by calling Bachmann “sharp-tongued, googly-eyed” and there’s clearly nothing sexist about that!

Maybe next time Schecter you won’t call a woman ugly and mouthy while defending, or attacking her?

You know that awful stereotype that women hate to see other women succeed and won’t support them if they do? The Washington Post is doing a great job of perpetuating it in this article. Furthermore, they’re suggesting that the only way a woman candidate can win is through the unanimous support of her fellow women—which, if reversed, would probably never be said about a male candidate.

But wait, there’s more! Let’s play “Spot the Sexism” in this quote:

“Enter Rep. Michele Bachmann onto the 2012 presidential stage. Like Palin, she was a prolific mother, successful fundraiser, unquestioned conservative and telegenic communicator ready to take on Barack Obama and the Republican establishment in a way few of her male competitors would.”

I don’t know about you, but I have a suspicion that when Murphy writes “telegenic,” what she really means is “pretty.” That’s just plain sexist, and so is this:

"It seems like only yesterday that Sarah Palin stepped into a pair of red, Naughty Monkey peep-toe pumps and blew up every assumption about the Republican Party and women."

But what’s really sad about this article isn’t just the subtle sexism that Murphy slips in the text. No, what’s worse is this quote from Iowan and former Bachmann supporter Jeanne Jennings:

“But then I just started thinking about being presidential and I don’t know that we’re ready for a woman for president. I think what we really need to do is get Rick Santorum for president and Michele Bachmann for vice president.”

With attitudes like that, no wonder Iowa has never elected a woman governor, senator, or member of Congress. And with media coverage like what Congresswoman Bachmann received during the last few months, you have to wonder if the Hawkeye State ever will.

Every year we like to evaluate the trends we’ve seen in political media coverage of women politicians and candidates. Sadly, in the year 2011 we found no limit to how demeaning or insulting some media outlets and personalities felt they needed to be towards women. No one says media pundits have to like the policies or actions of every female politician, but the Name It. Change It. project is about pointing out sheer misogyny disguised as mere criticism.

Throughout 2011 former Governor Sarah Palin flirted with the idea of running for president. She ultimately decided not to, making her no different than many other candidates, but some pundits and comedians, in expressing their hostility towards Palin, seem to project hostility towards women in general.

In January on the TNT program "Inside The NBA," host Kenny Smith asked comedian Tracy Morgan, “Tina Fey or Sarah Palin?”

Of course the unspoken question was “Who would you have sex with;” one woman was Morgan’s boss and the other was a prominent national figure. The question was outrageous and demeaning to all women, but Morgan’s answer, “I think Sarah Palin is good masturbation material! The glasses and all of that … great masturbation material,” was also terrible.

As we said at the time: “When female politicians [or women in power] are constantly reduced to sexual objects, it strikes a blow against all women in positions of power and deters other women from seeking public office…. We’re not laughing.”

The sexualizing of women politicians is a not a new problem. In November men’s magazine Complex, compiled a list of the “50 Hottest Women in Politics.” Of course you’d expect a men’s magazine to provide tasteful descriptions of women they find attractive. Just kidding! Complex was looking for the “slutty,” “big-boobed,” and “uber babe” women in politics. And yes, Sarah Palin was on that list as “the most tappable veep candidate in history.” Charming.

Combining both sexualization and repugnance, in March Bill Maher felt it was perfectly fine to call Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” and said she and Michele Bachmann would split the “MILF” vote. Later in the year Maher essentially excused himself from charges of misogyny because he doesn’t think Palin is representing women, so anything he says about her as a woman isn’t sexist. Really, Bill? Because the more acceptable you make unacceptable terms, the more likely such terms will be used on other women politicians—even some of the ones you like.

You can criticize women politicians all you want (even make jokes at their expense!) but Name It. Change It. thinks it's not too much to ask that it not be seeped it in misogyny.

Representative Michele Bachmann is another woman who is called all manner of sexist things in the name of “criticism.” The standout 2011 example of media sexism is Newsweek’s August cover of Bachmann, dubbed “crazy eyes.” Name It. Change It. sent a letter to Newsweek and pointed out that it was somewhat ironic the same issue featured Gloria Steinem. Perhaps Newsweek’s editorial staff should have educated themselves more with Steinem’s work before putting the issue to print.

To paraphrase Dana Loesch on this issue: When your criticism amounts to an unflattering photo, you just might be a chauvinist. Newsweek has a long tradition of putting people on the cover who elicit strong reactions, but drawing an “ugly picture” is something that sixth-graders do, not widely-read national publications.

This wasn’t the last time, however, the scorched-earth policy would apply to criticism of Bachmann. 

Just last month, when Rep. Bachmann appeared on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, the house band, The Roots, apparently thought it was acceptable to play a song with the title “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.” There was a tittering frat boy quality to Fallon’s initial apology, and Name It. Change It., along with many others, was deeply offended by the idea that a major network thought it wasn’t a problem to call a woman a “bitch” on national television. It was good then, that NBC did finally apologize, something that might not have happened without a concerted effort to explain that sexism is wrong. Proof that calling out sexism has a positive effect!

Of course in 2011 not every instance of sexism was about name-calling. This year saw a stepped-up number of fashion coverage stories about women in politics. Yes, politics is often about image, but the fashion police’s lack of interest in what male politicians’ hair, nails, make-up, or clothing is fairly obviously. Only women politicians’ eye color and descriptions of their haircuts will be added to profiles about them.

No single outlet in 2011 has typified this type of sexism more than Huffington Post. Their style section has written about Michele Bachmann's appearance after every single debate, also telling her that after “her numbers went down she should have brought down her neckline. Might have helped.”

After Name It. Change It. sent a letter to Huffington Post Style editors Anya Strzemien and Ellie Krupnick asking them to enact editorial guidelines that refrain from discussing female politicians’ appearance unless such similar style decisions would be considered equally note-worthy in male candidates.

Strzemien replied by saying, “The Huffington Post's style section, which has existed since 2008, [has] always focused on the intersection of politics and style. And in so doing, we make every effort to evenly distribute our attention between men and women.” 

I think even causal readers of Huffington Post’s style section know that’s just not true. In just the past two months the sheer number of Huffington Post Style stories about Michele Bachmann's appearance outnumbered all stories about all male politicians and candidates combined! Focusing on women’s appearance is sexism and we hope that in 2012 outlets like Huffington Post—which is women-run!—will realize that judging women politicians and candidates is limiting to all women everywhere. 

Figure 1

Figure 2

Hint: We think it’s pretty clear. Using unflattering imagery to portray a female candidate as unlikeable is nothing new.

As attractiveness is always important when publicizing a United States governor, Martel is quick to include physical details like Martel’s eye color. Eye color, like other descriptions of physical characteristics, is something reserved almost exclusively for women, a journalistic trend we’ve written about before. But Martel’s physical description does not stop with eye color.

In person, she cuts an indefatigable and glamorous figure. She eschews a Church Lady mien for something more Real Housewife: fit, attractive and encased in suits that stop just below the elbow and just above the knee.

Because we all know that women have two options when it comes to style: “Church Lady” or “Real Housewife.” (Both of which sound very appealing and original.)

When discussing Haley’s actual track record as governor, Martel is similarly demeaning. Referring to key financial decisions Haley has made while in office, Martel wonders whether certain tactics were “petty” or “naïve.” This is far-from-subtle code for “childish” and “unintelligent,” two popular insults for female politicians who dare to make unpopular decisions.

In addition to portraying the South Carolina governor in sexist language, Martel also celebrates Haley’s own dismissal of infantilizing, sexist criticism she has received. 

She’s also the kind who doesn’t mind that she still gets called girl. “It’s okay because they truly mean well,” she drawled. “What you have to look at is the fact that this is a Southern culture that has great people that just allowed me to do a job I love. . . . They can call me girl, lady, Indian, whatever.”

To summarize, the Washington Post described an elected United States governor in terms of physical appearance, questioned her experience and track record in ways often reserved for women, and congratulated her on her refusal to acknowledge that sexist language is bad. Ned Martel is a triple threat ... of sexism.

Check it out:

If the media shows women in a degrading, demeaning way, if violence is not taken seriously, if female candidates are covered in the context of how they look and what their hair is like and how they’re dressed as opposed to how the male candidates are referred to, this has an impact on women and girls. Not always conscious – but it can’t help but make us feel somehow we don’t count as much. It’s not a cognitive thing, it’s a visceral response, I think.

One of our mottos and one of our programs is 'Name It, Change It' – if you don’t know it exists and you don’t give it a name to it, you don’t do anything about it. Like in campaigns - we are going to see this a lot in the coming year. Women are treated differently than men when they’re running for office. And it becomes very sexist and misogynist. So we name it in order to change it.

Read the whole article featuring interviews with Gloria Steinem, Kirsten Gillibrand, Arianna Huffington, Nancy Pelosi and Sheryl Sandberg, the CEO of Facebook. 

Take her appearance, every aspect of which is polished and soothingly retro, from her pink lipstick and false eyelashes to her hair, whether in a lacquered updo or an equally unmovable blowout…Declared the petite woman in a cocktail suit and pearls: “If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding.” She was the very picture of a Junior League luncheon organizer.

That’s just plain sexist, and we’re disappointed that an otherwise-respected publication like the Washington Post would print this kind of gendered language. Whether or not you agree with Bachmann’s views, we can all agree that she’s more than just some relic from the 1950s. And any candidate who has made it this far in the presidential primary deserves far more than to be called a “Junior League luncheon organizer” or “schoolmarm in chief.”

After all, this is a candidate who plans to visit all 99 counties in Iowa between now and when their caucuses take place on January 3. She may be tough, but she’s just as serious as the male candidates in the race. Stop writing about her like she isn’t.

If Mrs. Rempel is meant to be recognized by the strength of her political career, then why is the reader left reflecting on “those prominent dimples of hers?” Female politicians will never be taken seriously if the journalists who hope to highlight the importance of their work continue to use sexist language to describe them.

As if they haven’t provided us with enough analysis of Michele Bachmann’s physical appearance, Huffington Post Style published an extended article yesterday spotlighting congresswoman Bachman’s stylistic evolution “from Minnesota Mom to Beltway Barbie.”

Framed as a Fashion Whip column authors Lauren Rothman and Christina Wilkie write:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, the raven-haired Barbie of the political Right, ushered in this year wearing lots of yellow, with luminous waves and a smile that called to mind her political fairy godmother, Sarah Palin.

The piece frames Bachmann’s campaign for the GOP presidential candidacy completely in terms of appearance, as though the ultimate force guiding her poll ratings came from her choice of dress and use of makeup, insinuating not-so-subtly that Bachmann’s wardrobe and makeup decisions influenced the support of her constituency.

Huffington Post has responded to our demand to stop sexist journalism by claiming that they write about male candidates’ and politicians’ appearance and wardrobe also. Name It. Change It. is wondering when they will publish an article or video discussion focusing solely on Rick Perry’s foundation or Ron Paul’s hairline?

The post included a two-minute video of writers Wilkie and Rothman discussing Bachmann's style. Wilkie and Rothman stumble through this video extremely awkwardly, sometimes rocking back and forth uncomfortably as they explain that their job is to “police political style in Washington.” (So necessary! And relevant!) With a large, forced smile, Rothman explains, “We were excited about bringing more glam appeal to the political stage,” and concludes, “When her [Bachmann’s] numbers went down she should have brought down her neckline. Might have helped” (emphasis mine). Rothman also helpfully suggests that Bachmann “should have shown just a little more of a feminine touch.”

The video ends with Wilkie literally rolling around in her chair while spewing nonsense about how “any woman in politics faces the question of how to retain her femininity and how to dress in a man’s world…it’s a constantly evolving process.”

This piece, along with the slideshow and video, reduce a political candidate to the color of her suits and the thickness of her makeup. If there is any truth to the notion that Bachmann’s stylistic choices affected her campaign, Huffington Post Style can proudly thank themselves for helping to shift public focus away from what candidates say and do and toward a twisted beauty contest, where female candidates for the GOP presidential nomination are solely on how they look. 

In a HuffPo Style piece published today, readers learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended Kennedy Center Honors Sunday night,  “the highest honor our country gives to artists and culture-makers.” You’re probably obsessively wondering, but what was Hillary wearing?!

Also in attendance was Hillary Clinton, who the AP reports flew home for 36 hours between visits to Myanmar and Germany to celebrate the honorees over the weekend. Clinton showed no signs of jet lag, though, as she greeted honorees in a pale blue and gold dress with matching bolero jacket.

Not enough Hillary wardrobe talk? Don’t worry! HuffPo Style also has a piece focusing solely on what Clinton wore during her visit to Myanmar.

She greeted leaders while wearing head-to-toe blue, clad in a boxy pantsuit. Everything matched, down to her robin's-egg-colored necklace and earrings. And there were no scrunchies or barrettes in sight, as Clinton kept her hair loose.

Great! But all of this fashion analysis can be exhaustingly positive. Too flattering. Cue the HuffPo piece on Michele Bachman published yesterday.

We've written before about the GOP candidate's issues with maquillage, the main one being that she wears too much of it….when we took a look at the zoomed-in pics, we ceased to be distracted by the rather unbecoming skirt-and-flats pairing (which never flattered anyone's legs) but rather the lines on Bachmann's face.

Sexist portrayals of female candidates and politicians, flattering or unflattering, damage the credibility of female leaders.  Whether the focus is Hillary Clinton’s hair accessory or Michele Bachmann’s “facial lines,” valuing physical characteristics over opinion and action is sexist and unacceptable. HuffPo Style should know this by now.

“But before she even got around to raising eyebrows for opining that suspected terrorists shouldn't be read their Miranda rights, we ended up being a little distracted by the representative's makeup, which seemed more, ahem, liberally applied than usual.

Bachmann…sported heavily made-up eyes for the debate -- is that blue eyeshadow? -- and frosty pink lips, along with her silver necklace and diamond earrings. Her outfit choice, a white skirt suit and a black top, was thankfully staid.”

All seven of her fellow (male!) candidates presumably spent just as much in the makeup chair last night, so why is Congresswoman Bachmann being singled out? Why does Bachmann get called out for her eye shadow, but Gingrich (who, based on your slideshow, clearly has more than a passing familiarity with foundation) and the rest of the boys get a complete pass? That’s just plain sexist, HuffPo.

This type of sexist media coverage discourages women from running for public office and sends the message that women running for office should be judged solely by their looks. Congresswoman Bachmann is a serious presidential candidate, just like all the men on that stage. It’s time you treated her as such.

Okay, we understand the premise: you want to portray members of Congress as wealthy, because that fits with the message of your segment. Choosing footage of them in evening wear is one way to do that. But the male equivalent of an evening gown is a tuxedo, not a standard business suit—so why show Leader Pelosi in an evening gown if you’re not going to show Speaker Boehner and Rep. Bachus in black-tie outfits? That fails the reversibility test, 60 Minutes, and your poor image choice portrays Pelosi in an unfair light compared to her male colleagues.

This is irresponsible, sexist, and disappointing journalism from an otherwise-respected news organization. As Pelosi herself said this week:

“It’s sad for ‘60 Minutes,’ because they were up here,” she said, raising her hand to show the highest level, and now, she added, “it’s just another tabloid.”