Nearly every critique we make at Name It. Change It. is grounded in the principle that criticism of a woman politician is fine, but criticism of a politician because she’s a woman isn’t. Unfortunately a lot of members of the media seem to miss that important distinction. Case in point: Chicago Tribune cartoonist Scott Stantis.

Last March we noted he had apparently decided there was nothing sexist at all about drawing a 46-year-old woman, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, repeatedly depicting her as a little girl (and not just a little girl but one wearing a pink shirt and her name dotted with a heart!) Somewhere buried in that depiction is the idea is that Madigan is the puppet of her father, Michael J. Madigan, who is the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.

Actually it’s not at all clear what Lisa Madigan, in her capacity as attorney general, has done to annoy Scott Stantis, other than be elected. Maybe according to Stantis, Madigan shouldn’t be allowed to be elected by the voters of Illinois three times – becoming the state’s first female attorney general? None of Stantis’ cartoons about Madigan have any other criticism of her except for implying she only got her job from her father. (She was also previously an Illinois State Senator).

In any case when Stantis ran a “caption contest” for a new cartoon about Madigan we offered up some suggestions and I posted some criticism to his page. I didn’t notice until yesterday that shortly after the original caption contest Stantis had posted a video as a direct response to my critique (titled “Responding to hate mail” because all criticism is “hate mail?”). You can watch his response below to our critique, which he quotes in full.

Two points: If I did misspell Stantis’ name that is unfortunate, but it's also worth pointing out he incorrectly identifies the Women’s Media Center as the “Women’s Media Group.” That's okay Stantis, we all make mistakes.

Secondly he says he drew the cartoon exactly the way he did because “I did want to hurt her reputation because I think her father has done a bad job.” So he admits the only issue he has with Lisa Madigan is with her father. That doesn’t seem quite fair.

He asks whether she’d be in the position she is today if her last name was “Stantis.” We don’t know that answer, but the fact is she’s been elected three times. It would seem better to judge her on the job she’s doing rather than the fact she has the job at all. In either case our critique isn’t because we’re on Team Madigan. It comes because we’re on Team Anti-sexism.

Stantis is on solid ground when he criticizes women politicians for their policies, for their political views, for their work, but when he implies they are just little girls who shouldn’t work in politics at all because of who they are -- sorry but that’s not fair criticism, that’s sexist. That goes for whether it’s said about Sarah Palin or Lisa Madigan. It’s unfortunate Stantis can’t see the distinction and considers it his “job” to make sexist jabs at women politicians.

Listeners to NPR’s Morning Edition Thursday morning heard an interesting profile of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand by reporter Ailsa Chang. The story started with the sentence: “Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is introducing legislation with other lawmakers Thursday that would change how the military handles sexual assault cases.”

But early morning listeners also heard that “Senator Gillibrand has a soft, girlie voice that takes on a certain earnestness when she gets angry.”

Another part of the story said “Gillibrand is petite, blond and perky.”

But at some point Thursday morning -- it’s not clear when -- NPR changed both the audio and electronic version of the story. Gone are the words “girlie,” “petite, blond and perky.” (Great work by Sarah Jaffe for screen grabbing the original version.)

We asked NPR Morning Edition’s producers when and why the change to Chang’s story was made but they did not respond by deadline. We will update this post when and if they respond.

We’re glad Morning Edition changed those parts but this paragraph remains unchanged:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once called her the "hottest member" of the U.S. Senate. But friends say the woman has scary grit — precisely the kind of person who can go head-to-head with the military about how it's handling sexual assault.

Lots of things are said about women politicians but it’s unclear what Reid’s comment contributes to the story. In fact there could be several ways to interpret Reid’s inclusion in the story. That Gillibrand is hot BUT has scary grit or that she is hot AND has scary grit. But either way, it’s really lost on us what her hotness has to do with her grit, especially in a story about how she’s trying to change the military’s approach to sexual assault cases.

The Reid remark – and Morning Edition’s use of it – is reminiscent of President Obama’s remark that Kamala Harris “happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country." That remark had people asking what was wrong with noting when a woman is good-looking? The problem is that in the context of this story it puts Gillibrand’s “hottest” in aspect to her grit (and actions) as a senator when they aren’t related traits. Moreover as our research demonstrates, when voters hear even complimentary coverage of a woman politician’s appearance it actually makes them view her as less experienced, effective or qualified – and are less likely to vote for her.

We’re glad the Morning Edition recognized some of the problems, but it would be good if they would publicly say when and why they made the changes they did.

Gillibrand’s gender is a theme in the article, but in many ways how her gender is handled, both in the parts of the story that were changed that those that weren’t, is reflective of how women politicians are judged differently than their male counterparts – both by the media and by the political class. 

It seems as though the public agreed: Stothert won the mayoral race by a wide margin against incumbent Mayor Jim Suttle—and effectively destroyed Jerram’s campaign for the position—making her the first female Mayor of Omaha in history. For the naysayers who think that publicly addressing sexism against female candidates will only hurt them, we ask you to remember this race. And our research.

Huffington Post Politics Reporter Jon Ward recently wrote an article on one of the most interesting congressional races in recent history—Elizabeth Colbert Busch vs. Mark Sanford for SC-01—so they ideally would not begin the third sentence with a description of Elizabeth’s outfit. But alas, that is not the world we live in. And now we know she was wearing “a bright orange overcoat that radiated positive vibes,” because that was super relevant and necessary?

It’s worth noting that Ward also took a moment (much later) to describe what Sanford was wearing as well. Which makes one ponder: Could this mention of Sanford's “polo shirt” and “pleated khakis” be in response to our findings?  

I mean, I guess that’s one way to go with it. Or how about we just stick to the candidates and skip what they’re wearing? Honestly, is that so difficult?

During an appearance on Chris Matthews’ Hardball, Buono barely had a chance to say anything at all, let alone promote herself in her race against Chris Christie. In what seemed like a record display of sexist interruption and mansplaining, Matthews interrupted State Senator Buono a total of 14 times in her brief five minute appearance on the show—mostly to ask the same question: “But do you really think you can beat Christie?” But don't take our word for it. Check out Matthews performance for yourself. 

Ok, so that’s bad enough…right? But it gets worse. Before the show began, Matthews actually asked Buono, “Can I say that you’re attractive?” To this, the candidate quickly replied, “No, you can’t.” He also informed her off air that she was “nice” and that he was “being tough on her.” Poor little thing, how could she possibly handle big, bad Chris Matthews being “tough” on her? If being “tough” means being obnoxious, sexist, and rude on your show then yes, you were indeed quite tough on Buono.

The real questions Matthews could have asked Buono—and actually given her a moment to respond to—would be on such issues as: her position as the first woman majority leader of the New Jersey State Senate, the town hall-style meetings she’s been holding in taverns and community centers across her district, her unwavering commitment to not cutting early education budgets (as suggested by her opponent), or her 20+ successful years in public service. The reality is this: Chris Matthews did not ask Buono the questions he would have asked Chris Christie had he been sitting in the chair across from him instead. He did not give Buono the amount of time he would have given Chris Christie to respond to his questions. He did not do either of these things because Barbara Buono is a woman—plain and simple.

Since Chris Hayes has moved to weekdays Steve Kornacki has taken over MSNBC’s “Up With…” weekend show (now dubbed “Up With Steve.”)

His very first show was this Saturday and what a first show it was, featuring a mention of Name It. Change It. and an in-depth discussion of women in politics. Check out some of the segments below!

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But check out some other clips of the show. Here Steve reviews the sexist coverage of 1964 Presidential candidate Senator Margaret Chase Smith and reviews the history of women running for president.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A great panel discussion on what the 2016 presidential season will look like (and who are the four possible women who might run for president).

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Women governors! Since governorships are the "feeding system" to presidential candidates how many states have women in the executive branch?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is there a glass ceiling for women of color in politics?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On Monday we released our new studies with the blockbuster finding that any mention of a woman candidate’s appearance by the media actually harms her electability. And we are happy to report the media is picking up on the message. Check out some of our coverage of  our reports from this week:

Amanda Hess in Slate.com

…we do know that despite President Obama’s commitment to equal-opportunity physical flattery, female candidates contend with far more superficial coverage of their campaigns than do men, and that seriously undermines their success. In Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns, Erika Falk examined media coverage of every female presidential candidate in American history, from Victoria Woodhull in 1872 to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Female candidates were subjected to four times the appearance-based coverage that male candidates were. And the trend didn’t budge across the 136-year sample…

Garance Franke-Ruta in The Atlantic

All of which is just to say that female appearance is a complicated semiotic system women use to communicate with each other and with men, and I'm not sure it's something that can ever be spoken of entirely neutrally. The very act of praising a woman's appearance, for example, can provoke an outpouring of contrary opinions, and creates a framework in which assessing her appearance can become a dominant theme.

Digby in Hullaballo

Women standing up for themselves always results in some people saying they are strident and humorless. It's an uncomfortable situation. But in the end, it's worth it because over time it raises most people's consciousness. And according to this study, it reverses the negative impact almost immediately, which is very good news. It gives women some ammunition in their arsenal when this happens.

Erik Wemple in Washington Post

Whether you believe in the Politics-Style divide; whether you believe this study has methodological or conceptual limitations; whether you want more appearance coverage of men, less of women or more of both; whether you believe that the range of clothing options available to women makes commentary on their choices inevitable, perhaps we can all agree that Clinton’s hair has had its day in the sun. As Burton is fond of noting, that topic is certain to fetch millions of Google hits. It also has its own topic page on the Huffington Post.

Jennifer Vanasco in Columbia Journalism Review

I wasn’t planning to write about the dust-up after Obama called California’s Kamala Harris the country’s “best-looking attorney general.” After all, he apologized almost immediately, it happened a week ago, and I thought we could all agree he shouldn’t have done that and then move on.

But then I saw this headline: “Kamala Harris’ Star Power Buoyed by Obama ‘Best-Looking Attorney General’ Comment.” …. Basically, writer Chris Roberts is saying: Harris is lucky that Obama said she was attractive! It boosted her prospects!

Sarah Seltzer in The Jewish Daily Forward

Like most women, at various points in my life I’ve felt impacted by these kinds of comments. I’ve winced when I felt like my presence was getting erased because I was not presenting as “pretty” and someone else was — and I have also worried that my intelligence was being overlooked for the exact opposite reason, because I was too pretty to be taken seriously. Either way, it’s completely unpleasant.

Also Erik Wemple in Washington Post again

Well, what about [Donald] Trump? Sure, he’s not a politician, though he’s quite political. And he’s been the topic of a great deal of appearance-oriented coverage. Could the hair stories possibly diminish The Donald? That’s a question that the Erik Wemple Blog put to him during a session today at the Washington Post.

Trump responded with some quips suggesting he spends little time pondering ways in which he could be diminished. “It is my hair, actually,” he said, and he acknowledged that it’s a big “topic” out there in the world. “I’ve been combing my hair this way my whole life, I work at it.”

Our research finds that:

• Neutral, positve, and negative descriptions of the woman candidate’s appearance all had detrimental impacts on her candidacy.
• While this appearance coverage is very damaging to women candidates, the male opponent paid no price for this type of coverage.
• When a woman candidate or a third-party responds directly by saying this coverage has no place in the media and that her appearance is not news, she regains the ground she lost.

Here are our studies' key findings explained in a handy infographic!

Name It. Change It., has just released two new studies that demonstrate the gender-based challenges women face from the media when they run for office.

In the survey on media coverage of women candidates’ appearance, conducted by Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners and Robert Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, the research used actual quotes about women candidates from media coverage of the 2012 elections and demonstrates that when the media focuses on a woman candidate’s appearance, she pays a price in the polls. This finding held true whether the coverage of a woman candidate’s appearance was framed positively, negatively or in neutral terms. The second survey, a simulation of the impact of sexism in campaigns, conducted by Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners and Leslie Sanchez of the Impacto Group, simulated a campaign situation similar to those experienced by real candidates and found that where a woman candidate has already been attacked, sexist coverage further diminishes her vote and the perception that she is qualified.

Read the press release announcing our findings.

Download the executive summaries and the full reports.

Then someone sent the photo to a Nebraskan politics blog Leavenworth Street which broke the story.

This is their analysis of this episode:

1) SOMEONE thought this was a good idea.
2) Nay…a GREAT idea.
3) So they found someone with enough design experience to make a pretty decent likeness of Jean Stothert’s hair and face (say what you will about the obvious tastelessness of the entire thing, the face image is done well)
4) They then put some cash into sending the image to a printing shop and getting them back.
5) And they did ALL of this in advance of St. Patrick’s Day so as to have it on Green shirts.

So it’s not like someone did this on a cocktail napkin and passed it over to Jerram. There were some calories burnt to put these together all for the Sunday holiday.

(Jerram later apologized.) So Leavenworth Street didn’t call it sexist (just tasteless), but plenty of others in the Omaha media found it so.

Reporter Robynn Tysver writing for the Omaha World-Herald, “Sexist attacks against Stothert among most 'disgusting' one national expert has seen” quotes Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. The article also details another attack from an anonymous Twitter account that tweeted “a reference to Stothert's vagina, blood and ‘a weekend on phrat row.’”

It’s particularly gratifying that the local media came out very strongly against the sexism. An editorial from the Omaha World-Herald was particularly empathic.

Robust debate, the clash of political philosophies and the competition of ideas all make for spirited discussions as candidates seek to persuade voters.

As long as those debates are focused on the candidates’ qualifications, their records and their positions on issues — that’s healthy. There is never a reason to stoop to sexism, name-calling and worse. These attacks reflect badly on a city that is a far better place.

The Omaha World-Herald editorial board might think campaign sexism only hurts their city’s image, but it also hurts women who run for office. Our own research has shown that sexist criticism has an outsized effect, it’s actually more damaging to a woman candidate than a non-sexist (but equally harsh) criticism.

Most in the media aren’t aware of this, which is why we call out sexism in the media when we see it. And it’s great when other members of the media join us. The only way to negate the effect of sexism on women running for office is to call attention to it.

Columnist Erin Grace, also writing for the Omaha World-Herald wrote about another recent incident of sexism in politics, this time directed at Danielle Conrad, a Nebraska state senator.

Jeremy Jensen, who is a political consultant for State Sen. Charlie Janssen, posted a comment on Facebook:

“It's one thing for elected officials to disagree with each other. It's quite another to be a flat-out disrespectful c—t.”

Grace spoke with both Jensen who didn’t apologize saying it was a “private” post (which was posted before he joined Janssen’s campaign). But a day after Grace’s column, the consultant resigned from Janssen’s gubernatorial campaign.

All of this gets us back to how those in the media perceive sexism directed at women politicians. It should be unacceptable. Harsh criticism is fine but not sexist criticism. (Which obviously includes calling a woman a stripper or bitch or the c-word. There are terms that have no equivalency for men.) It’s why the Omaha World-Herald was right to call out such incidents. We do hope others in Omaha media, including Leavenworth Street – will look at our research and understand why it’s not fair ground to use sexism to attack women politicians, regardless of their politics.

As Grace wrote in her column looking at these types of incidents (and others like it) you start to understand why there are so few women who get elected in Nebraska.

You need only two hands to count the number of women in the Nebraska Legislature: 10 of 49. You need only one hand to count the five women who have served on the Omaha City Council since 1980.

The kicker in the story is that it was a female firefighter who took the photos of the offensive t-shirt although no word on who sent them to the Leavenworth Street blog.

In case you missed it, on Monday The New York Times ran an article “Offstage, Quinn Isn’t Afraid to Let Fury Fly” which offers details that Quinn is:

a. Loud
b. Points her finger while she talks
c. Often uses the phrases such as “I’d like to cut their balls off.”

Oh my! Apparently its newsworthy when a female New York politician gets loud, swears, or points. That Quinn does (while she is running for mayor) makes this suddenly news?

What’s remarkable is this “abrasive” profile is built almost entirely out of anonymous sourcing.

More than two dozen current and former city officials, lobbyists and political operatives recounted being berated by Ms. Quinn, but few would speak for the record, citing a fear of retaliation. They offered nearly identical accounts of their altercations, describing a rapid escalation of voice and vitriol, occasionally laced with vulgarity.

There are only two people quoted on the record, Dan Mathews, a senior vice president for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who admits to having a political disagreement with Quinn over an issue and Betsy Gotbaum. Who is Gotbaum exactly? She’s a fundraiser for another Democratic candidate for mayor. Is a rival campaign painting an unflattering picture of an opponent really surprising? Or news?

But at issue isn’t whether the things Quinn supposedly said are accurately quoted -– although she is disputing some facts such office was soundproofed because of concerns about her “angry tirades” being overheard -- but that The New York Times’ decided to even write this story about the lone female mayoral candidate.

While some are linking to similar stories about other prominent male New York politicians, the story about Quinn’s temper is in the context of her mayoral campaign. Maybe men -- once they are elected mayor -- can say what they want to their political opponents and it’ll be perceived as strength. But women candidates who are perceived as “aggressive” typically suffer in the eyes of potential voters. (Or likely those called “controlling,” “temperamental” and being described as having “tantrums.”)

What is great is some are seeing the same things we do about the Times article.

“This story would never have been written if Christine Quinn was a man” tweeted Rosie Grey of BuzzFeed.

Jen Chung of Gothamist on twitter pointed out the subtext of the article: “Aka ladies who get mad are SCARY.”

But not everyone thinks The New York Times frame was sexist.

For example, Anna Holmes tweeted:

Then Peggy Drexler at the Daily Beast, writes that “using words and anecdotes to paint a picture of a woman that may be less than flattering, yet true, isn’t sexist.”

Even so, she might want to think about what terms and what frames are said about aggressive men verses aggressive women. “Bully” is a gender-neutral term, but Drexler asks “could Quinn be a Queen Bee?”

We’re pretty sure, as aggressive as Rudy Giuliani was, he was never called a “Queen Bee.” 

Lisa Madigan is many things. She’s a three-time elected attorney general for the state of Illinois. She’s a 46-year-old woman. She’s an elected official who’s been asked how she could be a mother and governor at the same time. What she is not is a little girl being lead around by her father.

The quickest way to demean a woman is to infantilize her, in this case something Chicago Tribune cartoonist Scott Stantis has been doing a lot. The above cartoon is supposed to be a commentary on the fact that Madigan’s father is Michael J. Madigan, who is the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives. (The caption is something we added). Stantis doesn’t seem to be all that creative how he portrays their relationship, he’s depicted Madigan as a little girl at least two other times in cartoons. Maybe it’s time to get some better jokes? (And of course not only does he draw her as a little girl but one with a pink shirt and a name dotted with a heart, because SEXISM.)

Well here’s your chance because Stantis is running a “caption contest” for his latest cartoon (see above). You can email your suggestions (and complaints about it’s sexism) to ctc-captions@tribune.com. (Act fast, because they’ll pick the winner on Thursday).

Why not submit some “suggestions.” We’ve posted one above, but how about some others?

“Sorry honey, not only can’t you become pope but you also can’t have any job that the media will judge you on your own merits.”

“Pope? Sure that’s a big job, but if you become a Chicago Tribune cartoonist and you’ll also get to put women in their place.” 

Taylor Bigler, The Daily Caller’s Entertainment Editor, probably knew when she wrote about Ashley Judd’s on-screen nudity that it would be perceived as an attack on Judd. You don’t suddenly bring up the fact there are nude images of a woman out there and not think it won’t get a strong reaction. There is an entirely cynical explanation that click through views = money in online publishing. Publish something “controversial,” drive up traffic, then sit back and plead innocence as to the nature of this game. “Calm down guys. Nobody attacked Ashley Judd,” tweeted Daily Caller Political Reporter Alex Pappas. Of course he somewhat gives up the click-bait game a few tweets later (in an argument with @JuddLegum): “I know [ThinkProgress’s] schtick is faux outrage, so not worth engaging you. But have fun. And thanks for clicking, as always.”

ThinkProgress’s Alyssa Rosenberg has another excellent take down of The Daily Caller’s defense that this was all just harmless “entertainment” writing.

…the tittering assertion that the Caller’s stories about Judd’s entertainment career are just for Monday afternoon giggles is an idea belied by the Daily Caller’s very site structure, which is using stories about the fact that she’s done on-screen nudity and dated Michael Bolton to drive coverage to more substantive—though I hesitate to dignify it with that term—reporting about Judd’s political positioning for a potential race. And the act of covering Judd as entertainment, particularly when you’re not actually reporting developing news about her acting career, but digging up old tidbits from her life, is in and of itself a canny political act.

Aside from simply generating impressive click-view results, it’s not hard to fathom why The Daily Caller has been slightly obsessed with Ashley Judd -- she’s a liberal Democrat who may run for the Kentucky Senate seat and they are a conservative media outlet. Perhaps they’d even argue “we’re not publishing these articles because she’s a women, we’re doing it because we don’t want her to win the Senate seat.” Well, it’s doubtful they would cop to such a base admission, but we can assume that’s probably why there are so many negative articles about her lately.

The harsh criticism of her politics isn’t the issue. That’s the nature of partisan media outlets, they’re tougher on candidates whose politics aren’t aligned with theirs. (The same is true for progressive media outlets).  But when the harsh criticism comes in the form of mocking her for being a woman, that’s when it crosses a line from being fair to being sexist. Even if the writer, in this case Bigler, doesn’t think of it that way, that is how her article frames the story about Judd – its singling out something about her for criticism, because she is a woman. Judd’s on-screen nudity – which is far more common and expected of actresses than male actors – is being offered as a potential liability for her. The piece doesn’t come flat out and say it, but it certainly suggests that it will be a liability because there’s something wrong with it. (Serious people don’t have naked images of themselves anywhere.) Or put another way: Haha we saw your boobs so you can’t be taken seriously now.

Although it got far less attention, Joseph Gerth, writing for the Louisville Courier-Journal, also speculated whether Ashley Judd’s nudity would effect her political chances.

Meanwhile, McConnell and a super PAC supporting Republican candidates have mocked Judd in an Internet video and a television commercial, respectively.

Neither of them brought up Judd’s au naturel movie appearances but its doubtful she could make it through a race without someone doing it....We, in America, have, over the 45 years since the Hays Code prohibiting nudity in movies was lifted, come to accept actors and actresses disrobing in movies.

We’ve not been so open-minded about our politicians shedding their clothes, however.

First he compares speciously compares Judd’s film career to former Representative Anthony Weiner, who famously accidentally tweeted a picture of his junk. (So being a professional actress is a comparable situation to a junk-tweeting politician?) Then Gerth lists several actors-turned-politicians who have never appeared naked on screen – which screams for a “so what.” The web video that accompanies the article (and is narrated by Gerth) has even more of a tut-tutting tone about on-screen nudity, before concluding “other issues” may be more a factor in the race.

It’s worth noting that it’s the media who are mentioning Judd’s on-screen nudity. This isn’t a campaign issue brought up by an opponent’s attack ad. No one was even talking about Ashley Judd’s on-screen nudity until people like Bigler and Gerth decided to bring it up. Another phrase for this would be that it’s a media-created-narrative. Speculate whether something might have an effect, and bingo, suddenly it has an effect.

What’s sad is that these type of sexist issues can suck up all the oxygen in a race. Suddenly now we are having a “debate” about a women’s sexuality and whether her past film career will hurt her. The Daily Caller can now claim mission accomplished. Ashley Judd’s political credibility can now be framed by her sexuality instead of her politics or accomplishments. By running stories that ask if she’s diminished by her acting career they are advancing the frame that she’s diminished by her acting career. That’s something male actors like Ronald Reagan and even Arnold Schwarzenegger – who’s done nude scene on film – were never asked.

We are used to knowing just about everything there is to know about serious political candidates. But will Judd be the first potential senator who has — literally — nothing left to show us?

The article is written by Taylor Bigler, The Daily Caller’s Entertainment Editor, who also probably thinks this sentence: “It seems like she was particularly liberal with nudity early on in her career” is a witty pun on the term liberal.

Alyssa Rosenberg at ThinkProgress really nails the sexist double-standards coming from The Daily Caller.

It may come as a surprise to the Daily Caller, but actresses don’t generally take their clothes off on-screen as an expression of some sort of groovy seventies lifestyle, or as a way to have sex with people who are not their spouses or partners. Rather, getting asked to take off some or all of your clothes is, for a lot of actors, a frequent requirement of the job, and something that until recently, tended to be asked of women more frequently than men.

Ashley Judd hasn’t even declared yet whether she will run for the Kentucky Senate seat against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and she’s already attracting gobs of negative and sexist media coverage.

There is no purpose to Taylor Bigler’s article other than to punish and shame Ashley Judd for the sin of being an actress and a woman. We’re reminded of Krystal Ball who was running for Congress when some personal photos of hers were splashed across the media and used to question her electability.  As Ball wrote then: “The tactic of making female politicians into whores is nothing new.”

But what’s different now is that we can speak up and call out the sexism as we see it. Taylor Bigler is on Twitter and her email is bigler@dailycaller.com.  David Martosko is The Daily Caller’s Executive Editor. His email is david@dailycaller.com. Let them know branding Ashley Judd with a Scarlett A for being an actress is sexist and demeaning, not just to her but to all women who may run for office. 

Canada has a different political system from the U.S. but despite the fact they lead the U.S. in ratio of women elected to office those women experience many of the same problems involving media sexism. Which is why British Columbia resident, communications consultant and political campaign junkie Diamond Isinger started blog, Madam Premier, and is tracking all the worst tweets and online comments directed at female premiers (which is sort of an equivalent to being a governor in the U.S.). She also tweets at @diamondisinger.

We interviewed Isinger to find out more about her project and what she’s found so far:

NICI: When did you start this project and what made you want to start it?

Isinger: I started gathering examples a few weeks ago and officially launched the project last Tuesday evening.

I decided to start this project after seeing a lot of nasty sexism online. I spend a lot of time using the internet and social media for both personal interest and work, and I noticed an uptake in hateful sexist posts recently -- possibly because female premiers have had an uptake in their political success in recent times.

NICI: For those who don’t know Canadian politics very well, a premier would be like an equivalent to a governor of a state?

Isinger: Our premiers are the Canadian equivalent of a state governor. They lead our provinces & territories, which are equivalent to states.

We have 10 provinces and 3 territories. Of those 13 total provinces with premiers, 6 of the premiers are women - British Columbia's Christy Clark, Alberta's Alison Redford, Ontario's Kathleen Wynne, Quebec's Pauline Marois, Newfoundland & Labrador's Kathy Dunderdale, and Nunavut's Eva Aariak - almost all of whom have been elected within the last 2 years, thus the "uptake."

NICI: What's been the reaction you've seen since you've started? Has anyone tweeted back an "apology" or any acknowledgement that they felt ashamed about what they posted?

Isinger: There's been an incredible reaction to the project! As of [Tuesday] nearly 31,000 page views, a lot of media attention, and a fantastic dialogue that's been sparked on- and off-line about the continued prevalence of sexism in Canadian politics. In general, it's been extremely positive, with only a handful of predictably nasty comments.

I've received only one message from someone whose tweet I re-posted. They were polite and respectful and simply disagreed that what they had said online was sexist.

NICI: Have you noticed any of the tweets coming from members of the media? Have any media types gotten in trouble for what they've said on their Twitter feeds about women? (of course you just started this last week, so it’s early).

Isinger: I've noticed some people with high follower-counts use sexist language, though often in a more subtle way. Media is also included in that category -- both online and in published commentary, pundits and journalists often undermine female politicians with gendered language, whether they're conscious of it or not.

I can't think of any online-specific examples of media getting in trouble for sexism, but here are a few related items:

- a TV news story that I was quite appalled by awhile back, where they consulted a stylist & psychologist about Premier Christy Clark's wardrobe & lifestyle.

- a radio host caused controversy by asking Premier Kathleen Wynne about her pant suit.

- another radio host caused controversy - and got fired! - for asking Premier Christy Clark how she felt about being a "MILF."

NICI: That's some excellent work calling out online sexism. Continuing to point out the egregious (and ubiquitous) nature of sexism and how its imposed on female leaders is the only way the public will notice there's a problem. You can't change what people won't even acknowledge is happening. This is why "naming it" is a very important first step. It's a great project.

For example this article, “How to be Successful in Leadership Positions for Women” by Herminia Ibarra in the Harvard Business Review makes some excellent points. It addresses the many ways that women are expected to go above and beyond the expectations placed on their male counterparts in politics and in leadership positions. Ibarra highlights how women in leadership roles are criticized if they are not perfect in both appearance and performance. Simultaneously, she argues, women politicians are expected to “tone it down” so that they don’t seem too harsh. Deemed the “Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don’t” dilemma, women face many professional challenges that men don’t face—and that’s just before they even get down to the nitty-gritty task of getting the actual work done.

Ibarra is spot on—this double standard is completely unfair and sexist. So what does she suggest women do about it? Ignore it and focus on the job. Consider this quote:

“For instance, in a recent interview with members of Hillary Clinton's press corps, a veteran reporter said: ‘The story is never what she says, as much as we want it to be. The story is always how she looked when she said it.’

Clinton says she doesn't fight it anymore; she focuses on getting the job done.”

Well, that’s one way of dealing with things. But time and time again, we’ve seen that simply ignoring sexism in the media and the workplace doesn’t do anything to stop it. In fact, studies show that even slight sexism hurts a woman’s campaign; while confronting sexism helps her campaign win back lost ground.

And the media is the other problem. The “veteran reporter” in the aforementioned quote claims that they would like the story to be about what Clinton says versus how she looks. So why not report on that? The media is not helpless in addressing the sexism of its own content.

So why do we continue to ignore sexism when it does nothing to advance our goals (or anyone else’s for that matter)?

The answer is: we don’t have to. That’s why Name It. Change It. exists and why we want it to help more women to be empowered to confront sexism. Ignoring the sexism in our culture won’t make it go away—and the first place to start is to call out sexist comments aimed at female politicians in our media!

I mean, really. When asked about the possibility of Judd running for a U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, Paul responded by saying:

“Ashley Judd’s a famous actress. She’s an attractive woman, presents herself well and from what I understand is articulate," Paul said. "But the thing is, she doesn’t really represent Kentucky.”

An attractive woman? Presents herself well? From what you “understand” she is articulate? I’m sorry, is Paul describing a dog show contestant or a possible U.S. Senate candidate?

It is one thing to criticize a possible opponent for their views on issues that are different than yours; that is what democracy is all about. But it’s not the issues that Paul is using to discredit Judd—he is trying to discredit her by pointing to her femininity. It’s not by accident that Paul uses “actress,” “attractive,” and “from what I understand, articulate” to describe Judd in the same sentence. 

Paul is using these sexist comments to make the Kentucky public think that Ashley Judd is a joke candidate—a hot girl who wants to pretend to play politics.

That’s simply not true, though. Judd holds a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Kentucky and a Mid-Career Master in Public Administration from Harvard. She’s also an extremely active humanitarian; she serves as an ambassador for Population Services International, has narrated three documentaries, serves on the Leadership Council of the International Center for Research on Women, and she has traveled to and volunteered in many developing countries. Oh and there’s all the work she’s done for the Democratic party; like campaigning for Senate candidates, endorsing President Obama’s campaign, and representing Tennessee as a delegate for last year’s Democratic National Convention.

As you can see, the fact that she is an attractive actress has absolutely nothing to do with her politics at all.

Find a better strategy, Rand Paul, because this one isn’t going to work on Kentuckians.

But you wouldn’t know about her many leadership roles by reading this article from The State:

“Busch is the sister of Comedy Central comedian Stephen Colbert and a Charleston business woman. Skelly is a businessman.”

That’s right. He’s a businessman. She is, as the author points out, the sister of Stephen Colbert first, and a “business woman” second. Two words, not one. You wouldn’t want to mix women with business would you, The State?

And why mention that Colbert Busch is Stephen Colbert’s sister before anything else—as if that’s her greatest accomplishment? Unfortunately, it appears that to this author, being Stephen Colbert’s sister is Colbert Busch’s most impressive trait.

We’ve seen some terribly blatant sexism before, but tiny sexist jabs take a toll on women in politics, too. Readers of this article may have been convinced that there wasn’t much more to Elizabeth Colbert Busch than her famous brother. Clearly, this isn’t the case!

Unless you’re Glenn Beck, that is. Beck instantly responded to the President’s remarks by calling him a “girl,” a “chick-in-chief,” a “chick,” and a “woman.” To make his point clear, Beck then declared “His man card has been revoked by me.” Because obviously only women care about stupid things like the health and safety of children.

We’re used to some outlandish stuff from Glenn Beck, but it’s seems pretty serious when his only talking point against the President’s remarks are that he’s effeminate.

What Beck’s sexist comments point to is the deep machismo that is unfortunately still the status quo in politics and mainstream media. By equating the President to a woman, he’s trying to imply that the President is weak and that all women are weak and emotional. In Beck’s eyes (and much of the population’s), the President should be strong, masculine, and a man above all else.

This is part of why women are so discouraged from running for office. Men like Glenn Beck love to keep politics an old boys’ club where anything woman (ew, girls!) is considered undesirable. Grow up, Glenn Beck. This isn’t your grade school clubhouse.

You know what they say about news, if you don’t have any, just make some up.

At least that’s what Fox News’ Fox and Friends did this morning.

There isn’t that much to say about Hillary Clinton’s new website HillaryClintonOffice.com, because there isn’t much on it, just a contact form. But the lack of substance isn’t going to stop Fox & Friends Host Steve Doocy from snarking about Hillary Clinton’s face.

Check out the clip from ThinkProgress:

Is this the face of presidential ambition? Days after retiring as Secretary of State, somebody has launched a website for her, showing off this glamorous new face. Face lift, perhaps? Well, that’s fueling rumors about a run for president in 2016, but her aides say it’s simply a way for fans and the media to reach her.

Yup, just another day in the life of Hillary Clinton where she can’t even put up a website without some Dooc(he)y commentary about her looks.

After getting past the title and first two paragraphs filled with cutesy, girls-magazine-style words like “stylish,” “outfit,” “best-dressed,” “love,” and “gossip,” Congresswoman Velazquez was begrudgingly acknowledged for her hard work on Latino issues and immigration, gay rights, women’s rights, and her dedication to getting the Sandy Relief Bill passed in just her first weeks in the U.S. House of Representatives.

But, if you only read the first two paragraphs of this piece, you would never know that about Congresswoman Velazquez—or, as the author refers to her, “Nydia.”  Not once in the article is Congresswoman Velazquez referred to as such, nor is she referred to by her last name. It’s worth noting that Senator Chuck Shumer, who is mentioned in the same article, is always referred to as “Schumer” and “Senator Shumer.”

Name It. Change It. is incredibly disappointed in The Red Hook Star Review for failing to afford the same respect towards a sitting Congresswoman as they did a sitting Senator. Sexism is NEVER fashionable.

Great. So not only are they calling the Secretary of State frigid and angry, they needed to take it just one step further by implying that she is ball-busting and bossy—so much so that her husband obviously doesn’t want to be near her.

But it wasn’t just the New York Post giving a sexist interpretation of Hillary’s testimony. Fox News’s The Five and the Washington Post also had some juicy sexist nuggets!

See The Five’s amazing and thoroughly insightful analysis of Hillary’s testimony below:

If we can all agree on one thing, it’s that Hillary Clinton is the furthest thing from stupid. The woman graduated from Wellesley College with honors and attended Yale Law School, not to mention her lengthy and indefatigable career in politics. The idea that the issues presented in the Benghazi hearing were above her head and “too confusing” for one of the brightest individuals in politics today is utterly ridiculous and incredibly sexist.

But it wouldn’t be a real critique of sexist media if we didn’t talk fashion. In an otherwise great article defending yesterday’s testimony in the Washington Post, Suzi Parker just could not resist describing Hillary’s outfit and physical appearance, noting the Secretary of State’s “emerald green jacket and geek girl glasses.” Why, oh, why Suzi Parker? Is it too much to ask that for just once we could focus on what female politicians are saying about the important issues at hand rather than their clothing and appearance?

It’s one thing to constructively criticize Hillary’s testimony on the attacks in Benghazi. It’s another thing for one news source to imply that she is shrill, cold, and full of rage, another to imply that she is stupid, shallow, and unprofessional, and yet another altogether to be incapable of NOT talking about her clothes. Have you ever seen the media do this to a man? I didn’t think so.

The New York Post cover, the Fox News critique, and the brief Washington Post fashion reference sought to undermine the Secretary of State not by her merits, but (surprise, surprise!) by her femininity. It’s a tale as old as time (or her 2008 presidential election bid).

The sub-head of Manuel Roig-Franzia’s Washington Post story on newly elected Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is that her story “can’t be told with labels.” Except that Roig-Franzia has a lot of labels for Sinema: hectoring, pouty, huffy.

It’s clear Roig-Franzia first conceived of his story as “Sinema: Congress’s First Bisexual” and she didn’t want to play ball with his framing of her work. So she disagreed and suddenly Roig-Franzia has a whole lot of labels to put on her.

…when Sinema is bothered, she isn’t that fun-loving, self-deprecating, laugh riot with the quirky ways. She can turn lecturing, hectoring, defensive, accusatory, pouty and curiously repetitive. Even a softball question about how her sexual orientation has informed her thinking about public policy — she was, after all, the architect of a successful campaign to block a same-sex marriage ban in Arizona — peeves her.

“Lecturing,” “hectoring,” “pouty.” That’s a lot of sexist labeling because she didn’t want to be defined as the “Bisexual Congresswoman.”

But Roig-Franzia wants his readers to know that Sinema talks, a lot. Not that he cares about her point, in fact her vehemence just proves he’s the one who’s right.

After listening to Sinema go on for 20 minutes or so, one has to wonder: If she keeps this up, isn’t it possible that all these huffy and lengthy protestations about her sexual orientation not being a big deal end up making it into, well, a very, very big deal, indeed?

Not only does Roig-Franzia categorize Sinema with a series of insulting descriptions, he also tags her as a “lover of designer clothes” and that she “owns more than 100 pairs of shoes,” and that she’s asked how she does her blond hair. Not to mention the fact that “Prada” is name-dropped twice in the story. Has any reporter at the Washington Post asked the male freshman Congressmen how much they love clothing and what brands they wear?

If Roig-Franzia had chosen to look, he might have seen some sexism in how some other have tried to define Sinema. He has a quote from Arizona activist, Randy Parraz, in his story, which reads pretty sexist.

That ended with her raising her voice, almost like a small child who didn’t get her way,” Parraz recalls. “You’re talking to someone who thinks she knows everything. It’s her way or the highway.”

This isn’t the first time Parraz seems use sexist descriptions to categorize his disagreements with Sinema. If you read the column that Roig-Franzia quoted about Sinema “lodging a Prada pump in her esophagus.” (Also kind of a sexist turn of phrase, and not even a very clever one) the self-same Parraz told the columnist:

"It's her thinking she can say anything she wants, that she's the smartest person there, and everyone's got to accept it."

That just reads to me like a man who can’t take an argument from a women who disagrees with him.

Today was the first day of the newly elected 113th Congress. It’s a Congress with a record number of women in it.  The Washington Post should make sure they do not cover the 98 female Congresswomen any differently than the 437 male members. And if they need a refresher course, we have a handy-dandy Media Guide to help them.

And as the segment began to unfold, that’s exactly what we got: a discussion of Clinton’s unprecedented accomplishments, her current endeavors, and her plans for the future.

But the interview quickly took a turn into sexist territory when Walters, for some inexplicable reason, added a completely irrelevant quip about Clinton’s hair.

“So, I have to ask you this very personal question. Your hair…People said to me, ‘You’re interviewing the Secretary of State? Ask her about her hair!’”

Why, Barbara? Why? It was all going so well; we learned that Clinton has traveled to over 100 countries and flown nearly a million miles. Can someone please explain journalists’ incessant need to question history’s most traveled Secretary of State about her hair?

Saturday Night Live sums up Name It. Change It.’s reaction here.

A new study by American University Professor Jennifer Lawless and George Washington University Professor Danny Hayes found that media gender bias – “either by the media or the voters – is no longer the impediment to female candidates.”

It’s important to note that the study by Lawless and Hayes covered candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, not Senate or presidential candidates.

Still, this is what the researchers say they found:

We first conducted a detailed analysis of local newspaper coverage of House races in nearly 350 congressional districts across the country. Analyzing 4,748 articles, we found virtually no gender differences whatsoever.

News coverage of women was just as common as coverage of men. And the content of campaign stories was nearly indistinguishable across candidate sex. The frequency with which reporters referred explicitly to candidates’ sex or gender – for instance, noting how they dressed or their family roles – was the same for men and women…Mentions of candidates’ personal characteristics also did not fall along stereotypical gender lines. Women were just as likely as men to be portrayed as possessing competence and leadership skills and no more likely to be covered as trustworthy or warm.

In the paper itself, they describe their methodology:

In this paper, we rely on a detailed content analysis of local newspaper coverage from nearly 350 U.S. House districts across the country, as well as data from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), to demonstrate that gender stereotyping does not affect journalists’ coverage of, or voters’ attitudes toward, female candidates…To identify the appropriate newspaper for each House race, we first consulted maps of the 380 congressional districts represented in our 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey data. We identified the largest city in each district, and then determined whether the city had a daily newspaper that we could access through one of several electronic databases or through the newspaper’s online archives. In the vast majority of cases, this was a straightforward, though time- consuming, task. In the few cases for which we could not gain access to newspaper coverage from the district’s largest-circulation daily paper, we relied on coverage from the largest paper in an adjoining congressional district.

Those who are interested can read the full paper “A Non-Gendered Lens: The Absence of Stereotyping in Contemporary Congressional Elections,” and the conclusions they draw from this methodology.

In 2012, Name It. Change It. was closely monitoring media coverage of the 166 House races and 18 U.S. Senatorial races where women ran for office. Of the House races we watched there was frankly not much media coverage at all. What coverage that did exist was largely very shallow, limited mostly to horse race analysis about polling and fundraising. When local TV news stations covered candidate's races it was largely to discuss any new TV ads that were released. There was often very little analysis of the political or policy differences between the candidates.

One possible explanation for the change Lawless and Hayes found is that newspapers simply aren’t covering Congressional races with the same intensity as they did even just a few election cycles ago. The newspaper industry in just the past decade has been undergoing immense cutbacks (and some outright newspaper closures). With fewer reporters, newspapers then could only offer limited coverage of campaign stops, few in-depth profiles, and little space devoted to analysizing the candidates' political views.

This was what Name It. Change It. found when studying the media coverage of the 2012 House races -- it was generally focused on the horse race issues of polling and fundraising -- and there was less of it overall. This was true for races involving both men and women candidates.

The same could not be said of many of the Senate races we monitored during 2012. (It’s worth noting, the Washington Post article discussing the study is illustrated with an image of Elizabeth Warren, who ran for the Senate, not the House.) We found many examples of gendered coverage of U.S. Senate candidates. Naturally it was the women candidates with the highest profiles, Elizabeth Warren, Michele Bachmann -- and Sarah Palin, especially during her vice presidential run – who get the most gendered coverage and are in the races where we've found the most egregious examples of sexist coverage.

It may be that Congressional House race coverage is substantially different than in the decades past when newspapers had more robust newsrooms. It would also be interesting to see if gender bias of Congressional races is found in online or broadcast media which this study didn't monitor.

Generally speaking though, Name It. Change It. has found that the higher the profile of the woman candidate, the more media attention and the more opportunities for gender bias to creep in.

Allen continues her sexist rant when she compares Palin’s to another prominent female
politician—Hillary Clinton.

“Furthermore, looks count in politics, and Palin at age 48, has it all over her possible competition, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be 69 by election day 2016 and who let someone talk her into adopting the flowing blond locks of a college student, making her look like Brunnhilde in a small-town Wagner production. Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.”

Once again—a woman’s appearance is being scrutinized at a level that a man’s never is. Also, by highlighting the age difference, Allen is further pushing the message that youth is a necessary qualification. Allen believes that the solution for the GOP is Sarah Palin because she is “the new Ronald Reagan”—too bad Allen didn’t check to see that Ronald Reagan was elected at the age of 69.

It is unfortunate that Allen promotes Palin at the expense of another female presidential hopeful. Her sexist remarks regarding both candidates are disturbing and contribute to an already thoroughly toxic political environment for women.

NBC reporter Luke Russert wasted no time serving up the ageism with a side of sexism, asking Pelosi if she thought the House Democratic Leadership is too old. She firmly responded, “The answer is no.” And the fact she did so sans eye-rolling is a feat all on its own.

Just as men are not asked how they will raise their kids while in office or who designed what they’re wearing on the campaign trail—men are rarely asked how their age will affect their job. Will this reporter tell Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that his biological clock is ticking, too? Of course not, because McConnell’s a man, and older male politicians are A-OK.

But no one has to tell Nancy Pelosi all this. She came back at Russert with quite the rebuttal, saying, "Let's, for the moment, honor [this] as a legitimate question, although it's quite offensive," and proceeded to inform him that she’s spent the last decade electing young women into Congress.

Listen up, reporters. We at Name It. Change It. are working pretty tirelessly to put a stop to sexist coverage of women in politics. It would be really great of you to not add ageism to your ever-lengthening list of offences.

There are more than 30 male House members who are Nancy’s age or older. So, unless you’re planning on asking all of them about their retirement plans, which you’re not, knock it off.