The media’s commentary so far shares a collective theme of accidental triumph, as though Fischer happened upon the primary win by chance, rather than as a result of a successful election or a solid political background. 

Politico says that Fischer was “an afterthought in the primary battle just over a week ago.” CBS calls her “a dark horse candidate.” She is the “underdog” to ABC News and Fox News says she “came out of nowhere in the final weeks”

And despite the fact that Fischer herself is “eschewing any suggestion that the win caught her by surprise,” that is certainly how the media is framing her success. The National Journal says Fischer’s win is “a stunning come-from-behind victory that seemed inconceivable just a few weeks ago.” CBS refers to Cook Political Report writer Jennifer Duffy who “argues that Fischer stood out as a reasonable alternative to two candidates with obvious flaws.” Fox and TPM explain her success as a surprise advantage of the two frontrunners battling one another.

It may be subtle, but the narrative of Fischer’s win that is emerging from the media roots her success in luck, accrediting her victory to the absence of “obvious flaws.” Fischer won the Republican primary—not by luck or chance or randomness, but by garnering 41% of the vote to the other candidates’ 36% and 19% respectively. Her victory should be recognized as such. 

Peter Lucas, a local columnist for The Sun newspaper in Lowell, Massachusetts doesn’t seem to like Elizabeth Warren. That’s fine. But what’s not okay is that in his May 8 column titled “Taking note of Warren's primary foe with Dems” he calls Warren “the blue-eyed Cherokee warrior princess.” Later in the column he says she put herself in academic directory “like in an online dating service.”

Lucas, who has been given a twice-weekly column, should not use his valuable newsprint space to push sexism. The Name It. Change It. project has submitted a letter to the Lowell Sun about Lucas’ column. If you agree calling a woman candidate a “princess” crosses a line, why not email Lucas and The Sun’s editor James Campanini and tell them why you think media sexism is wrong?

James Campanini
Editor
Lowell Sun
491 Dutton Street
Lowell, MA 01854

To the Editor,

Peter Lucas’ May 8 column “Taking note of Warren's primary foe with Dems” opened with an incredibly sexist description of Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, calling her “the blue-eyed Cherokee warrior princess.” It’s understandable that Lucas wished to write about Warren’s recent controversy but calling the 63-year-old Senate candidate a “warrior princess” was sexist and demeaning, not just to her, but to any woman who runs for office.

Not only did Lucas call Elizabeth Warren “princess” he also said that her explanation for listing herself in an academic directory was “like in an online dating service.” The comparison was a sexist put-down that crosses the line.

Unfortunately, sexism like Lucas’ column hurts all women. A study conducted by Lake Research Partners reveals that sexism, even in its mildest form, has a damaging effect on the political standing of female candidates and politicians. Sexist media coverage has a proven negative impact on voters’ likelihood to vote for women candidates, and it further perpetuates a hostile political environment experienced by women.

Name It. Change It. is a collaborative project of the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run. Name It. Change It. monitors media coverage of women candidates from both parties and unfortunately we find coverage of women far too often crosses the line from fair criticism to sexist commentary. This is an issue that goes beyond party labels. Apparently it’s easier to put down women candidates for their gender instead of writing non-sexist critiques. And such sexism hurts all women who may someday weigh a decision to run for office.

Lucas should apologize not only to Elizabeth Warren but also to all of the Lowell Sun’s female readers.  

Sincerely,

The Name It. Change It. partners:

Julie Burton                                             Siobhan "Sam" Bennett
CEO & President                                    CEO & President
Women’s Media Center                         She Should Run 

A new Hillary Clinton meme has been making the media rounds lately, and it’s not Texts from Hillary. It’s a photograph of Clinton in Bangladesh and she’s committing the ultimate sin. That’s right, she’s not wearing much makeup. The photo surfaced on the Drudge Report Monday with the headline "Hillary Au Naturale."

Washington Post’s She the People waxed poetic about Clinton’s “fresh-faced” look, explaining that Clinton “looked like a schoolgirl.”

It was the look that won her few fans back in Arkansas in her days as the state’s first lady. After all, Southern women love their makeup, and Hillary wore little.

Yes, as we all know, makeup plays the deciding role in the majority of voters’ decisions.

Fox News gave us the charming headline “Hillary Forgets Her Makeup?” noting that the Secretary of State “appears tired and withdrawn.”

The images - in which she is make-up free, casually dressed and wearing glasses - come as she revealed she has no desire to make another bid for the White House as she is looking for a rest.

The connection is obvious! Clinton has given up—on the White House AND on making herself presentable. Because nothing says, “I don’t want to be president” like a wrinkle.

As per usual, Huffington Post Style makes light of the comments and then further contributes to the buzz by providing an entire photo album of "no makeup” pics and “Hillary's glasses moments.” KABC published an article entitled “Does Hillary Clinton Care About Her Appearance?”

Whether chiding Clinton for her alleged lack of makeup or applauding her for looking great (despite!), the media’s obsession with Secretary of State Clinton’s physical appearance is absurd and just plain sexist. Never mind what she was doing in Bangladesh…look at her skin! This kind of attention would never be paid to the state of a male politician’s wrinkles, and it certainly wouldn’t overshadow the actual purpose of their diplomatic travels. Our Secretary of State deserves nothing less.

In a profile of Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing thought it was important to cite, several times, how Bono Mack manages running for office with her duties as the wife to a U.S. Senate candidate, a mother, and a grandmother. Her writes: “So how can she possibly divide her time so many ways?”

She does it the same way her husband does. The same way Hillary Clinton does. The same way Mitt Romney does.  Being married to a working spouse while having children and grandchildren are things both genders do all the time.

Congresswoman Bono Mack makes the point herself when she says: “No member of Congress has a perfect life and gets to see their spouse all the time.” Exactly. This isn’t a new phenomenon; female elected officials juggle life just like men. Treating this work-life struggle as if it is unique to women is sexist and serves as a reminder that there are still stereotypes about who serves in office.

A new meme has hit the scene with Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as its muse. Ed O’Keefe in the Washington Post explained:

“Hey Girl, it’s Paul Ryan” is the latest Tumblr site to poke fun at a political figure. This time it’s the House Budget Committee chairman and his — how should we say this — “boy next door”/“cute nerd” demeanor.

The Tumblr mimics the now-iconic Hey Girl Ryan Gosling meme, which combines images of “Full-time actor/heartthrob Ryan Gosling” as AV Club Milwaukee put it, with romantic text.

I’d like to address the notion that inevitably comes after men in politics are objectified or noted for their appearance, i.e. “See—men are objectified too. It is not sexist to write about the clothing and physical appearance of women in politics.” When the media occasionally focuses on “attractive” men in politics, like Massachusetts senator Scott Brown posing nude for Cosmopolitan, it is easy to think that objectification of political figures is gender-blind.

However, objectification of this kind occurs in context. While some things have improved (women can now own property and vote) culturally at least we still live in a patriarchy. In a system where women continue to struggle to achieve full citizenship, their sexuality threatens their quest for autonomy. When women in politics are objectified, their power is diminished. When men in politics are objectified, their power remains intact.

When you take this into consideration, objectifying men in politics is not the same as objectifying women in politics. Not because men and women are inherently different, but because in a patriarchal system, the sexualization of an oppressed group functions differently from the sexualization of a group with power.

When the media and the public focus on “attractive” women in politics, noting that they are “young and fit” or have “sex appeal” (or when Sarah Palin sex dolls exist), they are taking away power from the women in question. Paul Ryan does not have to worry that a Tumblr based on his looks will diminish his political authority or personal autonomy. That is worth remembering.

Oh, Howie Carr. You’re so clever. When you first likened Massachusetts Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren to “Granny Clampett of the Beverly Hillbillies,” we swooned. (Actually, we blogged.)

You were so pleased with your witty new moniker, you continued to use identical language in subsequent columns. Yay.

Name It. Change It. has already explained why this nickname is sexist, so I will focus primarily on the most recent example of granny-ism. Carr published a column in Sunday's Boston Herald, "Indian lore will play OK in Elizabeth Warren’s ‘tribe.’" In his column, Carr blasts Warren for her alleged Native American “minority status” in the 1990’s, which could theoretically have aided in her hiring.

That Warren may have benefited from her Native American heritage incenses Carr because of his incredible sensitivities to the intersecting politics of race, gender, and class, and…just kidding.

And so we have Granny Warren, the carpetbagging Democrat candidate for the U.S. Senate doubling down after being unable to produce a scintilla of evidence to back up her claims to a piece of the racial-preference racket.

Evidence? She don’t need no stinkin’ evidence. She’s got her family “lore.” She’s “proud” to be an Indian. It’s the kind of fact-free, how-dare-you defense only a Beautiful Person could get away with.

So now she’s a “Beautiful Person” and a Granny. Keep focusing that sharp political analysis on looks, Carr. It’s totally endearing! The notion that Carr writes in the best interests of marginalized people (who Warren clearly exploits for professional opportunity) disappears with phrases like “you can’t get much lower than being accused of being a fake Indian” and “they’ll be praying the story goes to the Happy Hunting Ground.” Maybe it’s how he rhetorically pits “fake Indians” and “real Indians” against each other or how he refers to a Senatorial candidate as “Pocahontas Warren,” but I get the impression that the exploitation of a disadvantaged and oppressed group is not too concerning to Carr.

Poor Granny. When she got into this fight, she thought it was going to be a coronation. Instead, it’s turning into the Battle of the Little Bighorn. And so far anyway, she’s Gen. George Armstrong Custer.

Carr’s utter readiness to exploit regressive ethnic stereotypes contradicts the notion that he is writing from some desire to “defend” the honor of the Native American people. The inspiration for this article may have come from Elizabeth Warren, but the racist and sexist language was all Carr’s.

He expressed sorrow for Clinton, saying she’s reached the “pinnacle” of her career and she’s still “just a secretary.”

The Secretary of State is the third highest official within the executive branch. Clinton advises the President on foreign policy and travels all over the world as a representative for the U.S. She’s not some sexist stereotype of a secretary and we’re quite sure Rush knows that.

His comment was intended to be an ironic, sexist dig at Clinton and her career. As he says: she’s worked so hard, she stood by  her husband when he “embarrassed her,” and she’s still “just” some lowly old secretary flying around in a private jet, brokering negotiations with foreign dignitaries. What an unaccomplished, pedestrian lifestyle she leads.

Rush couldn’t stop there. Someone – he didn’t say who – asked him to talk about “Spanx”, which, in addition to being very practical undergarments, can also be used to conceal body fat. Rush said he knows some people who would be better served if there were a product called “spankles.”

Smooth. If he can’t blatantly discredit Secretary Clinton’s career then at least he can make a snide comment about her looks.

Name It. Change It. may seriously have to rename the Pyramid of Egregiousness after Rush.

Have you been bullied by this buffoon? Share your story here.

The consumer advocate [is] "the new sex symbol of the Democratic party, the way Janet Reno once was."

I’m sorry, did I say “witty yet poignant”? What I really meant was sexist and sophomoric. Good for you Ann, you insulted both Elizabeth Warren and Janet Reno by implying they are ugly AND dismissed their political chops by calling them a mere sex symbol. Ann, you make it so hard for me not to climb the pyramid. What more is there to say? At least she didn’t call Warren a darling.

Do women in Massachusetts face obstacles to being elected for office that men don’t? A reporter for the Daily Hampshire Gazette asks the question.

In the article “Elizabeth Warren tries to break political glass ceiling in liberal Massachusetts” reporter Ben Storrow asks Timothy Vercellotti, associate professor of political science at Western New England University in Springfield about the differences in the Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren.

"Warren was challenged to cite the names of Red Sox players," Vercellotti said. "How many men get asked that? The assumption is that they know."

Storrow also asks Shannon O'Brien who ran against Mitt Romney for governor in 2002 and lost, about perceptions that play against women running for office. O’Brien thinks there is a double-standard that plays against women who come across as too “tough” during campaigns. She cites a debate performance against Romney.

"I hammered him on that issue and he, in a mock-genteel way, referred to me as unbecoming," O'Brien said. "He was trying to come off as this old-fashioned, patient gentleman and that this feminist was too tough for mixing it up with him.

"I had a reputation for being a pretty tough legislator and treasurer," said O'Brien, who now works as a business adviser in the Boston area. "Romney turned that around on me."

It’s a great to see some in the media picking up what Name It. Change It. has been trying to spotlight -- the gendered ways women are treated differently in the media. Check out the rest of the article. 

Name It. Change It. will give the website credit for calling this a superficial piece, but it’s also pretty sexist, too. Nearly every reason has to do with something Clinton is wearing in each accompanying photo.

Consider #9 on the list: under an old photo of Clinton it reads “She was hot in the '90s” or #16 “She looks better in blue than Angela Merkel” or  #30: “Sometimes she wears capes”.

The photos show Clinton as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. Imagine if instead of photos BuzzFeed listed accomplishments. That would be one impressive list. Instead this piece makes light of Clinton’s accomplishments and turns historic moments throughout her career into a trashy spread in some grocery aisle gossip magazine.

Clearly the list is meant to be light-hearted, but comparing two global female leaders based on how they look in blue disrespects and undermines the legitimacy of both women. 

There’s a better list to be made about why Hillary Clinton should run for president and it has nothing to do with whether or not she wears capes.

Dolan and Lawless highlight the particularly egregious article by Jonathan Karl that categorizes potential VP candidates as top tier, second tier, wildcard, and 'others who will get a look'. Oh. And there is one more category, top women.

Of course, Karl is not the first to evaluate politicians as women first and politicians second. As scholars of gender politics, we are long familiar with the tendency among the media and those who practice politics to refer to a "woman governor" or "women candidates." We hear talk about the gender gap and the Republican Party's "woman problem" as if women are one large, undifferentiated group best identified by their sex.

They point out that Fallin, Martinez, and Ayotte have the same or more experience as the men who ranked in Karl’s top two tiers. So why have them in their own little group? Oh wait…I think we know why:

Anyone can debate the pros and cons that each of these candidates would bring to the Republican ticket. What is not up for debate, however, is that Karl, and undoubtedly many others, consider certain potential candidates as women first and political professionals second.

Sadly, none of this is new or surprising.

And we routinely see pundits, pollsters, and politicians refer to women running for office as "outsiders" (even when they're insiders) or "out-of-the-box choices" (even when they're quite conventional). This is, of course, because women are still woefully underrepresented at every level of American government. As long as women remain an anomaly in politics, their sex will continue to cause them to stand out.

All we can say, is keep naming it, keep publishing fantastic articles like this one, and someday we will change it for good.

This isn’t the first time Name It. Change It. has taken notice of fashion magazines covering women politicians. Women politicians have landed appearances in fashion magazines Elle and Vogue for quite some time now (check out Vogue’s slideshow as a matter of fact). In the past we’ve seen Kristin Gillibrand asked how much weight she lost because “the readers of Vogue will want to know”, Hillary Clinton described as a “good girl” who “played by the rules”, and Christine Quinn’s article opened with an anecdote about a constituent asking her about losing weight. It’s not a shock that fashion magazines – like other media we know (ahem Huffington Post) -- pay more attention to women politicians appearances and personal aspects rather than their actual work..

But it’s not as if fashion magazine never cover male politicians. Before we dive into Vogue’s story on Nikki Haley let’s review an article they published last year about Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and a 2012 presidential candidate.

Yes, it’s a fashion magazine, and some description of the candidate’s clothing is probably impossible to avoid. But it’s worth comparing and contrasting that when talking about Jon Huntsman Vogue writer Jacob Weisberg mentioned his “crisp white shirt” and how he’s “slender, athletic, and stylish, with a winning smile.”

Meanwhile in this month’s Vogue, Gov. Haley is said to be “earnest and stern, smartly turned out in a black-and-white ruffled jacket, black pencil skirt, and platform stilettos.”

But aside from examining how attractive Haley and Huntsman are as people, there is a major difference in how Vogue treats them as politicians. While writing about Huntsman Vogue gives a long a detailed account of what he has accomplished in his career as a politician.

In office, he took progressive stands on immigration and the environment, signing on to a Western-states agreement to reduce carbon emissions. His big emphasis was on economic growth and job creation. Cutting the state income tax from 7 to 5 percent helped fuel business investment that by 2007 brought Utah’s jobless rate down to 2.3 percent—the lowest in its history.

Meanwhile Cox’s article about Haley falls short in mentioning any of her accomplishments -- or even setbacks -- in her role as governor. In fact how she got elected is apparently a mystery.

For nearly 232 years, South Carolinians reliably selected a white male to be their governor, but somehow, in 2010, they chose Haley: 38, Indian-American, a woman.

Yeah, “somehow.”

Most of Vogue’s article is written in a “first women” frame, meaning it paints her as a novelty and an anomaly. Cox writes that she is "fit and attractive, with a face free of worry lines" and “looks even younger than her age” and how she “aptly” uses Facebook since she is the “country’s youngest governor.”

Is Nikki Haley an accomplished governor of a state or is she only remarkable for being “young” and “fit?” We’ve seen how Vogue, even in its shallowness can still somehow write about Jon Huntsman’s political accomplishments but when it comes to Nikki Haley her appearance and demeanor become noteworthy but the acts she’s done as governor become insignificant.

While it should be self-evident we'll spell it out again: calling a candidate "darling" is a sexist putdown. 

This week the Washington Examiner referred to Elizabeth Warren as a “liberal darling” on their campaign blog. We are running out of ways to say that calling a woman politician “darling” is sexist, gendered and unnecessary. We have made this sentiment crystal clear in our four (count em!) previous blog posts on the subject - three that defend Elizabeth Warren. Despite the fact that we are truly tired of sounding like a broken record, we will not condone gendered descriptions of women political candidates.

Boston Herald:  “Liz Warren is darling of Tinseltown crowd.”

Examiner: “Hollywood’s newest darling – Elizabeth Warren."

Lowell Sun on Elizabeth Warren: "the darling of the liberal establishment.”

Boston Globe: “Democratic Darling has also been critic.”

New York Post on Kirsten Gillibrand: "the darling of the far left..."

Here’s how ABC’s Matt Negrin describes two top female contenders, Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NC):

“They're two young conservatives who are telegenic and haven't spent a whole lot of time in government. Sound familiar? The two are among a handful of Republican women who might be perfectly qualified or suited to be on the bottom of the ticket this year, but the ghost of Sarah Palin and her turbulent bid to be vice president stand in their way of being evaluated on their own terms.”

So these women are well-qualified and have years of political service and experience, but unfortunately for them, they are women. Apparently Republicans can’t even think about choosing a female running mate without getting queasy flashbacks from 2008.

What if these politicians were men? Would they still invoke the specter of vice-presidents past? This argument against their candidacy is based on one person: Sarah Palin, who was not even the first vice presidential nominee. What about Geraldine Ferraro? One woman does not represent all women. Writing off all female candidates based purely on gender isn’t just sexist, it’s stupid!

It seems like Negrin knows better, though. In response to a Republican strategists claim that picking a woman – even a well-qualified one – would create feelings of déjà vous, Negrin writes:

“That might seem unfair. Ayotte, a new senator from New Hampshire, has more experience in government than Barack Obama had when he ran for president four years ago. She worked in the state attorney general's office beginning in 1998, was the AG from 2004 to 2009, and was elected to the Senate in the 2010 midterms.”

That’s right. If she were a man, she’d be a contender, but because she’s a woman she’s risky. George H.W. Bush’s selection of gaff-prone Dan Quayle didn’t stop candidates from selecting white, male running mates. Dan Quayle's ghost didn't haunt President Obama's selection of Vice President Joe Biden.

The article is walking the line in terms of turning this into a sexist argument. Name It. Change It. will be keeping an eye on the issue and politicians and strategists should try valuing the impressive women in their party more. Name It. Change It. will make sure the media continues to evaluate female politicians based on their qualifications, not their gender.

You can help: if you see any instances of media sexism imposed on female candidates or politicians, report it!

Thankfully, the Daily Mail has a written a helpful reminder that what Clinton is wearing is of greater importance than the fact the summit she was attending was bombed three times. Really needed my priorities straightened out on that one. Thank goodness!

We want to give some major kudos to WIMN’s Voices blogger Jennifer Pozner for not only naming the Mail’s sexism when she saw it, but also explaining why these types of seemingly fluff comments matter:

“Yes, this was a lighthearted lifestyle story centered on a fluffy moment when a buttoned-up politician shows a more casual side. There’s nothing journalistically wrong with that. But even in soft news stories like this, media obsession over female pols’ appearance and attire perpetuates a pernicious double standard that, over time, devalues women’s leadership in the collective consciousness of readers... When media treat women like ladies first and leaders a distant second (if ever), it deters women from seeking office in the first place, dissuades citizens from voting for women when they do run, and lessens their efficacy in office once they are elected.”

Bill Maher has been surfacing recently in the news over past remarks made about Sarah Palin and other women. Since he clearly has been feeling the heat, we thought it opportune to review his evolving rationale about sexism and politics.

To be fair, Maher says harsh things about both men and women, but sexism doesn't lend itself to a math equation—given that the status of men and women is hardly equal in terms of media representation. On his March 9 show, Real Time on HBO, Maher made this distinction between his approach and that of, say, Rush Limbaugh: “I am a potty-mouth, that’s different than being a misogynist.”

But in a profile in New York Magazine by Joe Hagan released this week, Maher says about his reputation as a misogynist:

"I’ll take the rap for some of that reputation I have," he says now. "Some of it was just me being insensitive or trying to get a laugh.”

What about instead of “taking the rap,” Maher actually tried to clean up his rep? Maybe sign our Media Pledge of Gender Neutrality. (That would be a good start at least).

Mockery is certainly fair media commentary on politicians of either gender, but jokes become sexist when the punchline hinges on something that can only be said about women. To steal a concept from another comic, if your joke about women reinforces sexist troupes, you just might be a misogynist.

Maher's early reaction to the onslaught of criticism directed at Rush Limbaugh—for three days of misogyny directed at Sandra Fluke—was a March 6 tweet encouraging the liberal world to get over its anger about sexism:

He expanded on his tweet with a March 21 op-ed in The New York Times, where he wrote “I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone.”

Maher has often cast himself as a free speech advocate, as if any attempts to call out sexism in media, using whatever culturally appropriate tools women have, was in any way an attack on his free speech. We’re still wondering when the right not to be jailed for what you say turned into the right to be paid millions of dollars to have a TV show/radio program and remain criticism-free for anything you could say. To Bill Maher his right to “free speech” means others have to pipe down.

On his March 9 show, his catch-all apology demonstrates he's still not-getting-it:

But if I offended women, I'm sorry. I have no problem saying I'm sorry. I don't know why women would want to align themselves with Sarah Palin. I don't know why an insult to her is an insult to all women, but if it is, I'm sorry.

Maher wants to live in a world where you can call a powerful woman a c-word or other sexually degrading remarks, just because you don’t like her politics. Those who complain want to "mak[e] people disappear," as if losing a TV show is like being sentenced to hard time in a gulag

He literally doesn’t understand why using those unacceptable words reduces women to their sex. Which is why our campaign "Name It. Change It." protests media sexism against women whatever their politics. If the c-word can be safely used against Palin, it can be used to denigrate any other woman.

The "change" part of “Name It. Change It.” is about changing the culture. When members of the media, who have a greater reach than your average Facebook commenter, use sexist language in the process of political commentary, it expands the acceptability of sexism in general.

Maher has defended his “right” to brand Sarah Palin (and presumably other women) with sexist remarks because he did it during his stand up act, not on his TV show, something he calls his “last bastion of free speech.” Perhaps he should take a cue from another political comic Jon Stewart, who manages to mock women and men generally without crossing the line into sexism.

Stewart took on the notion that people who call themselves “comedians” can get away with making certain remarks. “Language in general has repercussions,” he said.

There are repercussions for what comedians say. When you’re doing it in a club, ask Michael Richards. Ask Tracy Morgan. If you do comedy on television, there are repercussions. Ask me. … So don’t pretend that by people saying they’re comedians, they’re "hiding." They’re not.  They’re just telling you that the language of satire is slightly different than the language of newscasters.

Bill Maher, you say you believe that women should not be marginalized and should have a voice for their choices on birth control. Try this: practice what you preach. When you use the c-word on Sarah Palin, or call Governor Jan Brewer a "delusional cat lady," you become a part of the reason why women have been marginalized. You ask us in your Times op-ed to consider this "crazy" idea: "from now on if you see or hear something you don't like in the media" just "turn the page or flip the dial or pick up your roll of quarters and leave the booth.”

Except that it’s not like women can walk away unaffected by sexism. Yet when we speak up against it—when we name what you are doing wrong and let everyone know—then we have power too.

In the process, columnists and headline writers have been vastly enjoying a metaphor that uses language to describe women’s opinions about male candidates that implies dating rather than voting in an election.

In some cases, the metaphor is subtle, like an ABC News article that says that a “thrice married Newt Gingrich,” was “resoundingly rejected, in particular, by women,” or an article on CNN.com that says, “Romney is headed for defeat because his party is unattractive to women.” Or the utterly too common-as-of-late headlines about how various presidential candidates have to “woo women.”

In other cases it’s far from subtle, like two Washington Post opinion articles that clearly compare women voting in elections to dating.

Last week, Kathleen Parker wrote an op-ed with the headline, “Are women just not that into Mitt?”

She writes:

Recent polls show single women under 50 scrambling back into the warm embrace of Barack Obama after a brief flirtation with the Republican boy band - Mitt, Rick, Ron, and Newt.

Then on Monday Michael Gleason in another op-ed for the Washington Post titled, “How Romney can solve his woman problem” he writes:

The composite Republican candidate - reflecting the party’s ideological mean - has been harsh on immigration, confrontational on social issues, simplistic in condemning government and silent on the struggles of the poor. How many women would find this profile appealing on eHarmoney?

Whether subtle or overt, this metaphor is extremely damaging to women. It implies that women make their decisions about the presidential candidate they will vote for based on who they find more “attractive” instead of who they believe would do a better job running their country. Furthermore, this metaphor is not applied to male constituents.

We doubt that columnists would write that a woman running for office needs to “woo men” or whether men consider what female candidate’s eHarmoney profiles would look like. (And please don’t take this as a suggestion to start!) We just ask that columnists and other writers treat women voters with a tad more respect than turning them into metaphorical contestants on The Bachelorette.

Last week, we had a post about Elle’s gendered feature on Christine Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council. This week, Elle’s Rachael Combe wrote a feature on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that is even worse.

There are several sexist components to this piece, but the one that is the most insulting to Clinton implies that she is successful because she “played by the rules,” so to speak.

Clinton is, at her core, still a good girl. She won over the old boys in the Senate by pouring them coffee, letting them stand in the center of photographs, and generally respecting the established hierarchy of the institution.

Wow. Where do we begin? How about with the phrase, “good girl?” It calls to mind a small child being patted on her head by her father who is rewarding her for behaving. 

Not to mention the gross misreading of history by insinuating that the secret to her success in the Senate was because she poured men coffee and let them stand in the center of photographs. Combe fails to mention any substantive work Clinton did, either in the Senate or in her role as secretary of state, which is why she is enjoying such sky-high approval ratings. It's as if she's good at her job because she's popular, instead of the other way around.

Combe continues down this extremely sexist path when she describes, in detail, Clinton’s hair, clothes, and jewelry and then brushes off feminists’ attempts to stop that type of sexist media coverage.

Feminists and supporters will often wail for everyone to stop focusing on Clinton’s hair and clothes and listen to her ideas, but that’s sort of a backhanded compliment. (People, she’s too smart to care that she looks like crap.) The truth is, Clinton does care (she’s a bottle blond! Do you know how much work that is?), and, to my eye, she’s finally hit her personal-style groove.

Again, we have multiple issues here. First off, feminists and supporters are apparently “wailing,” another word often used in reference to women who speak up and defend themselves. Then the insinuation that feminists and Clinton’s supporters think she looks “like crap,” but is too smart to care. Combe is missing the point here. It is not that women being targeted by sexist media look like “crap.” The issue is that the media focuses on their appearance and not their policies, and that men do not suffer through the same scrutiny when it comes to appearances. (While we're at it, we're pretty sure Condoleezza Rice also had far more attention paid to her clothing than Christopher Warren.)

The most bizarre thing about this feature is that Combe presents herself as a woman who wants to see other women succeed.

According to the Congressional Research Service, at the rate we’re going, it will take 500 years to reach gender parity in government. “Baby,” I had to admit to my newborn girl, “we have not come as long a way as I thought.”

Unfortunately, if the media insists on continuing to call female politicians “good girl,” and commenting on their appearance, rather than focusing on what they do, it may take even longer than 500 years.

Being that this was a teen blog, I’m sure the sexist implications probably didn’t occur to the author Nick Mitch.

But to explain (because it seems even adults often miss the nuance) writing that Christie Vilsack is the “wife to,” Tom Vilsack instead of writing, “Christie Vilsack’s husband is Tom Vilsack” makes it sound like the article is more about Tom Vilsack than it is about Christie Vilsack.

In many races a candidate’s spouse is a relevant piece of information. Tom Vilsack was the former governor of Iowa, it’s perfectly appropriate to mention him. But writers can talk about candidates' spouses without making it sound like they are owned by their partners. (Alternative text substitution number two: “Christie Vilsack’s spouse is Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa.”)

As we mentioned before, it’s not like teen bloggers are the only ones to miss this distinction. The same thing happening to Linda McMahon a couple of months ago.

By introducing a female politician as her husband’s wife, the media is implying that her spouse is more important than she is. It’s a perfect example of sexism that is probably not intentional, but carries a subtle message.

FishBowl DC has created a sexist and racist poll on Rep. Corrine Brown’s hair. The reason? Because Brown has been on TV lately talking about Trayvon Martin.

We shouldn’t have to say that creating a poll about an elected woman’s hair is sexist and demeaning to her.  (Seems like there’s a lot of hair coverage going around lately). So we’ve created out own poll. Maybe Peter Ogburn and Betsy Rothstein should read our new Media Guide to Gender Neutral Coverage of Women Candidates + Politicians?

What’s The Most Offense Thing About FishBowlDC’s Poll on Rep. Corrine Brown Wig?

1. They didn’t focus on what’s in her head.
2. Rape jokes = not cool.
3. “Scarf that got caught in a blender” = huh?
4. Turning a national tragedy into a sexist joke.
5.  A joke about a wig being ugly? How Mad Men of you.

An op-ed piece in Newsday by Ann McFeatters makes reference to Clinton’s haircut amidst discussion of her past political experiences that may inform her decision to run for president again in 2016. Apparently, Clinton “is experimenting with yet another longer, younger-looking hairstyle.”

Two things are wrong with this reference.

1. Clinton’s hairstyle has no relevance at all to her ability to potentially run the country. The reference taints the surrounding comments about America being ready for a woman president. Quite frankly, as the current Secretary of State and a champion of international women’s rights, Clinton has bigger things to worry about than what hairstyle she chooses to flaunt these days.

2. The reference specifies that she’s flaunting a younger-looking hairstyle. Why should Clinton be worrying about looking younger when it is precisely her lifetime’s worth of experiences that makes her qualified for a potential 2016 run for the presidency? It seems that male candidates become more distinguished and qualified as they show their age, while women politicians like Clinton are pressured to look younger and untouched by time. Clinton’s lifetime experience should speak for itself. 

Finally, seeing the political expertise of high-profile women politicians like Hillary Clinton referenced amidst comments concerning their latest hairstyles certainly draws attention away from their competencies as politicians, not just as women.

Whether DePaulo is discussing Quinn’s “lush red hair” being “beautifully coiffed,” her “four-inch lipstick-red lacquered high heels,” or her “eclectic tastes in clothes and jewelry,” she is missing the point, Quinn should be judged by her actions not her appearance. And her appearance shouldn't be any more noteworthy than any male politician's. 

Quinn’s quote in DePaulo’s article says it all, “People used to feel oddly empowered to tell me all the reasons I couldn’t win…Because I was a woman.  Because I was a lesbian.”

Props to DePaulo for including this great quote in her article.  If only she would have further empowered Quinn by leaving her appearance out of it.  If DePaulo had done a feature piece on Mayor Bloomberg, who Quinn is compared to in the article, one wonders how many references to his hair, make-up or clothing she would have included.

Why? Why? Why? When there are so many non-gendered ways to say the exact same thing?  We've written about this issue before complete with examples of perfectly appropriate non-gendered terms or our Media Guide to Gender Neutral Coverage of Women Candidates.

Today the Name It. Change It. project releases a new guide, Media Guide to Gender Neutral Coverage of Women Candidates + Politicians, (click here to download) to show members of the media, and everyone, how to avoid injecting sexism into their own coverage and how to spot sexism in others.’

Julie Burton, President of the Women’s Media Center, says “This guide was created to show journalists and other media professionals how the use of even subtly sexist language affects woman candidates’ success in the political arena.”

“With the release of this guide, the Women’s Media Center hopes to make the use of all sexist language both recognizable and unacceptable in the political arena,” Burton says.
 
The Women’s Media Center’s Media Guide to Gender Neutral Coverage of Women Candidates + Politicians features groundbreaking research by Celinda Lake on the affect of media sexism on women candidates, as well a glossary of terms from Rosalie Maggio’s Unspinning the Spin: The Women’s Media Center’s Guide to Fair + Accurate Language, which provides definitions, background information, and suggested alternative uses for many loaded and politically incorrect terms.

Robin Morgan, co-Founder of the Women’s Media Center says, “Media sexism is used against women candidates and elected officials of all political viewpoints; it isn't limited to one political party, and the Name It. Change It. project fights that sexism wherever we find it. We hope that members of the media sign our pledge to treat all subjects with respect, regardless of gender, and to create an overall media culture in which sexism has no place.”

“This shouldn’t be a radical notion,” Morgan says. “Giving women unequal treatment in media coverage is plain bad journalism--and its bad for democracy. Hopefully with this guide and the continuing work of the Name It. Change It. project, more members of the media will understand why this is important to them.”

The Women’s Media Center’s Media Guide to Gender Neutral Coverage of Women Candidates + Politicians is available for free download. 

“If you’re a conservative and you want a Democrat who is really kind of conservative, [Martin Chavez] is your guy...In my case, if you want someone who’s progressive, who stands for the Democratic Party, I’m your guy. But at least you know what you get; you know what you’re voting for. Michelle [Lujan-Grisham], she’s just this enigma, she’s a real enigma. And I think that’s the tricky part for voters.”

So the conservative Democrat is legitimate because he’s more conservative than Griego, but Lujan-Grisham, well she’s just uncertain. Never mind her years of public service. Lujan-Grisham was appointed by two governors to head the New Mexico State Agency of Aging, served as the first Secretary of Aging and Long Term Services, led the New Mexico Department of Health and served as Bernalillo County Commissioner. She essentially has devoted her career to health care, specifically for the elderly, but Griego says she’s an “enigma.” By these standards, women like Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton would have “no record” as they kicked off their run for U.S. Senate. By ignoring Lujan-Grisham’s long record in New Mexico and instead calling her a mystery, Griego is not only being dishonest, he is denying her accomplishments and her legitimacy as a candidate. That’s sexist.

The logic is troubling. Pundits are essentially saying that if you are a public figure, and you are a woman, you should expect this kind of language. People are going to call you sexist names; it’s all part of the game, right? Wrong.

Name It. Change It. praises Washington Post Op-Ed writer Erik Kemple for pointing this out. There are no caveats for an attack like this. People like Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin may be able to withstand the criticism, but that doesn’t make it right. That’s like saying they asked for it. When a woman chooses to enter a public debate – the way Fluke did – should she prepare for a barrage of sexist slander to follow?

Public figures should expect more scrutiny and accountability, Kemple explains, but not more sexism.

“From there, however, it’s a leap to assert that misogyny is somehow more okay when dealing with Sarah Palin (massive public figure) than with Sandra Fluke (once-private figure now emerging as a public figure).”

Kemple points out the double standard: women weighing a run for office must consider the fact that they’ll endure this kind of language; men will not.

Finally, Kemple takes Limbaugh and Bill Maher – who weighed in on this debate – to task for the way they speak about women in general and recommends two things the highly paid members of the “media-entertainment complex” can do.

“One is to refrain from using misogynic terms when referring to private women. Two – and this may be pushing things – is to refrain from using misogynic terms when referring to public women, including Sarah Palin.”

Right on, Erik! When you attack one woman, you attack all women.

This time it’s the Boston Globe.  The headline of the otherwise sexism-free article reads, “Democratic Darling has also been critic.”  When is the media going to come up with another word? We even suggested several other non-gendered synonyms in our last blog post on this issue.  Take a look. 

The wording of the queston is a little strange. Because of the satellite delay Wolf Blitzer had to ask his reporter on the ground to convey his question to Palin in a game of "telephone." As you can see from the transcript, the relay of Wolf's question gets a little garbled. 

Wolf Blitzer: Quick question for her, I’m curious how she’s been reacting to this whole Rush Limbaugh controversy with this Georgetown University law student because there was some vile words that were uttered by some liberal democrats as far as Sarah Palin was concerned. And I wonder if she wants to weigh in on this controversy?

(delay)

Reporter to Sarah Palin: Wolf wants to know if you want to weigh in on this controversy: he says some vile words were thrown around, some of them directed toward you. After the controversy involving Rush Limbaugh, contraception and the Georgetown student. Your reaction to some of those words that were used?

You can watch the question below, it starts around the 3:00 minute mark.

You’re missing the point, Wolf. The “who was sexist first” distracts from the real pressing issue here, the Why. We all know that sexist and misogynistic comments have been made from both sides in the past. That is not a free pass for people like Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” or that she should “make a sex tape,” because she was going to testify in front of a Congressional Committee. Wolf we know you didn’t go to the “since they did it, I can do it” six year olds' logic school of journalism.

Unfortunately misogyny and racism are often not confined to people from one political persuasion. The Name It. Change It. project has gone after commentators like Ed Shultz, Chris Mathews, and Bill Maher and others for slurs against Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachman as well as those that have been hurled against Democratic women.

The Rush Limbaugh controversy is not about Republican or Democrat, it’s not a 1st Amendment issue as Palin said in standing behind Limbaugh’s comments. It’s about changing the landscape where women in government or in any other public sphere can have a say, can have an opinion and not be called a “slut” or “bitch.” When the media talks about politics it must take women seriously. This can only happen when women aren't put down with dehumanizing, marginalizing terms.

Recently the media is all aflame about how “women’s issues” will affect the election, vis–à–vis the current contraception debate. Of course to call something a “women’s issue” implies that it’s “special” and not of general concern to the public. (I believe men care about family planning that’s why it’s called “family planning.”)

In a blog on Slate’s DoubleX Factor that was probably meant to demonstrate how important these recent issues are to women, Hanna Rosin seems to be saying that women only care about women’s issues (read: birth control) and not, say, the economy.

There is a moment in every recent election when issues that women care about become the critical issues of the campaign. This moment might arise because of a candidate’s mistress (Clinton) or because a women is on the ticket (other than Clinton, Sarah Palin)…This was supposed to be an election about the economy.

Rosin, a founding editor of DoubleX, clearly cares about women’s representation in the media, but she probably could have found a better way to discuss the role of women in the election.

Also the picture above the article (see above) leaves much to be desired. It’s of a seemingly hysterical woman. We’re not sure if she’s screaming or crying, but Slate definitely could have gone with another photo.