Gill 1

Kealey Gill
Nicholas Gorrell
ENGL 2010-040
April 25 2016
Media, Sexism, and Politics
Societys discomfort with and sexism towards powerful women is seen in the media, as
well as in politics. After all, the media is the main source of information for many. Many people
no longer read the newspaper, but instead rely on the internet or television for their news
updates. The younger generations rely on social media and form many of their opinions about
gender, as well as political candidates according to what they see on social networks such as
FaceBook and Twitter. This paper discusses the social constructs of masculinity and femininity
and demonstrates how gender affects candidates outcomes in American presidential elections. It
seems that the world of today has an extreme discomfort with women in power, especially with
those who break traditional roles.
According to Okimoto and Brescoll in The Price of Power, the perception that a
candidate is power-seeking will lead to social penalties for female politicians but not for male
politicians. These penalties may be reflected in voting preferences; specifically the
intention to gain power may signal to others that female politicians are aggressive and selfish
women who do not espouse traditional feminine values of communality. Counter stereotypical
women are often depicted as selfish bitches, ice-queens and battle-axes. Such negative
characterizations can also affect election outcomes. Okimotto and Brescoll argue that voting
preferences for female candidates were negatively influenced by their power seeking intentions
(actual or perceived), yet preference for male candidates were unaffected by their power-seeking
intentions. For women, merely being successful in masculine occupations leads to dislike and
negative interpersonal characterizations (924). According to Okimoto and Brescoll, if a woman
is merely perceived as having the intention to gain power, even if she does not actually have any
power herself, people are likely to make a wealth of inferences about her character and judge her
accordingly (924).
Society is so uncomfortable with powerful women that we are constantly looking for any
reason to dismiss them. In Masculinity, Whiteness, and the Warrior Hero, Prividera and

Gill 2

Howard examine sexism at length in the military and media. They observe that women and
femininity represent fragility, weakness, compassion, dependence, and kindness, while men and
masculinity represent power, strength, aggression, independence, and bravado. The
marginalization of women supports masculine power as well as the warrior hero archetype.
Prividera and Howard note that society relies on male privilege and female subordination to
function. The archetypal rescue narrative is dependent on a masculine rescuer and a feminine
victim (35).
Furthermore, in Race and Gender in the 2008 Presidential Election, Zurbriggen and
Sherman find that women are depicted in political ads or news stories as overly sexualized,
vane, ditzy/dumb blonde, and emotional/crying/sensitive. Their roles are usually mother,
homemaker / domestic; while men are generally portrayed as aggressive and play the role of
alpha male and breadwinner. When women are shown as powerful, they are often depicted in
drag, drawn in mens clothing, shooting guns, drinking beer, or wielding the power in a
marriage (Fig 5), as if a woman could not be powerful as a woman.
Societys gendered views can be seen more specifically in the context of politics and
elections so much so that candidates may be dismissed based upon appearance. For example, in
Even Slight Gender Ambiguity Is Costly to Female Candidates, Tom Jacobs presents the
argument that gender stereotypes affect who Americans vote for. He emphasizes that voters
often make uneducated choices of political candidates based on appearance, specifically whether
we find them to be attractive and competent. For female candidates, another factor comes into
play, that being whether their looks are unambiguously feminine. Two studies done by Jonathan
Freeman and Eric Hehman conclude that female candidates are at a disadvantage if voters need
even a fraction of a second longer to determine their gender because short lived confusion
triggers emotional discomfort, which can make voters reevaluate whether to vote for that
candidate. The study showed that female candidates who couldnt be instantaneously
categorized as female merely by glancing at them received fewer votes (qtd in Jacobs).

Gill 3

Freeman and Hehman suggest that Electoral success for women may require a delicate balance
between retaining associations with traditional femininity and attractiveness. They also argue
that women must additionally evok[e] perceptions of competence, a masculine-associated trait.
(qtd in Jacobs) In Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats, Nicholas Winter insists
that gender stereotypes have mixed effects on the evaluation of female candidates. On one hand,
they are judged to be worse decision makers and weaker leaders, as well as less competent on
and less interested in issues of foreign policy and the economy. On the other hand, female
candidates are also viewed as more honest and more compassionate, and are believed to be more
interested in and trustworthy on compassion issues such as health care, education, and those
that affect women and children. Winter contends that different issue agendas and different
constructions of the problems we face should affect the degree to which citizens feel a need,
conscious or subconscious, for symbolically masculine leaders. For example the masculine
image of fatherly protector may be more appealing in times of external threat.
Societys sexist views even influence our perceptions of political parties.
Winter maintains that citizens gender schemas may be activated cognitively when they think
about political parties. He reasons that if thinking about political parties activates citizens
gender stereotypes, then those stereotypes could influence the interpretations of political policies
and could do so differently depending on the party affiliation of the leader who proposes them.
Winter claims that Americans have come to view political parties in terms of masculinity and
femininity at an unconscious cognitive level, arguing that Americans images of political
parties have taken on gendered characteristics, and explaining that Democrats are now
considered to be the more feminine party and Republicans are considered to be the more
masculine. Winter believes that citizens associate the parties with gendered traits, shaped by
public actions and images of the parties and their candidates. Ideas about parties are linked
cognitively with ideas about gender. Men are thought to be active, independent, and decisive,

Gill 4

while females are thought to be compassionate, devoted to others, emotional, and kind. Winter
reminds us that Republicans are thought to better handle such issues as defense, dealing with
terrorism, and controlling crime and drugs; these are precisely the sorts of issues that Americans
associate with men or masculine traits. While Democratic-owned issues include education,
health care, helping the poor, protecting the environment, and promoting peace, these are all
associated with women or feminine traits. This theory is reinforced further by the fact that
substantially more women have been elected as Democrats than as Republicans in the past
several decades.
The medias sexism can be seen clearly in the 2008 and 2016 elections. It is particularly
evident in the political cartoons analyzed by Zurbirggen and Sherman, who found that Clinton
was the only candidate portrayed as nonhuman (Fig1). She was portrayed in a gender
stereotypical way more often than Obama or McCain. Male stereotypes applied to Obama and
McCain included smooth talking ladies man, protector of ones wife and alpha male or
Rambo (Fig 4). As noted above, Prividera and Howard theorize that the archetypal rescue
narrative is dependent on a masculine rescuer and a feminine victim. Clinton was portrayed in a
domestic role where she was concerned with appearance or fashion, overly emotional, and
needing a man to support her financially. She was depicted as indecisive or ditzy, queen/diva,
bitchy, witchy, or shrewish. She was portrayed both as the women who wont shut up while at
the same time being portrayed as a puppet -- a passive, silent, woman whose husband does the
talking. She was also shown as a victim of violence more often than Obama or McCain. She was
drawn being stabbed through the heart with a stake (Fig 7), drawn with her limbs chopped off by
her male opponent (Fig 6), sawed in half by a magician, stabbed in the back with a knife, and
crushed with a draw bridge. She was shown negatively much more often than the male
candidates. This violent response to women in power seems to be a scare tactic. Of course, the
idea of a woman in a predominantly male position threatens to change societal norms. It is only
logical that the male-dominated and patriarchal media would strike her down in an attempt to
counteract her progress and maintain their position of dominance and power. What kind of
message are we sending to potential female candidates? A female should not fear inevitable

Gill 5

failure in the pursuit of her goals. According to Prividera and Howard, by keeping womens
numbers relatively small and dispersed, gender oppression remains invisible.
Another method of sexism in media is the unusual use of candidates first and last names,
with women being much more likely than men to be referred to by their first name. According to
Paul Bedard in Media Sexism doomed Hillarys 2008 Bid, even when a candidate uses their
first name in their campaign, the media will often still refer to male candidates by their last
name, and female candidates by their first name. For example candidate Hillary Clinton is
referred to as Hillary but her male counterparts Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 were
referred to as Obama and McCain. Zurbirgen and Sherman point out that the media may also
refer to female candidates by a diminutive such as Hil for Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to
make that candidate seem less professional and less grown up, which therefore gives an
advantage to the male opponents who are consistently referred to by their full name or last name.
Windett argues that women running for office prefer to play against gender stereotypes in their
issue priorities at the outset of their campaigns, so they do not appear as strictly female
candidate. Women will only run a gendered campaign in response to male candidates doing
so first.
In the current election, the 2016 democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders, are referred to by their first names in the media. While this has been seen with female
candidates in the past, this will be the first noticeable use with a male candidate, further
enforcing theories about gendering of the parties. The Republican candidates including, Donald
Trump, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush, are referred to by their last names. During debates, if Trump
wished to degrade Rubio he would refer to him by his first name, for instance the Little Marco
comment about penis size.
The concept of leadership and the political realm itself both carry symbolically male
connotations (Winter 593). Republicans have frequently won the battle to appear manlier,
through a combination of claims about personal character and assertions that they are strong, and
their opponents are weak, on issues ranging from standing up to foreign enemies and to being
tough on crime and drugs. In How Toxic Masculinity Poisoned the 2016 Elections, Stephen

Gill 6

Marche discusses toxic masculinity and its use in the current election year. He mentions that it is
mainly seen in American politics. He believes the current male candidates are degrading
masculinity, by drifting away from fundamental empathy, away from the acknowledgement of
other peoples lives. Another problem he identifies is that voters use female gender stereotypes
to evaluate female candidates quite often, but do not use male gender stereotypes to evaluate
male candidates. Gendered media coverage leads to negative consequences for females.
The use of framing in the media affects how candidates are seen in the publics eye.
Prividera and Howard claim that three sexist techniques are commonly used in the media to
down play women. One is to highlight their marital/ dating status or to define them in relation to
others. Women are predominantly identified in their relation to others (Hillary is known as
married to Bill Clinton). A second is to discuss their feminine traits or behaviors. Finally the
media would describe female candidates in female terms. Prividera and Howard emphasize,
Media, a masculinized, traditional-bound craft tends to generate generic forms of
socio-political events, devoid of depth and subtlety. This, combined with an
unspoken allegiance to patriarchy (the nation-state) produces the types of
conditions whereby womens experiences of war are visually/ discursively
controlled and /or blacked out from public view. (Prividera and Howard 32)
The medias labels reinforce the one-down position of women to men. Windett observes
that male candidates may also behave strategically in their campaign behavior. They may realize
that their female opponent does not want to focus on feminine issues which give them an
incentive to campaign on feminine issues. If a female opponent does not respond, the male
candidate may cut into the female candidates support among women. If the female opponent
does respond, he would likely abandon his attempt to gain ground among female voters, but he
will have succeeded in getting her to potentially characterize herself as a female candidate in
exactly the way she was trying to avoid. Therefore male candidates running against female
opponents are more likely to make the first move on stressing feminine issues during the
campaign in a direct effort to attract female voters, and if their female opponent responds, male
candidates will be the first to move away from such issues. Women are more likely to play to
gender stereotypes and focus on issues that they are seen as more adept at handling. Women
running as women in contests for U.S. House of Representatives increase their vote share and

Gill 7

probability of winning elections.

Windett also discusses the idea that male candidates prefer issue divergence, meaning
they would prefer to focus on more masculine issues while female candidates focus on
feminine issues. Male candidates would like masculine issues to stay separate and divided
from feminine issues. They dont want to be bothered with feminine issues. Females
are willing to address either type of issue, but would like the issue to be relevant to that of their
male counterparts campaign, so that they both stay on topic. Female candidates dont want to be
shoved aside and given what male candidates would view as lesser issues to keep them
preoccupied while the men do the work. Only covering female candidates on feminine issues
in the media is sexist. Male candidates would like gender stereotypes to define the landscape and
outcome of the election, whereas female candidates, prefer issue convergence. Female
candidates would like to campaign on masculine issues to directly challenge their opponents and
subvert stereotypical gender assumptions about their political strengths. However if the male
opponents move to feminine issues, the female candidates then have the incentive to move with
them in order to shore up their base support and keep the overall contest focused on issues where
they have the advantage. Female candidates are predicting their male opponents use of
feminine issue ads and increasing their use of these ads before their opponents are able to do so.
An additional outcome of media coverage is that voting behavior and perception of
candidate viability are likely to be heavily influenced by the ways politicians are represented in
media outlets. They observe that although women receive a higher level of coverage overall, the
candidates gender, presence of children, and marital status were much more likely to be
mentioned in an article covering a female candidate compared to a male candidate.
We have such a problem with women in power that we cannot even fathom the idea that
they can be just as successful, by their own means, as men! Instead we downplay their
achievements. Winter urges that gender stereotypes influence attributes for success and
failure. In male- dominated realms, for example, people tend to attribute mens success to ability
and effort, and to attribute womens successes to luck or the ease of the task.
Will we as a country ever change this pattern? The first thing we must change in order to

Gill 8

get rid of these stereotypes is the way in which the media depicts females and female politicians.
We need to hold the media responsible for their actions and to call on them to resist the use of
stereotypes. Stereotypes be damned, women should not be condemned for seeking equality in
politics. Its almost like children on a school ground. The men fight over whos more of a man.
Women arent allowed to have an opinion unless they dress up in mens clothing, even then it
becomes a fight about genitals instead of focusing on real issues. It is none of anyones business,
nor does anyone really want to know how big or small a male politicians penis is. We attack
female politicians yet we complain about the males we are left with. Perhaps we avoid gaining a
woman in office out of fear of the unknown or fear that we will be proven wrong in thinking a
female cannot successfully run this country. Perhaps its a religious thing, as some religions will
not allow a woman in a position of authority, such as a woman becoming a pastor or priest. If
this is the case, that is not a valid excuse, because in this country we have separation of church
and state. Whatever the reasoning behind it, I think we should all make sure that we think a little
harder about who we vote for, making sure that the reasoning behind our choice of candidates is
based on fact and logic, not preconceived judgements and superficial stereotypes. Has voting
really come down to a popularity contest based on whos hair looks the best, and who has the
biggest genitals? If so then we should all be very worried about the quality of our government.
I do think as a we country have made progress and most likely will see a woman elected
for president soon, perhaps in the next 20 years, maybe even in this coming election in which
Hilary Clinton is running. Women have been trying to gain a seat in office for years, and Hillary
is not the first. Victoria Woodhull ran for president in 1872, nearly 50 years before the
Nineteenth Amendment allowed women to vote in presidential elections, although historians
cant agree on whether her name actually appeared on nationwide ballots. Though Mrs.

Gill 9

Woodhull was the first woman to run for president, there have been many others since then.
Although Americans think of ourselves as leaders in all things progressive, the fact is that 26
other countries granted women the vote before the U.S. did, and many have also elected women
as national leaders. But we are now recognizing female candidates and they are gaining the
attention of the public. This is a start. Hopefully we as a country will continue to make progress
toward having a female president.
America has never had a female president. It can be frightening to try new things,
especially when dealing with such a high position of power. However, dont you think its time
we give it a shot and try something different?! The male presidents we have had in the last 30
years or so have not been saints. These war heroes are creating enemies, driving our country
further and further into debt, and now we have made the elections into one big joke. Perhaps
Clinton will gain office, clean up the mess these men have made, and replace them. Lets see
what our country can amount to after having been run by a woman for 8 years. It could be a
whole lot better, but it couldnt be very much worse. We will never truly know until we try!

Gill 10

Appendix
Figure 1

Figure 2

Gill 11

Figure 3

Gill 12

Figure 4

Figure 5

Gill 13

Figure 6

Figure 7

Gill 14

Works Cited
Bedard, Paul. "Media Sexism Doomed Hillary's 2008 Bid." US News. U.S.News & World
Report, 23 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 March. 2016.
Jacobs, Tom. "Even Slight Gender Ambiguity Is Costly to Female Candidates." Pacific
Standard. 15 May 2014. Web. 11 March 2016.
Marche, Stephen. "How Toxic Masculinity Poisoned the 2016 Election." Esquire. 09 Mar. 2016.
Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
Okimoto, T. G., and V. L. Brescoll. "The Price of Power: Power Seeking and Backlash Against
Female Politicians." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36.7 (2010): 92336. SAGE. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Prividera, Laura C., and III, John W. Howard. "Masculinity, Whiteness, And The Warrior Hero:
Perpetuating The Strategic Rhetoric Of U.S. Nationalism And The Marginalization Of
Women." Women & Language 29.2 (2006): 29-37. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5
Apr. 2016.

Winter, Nicholas. "Masculine Republicans And Feminine Democrats: Gender And Americans'
Explicit And Implicit Images Of The Political Parties." Political Behavior 32.4 (2010):
587-618. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
Windett, Jason Harold. "Gendered Campaign Strategies In U.S. Elections." American Politics
Research 42.4 (2014): 628. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 12 Mar.
2016.

Gill 15

Zurbriggen, Eileen L., and Aurora M. Sherman. "Race And Gender In The 2008 U.S.
Presidential Election: A Content Analysis Of Editorial Cartoons." Analyses Of Social
Issues & Public Policy 10.1 (2010): 223-247. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr.