anythings.org

Sexism in media is kind of a big topic. A lot of people research it for a living, and quite a few people have gone to painstaking efforts to observe the sexism that is occurring in the Democratic presidential election and all the publicity that surrounds it. Feministing even has an entire section devoted to Hillary Sexism Watch. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with this, it’s quite nice to have the media’s blatant sexism blasted into the average Joe’s face. The problem is when mainstream media asks the “is the media treating Hillary Clinton different because of her sex” question, they never seem to do it without sexism.

When John Cafferty asked that question, he said Clinton “whined” at the debate. I don’t think he needed to ask that question - he answered it himself. Whined? Seriously? Has that ever been applied to a presidential candidate prior to Clinton? I’m doubtful, and if it is has been, I will eat my words. Cafferty isn’t the only one who has done this, many other media outlets have described Clinton as snide or whiny when trying to determine if the media treats her unfairly.

The problem, of course, isn’t just the media. That’s too simple. It’s a classic battle of societal expectations for women being played out in the media. Society stereotypes women as emotional whiners who cry at the drop of a hat and can’t be relied upon to make decisions in times of stress, we all know this. When Clinton got emotional on the campaign trail, every single media outlet latched onto the story and said she cried. For those of us who watched the video clip, it was evident that she got choked up… but she didn’t cry. The difference between what is being reported and what really happened is sometimes this easy to distinguish, but most of the time it isn’t.

My local paper, the Sacramento Bee, had the Ohio debate on the front page of their paper. Each candidate had a picture of them speaking at the debate with a quote underneath it. The story was taken from the Boston Globe.

Obama, when asked if there was a question Clinton needed to answer about her worthiness to be president:

She would be worthy as a nominee. Now, I think I’d be better. That’s why I’m running.

Clinton, no explanation needed for those of you who watched the SNL clip:

Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.

How are those two quotes comparable? Why would you run them side by side on the front page of a newspaper? Are you telling me that in the entire debate that night, the only thing Clinton said that was worth reporting was a remark about the SNL clip? What about the snide remarks made by Obama? They were both particularly snippy in that debate, and yet, the Boston Globe only depicted Clinton’s snide remarks, while they showed Obama as responding to a legitimate debate question. They aren’t reporting news when they talk about Clinton, they are using quotes that reinforce their already negative opinions about her as a candidate, as a person, and as a woman. I call it bad reporting fueled by sexism.

I am sick and tired of people running around accusing the media of sexism in the presidential election, but I can’t help but get ridiculously pissed off when I see things like this. Yes, the sexism is there. And yes, people are more than happy to point it out every single time it happens. So yes, I am sick and tired of people talking about this - we’re beating a dead horse into glue at this point. However, if we’re talking about it this much and it’s still happening, we need to keep talking about it. More importantly, we need to start writing articles that aren’t sexist.

[Image]