What came out of it was mainly that female politicians are either de-feminised or sexualised by the press as a way to alleviate patriarchy's fear of women who transcend the passive Freudian stereotype of femininity and take on positions of power.
When looking at the coverage of Hillary Clinton in the press recently it became apparent that Hilary is stuck in this catch 22 situation.
Described by the media as a ruthless, cold hearted 'machine' intent on winning no matter what she has to do, be it use her husband for leverage, attack Obama or cry to elicit sympathy, Clinton just can't win.
Living up to the ruthless, de-feminised image seems the only way to get ahead, look at Thatchers 'iron lady' image, but when Hillary dared to get emotional and shed a tear, the press were all over it, branding it a calculating attempt at using her feminine wiles to get votes. Clinton was also criticised for transcending her de-feminised image by showing a bit of cleavage - the same fate befell the Home Secretary Margaret Becket last July.
Now, although I may not believe entirely in Clinton's policies or that having a woman in the white house would necessarily improve women's lives (look at Thatchers reign) the point is that women have a much harder time getting into power and being treated as serious politicians, simply because they are women.
Do male politicians face the same scrutiny? Obviously not. This representation serves purely to keep women in their place, asserting that men should be the decision makers in society, not women.
No comments:
Post a Comment