Saturday, January 13, 2007
Week 5 Blog Topic
Here are several topics to discuss in your blog comment for this week. You may pick one, or comment on more than one. (1) Do women contribute to the way they are sometimes portrayed in the media as we've discussed this week (i.e., sexualized and comments about their appearance)? In other words, as a male colleague told me, if women in positions of power or who aspire to be in positions of power want to be taken seriously they need to stop wearing skirts and pumps and jewelry and colorful clothes. (2) Regarding why more women don't run for office - how can we change that? (3) In the article about campaign consulting, men and women commented that women were held to a higher standard than men in most every way on the job. They also faced speculation about having a sexual relationship with the male candidate. In some of our other readings the point has been made that this "holding women to a higher standard" is not just something that is done by male bosses, but that females (bosses, journalists, etc.) also seem to hold women to a higher standard. What do you make of this? Does this strike you as true based on your experiences and what we have read thus far?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
1. It's "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If women wear "skirts and pumps and jewelry and colorful clothes" they seemingly perpetuate the stereotype that women are more interested in fashion and other frivolous things, thus attention is payed to that and not her platform, etc. If she doesn't, if she dresses more "masculine," then she gets slammed with trying to be a man, labeled with terms like "dyke" or is said to be "butch" or worse, "FEMINIST." If she challenges the traditional female style of dress, then she must be trying to be a man. It doesn't matter if she just happens to prefer pants to skirts, or if she is trying to take attention off her figure/fashion/whatever so maybe, JUST MAYBE people will hear what she has to say and take her seriously instead of speculating about the color of her slip. That is irrelevant--the fact of the matter is, she will be perceived as rejecting her "womanhood," her "femininity," and thusly suspect--after all, if she can't be "true to herself," ie fill her role as a dainty and wholesome woman, concerned with all the "frivolous" niceties of womanhood, then she must be a penis-imposter!!! And that's the only thing worse than a woman--a woman who wishes she was a man, a woman who tries to play with the big boys.
So, it is likely much less that women are actively serving to perpetuate their stereotypical depictions and likely more that they are choosing the lesser of two evils when it comes to trying to win a political campaign--women who run for office are probably well aware that people would rather have a woman who they can comfortably process and comment on her pearly whites and her great gams and fabulous hips and tailored suit than a woman who is "unattractive" and "manly." A woman masquerading around as one of the boys. She will likely be torn to shreds over the last one, but as the "visually appealing" and traditionally comforting candidate that society can neatly place in the "female" box, she could potentially still garner a vote even if it perpetuates a stereotype.
Additionally, some women have probably tried to take their sexualization and turn it around for their benefit--used their sexualization to manipulate members of society. While again, this perpetuates the sexualization of women and degrades their value to society, often rendering their moral and political opinions and skills and experience as unimportant or at the very least secondary to the function they serve by being on their backs, many women feel that they have to do what they can to get ahead, even if that means using the system to beat the system. Although, in the end, woman still ultimately loses, but in the interim, she can use this sexualization and the stereotypes she perpetuates by playing the part to achieve something in the short term, whether it be getting a job or getting elected. But in the end, again, this hurts womanhood as a whole, even though the individual may seemingly profit in the short term. I suppose if she had some really great ends, ie is able to help a lot of people and make great changes and do lots of good if she could just make it into this one job or position of power, then maybe she could justify using her sexualized (and ultimately harmful and degrading) stereotypical role as female to "seduce" others, be they male or female, with her dashing good looks and great gams.
2. term limits and figure out what happens to girls in high school
3. if women are held to a higher standard, based on the situation it could be for one of two reasons: women are expected to do better than men because they have higher capabilities than men concerning that particular task (ie motherhood, cleaning, other 'womanly' tasks);
OR
because they are perceived as naturally inadequate and therefore required to prove themselves more than their male counterparts, who do not have as much to prove because it's an accepted standard that they will perform the task better.
if women are held to this higher standard for the second reason, it is usually because they are stepping outside of the traditional role of women and therefore challenging the system, challenging the hierachical, patriarchal norms that are comfortable and familiar and safe. a woman as a CEO who has power over men, a power that is foreign to them, will automatically have to prove herself worthy of that power, since from the start she is perceived as unworthy of possessing it, usually out of fear, ignorance, or some disasterous combination of the two.
So yes, because in general less is expected of women they have to go great lengths farther to earn respect and approval on par with men.
Look at the standard society holds to someone like Hillary Clinton vs. Sue Ellen the housewife from Bakersville whose main functions in life include hosting the Sunday school bake sale, driving the mini-van full of kids to soccer practice, and cooking up the meanest meat-loaf the mid-west ever did see... She isn't challenging any norms, she isn't bucking the system, so she isn't held to the same standards, she isn't scrutinized. However, she isn't vying for the same level of support or the same positions of respect and power as Hillary. So she doesn't get that kind of respect or power, but neither is she held to outrageous standards and subject to constant scrutiny and challenged at every corner while the world waits for her to illustrate just how incapable she really is.
Conversely, Sue Ellen is viewed as having embraced her inner incapabilities, with no pretentions notions of grandeur, and just does what she's best at--bake sales, mini-vans, and her husband. How lovely. Society just eats that stuff up, all neat and gift-wrapped with a bow and easy to digest.
Naturally, she isn't held to a stricter standard than men because she isn't trying to horn her way into their world, isn't trying to earn respect or power or any other of those things that naturally exist for members of the "boys only" club.
Suck. I shouldn't rant when I'm sick and sleepy and cranky. But hey, I make valid points, even if I do sound slightly bitter when I make them...
;D
1,065 words. bam.
1,072, including this post...
Basically, what your male colleague was telling you was that in order for a female to be in a position of power or to aspire to such a position they need to dress like a male politician. The concept of women contributing to the way that they are portrayed in the media should be a mute point. However, in our America society we are absolutely enamored with how people look and dress. I am surprised we have not had a “live on the red carpet” event while on the campaign trail. Nevertheless, back to the point of women contributing to the way they are portrayed in the media. YES, women contribute to the way that they are portrayed in the media. This is quite simply done by putting on clothes and showing up. Which on the other hand, a female would also make news if she did not put on clothes and showed up. Women are held to a double bind whenever it comes to how they are represented in the media. Some would say that it is sexism at it is very finest in some of the portrayals of women in the media. If a woman looks good, then she properly understands her role as an ornament. However, if she looks too good then she is obviously obsessed with appearance and unable to comprehend things such as healthcare and national defense. Female candidates in the media have to walk a tightrope routine every time they appear in public. This is something that a male counterpart would rarely have to do. Male politicians have an outlined “uniform” that is universally accepted. If a male candidate throws on a dark colored suit and a power tie, they will have absolutely nothing written about them other than whatever point they are addressing. On the other side of this, there is not a dress code that is accepted across the board for female politicians. If a female politician wears a suit, she is trying to be like a man. If she wears a dress, then she does not convey power. It is ridiculous down to the very core! Maybe this speaks to the very asinine nature of popular media today. One last thought about this topic. In the Dolan book, we read that blurb from Time Magazine about Elizabeth Dole, her bubble gum pink suit, and that lovely mint green backup. A woman, Margaret Carlson, wrote that article.
SOMEBODY GET THE FIRE HOUSE...BECCABOO IS ON FIRE!!!
I think that women contribute to the negative light they receive in the media is like saying it's a womans fault that she was raped because she was wearing short shorts and a belly shirt. And look at it this way...it is much simpler for a man; black suit, blue suit, white shirt, blue shirt, etc. But even when a man pulls this look off to the point that he's a stud muffin, you still don't here about it in the media, I think Dr. Patton illustrated this pretty well. The media can pretty much pick whatever they want to talk about and sex sells, actually woman sex sales, man sex, not so much. Who does sex sell to? Why to the public of course, so instead of blaming the woman that looks stikingly good running for office, more of the blame should go to those that perpetuate an economy of sex. And I agree with Becca, this really puts most women between a rock and a hard place, they just can't win. So should some of the blame go to women because they get short changed by the media? Absolutely not, women have every right to look their best in the political arena without being scrutinized.
CG
In my opinion, women will never get away from the current stereotypes that the media emphasizes today, no matter how they dress or act. Especially in politics, women are constantly judged upon their appearance and often personal life instead of the types of things they are doing in their job or office. I would like to think that if women dressed opposite than this “appearance stereotype” that the media’s focus would turn to political agenda and deeper issues within a female’s political role. However, I know that this is not the case. I feel that whether women wear skirts and jewelry or a suit and tie and shave their head, they will still be evaluated by the media based on their appearance – sometimes in an admiring light, and other times not.
In regards to your colleague’s comment, I feel that if Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush wore a black pant-suit every day for the rest of their lives, the media would still notice. I can see the headlines now: “Is the First Lady in a cult? Mrs. Bush wears black at past ten appearances.” (or something to that affect) I know this scenario sounds crazy, but I completely would not be surprised. The media has been so accustomed to focusing on appearance that if something wasn’t obviously noticeable (such as Hillary’s hairstyle change), they would dig to find something.
Just to comment on the third topic concerning women and higher standards, in my own experience, a recent female boss held me to a much higher standard that a previous male boss. She implied this from the very first interview and I later found out that she set such standards mainly for the sense of proving to males that we can do the job, do it well, and possibly even better than they can. Higher standards to her was more of a success factor than setting the bar high because of low expectations.
The comment made by your male colleague just proves what I have been saying in class over and over again. Women have to balance just the right amount of femininity and masculinity to make it in male dominated professions. This balance is almost impossible to achieve. I personally do not understand why it matters what a woman is wearing unless it is completely inappropriate for the task at hand. However, the statement has truth to it. To attempt to assimilate into a male profession women must try to imitate their male counterparts. Women are not held to universally accepted standards they are held to male standards. They have to deny their femininity as much as possible without expressing to much male-like aggressiveness to not be seen as a threat. When I began as a firefighter I was treated more like a sex object rather than just a firefighter. I was considered the dainty little woman who wanted to be a firefighter. I was more seen as a joke to them. I began to change my personality and the way I looked (cut my hair short) and began to respond more aggressively to their sexist remarks. In essence, I began to aggressively stand up for myself. It was then that I was targeted as a bitch and was treated with extreme hostility by most of the male firefighters. I could not strike the balance necessary to not be seen as threatening on a sexual, feminine level and not be seen as threatening because of my aggressiveness. I loved being a firefighter and tried desperately to fit in as “one of the guys” but I could never achieve whatever that fine balance was. I had very negative experiences with the wives of the firefighters as well. I was seen as a threat to them as well and they did not want me commingling with their husbands. My place was with the other women in the fire department as an EMT and NOT a firefighter. I also had this same response with other female members of the fire department with the exception of the few women who had attempted to be fire fighters and were promptly shuffled into the position of EMT. My constant fight to stay a firefighter and to report their behavior awarded me the label of “troublemaker”. I was held to a much higher standard than were the male firefighters and the more I passed their “tests of acceptance” the angrier they became and the more “rules” they tried to implement to keep me from succeeding. Unfortunately I was part of a fire department that could pass new rules and regulations at any time with a majority vote and of course the majority vote was male. So, in summary, in my experience in a male dominated field (I was the only female firefighter there for almost three years), I faced the sexual bias, the bitch bias, the speculation by the wives that I wanted to have sex with their husbands, and the higher standards expected of me. It is no wonder that women do not want to enter into male dominated fields. Even for something I loved so much, the treatment I received was just not worth doing the job. I would love to say that my experience was an isolated incident, but as I have heard from many female firefighters and paramedics this type of treatment of women is very typical.
Janice Clayton
In terms of keeping up appearances, it’s already been touched upon that women are forced into a catch 22 scenario, and I believe that this is more or less the truth. Society as a whole has accepted a common view of the professional woman as relatively attractive and with a strong fashion sense. On the very public stage of politics in the era of mass media, this stereotype is amplified that much more, such that women face a seemingly inordinate amount of criticism for such a thing as choice of wardrobe. To buck the system of what society deems to be an acceptable personal appearance, however, is unacceptable for men and women both. As a future teacher, I would almost certainly receive reprimands from the school administration as well as public ridicule if I chose to teach class in my EKU sweatshirt and a pair of jeans. It is a bit of a stretch to directly compare that to the situation of women in politics, but the main idea holds true: to break the rules of social norms will result in social ridicule. The only way to really change this for women politicians is a wholesale overthrow of societal norms that dictate that the woman who chooses to wear drab colors and style her hair however she chooses may be the most qualified person for office. Obviously this kind of major social change isn’t likely to happen overnight, if it all, but it seems to be the only way to address this particular situation.
I suppose that this is one of the ways in which women are held to a higher standard than men in politics. Not only must they be sharp in their abilities and execution of their respective jobs, but they must also look good doing it. I suppose that this is just a continuation of the process of breaking the collective glass ceiling for women. It’s nice to think that all of the problems of equality were fixed with a few strokes of the pen by legislators in the 1970’s, but as I pointed out earlier, even slight societal changes take a very considerable amount of time to address, much less the challenge of gender roles that has remained uncontested in mainstream civilization for as long as there has been civilization. Personally, I don’t witness this heightened expectation for women on a daily basis, but my work experience thus far has been rather mundane and not in any fields known for occupational segregation by gender or race.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame women for the way they are portrayed by the media. Society has placed an expectation on female candidates that they should wear skirts, make sure their hair and make up look good, and wear high heels. If they follow this expectation they are sexualized or the media reports solely on how they look. If women don’t follow the expectation, the media still harps on their appearance. For example, in the Dolan book, Susan Molinari, reflecting on her experience as a city council member lamented on the fact that, “the press printed dozens of stories about how I’d show up to the office in jeans, about my gum chewing and boots.” When women follow the expectation their “bubble gum pink” suits are the highlight of the story and when they don’t, as in the case of Molinari or more recently Hillary Clinton because she wears pant suits, the media harps on the fact that they are either unprofessional in the case of Molinari or portrays them as a radical feminist in the case of Clinton.
I think that all people, women and men should dress professionally in the business setting. However, I also think that women are judged more harshly for their attire than their male counterparts. A man can put on a black suit and a nice tie and no one will even comment on his outfit. A woman can put on a black pant suit and she’s criticized for being too masculine because she’s wearing pants or she can put on a colorful skirt suit and the majority of the publicity she gets is in the fashion section of the newspaper. I never actually realized that a woman wearing a pant suit was a big deal until we had a mock trial scrimmage with Bellarmine and one of their female attorneys commented that females on their team wear skirt suits so they don’t offend anyone. It never occurred to me that in the year 2007 a woman wearing pants could be offensive to someone.
Women in the public eye who wear revealing clothing and in doing so welcome the idea of being sexualized by the media contribute in some respect to the way media portray all women. Movie stars who wear dresses to the MTV Movie Awards that barely cover their bodies place themselves in a situation where the media is almost encouraged to focus on their appearance. Unfortunately, the media tends to carry over this judgment of women based on their appearance into the political and business realm as well. Historically a woman’s appearance has also been given importance because their main goal in life was to find a respectable husband. For a long time the entire reason a woman went to college at all was to find a husband. Like it or not, part of the process of attracting a man had a lot to do with the way a woman looks, and in many cases still does. Society has always had a standard of beauty they’ve defined for what a woman should strive to look like. Whether it be skinny, long hair, short hair, dark hair, light hair, tanned, or fair skinned this changing standard of beauty is set up as something women are expected to strive for. This societal concentration on how a woman looks contributes to the way the media has continued to place importance on a woman’s appearance. The question now is, is it society that is really concerned with a female’s appearance or is it the influence of the media over society that causes us to continue to look so closely at how female figures dress and style their hair?
One of the things that have to be done to get women to run for office is that we have to find a way to get the media to take female politicians seriously and focus more on the issues they represent rather than what they are wearing. The first reason given in Dolan for women not being as involved as men in politics is that women are less politically ambitious than their male colleagues. Women often question their skills and abilities to carryout a political office. One possible reason for women questioning themselves could be the lack of attention the media gives to female politicians. Perhaps women doubt their abilities because the media barely pays attention to those abilities. Dolan talked about how the only media coverage Margaret Heckler received in her 1966 campaign for the Massachusetts House was a headline that read “Margaret Heckler is a candidate, but is not going to win.” How can we expect women to be encouraged to run for office if the media, one of the things we consider to be an indicator of society, right or wrong down plays the campaigns of female candidates? The other reasons given by Dolan for why women don’t run for office are slowly but surely falling away. Women are starting to have a greater presence in professions that better facilitate making a run of female candidates. Society is also becoming more accustomed to stay at home dads which make the “women’s role as wives and mothers” argument less prominent. Lastly, the argument that political parties tend to discriminate against female candidates can be lessened if the problem of the way females are portrayed in the media is diminished. If the media acknowledges that women candidates have a chance at winning their races, which it is clear they do as women are just as likely to win elections as men, and concentrates on the issues they stand for, political parties will be forced to take notice of female candidates’ potential.
I think that both male and female bosses do hold their female employees to a higher standard than males for the most part. In the Brewer article the 2001 American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession noted, “Women do not receive the same presumption of competence as their male counterparts.” I think this may explain why male bosses hold their female employees to a higher standard---they along with society presume that women are not as competent as men so they expect their female employees to be smarter than the average female so that they can compete with males in the profession. Female bosses in turn expect more from their female employees because they want to prove the stereotypes wrong. They want to ensure themselves that the idea that males are more competent than females does not apply to their employees. Whether or not this is fair to female employees is an entirely different issue. The danger in expecting more from females than males is that it puts both sexes at a disadvantage. In expecting more from females one may place those expectations so high that they are unattainable for the female employee, or any male employee for that matter. For males, being held to a lower standard of expectation doesn’t do much to encourage them to go above and beyond the norm in their work efforts—because they aren’t expected to do more, they don’t. Setting different levels of expectation is therefore harmful to both males and females.
I believe that answering the question “are women held to a higher standard on the job,” can be viewed as both yes and no. First of all, I think that women have to perform almost perfectly to be viewed as doing a “good job.” They need to be aggressive in the workplace, but if they appear too aggressive then they are reprimanded for that. If they dress too provocatively then they are using their sexuality to move up in the workplace, but if they dress conservatively then they are prudes that do not want to get ahead. If they receive promotions or advance in the workplace, then they are sometimes still not taken seriously because those advancements are viewed as an underlined affirmative action. They also must work extremely hard to be taken as seriously as their male counterparts, but they could be alienated from their colleagues if they emasculate them. In short, women have to do well but not look like they are being over aggressive if they want to advance in the world, which is a very difficult situation that many women overcome. However, the idea that many female candidates are sexual partners of male candidates is preposterous. Gossip and rumors about sexual relationships of women in high power are unfortunate, but not surprising considering the values of our culture. Condi Rice, for example, received an incredible amount of speculation about her relationship with a Canadian official, even though there was probably no truth to the reports. However, I do not believe that hurt her image or even became a serious obstacle for her to overcome. Men and women in powerful positions always have to overcome rumors and speculation about their social life, and high profile female candidates or government officials are no different. On the other hand though, some women oftentimes consciously use their sexuality and “delicate” nature to advance in the workplace or overcome obstacles. This is certainly not true across the board, but it would be ludicrous to think that women are not aware of how they could use their sexuality or ability to cry on demand to their advantage. These issues become less important as you move up the social or political ladder, but they could certainly give some women an advantage in the workplace. All in all, women do have to perform better than men to get the same results, but they cannot even be aggressive while doing it. Women have to maintain such a perfect image of not being too feminine and not being masculine, while performing as well as a man. So yes, they are held to a higher standard for the most part, even though some women use their “feminine gifts” to advance their way through the workplace.
I do believe that women perpetuate the stereotype that they seem to fight so hardly against. But the question is, do they have a choice? I don't believe they do. The only way to succeed is to appear sexy and distracting, especially in politics. Men have never taken women seriously. If I were to run for office, I would probably look to my appearance first. I would want to even possibly hire a stylist to make sure I look “political”. Why would I start my campaign there, because, I want to get the attention of my constituency. I want to be seen so I can later be heard. While I find that statement sickening, it is currently the sickening truth.
As for what your colleague said, I would wonder if he really believes that? Does he honestly think that if women dress like men or if they no longer wear skirts, pumps, and jewelry that they will be taken more seriously? Women would not get the jobs they are now if they don’t look like a women. Women in the highest corporate levels serve as a sort of eye-candy and women know that. That is why I claim that we as women only push the stereotype further. There are some women out there that are working their way up the corporate ladder by mirroring a man, but the majority of women, in my opinion, are working their way up the corporate ladder quicker if they look appealing. I applaud the women who are fighting against the stereotype, but I also recognize that most women will not fight it. Ii believe that women will continue to use their sexuality and appearance to get ahead in whatever field they choose, especially one where they are in such media spotlight like politics.
It is a double-edged sword that is stabbing society over and over again. On the one side women hate the “sexual” portrayal but on the other side, they see the need to give-in or sell-out, so that they can succeed. It sucks but it is life for the time being. We need come radical feminists to start a movement and inspire us women to stop letting the stereotype continue.
1. Cameron, I heart you.
2. I just reread the posts, and I want to point out something interesting. I said in an earlier post that Sue-Ellen the "stay at home mom" wasn't vying for the same power and respect as Hillary Clinton. Thusly, while she's not defying the role society has deemed appropriate for her, neither is she acheiving that respect the Hillary is trying to get, and neither is she held to these higher standards than men to prove herself worthy of that respect. That's ludicrous of me to say, for one reason:
Why should Sue Ellen not receive just as much respect as Hillary? Why is it only the societal roles traditionally reserved for the boys that garner respect??? The issue here is, yes, that women (and men alike) should not be CONFINED to their "societally accepted" roles. But what I feel is perhaps a larger and more deep seeded issue is that the traditional roles of women (WHICH ARE ARGUABLY THE MOST FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT TO THE WELLBEING OF SOCIETY) are not respected or worthy. Maybe because it is unpaid work, and thusly worthless in our capitalist pig-dog society.....
just a thought.
Many women are heavily criticized about their appearance mainly because it is obviously easier for a man to dress up. It is a tie, jacket, pants, and shoes that match the belt. They might get criticized if they wore the same thing all the time, or if they didn’t shave. Women on the other hand get drilled because it seems that anything they wear is either too manly or not enough clothing to portray them to look “skanky”. I could not count how many jokes I have heard about Hillary Clinton wearing a skirt and her testicles falling out when she moves. I think that a lot of times, the people that make these jokes which are probably men, are afraid of her doing things that they obviously can not do. She is a powerful women and she is not scared of anything. A lot of times, I think that she made decisions rather than the president (her husband) did when he was in office. A lot of women do not run for positions in the office because they are afraid of the criticism that they might get. I also think that a lot of women do not run because maybe they would rather do other things with their lives like have kids, start a family, and be there for her family all the time. Running for office is a full time job that is hard to have a family in. Hillary obviously will not have a problem because her daughter is older and Bill has been in that position before and understands what it takes for her to be president. I am behind her all the way in this decision.
Women have an interesting dilemma when it comes to either exploiting their sexuality or making it as a “woman in a man’s world”. Unfortunately, this entire phrase suggests that a woman has to compete in a world that she is not welcome in, or that she will be naturally inferior in. This also includes the phrase “boy’s club” or other insinuations that women have to work extra hard to get to the point that most men can get to just through being male.
However, often times, when women achieve the same position, there are insults and thoughts that accompany such positions. They are ‘sleeping their way to the top’ or getting by through ‘sex appeal’ instead of hard work and dedication.
The sad thing is that women are in a lose-lose situation when it comes to many choices that many women have to make when attempting to ‘make it’ in the professional world. They can dress feminine, and be accused of flaunting their sexuality or exploiting their physical assets, or a woman can dress professionally and be accused of being too ‘masculine’.
Another thing to consider is the idea of fashion, which both men and women are subject to, whether they admit it or not. Men’s fashion involves what sort of blazer cut they wear, or their tie and shirt color. For women, its far more complex, including what the “color of the season” is, or whether they can wear white after labor day, or how low cut the top is in style, how high up the skirt should be. This subjects women to two standards. They could dress out of style, and wear what is in style, or not, both with repercussions since they are in the public eyes. Wearing what isn’t in style means insults or features in the media, whilst wearing what is could mean trying to use sexuality and feminine fashion-sense to get attention from men, and get what they need, whether its votes, or support for their latest committee goals.
The thing is, women have the right to want to feel beautiful and want to take pride in their appearance. There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to feel beautiful and appreciated by men when they aren’t in the public eye, but for some women, this is impossible. Nobody pays attention to a random man or woman out on the beach in swimming trunks, but as soon as it’s a politician or celebrity, suddenly the attention is focused all on them. (i.e. Barack Obama at the beach) This extends to women for every day, no matter if they are on vacation or Capitol Hill.
Women are forced to balance femininity and masculinity when in the public eye, or else they’re either a woman like Lindsay Lohan, or a woman like Ellen Degeneres. Either a woman is exploiting their sexuality, or a lesbian. This double standard creates a terribly thing gray line that a woman has to tread to ‘make it’ in the professional world. I don’t believe that women are completely to blame, but also a fixed stereotype that society holds women to. There are several factors that hold women back, just as there are many that hold men back. What keeps women restrained to roles such as teachers and nurses keeps men restrained to roles that pertain to the ‘bread-winner’ or the moneymaker.
This situation holds both genders back, and presents problems for breaking the “mold”, even though there should be no “mold” that either has to follow.
When it comes to how they are portrayed in the media, I do not believe women (or anyone else for that matter) really has any "control" over it. The media will capitalize on what it sees fit. But, as for being sexualized, it happens regardless of what women do. If a women dresses nice or even sexy, it will be pointed out, and as was mentioned they may not be taken as seriously. Women who dress down the "sexy" may come across as somewhat butch. It's a double edged sword, because women want to appear at their best to make a good impression, but how can you dress really nice and not be seen as slutty, or too sexy? You know what I say? Women: Dress however you want! To hell with the media!
As for getting more women to run for office, well that is a tough one. There are organizations out there that I think are doing a good job to get women to run for office more, and are supporting female candidates. But I was thinking about what the book said about women being more hesitant about running for office. I do not necessarily think that is something that women put on themselves. I think it is more about what SOCIETY may think about a women running, and that is what the females candidates are hesitant about, not about themselves or their credentials. Not to mention, the political community (i.e. legislators, presidents) has long been seen as old, white men. At first, they were none too happy to let women in to the political arena, and maybe that is still the case for some. I still think that a lot of people, politicians included, treat women as if they are supposed to be out of the loop on politics, and are not eager to let them in so quickly.
As for women being held to a higher standard, that is absolutely true. As for women holding women to a high standard, I think that holds water as well. As for why, well I am just speculating, but maybe it has something to do with proving ourselves. For example, if I am working at an office with mostly men, and it's just me and one other woman, we may hold EACH OTHER to a higher standard, because we know that if either of us messes up, then that will make the men in the office look at BOTH of us in a negative way, because they may think that way of females in general, even though it was just ONE of us who messed up. In that kind of work setting, you not only have to prove yourself as far as doing the work right, but as far as being a woman as well, because we already know that we have more to prove, since we are generally seen as the weaker sex.
-Ashley Farmer
I agree with those who have mentioned that women's appearance becomes a type of lose-lose situation. I think it's a shame that women like Hilary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, have so much attention piled onto what they're wearing instead of what they're saying. It seems that our culture is so image driven and so quick to judge based on appearances. As long as a female canidate is dressed professionally, it shouldn't be a problem, but it is. With our expectations and our ideas about masculine and femine appearance, it becomes almost impossible for a woman politican to dress in a manner that will suit the media. I think others have mentioned the type of catch 22 that women politicans find themselves in. Its sad. As long as we have the media paying so much attention to factors that are shallow and superficial, then it will be hard for women to fight against this media judgement. I don't agree its a woman's fault. Like I said, as long as its professional, there should be no problem. Tasteful and professional. Whether or not she wears heels, or pink, or pants, or dresses; what does that have to do with her viewpoints and politics? The more I think about this, the more steamed I get. This is really completely ridiculous. We should all just listen to the radio. I can't even think of a solution to this problem without thinking of a problem that arrises from that solution. It just seems that the media's priorities are very backwards. Maybe the fact that I love clothes and shoes so much makes me mad that women canidates are judged so much on their looks. I don't think this problem could change until the media changes.
As for getting more female candiates to run for office, I agree with those who say that shortening the terms of politicians would be useful. I just feel that the climate for women in politics seems slightly unattractive. You know, with the media fussing at you for wearing pantsuits and all.
Jenny Holly
“Social interaction is the battlefield where the daily war between the sexes is fought.”
-Nancy Henley and Jo Freeman
Sometimes I wonder if the women of this world remember what side they’re on. As more often than not, it is women who contribute to the depiction of women in media. Though ironically, it is that very media that has cohered them into their positions of deceit, so that the next generation may develop a social definition of the same nature.
Everyday we receive (whether we are aware of it or not) both verbal and nonverbal messages through the median of media. Most of which convey cues of beauty or status, with the occasional combination, in ways that even have the ability to induce oppression without words. Done by means of the nonverbal message as is transmitted through our environment.
You see, herein is where the danger lies, for it may not quite be discussed (as is made evident by its classification as nonverbal), but it is these nonverbal messages that are the silent and deadly weapons of the enemy with four times the impact (on women) than verbal messages alone. For it is in our own blind encouragement and acceptance (as women) of these nonverbal messages through disclosure, that we as women are wounding our own cause in a civil war like manner. In turn, affecting our overall performance on the battlefield of the sexes since we choose to not only fight the enemy with the weapons they have supplied us, but ourselves as well.
Perhaps one day when both wars are over there will be a greater equality that will echo through our government with a greater number of women in office.
erin jo mullen
I think there is some truth to saying that women themselves perpetuate how they are portrayed. Rarely do I see someone in the media who is a "fashion expert" that is not a woman. If there is a man who happens to be a fashion expert then he is gay or at least is portrayed in that way. What if I wanted to become a hairstylist? Everyone, men and women alike, would make assumptions about my sexuality. Billions and billions of dollars are made every year capitalizing on the fact that women are extremely conscious of how they look. Tanning beds, cosmetics, surgery, salons, fashion designers, blah, blah. It is in my estimation that the media's focus on how a woman looks is the direct result of women focusing on their looks themselves. I guess it is a debate for what came first; women's concern for their apperarance and that being reflected in the media or media's focus on a woman's appearance making women more concerned about their appearance. The perfect example is Donatella Versace's comments about Hillary's wardrobe. She is a woman, fashion icon and is giving sexy advice to what could be our future president (psyche) Comments?
Also, I have never really heard that women who wear pant suits are considered butch or feminist. Maybe I am out of the loop, but I have never personally encountered someone who talked poorly of a woman in a pant suit. What is the problem with pant suits? Regarding what your male colleague said, I would have to disagree. I dont think that the lack of colorful clothing is a prerequisite for being taken seriously. Additionally, I do not think that colorful clothing would hinder any attempts a woman made to be in a position of power. It is really a silly statement in my opinion. Does anyone believe, as I do, that if you are perceived as more attractive than your peers then you will be perceived as more interesting, intelligent, charismatic, etc? If that is true, you would WANT to wear colorful clothing or become more attractive. It could become only advantageous for your career, be it politics or in the private sector.
To wrap it up, yes women perpetuate stereotypes about themselves, but so does anyone. As I said on Thursday, stereotypes hold water.
Secondly, pant suits are all good, but colorful clothing might be more to your benefit.
Lastly, I believe the anonymous colleague was either Dr. Glenn Rainey or Shawn Gillen. Would anyone like to take some bets so we can get some side action? I think I got a lock on this one.
Plain and simple, being a women is rough. Especially, a working women. Not only are we suppose to work a 40-50 hour work week, but the bulk of the house work is bestowed on us, while raising the children and finding the right way to conduct ourselves in the public eye. A women in ANY profession has to watch what she wears, how much make up she applies, and makes sure she acts “lady like”, or the higher ups won’t take them seriously. We are not allowed to tell the dirty jokes, come into work looking sickly, or even have a private conversation with a member of the opposite sex without it taking away from our professionalism. No matter what we do, there’s something wrong with it. Too much makeup and jewelry you’re a slut, too little you’re a lesbian.
On the same note, from my experiences, I have found that women are judged from a totally different perspective. I work as a server and have been at my establishment for over a year. I have worked my way up through sonority, but only recently have I been getting the respect from my male counterparts. While it is known that I work just as hard as they do, I haven’t been considered a ‘salesman’ of the product. And comments have been made, that the only reason women get better tips than men is due to their ‘rack’ and because they flirt with the customers. This was all the more evident when the end of the year numbers came in. A male server and I had the two highest sales for the year and a comment was made at the award ceremony, In front of every one; ‘with Danny’s way with words and Marketta’s boobs we made over $300,000 this year between them” Needless to say, I was shocked and disgusted. I feel no matter what I do, and how my performance is equal to that of a man, I will always be considered less.
Why more women don’t run for office? Well what we discussed in class was that having children and being in office are two things that are very hard to juggle at the same time. So usually women either have a stay-at-home husband or wait until their children are old enough. Maybe some women feel that the pressure to be perfect in the media is just too hard for them to deal with. And that other idea that we talked about in class that was that sometime in the development in a girl’s life, from high school on they don’t have the drive to be political leaders. This in my opinion I believe it’s which high school you have gone to. Private Catholic high schools like the one I went to our teachers encourage us ladies to reach for our goals and dreams and if it be a leader role in politics than that’s ok, we can do whatever we want. Maybe most women went to other schools where girls are encouraged to become leaders, where the teachers may only encourage the boys. It also could be how their parents raised them. Maybe these women that don’t run, their parents may have never pushed them to do what they want. I also was just thinking that within our history men have always have been seen as better at being leaders etc. But could it possibly be that our mindsets haven’t changed? That people aren’t ready to accept that women can be just as good or even better than a man can, especially in a “male dominated” field. I mean why all the fuss over women and their clothing. Its little unnecessary especially when they should be treated like any other man.
Hey Hey... did you know that its Tuesday?? I DIDN'T, obviously.
Ok, so this is freakishly late now, but better late than never. I hope.
I think I like #1 the best. It reminds me of the argument that women are "asking for it" when they wear anything besides a nun's habit around men. Women in the media, and especially in politics seem to be unable to escape criticism for their appearance. Hillary is reviled by Donatella because she wears pants, women in skirts are ogled because *gasp* they show a little leg. Women seem to be caught in a death trap between inappropriate and overly masculine.
Why is this? One can only speculate. However, if I ever had a colleague tell me I should stop wearing skirts if I want to be taken seriously, I might throw a hissy fit. That's like telling a black person "if you REALLY wanted to avoid racist comments you'd just paint your face white. Geesh." Women should never have to disguise their femininity to succeed in life, and I think the fact that they DO have to says something dreadful about our society. I said this in class, and I will repeat it again: it isn't a question of whether high heels affect your ability to make political decisions. Society simply doesn't value the feminine as it does the masculine, leaving women stuck between abandoning their own identity and "fitting in" in the male wold.
Perhaps women perpetuate the stereotype not by wearing foppery, but by wearing clothes tailored in a masculine way. This almost seems to admit that there IS something less worthy about being feminine. Maybe Donatella wasn't that wrong after all.
I personally think that women don’t run for office because some of them are afraid that they will look like idiots when they do. I personally don’t know a lot about politics. That’s one of the major reasons why I took this class. The book says that a lot of women talk themselves out of running for an office because they say they are too shy or too afraid to speak in public. This would be me. I couldn’t get up in front of half of the United States Population and speak about the war or anything related to it. I know that there are a lot of women who can and I really give them props for that. In fact there are some women in our class whom I think would make for great debates on live television. Also when a woman has children, it is automatically presumed that she should stay at home and take care of the child instead of going out and having a huge career that would pull her away from her family for long periods of time. I read in the book about where one woman’s mother said that her children would become orphans left for the world to abuse. To me this is very true. I always had my mother close by. I’m not saying that all women would be afraid to speak in public, but where I am from it’s as if the women are sheltered by the man and has little control over anything. My mother always voted for who my father did. I know that it’s crazy, but I guess she felt as if her husband thought that this person would make a good candidate then that’s who she would pick.
Carla Gibbs
I've thought hard about this blog comment and what I would say and I still really don't have anything that makes a solid statement. This whole issue of women being held to a higher standard when they are placed in a position of power is such a deeply rooted social construct that it will take years to deconstruct it. Something I do find odd, is that women who are in appointed positions of power don't seem to have as much of a problem with this. If you look at Condoleezza Rice, you don't see many observations about her appearance in the news. At least I haven't. If anything they talk about that irremovable scowl that seems to be placed on her face. If you look at Madeline Albright, I don't think you'd find as many articles about what she was wearing on a certain day, rather you would find an article talking about her strict policy on a certain subject. I find this whole situation to be a little odd, because it raises the question, if you are not elected into an office, are you less important in the public eye, or have you already "proven yourself" in the publics eye. Another example would be the female supreme court justices. You never see an article in the paper talking about how they are dressed. Granted, most of the time they are in those robes, but when they are not, you do not see articles in the paper talking about their attire. You mostly get a history lesson on how they voted on certain topics in previous sessions.
Do women contribute to how they are portrayed? If by contribute you mean getting dressed in the morning as any other professional woman does then yes, they do. The women politicians are not wearing ornate, outrageous inappropriate outfits. To say women should stop wearing skirts if they don’t want to be talked about is the same as saying women shouldn’t wear skirts if they don’t want to be raped. Also, hairstyles have even been called into focus, these “prissy” women with their hair perfectly styled and their makeup done also seem to distract the media from focusing on anything but. How then, I question should the women look? Should they go on camera with their hair untouched since they woke up, with last nights makeup smeared, because I’m sure that would be much more of a distraction than a French twist and some lipstick. This is blaming the victim. Pertaining to the ignorant co-worker of yours, if women’s jewelry is so distracting that it must be talked about then why aren’t the male politicians hurrying to ditch their lapel pins and cuff links in order to be taken more seriously. If the problem really was the outfits that these women are wearing, then they (women politicians) might have an element of control in this issue, however, the focus on women politicians appearance is not an issue with their outfits, its an issue with them. Any time the media or anyone else for that matter is putting the focus on a woman’s appearance they are taking the focus away from her platform. They are devaluing the importance of what these women are saying because they do not want to hear it. Our government is predominately old men, who still hold true the notion t hat women, like children, are to be seen and not heard. - amber
In response to the first topic...
Women should not have to stop wearing skirts, pumps, jewelry, or colorful clothes to be taken seriously. The fact of the matter is women have legs. They are a part of the human body that allow us to move from one place to another. Skirts that show some of a woman's legs do not suddenly take away her intelligence. The people who give these criticisms are displaying there own opinions that a woman cannot be both attractive and intelligent. The skirts, pumps, and jewelry are things that are generally considered to increase the attractiveness of a woman. So according to the male colleague mentioned, the more attractive a woman appears the less her aspirations should be taken seriously. Furthermore, a woman of power who did not conform to certain expectations would also be criticized. For instance, in courtroom, where there is a southern "good old boy" presider, a woman who does not wear a skirt is considered disrespectful to the court. Also, consistently throughout the country women are expected to wear heels when they are dressed up. Furthermore, pumps are nearly the only dress shoe provided for women which could be considered business appropriate. So women are caught in a catch-22. Women basically can't win. If we are capable of dressing a different way, we could be considered disrespectful or discounted as invisible because of our appearance. Contrastly, if we do dress in a skirt and pumps we're considered to have nothing serious to discuss. It's a complete double standard. If a man dressed in a designer suit, shiny black shoes, a rolex watch, cuff links, and a tie clip he would be considered proffessional and respectful. His ideas would be taken if anyting more seriously. Yet the female counterpart is not taken seriously. People with that opinion should simply recognize that women can look appealing and have serious ideas. It should not be up to the woman to change her appearance so that someone will listen to her words rather than look at her.
Post a Comment