In the last election we had two key women players; Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic Party for President and Sarah Palin; a vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party. This is not my opinion it is how I saw the media viewing these two women. How were they seen differently in the media? Well, Hillary Clinton was seen as this anti-feminine, power suit wearing woman who alienated many people, men and women. On the other hand, Sarah Palin was seen as a sex symbol. These two political women were viewed as extreme opposites. Hillary Clinton was viewed as a woman who was too strong, too greedy, and too masculine. There were many comments about here physical appearance, such as her power “pant suits”. There was even a doll made in her likeness, “The Hillary Nutcracker”. The box comments on “I can feel Bill’s pain”…Barack Obama and “Hillary Nutcracker—that’s redundant.”…John McCain. I actually received one of these dolls, as a joke, for Christmas.
But the media took Sarah Palin to the opposite extreme commenting that she was a sex symbol, too naive for such high office. She was portrayed as ultra-feminine. Sarah always wore high heels and skirt suits opposite Hillary’s pantsuits. Sarah also was called a beauty contestant finalist despite photos that showed her with a rifle and a Moose head that she killed, even with the fact out there that Sarah was a long standing NRA supporter and participant.
Why were these two women viewed politically so different? They were both viewed in ways that took power away from them, either being too masculine or too much of a sex symbol. Who benefits from this, the male politicians! They keep the power. They have and discredit the women candidates’ any way they can, from both extremes of the spectrum. This should bother us because if the future races remain this way we will never see a woman candidate as serious enough or capable enough to actually be president or even vice president.
No comments:
Post a Comment