My father and the modern media

[tahnan]

My wife and my father had an argument the other day about a few cartoons in recent media. The first was this cartoon by Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; the second was this set of images in Time Magazine. (Explanation: the images were at the head of columns of polling statistics, hence the "how so and so see their candidates" headings.)

Take a moment to reflect on the two; particularly the latter, in which you should ask yourself, "Is anything striking about these portraits? (Other than the fact that they display a serious lack of talent on the part of the artist, who apparently learned to draw by watching Beavis and Butthead.) In particular, is there any sort of imbalance in the way the eight of them are portrayed?"

My wife's reaction to these two were, respectively, "So, what, a woman can't actually be in charge of her campaign? It must be her husband who's really behind it?", and "Um, why is Hillary naked?"

My father felt that the AJC cartoon was meant to suggest only that Bill in particular was crafty and manipulative, that he was using his wife as a way to get back into the White House. (Though, I wonder: did we ever see the equivalent cartoon eight years ago, to suggest that George H.W. Bush was controlling his son to get back into the White House? It's much easier, IMHO, to imagine W being manipulated than Hillary...) My wife felt that, while it might be true that the cartoonist felt that Bill was manipulative, it nevertheless carried with it the implicit sexist message. My father couldn't see it.

For the Time Magazine pictures, my father pointed out that women do dress like that in professional settings. To which the answers, from our (yes, if it's not clear by now, I side with my wife on these) point of view, are:

(a) what, naked?
(b) what, in off-the-shoulder dresses? Or perhaps straps or something with shoulders, but you can't tell because the artist decided to crop her picture differently.
(c) even if women sometimes wore clothing that revealed significant amounts of skin around the neck, why not put her in something more equivalent to what the men were wearing?
(d) have you ever seen Hillary in a formal setting (e.g. campaigning, debating) wearing anything other than a necklace, collared shirt, and often a jacket? Heck, even her inaugural ball gown didn't show that much of her neck and shoulders.

It was my father's position, through all of this, that my wife was looking for sexism where none existed, comparing her offense to the claims from some members of the black community that the charges against Michael Vick were motivated by racial prejudice. My wife, ah, didn't appreciate this position.

Anyway, I stand with her: the media still has a lot to answer for in terms of its implicitly sexist representation of women in politics (and in general).

(This was not, mind you, the last argument with my father. Earlier today I got extremely mad at him when, as my brother was deciding which of his last two cards to throw in a trick-taking game we were playing, my father showed him his one remaining card. His point was that it didn't matter which card my brother played in terms of affecting my father's score; I found this extraordinarily unprofessional, especially coming from a man whose current occupation is ensuring fair play at bridge tournaments. But that's another story for another time.)

Comments

[tavella.livejournal.com]

I had pretty much the same reaction: "Why is she naked?"

[jadelennox]

Ditto.

[ramurphy.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, while I noticed that Clinton's neck was exposed and everyone else was wearing a suit and tie, I did not immediately think, "Why is Hillary naked?" I thought Wwhere are the other Democratic candidates? Why does the cartoonist assume that Democrats only acknowledge three of the candidates? Where's my man Dennis?"

[saxikath]

I had the same initial reaction -- where are the other Democrats?

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

That one's not the cartoonist's assumption, at least, but the pollsters' assumption. Kucinich and Gravel and so forth don't fit the narrative; they're not "viable" candidates.

[jadelennox]

and for values of viability which equal "getting enough news coverage that potential voters have heard of them and consider them viable candidates worth voting for", the pollsters are exactly right.

*returns to regularly scheduled hatred*

[aspartaimee.livejournal.com]

i think everyone has heard of kucinich, and he gets air time, it's just that they don't really take him seriously.

[toonhead-npl.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but my reactions were similar to your dad's. The press has almost exclusively been about Bill's charisma when it comes to selling Hillary, and the art on the candidate heads is so lousy I didn;t even think that at all with Hillary. Of course now that you've pointed that out she looks like Hillary the Hutt.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

The presshas almost exclusively been about Bill's charisma when it comes to selling Hillary

Which.... seems to strongly validate the idea that the press thinks "a woman can't actually be in charge of her campaign, and it must be her husband who's really behind it".

Or did you mean that Hillary only talks about Bill's charisma when she's talking to the press? In which case I've really not been paying attention.

[toonhead-npl.livejournal.com]

No, I mean that Bill's always been a suave public speaker so naturally Hillary is going to have him help her campaign, especially if they're married and he still has a big following.

So how many of the other candidates have access like that? Obama has Oprah. Who else?

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

My consumption of mass media is very low right now, but I'm assuming that the Obama campaign's press isn't constantly about Oprah and how down-to-earth and charming she is, because she's secretly running for president with a Barack mask on.

I know I'm misunderstanding, because it cannot be that your point of view is that it's not that she's female, but that she's the only candidate with a popular and charming person in ... her family or her campaign organization, and that if Jimmy Buffett were to hook up with the Edwards campaign then people would assume that Jimmy was planning to use the White House as his own personal Margaritaville.

But that is what I'm misreading in your response.

[jadelennox]

I'd have to say that's not how I read that cartoon at all. There's a big difference between "my husband is a charismatic former president and I am trying to use his incredibly high approval ratings to shoehorn myself into the White House" and "I'm not in charge of my own campaign". One of them is mocking a candidate for running on somebody else's credentials. The second is putting down a candidate saying that she is actually just a figurehead.

There are two huge problems with that. In the first place, there is a big difference between saying a female candidate is just a figurehead and a male candidate is. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's true -- in a country that has not yet had a female president and has an appallingly small number of female elected officials, and in a country where major female political players are almost universally critiqued sexually first, then as how they fit into gender roles second, and finally as political players third (Helen Thomas is the only counter example I can think of offhand), and for that matter, in a country where the major opposition to giving women the vote came from the belief that they would just sign their votes to their husbands -- well, you have to be very careful about making the accusation that a female candidate is merely a figurehead for her husband.

But secondly, it's just ridiculous. She's been criticized since she was First Lady for being too arrogant, too much in control, too unwilling to listen to others. (See above re: critique regarding gender roles.) That critique has continued through her entire senatorial career in presidential campaign. To simultaneously criticize her for being in charge and just a patsy for Bill is incredibly problematic.

(I say this as no Clinton apologist. I despise the woman, it will be extremely annoyed if the primaries turn out such that I have to vote for her in November. But that doesn't change the fact that she's getting battered on every gender- and sex-related line the press can get away with.)

(I would also add that I find gendered tarring despicable when it's of people I hate, as well. The next person who makes some joke to me about Ann Coulter being a man or a slut will get a punch in the nose, I swear. There are so many reasons to hate that woman that have nothing to do with her two X chromosomes.)

[lsl.livejournal.com]

I thought "Why does she look topless? That's a cheap shot."
And the Dems all look smiley, while the Reps looks more serious as a set.

[mildmannered.livejournal.com]

That's really all there is to say about that.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Hey, they're non-partisan! Their next nutcracker will be Ann Coulter!

...wait, I don't feel any better about it now.

[mildmannered.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I saw that, and I think it makes it worse. They're not anti-liberal; they're just anti-WOMAN.

[otherwise-nyc.livejournal.com]

If she'd been wearing this outfit in the cartoon, we'd have seen her necklace and the collar of her jacket, at least.

[tablesaw]

I actually think it goes further. The reason Clinton looks "naked" is mostly because her picture is zoomed in more closely than the rest. The effect it gives off most to me is that she is considerably shorter than all of the other candidates, almost like a child. While it's true that many of the candidates are very tall (Thompson is 6'6"), Clinton is taller than John McCain.

[toonhead-npl.livejournal.com]

I really think the artist worked from a bunch of official photos, and that's how Hillary looked in hers, and rather than to notice anything seemed different they just went with what they had.

[colorwheel.livejournal.com]

but even if that were true -- someone compiled those photos. whether it was the artist or someone else, someone chose to work with photos where all the males get a business suit and the one female gets no clothing. what matters is the message sent.

[jadelennox]

Ditto what CW said. Also, as tahnan pointd out, how many pictures can you find of Clinton where she's wearing off the shoulder? It's not her style, and *certainly* hasn't been while she's been campaigning.

Not to mention that it's the job of the news media to notice.

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

Hillary's picture in the Time spread looks like a mug shot.

[mrmorse.livejournal.com]

I realize this was a parenthetical, but in bridge you are explicitly allowed to show the contents of your hand if you are claiming that your opponents' play can't affect the outcome of the hand. If your father was saying that your brother couldn't affect your father's results but this information could be used against the other players, that would be different.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, I am aware of that. The situation was that my brother was deciding whether or not to trump the trick, which would have affected whether I took it. We were also, I should note, playing "Oh Hell", in which not all of the cards are dealt, so it's not automatically the case that you can know your opponent's hand.

[ertchin.livejournal.com]

Coming in late--

I didn't really have an opinion on the first cartoon, being blissfully unaware of the "presentation" of all the candidates. But, perhaps influenced by that drawing of a husky Bill, my first thought on opening the second was that the second artist was drawing Hillary obviously (and incorrectly) fat.

(This opinion was tempered a bit when I looked to the right and saw how poor all of the drawings were, but still.)

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

She is weirdly bloated, isn't she? Time really needs a better artist.