Portrayal of women in media is still pants!
|
Hillary Clinton has been reduced to wrinkles in a pants suit. Maxine McKew’s skirt is centre stage. What’s the show called? “Misogyny in Da House”. I’ve considered starving the issue - negative media representation of women in politics - of oxygen but this is a problem that clearly needs further public airing. Why? Because when a woman of Hillary Clinton’s character, experience and intelligence is deemed unfit for the White House because of perceptions the voting public will be turned off by the prospect of watching a woman age before their eyes, it sends a message to the world that feminism is still several battles from winning the gender equality war. And, because far too many men just don’t get it. Lest I be accused of being a reactionary man-hater (again!), I say this from the perspective of a feminist woman who is actually rather fond of men. I also have evidence - in the form of a s-xist backlash against my Crikey story from earlier this week on the Canberra Times’ attempt to diminish Maxine McKew’s defeat of John Howard with a demeaning front page photograph selected unapologetically by Editor, Mark Baker. My story about the fiasco attracted a significant number of comments on Crikey and a similar number of responses via my blog. Then there were the emails…many of them were personalised misogynistic rants that displayed the most extraordinary ignorance. At Crikey, where 23 comments were posted, over 50% of respondents were men. The vast bulk of identifiably male responses took issue with my critique of the Canberra Times’ decision to run the tasteless “up-the-skirt shot” of Maxine McKew. Some were so s-xist they were laughable - like this one from Kevin: “Julie Posetti is showing signs of her damage at the hands of the Catholic eduction system. I commend Mark Baker for not backing down to the hairy chested feminists who exist in every newsroom”. More seeth-worthy was the assertion from a number of male respondents that women offended by the Canberra Times’ treatment of Maxine McKew were whinging about nothing and that her choice of clothing was the real problem - that is, she “asked for it”. (Uncovered meat comparison anyone?). Take for example this comment from David: “Maxine sexualised herself with her choice of dress. Why should only male politicians should [sic] have a dress code?” Meanwhile, as the media’s commentary on Hillary’s pants suits (a discourse which has distracted from coverage of her policies and intellectual gravitas) has proven, even women politicians who wear pants can’t escape gender bias in the media. This was a point echoed by a Queensland correspondent to my blog “…so outraged by Maxine’s photo being published I can barely type…women politicians in Queensland are often described in the press in terms of their shoes…Hillary’s pant suits have featured in the last four articles I’ve read on her campaign. My five year old daughter just doesn’t get it and asks why they don’t put photos of men’s shoes in the paper?” I wonder if this rampant s-xism is another product of the Howard assault on respect for difference derided as “political correctness”. Newsflash guys: feminism is no longer a dirty word! And, thankfully, this is a view shared by many men. Take, for example, the perspective of Crikey reader Malcolm: “I totally concur with Julie. Baker was caught out. His pathetic excuse in the Canberra Times , was exposed for what it was, when an appropriate photo of the same event appeared on p2 of the same days SMH, by the same photographer. The Times photo was crude”. When I watched my third year students graduate from their journalism course this week at the University of Canberra I was struck once again by the gender shift among the ranks of junior reporters. I’m regularly asked by News Editors for the names of successful male students because their newsrooms are already “female dominated”. But while the ranks of women journalists have swollen dramatically over the past 20 years, most editorial management and senior reporting positions are still occupied by men. And newsrooms remain sexist workplaces (Channel Nine anyone?). But we shouldn’t have to wait for equality in newsrooms for women to be reported equally by the media. Men are just as capable of understanding the consequences of female subjugation and stereotyping as they are of appreciating racist representation of black men from a white male perspective. But they have to want to remove their blinkers. |
|
|
|








14 Comments
Rampant sexism? There is more in Julie’s articles than the responses. I thought she, as an academic, would provide a coherent argument to defend her innitial position rather than point out the criticism was made by men as a defence in itself.
Dear David Sanderson,
Please reveal your relationship to Julie Posetti…OR HAVE IT REVEALED ON THIS PAGE!!!!!!!!
There is really no room for arguement on this topic. The photo was crude and unnecessary and of no credit to the paper. To all those who think otherwise, how would you like it if the subject of the photo was your wife or mother, like Ms McKew just going about their business.
The offending portion of the photo could easily have been cropped as was done in other papers, with no detrimental effect on it’s message.
I’m not sure about the sexism part. If Howard or any other man had inadvertantly revealed his privates in the presence of a tabloid photographer, I’m sure an equally offensive photo would have been taken and published.
Yes folks…..notwithstanding this latest 70’s feminist inspired text book rant, we should all remember that Julie has (either consciously ou sub- consciously) manoeuvred us into exactly where she ‘NEEDS’ to be…ie: IN PRINT.
Where can one see the “up-the-skirt” picture so one’s research doesn’t have to rely on secondary sources?
Well put Leonidas, It is the inacuracies in Julie’s article (eg. “Pauline Hanson’s fashion sense was ridiculed above her policies”), that stirred response, not the original (non) issue.
And by the way Julie….I’m not cutting off my ‘blinkers’ for anyone!!!!!….viva la difference!
I’ve seen it now. You got it wrong. Not a perve shot as you say but demonstrably from above the elbow level (looking down on Howard’s hands-on-crotch). Will you apologise to the photographer who took such a fun snap of someone getting the last word?
But she hasn’t revealed her privates has she? Or anything very much at all. This is just a complete non-story. There is nothing pervy, misogynist or humiliating about the photo. You can see a bit of her leg and that’s it. Get a grip.
Tom, you are lapsing into complete incoherence. Take a long rest before trying to write again.
David, Crikey word limitations stopped me engaging further with your criticism and this isn’t an academic journal. But you can read a longer version of this story at my blog: http://www.j-scribe.com/2007/12/turning-blind-eye-to-gender-bias.html.
When women figure out how to work as a team and support women before their men, when mothers treat their daughters with the same importance as their sons we might change the boring, patriarchal society of today and yes I still love men too.
Kevin, I think it’s time you took a Bex and had a good lie down! For the record, I have no idea who David Sanderson is and I have no relationship to declare with any of the respondents. Thankfully, not all men think like you, Kevin!
Yep, McKew’s victory is very intimidating, I feel emasculated. ALP plays ‘Return of Max the Axe’ trumping Coalition’s Moore-Wilton. Poor John, he’ll be squeaking like a mere lad again, before they dropped - err too crude? what the hell. We is what we is.