I’ll need some help to survive the fact that Project Runway Season Four will soon be over.
Not by everyone in the media. And not all the time.
But to me, there is no longer a question about bias. The question now is, “Why?”
Is it because she’s too well-known or overly familiar? Thirty women weighed in on Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, and they were not all complimentary, as pointed out by Elizabeth Benedict at the Huffington Post maybe it’s because she’s not like the rest of us:
Another way that Hillary is not like the rest of us is that she has long been the object of maniacal obsession by the left, right and center, and that will not end anytime soon, win or lose. She is different from the smart, accomplished writers who make up the provocative, glittering mosaic that is Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, and she is different from every man who is running or has ever run for President: no one has been dissected the way she’s been, no one has been subjected to relentless and catty condemnation of his hair, his wardrobe, his popcorn-eating habits in college, his cooking, his cookie recipes, his invented sexual proclivities, or his marriage — even the faithless Giuliani or McCain, with the trophy wife for whom he ditched his previous wife — the way Hillary has been.
Or is it just because she’s got two X chromosomes? Elizabeth Keathley at Women’s eNews suggests:
Voices as diverse as Virginia Woolf, Barbra Streisand and punk rocker Kathleen Hanna have remarked that women and men doing the same things are judged differently–women more negatively–and that this double standard has circumscribed the range of socially acceptable behavior available to women.
The third possibility is that it has nothing to do with the fact that the “first serious woman presidential candidate” happens to be the wife of former President Bill Clinton, the man the GOP loves to hate. Maybe it’s just because women aren’t being true to the cause — if we were more committed to sister Hillary, would the guys back down?
Maybe it would happen to anyone. It is a good way to sell T-shirts.
Some journalists could also use a thesaurus. There are ways of legitimately criticizing Hillary’s views or how she’s run her campaign without calling her witchy, stern, a scold or the myriad other derogatory terms the main stream media has used to describe her. I couldn’t come up with any similar terms that have been used to negatively describe the male candidates. They’ve pretty much gotten a pass.
Granted, Clinton has not always handling the bias well. And finding a way to deflect or diffuse the attacks is something she should have figured out much earlier and could have been helpful to her campaign.
The way the coverage of Hillary Clinton has played out should be an instructive lesson for whoever the next “serious woman presidential candidate” is, regardless of what happens to Hillary’s campaign. The media landscape and its play book aren’t going to change that much between now and 2021. And I suspect that the sexism that invades our media coverage won’t either.
How the next viable woman presidential candidate deals with our country’s ingrained attitudes about women should be instructive. Hopefully, our daughters will be paying attention, too, and can help turn attitudes in the direction of being more accepting of any qualified candidate, regardless of gender.
And in the meantime, I hope reporters will take a few of those angry vocabulary words out of their arsenal.
Cross-posted from BlogHer, where PunditMom is a Contributing Editor for Politics & News.
Today is also Perfect Post Day, and this month I’m awarding this little beauty:
to my fellow MOMocrat, Glennia, for her post entitled Hillary, Can We Talk? Need a common sense approach to politics? Then head over and check out Glennia’s post and feel free to stay and read some of the other MOMocrats, too!