Fat Talk by Denise Martz

Author:Denise Martz
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Published: 2019-05-13T16:00:00+00:00

Both Sarah Palin and Hillary Rodham Clinton took public stances that they were both “candidates that happen to be women” when they were faced with questions from reporters about whether or not sexism was a factor influencing their campaigns. I can see why each was professing this, but the fact that they were women was at the forefront of media attention that they attracted. Carlin and Winfrey (2009) conducted a communications analysis through the lens of sexist media portrayals of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential election based on stereotypes of professional women, research on the impact of sexist language, research methodology on media framing, and lessons learned from the campaigns. Thus, they borrowed from scientific methodology from previous communications literature that has been proven to capture sexism and, if it exists, to bring it to the forefront and used it to see if sexism was operating in the 2008 election. From their research, Carlin and Winfrey documented pervasive sexism faced by both candidates. Of the categories that they analyzed, they asserted that the category of “sexiness” portrayed the worse gender bias as this was often the topic of content for both of them, while other qualities such as their knowledge or political experience were ignored or tossed aside. Consequently, as women both candidates were placed under a media microscope evaluating their sexiness, whereas male candidates rarely face this type of scrutiny. Whether sexism in the media existed during the 2016 presidential campaign or not, I failed to hear questions about how qualified Donald Trump was in the category of sexiness. I would remember, because I would have gagged!

After establishing that both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin were evaluated on their sexiness, Carlin and Winfrey (2009) found that the direction of the scrutiny over the perceived sexiness of the two candidates diverged. Palin was heralded for her attractiveness and beauty pageant background, and the press attempted to disregard any other positive qualities that she possessed because of her beauty. I recall having very mixed feelings when I heard Palin speak, as I struggled to discern her credibility and did not favor her policies, yet I found it painful to view how she was objectified and treated like a doll by the press. Maureen Dowd (2008) of The New York Times called her “Caribou Barbie.” After what we learned about Barbie from chapter two, we now know that this was not a very nice thing for a woman of influence to call another woman. Not only was Sarah Palin objectified—she was sexualized. Reuters created an image that shot her backside showing only her legs and black high heels with a young male voter framed between her legs (Sheppard, 2008). Hmm, I wonder what subliminal messages they were going for in that image?! Although Palin was criticized for dressing to be pretty as opposed to dressing to be powerful, she was not dressing in revealing ways to appear sexual. She may have used her attractiveness, and certainly there was scandal over her $150,000 clothing budget supported by the Republican Party.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.