This is the official SocImages Election 2012 Sexism Watch. We add content, as it arises, in reverse chronological order.
—————————
#9 Bachmann Pours Away Presidential Bid
How did we miss this one? Representative Michele Bachmann performed the comically gendered role of pouring water for all of the (male) Republican candidates and the (male) host at the start of the Republican Family Forum debate in Iowa this past November.
Some of the candidates seemed uncomfortable at this puzzling behavior, and the host joked, “I want to begin by thanking Representative Bachmann for taking care of the water for today’s event.” It’s possible that Bachmann only intended to pour water for the person sitting next to her, but was put on the spot when the host assumed she would pour water for everyone.
This event was hosted by CitizenLink, the political action arm of the uber-conservative Christian organization, Focus on the Family. CitizenLink describes itself as a “family advocacy organization that inspires men and women to live out biblical citizenship that transforms culture.” They promote traditional families as the “building block of society,” so it’s possible that Bachmann was strategically catering to an audience that is less supportive of women in “unconventional” roles.
Whether intentional or unintentional, Bachmann’s actions highlight the contradiction between traditional gender roles and conceptions of leadership. And the lack of media focus on this incident illustrates how unremarkable it is for a woman to be in a service role in the company of men. If Governor Rick Perry had gone around the table and dutifully poured water for all of the Republican primary contenders, it would have made the front page.
More Election 2012 Sexism Watch after the jump!
—————————
#8 Bachmann Enters Stage to “Lyin’ Ass Bitch”
November 25th, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
Earlier this week, Michele Bachmann entered the set of Late Night With Jimmy Fallon accompanied by the musical musings of The Roots covering the Fishbone song, “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.”
Glenn Beck responded by calling Fallon a “despicable human being.” The Women’s Media Center noted that this gender slur was both “sexist and unfunny.” Fallon has since apologized.
—————————
#7 Manicure Alert
November 5th, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
Michele Bachmann’s French manicure has created quite the chatter amongst bloggers and “news” organizations (see here , here, here, here,here, and here) who are debating whether the polish style is classy, tacky, or even worth discussing. Hint: It’s not worth discussing any more than it’s worth discussing the accumulation of dirt under Bachman’s male competitors’ nails.
The ever-important manicure topic previously drew attention during the 2004 presidential race when a Fox News reporter used homophobic slurs in an attempt to diminish John Kerry’s candidacy.
But maybe I’m overlooking the electoral influence of manicures. BloggerDarren Garnick writes that “Perhaps one of the most overlooked moments of the 2008 presidential race was the endorsement of Barack Obama by Empress Stephanie, one of the nation’s most influential nail polish bloggers.”
—————————
#6 “Thank God” (She Kept Her Clothes On)
October 8th, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
The senate race between Republican incumbent Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren has taken a sexist turn. During last Tuesday’s debate, a college studentposed this question to Warren:
To help pay for his law school education, Scott Brown posed for Cosmo. How did you pay for your college education?
Warren responded, “I kept my clothes on…I borrowed money.”
The topic surfaced again a few days later when Brown was asked to respond to Warren’s comment on local radio station WZLX. His response? “Thank God” (she kept her clothes on), eliciting raucous laughter from the male disc jockeys in the studio.
This planned comment was certainly vetted by Brown’s campaign and had the double impact of belittling her physical appearance and reminding voters that women are first and foremost judged by their appearance, despite other accomplishments.
In this same interview, Brown went on to defend his decision to pose nude by painting Warren as an elitist. “Bottom line is, you know, I didn’t go to Harvard, you know, I went to the school of hard knocks, and I did whatever I had to do to pay for school,’’ he said.
But here’s the thing. Elizabeth Warren did not attend Harvard. She’s the daughter of a janitor who started waiting tables when she was barely a teenager, and later worked and borrowed to pay her way through the University of Houston and Rutgers School of Law. Warren worked her way up to becoming a professor at Harvard Law School.
In addition to attending the school of “hard knocks,” Brown also attended Tufts University and Boston College School of Law.
—————————
#5 Bachmann Denies Sexism
September 27th, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
From The Factor, September 26, 2011:
O’Reilly: “Do you think you’re being treated differently because you’re the only woman in the race? Here you’ve got eight sweaty guys – they’re all sweaty – and then you’re there. Are you being treated differently because you’re the only woman in the race, do you think?”
Bachmann: “You know I don’t think so. I’ve never felt that way. I grew up with three brother and no sisters.”
O’Reilly: “So there’s no gender bias, anything like that?”
Bachmann: “No, I grew up with three brothers and no sisters. That’s the best preparation for politics that any girl can have. I don’t feel in any way that I’m discriminated against. I’m just grateful to be able to be in the race. I think it’s wonderful…”
O’Reilly: That’s refreshing to hear. Remember Hillary Clinton when she ran last time [scoffs], ‘you know, I’m getting hammered because I’m a woman….’ You don’t see it that way.”
Bachmann: “I don’t think so. All of us have to go through this.”
Where to begin with this video. O’Reilly reduces men to “natural” brutes with his two kidding-on-the-square comments that the male primary contenders are “eight sweaty guys.” Bachmann then affirms this idea with her contention that growing up with three brothers prepared her for politics, insinuating that she is well versed in responding to (naturally brutish) male behavior. Can I get a “boys will be boys” here?
Then, after Bachmann draws a clear distinction in the way boys/men and girls/women behave, she claims that she is not being treated differently because she is the only woman in the race. “All of us have to go through this.”
There’s pressure for Bachmann to not complain about the (obvious) sexism she faces for fear of being labeled a “victim”/weak, even though it has likely already cost her the candidacy. O’Reilly’s effusive praise of Bachmann’s denial of sexism — “refreshing” — is evidence of this pressure.
O’Reilly then scoffs at Hillary Clinton’s claim that she faced sexism in the 2008 election, despite ample research finding that she did (here, here, here, and here), and egregious examples, including audience members yelling and holding up the sign “Iron My Shirt” at several campaign events.
- Being the first candidate to have a nutcracker made in her likeness:
Rush Limbaugh asking about Clinton, “Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
Author Marc Rudov speaking on Fox News: “When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, ‘Take off for the future.’ And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’” (in a mocking high pitch).
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews describing Clinton’s senatorial victory speech:
It can grate on some men when they listen to it, fingernails on a blackboard… How does she do it without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?
Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach writing that Clinton “needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy. She came perilously close to going on a tirade.”
MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson featuring Republican strategist Roger Stone, creator of the anti–Hillary Clinton 527 organization, “Citizens United, Not Timid”—or C.U.N.T.
“Progressive” Air American radio host Randi Rhodes declaring at a network event that Clinton and former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro were “fucking whores.”
Some of the most egregious examples of altered, degrading images of Hillary Clinton that littered the Internet during the election can be found at Women-America (trigger warning: nudity, pornography) and in this video montage:
Perhaps O’Reilly was channeling Chris Matthews who asked, “Is Hillary out of line for painting herself as a victimized woman every time her male rivals criticize her? And do we want a president who plays the gender card every time her opponents attack her?”
Presidential candidates run with the knowledge that they will be attacked, but can O’Reilly honestly say that Clinton wasn’t getting hammered because she was a woman given this mountain of evidence? It’s great that O’Reilly is giving face time to a female presidential contender, but his mocking dismissal of sexism on the presidential campaign trail hurts Bachmann and future female contenders.
—————————
#4 And Then There Were Two?
September 12th, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
Major news outlets have deemed the competition for the Republican nomination contest a two-man race, including:
- The Daily Beast, A Two Man Race: Perry and Romney
- The National Journal, Despite Bachmann’s Success, The Real GOP Race is Now Perry Vs. Romney
- Newsmax, Experts: Perry Surge Creates Two-Man Race on Eve of Debate
- Redstate.com, Perry vs. Romney
- The Los Angeles Times, McManus: A Two-man GOP Race?
This early framing of the contest as a two-man race may effectively end Michele Bachmann’s candidacy, despite her winning the Ames Straw Poll (knocking Tim Pawlenty out of the race) and polls showing that she, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul have considerably more support than other candidates. Also, according to this Gallup poll, Bachmann and Perry generate more positive intensity than Romney.
CNN Reporter Roland Martin’s blood is boiling at journalists for prematurely framing the nomination as a two-man race: “Our actions are utterly shameful when we choose to negate every other candidate solely because we have determined that they can’t be elected… coverage is slanted toward those who we think stand the best chance at winning, thereby depriving any other candidate the opportunity to put their message forward.”
According to the Gallup poll below, Bachmann’s support increased slightly in July and August, while Romney support fell with Perry’s entrance into the race.
An August 24, 2011 PPP poll shows a closer race with Perry at 33%, Romney at 20%, and Bachmann at 16% support amongst Republicans. Aside from differences in polling methods and numbers, it is important to note that were are five months away from the first primary election, and these numbers will shift, perhaps dramatically. Perry is still enjoying a Honeymoon period, and the race will likely get tighter as voters find out more about him and his record. John McCain, the winner of the 2008 Republican nomination, trailed in national polls until the end of December in 2007, so discounting candidates this far in advance can artificially and anti-democratically limit choice.
The two-man race framing was evident during the third Republican debate last week at the Reagan Library where Perry and Romney were asked more questions than the other candidates and given more opportunities to respond to each another, especially at the start of the debate when they verbally sparred back and forth while the other candidates stood idly by.
I propose that the ease with which Bachmann’s candidacy has been discarded by the press has something to do with her being a woman. I witnessed something similar happen to Elizabeth Dole during the 2000 Republican nomination contest. Despite running a strong second in the polls, enjoying high favorability ratings (75% favorable impression compared to 69% for George W. Bush in March, 1999), and beating Al Gore in a hypothetical head-to-head contest, Dole was never considered a “real” candidate because she was a woman. Relentlessly biased press coverage contributed greatly to her failed candidacy, as noted in this research and by her campaign manager (and later White House Press Secretary) Ari Fleisher. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 candidacy was also hindered by blatant and subtle sexism in press coverage, as documented in several studies, including this one.
In the back of the minds of many pundits and reporters, Bachmann has never been a serious contender because she is a woman, and this two-man framing all but ensures that she will not be.
—————————
#3 Sexism and Bachmann’s Problematic Female Personality
August 22nd, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has already faced a steady stream of blatant sexism since considering a presidential run. In June, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked her the question, “are you a flake?” Then in mid-July, Bill Maher mused during an interview with a laughing Piers Morgan that Bachmann and Sarah Palin would “split the MILF vote.”
About the same time, Bachmann faced intense focus on her migraines. This medical ailment mostly affects women and was presented as a biological factor limiting fitness for the presidency, reminiscent of arguments about menstruation. A few weeks later, sexism was spotted again in a Newsweekcover featuring Bachmann with “crazy eyes” that presented a visual representation of the “crazy women” frame used against Hillary Clinton in 2008.
—————————
#2 Only Women Get in Cat Fights
August 22nd, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
We imagine that women are in competition with each other in a way that they are not with men specifically because we see them as women first, and people second.
Bachmann was asked the “catfight” question by Fox News host Bret Baier:
BAIER: Former governor Sarah Palin is here in Iowa this week as well. She’s not in this race yet either. Congresswoman Bachmann, is she stealing your thunder?
BACHMANN: I like Sarah Palin a lot. We are very good friends. And I think there’s room in the race for Governor Perry, Sarah Palin, or even, Bret, you, too, if you want to throw your hat into the race.
BAIER: I think I’ll be out of this one. (LAUGHTER)
This question reveals at least three disturbing assumptions about female presidential contenders.
First, since Palin is a female candidate, she would only be stealing thunder from another female candidate (based on the assumption is that female candidates don’t pose a real threat to male candidates).
Secondly, this question implies not only an interchangeability of female candidates, but also the idea that there’s only room in the race for one token candidate (again, revealing the assumption that female candidates aren’t “real” candidates).
And lastly, this question assumes that if two women are in a race (and let’s be clear here – Palin is not in the race), they will compete with each other as women in a way that supersedes the electoral competition. Politico reporter, Maggie Haberman, caught up with Palin who noted the obvious sexism in this question:
“Just because there may happen to be two women in the race, that they would you know as Michele had put it once, get in the mud and engage in some catfighting that’s ridiculous. It’s kind of even a sexist notion to consider that two women would be kind of duking it out… If I’m gonna duke it out I’m gonna duke it out with the guys.”
—————————
#1 Whose Marriages are Relevant?
August 22nd, 2011
Caroline Heldman, Contributor
Sexism in the electoral arena is easy to determine with a simple test: “Does this action (in this case, two questions) treat Bachmann differently than her male competitors?”
During the Republican debate in Iowa last week, Washington Examiner reporter Byron York asked this question:
“Representative Bachmann, in 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, ‘But the Lord said, Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”
In response, Bachmann offered a ridiculous revision of the meaning of the word “submission” (“submission… it means respect.”) But she never should have been asked that question in the first place. Bachman’s views on power dynamics in her marriage are irrelevant to the presidential contest, and since her male competitors were not asked if they uphold the prevailing societal/religious notion that men should be the head of household, this question was gendered and unfair.
—————————
For past examples of sexism in U.S. presidential politics, see the round up of our coverage of the 2008 election.
Caroline Heldman is a professor of politics at Occidental College. You can follow her at her blog and on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 115
Anonymous — August 22, 2011
I don't know what to make of this Newsweek cover controversy. As far as I can tell, that's just Bachmann's face. She almost never looks directly into the lenses of cameras that are taking her picture or filming her, and it makes her eyes have that look about them. I almost feel like making a big deal out of that picture and her "crazy eyes" applies a level of scrutiny to her appearance that is not necessary and not beneficial, even considering the sympathy she might garner as a "victim" here. If you want to make the case that Bachmann should be treated as a serious presidential candidate (as I assume her staff wants to), I would think you'd want to put a different spin on it.
Barry Fresh — August 22, 2011
The Soc Images team is using the stupidest possible interpretation of equality for issue #1. Ask yourself if Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Elizabeth Dole (way back when that was a popular idea) would be asked the same question if they were running. No, they wouldn't.
Michele Bachman herself made the submission of a wife to her husband an issue. Asking her about it points out that either as president she would be forced to submit to the will of her husband (less likely) or that she is a hypocrite who is pandering to a specific set of conservative Christians (more likely).
It's far from clear that sexism is at the root of the question, because A. the question has some obvious use, B. the candidate herself made this an issue, C. other female candidates would not face the same issues.
Aliaras — August 22, 2011
I disagree -- Bachmann's power dynamics in her marriage are relevant *if they might actually affect her presidency*, which if she's willing to go get a degree in tax law just on her husband's say-so, it seems like it might. None of the male candidates have that issue, and even if they did follow the same line of thought as Bachmann, it wouldn't affect their presidency because they're not the submissive partner.
I don't mind that she submits to him, I mind if that would come outside their relationship and affect her policy.
Christopher Sanders — August 22, 2011
In my opinion, the Newsweek cover doesn't count as sexism. Recall the terrifying John McCain cover done during the last election?
The wife/submission issue I also feel is relevant, as the form of Christianity she has repeatably acknowledge teaches that the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church, and so forth. It is a question that should not be labeled and thus dismissed out of hand.
Anonymous — August 22, 2011
This article is infested with evidence sorting and confirmation bias. The author clearly has a deep-seated need to find examples of sexism that support his/her worldview—even when the evidence is thin or nonexistant.
Of course she is dealing with sexism SOMEWHERE, at SOME POINT. But most of these examples have been wildly (and possibly intentionally) misinterpreted.
No wonder most people don't think sociology is a real science.
Mary Petrovic — August 22, 2011
Completely disagree about her views on 'submissiveness.' Her beliefs about religion are absolutely relevant because she MADE them so. The way Bachmann (and many American politicians, for that matter) speaks about her faith tells us that it is a very important part of her life, and that she uses it to inform her decisions both personal and political. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily objectionable at all.
But when she claims that submissiveness to her spouse led her to change her education and career track, is it a huge leap to imagine it could change, and has changed, her political judgment? Voters have a right to know how, and on what basis, their elected representatives make their decisions.
If, hypothetically, there were a male candidate in the race for the Republican nomination, and this male candidate happened to be a conservative Christian who publicly and enthusiastically touted the primacy of faith in his life (purely hypothetical, as such a candidate has never existed or will exist :), I would sure as hell want to know more about the role of religion in his life. If he had openly shared a personal story about the substantial way his religion, or his spouse, changed his professional career, I would want to know if that was the way he often made life-changing decisions. And I believe I would have every reason to ask and every right to hear the answer.
knwilliams — August 22, 2011
I think the marriage question is completely valid. I need to know if I should also be vetting her husband if she will defer to him when making key decisions.
Umlud — August 22, 2011
I forward this commentary from a recent Last Word show about women in politics:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44210008#44210008
(hopefully that copied correctly)
Thalia — August 22, 2011
Excellent article by Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown that quite effectively counters #1:
http://globalcomment.com/2011/why-it-matters-that-michele-bachmann-is-a-submissive-wife/
Nina — August 22, 2011
I also take issue with #1. Yes, sexist attitudes towards female politicians often manifest themselves in questions about family life and such, questions which are almost never asked to male politicians.
However, I will argue that the editors of SocImages in this case are failing to provide an actual analysis of the concrete trajectories of the 'submissiveness issue' in the mainstream media. It's just way too simplistic to say, that because the media has never asked male candidates about this, therefore it is an example of sexism. As others have pointed out, Bachmann itself made it a publically relevant issue by starting to explain how her particular beliefs have led to certain decisions in life. It is relevant for the American public to know how likely it is that her husband's family orders will conflict with her responsibilities as president. The public is not voting for her husband, they have a right to know how she plan to perform her presidency with personal integrity.
Also, hallo, what ever happened to 'the personal is political'? Bachmann clearly isn't just talking about how her family happens to be organized, she is staing her opinion upon gender relations in the US. That is not 'private matters'.
However, I do think there is sexism at play here, which lies in the way the question have quickly been framed by liberal and left-wing media. It is problematic how they have taken to ridicule her and make the tired accusations of hypocrisy so often directed towards publicly female conservatives. Isn't it much more important to debate how theses views would likely effect her policies in case she becomes president? Like, what kind of organizations and agencies do you think is most likely to get political and financial support from a president who thinks wifes should obey their husbands? Or what about the fact that the us governments funds projects in many countries in the global south, where they, amongst other things, have to deal with gender relations. There is a tradition for these projects to be extremely politicized according to moral and religious beliefs held be the president.
By focusing on her personal role in her marriage, rather than expanding the issue to public policy, I think the various medias have made use of typical gender notions of females being associated with the private sphere and vice versa. But that is in no way the same as saying they are horrible sexists for even asking the questions. that is seriously dumbing down the issues.
Anonymous — August 22, 2011
I'm confused about the dates in this post:
They all say "September 5th, 2001", but appear to be about current events.
It's not September yet, so it doesn't seem like it should be 2011 rather than 2001. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
Anyone have any ideas?
Anonymous — August 22, 2011
The last part has been coupled with homophobia as well, at least when it comes to her and her husband's political stance on gay rights (of course, his opinions shouldn't matter in this case anyway). It's quite surprising when the peopel who do this are actually the one in favor of gay rights, but they still think it's okay to pick out ambiguous quotes and call hiem gay like it's something hilarious.
Anonymous — August 22, 2011
Can someone elaborate on #2 for me? I'm not living in the USA, so I might be missing some background or context for it, but I do not see how Baier's remarks are sexist in isolation.
Even if Palin isn't in the race (even if she'll *never* be in the race), the media--even internationally--have never stopped suggesting she would be since the last election. So, her presence does potentially distract from other potential Republican candidates.
So, where's the issue with Baier's question? Was it that he asked Bachmann and didn't ask it of any male candidates? Or were there male candidates also around Iowa and he didn't imply that they were in competition with Bachmann?
I'm really curious, because it (sadly) shouldn't be that hard to find sexism in electoral coverage, but it seems like this one is reaching a bit. Judging by Palin's response, she seems to have been interpreting it that way, too, so I really want to know what I'm missing.
Netrus — August 23, 2011
I can't exactly follow you in number 3. I consider the question relevant and the answer by the candidate could be expected to be interesting, and in fact, it was. of course the question touched a gender topic, but the main motivation wasn't the candidates sex but previous statements of highly concerning content.
I don't think a woman who thinks she has to be submissive to her husband sounds like a good candidate (is that sexist of me? Why?). So one had to ask wether the was serious about this old statements.
infinitum17 — August 23, 2011
It's not our society that's being sexist: When she was asked about the submission issue, it was our society QUESTIONING the inherent sexism of her religion.
As for stealing Sarah Palin's thunder, sure, they're both women, but they are also of very similar political stripes. Other candidates definitely get asked whether a new candidate of similar politics entering the race is stealing their thunder.
And as for painting her as a "Crazy Woman", she IS a crazy woman! I guess the sexism lies in the fact that none of the men are painted as crazy men, although they may be as well.
5by5 — August 23, 2011
Calling Bachmann a flake is not sexism. It's merely an observation of her behavior and lack of qualifications as an individual, and is not a knock against an entire gender.
She PERSONALLY has a only the faintest grasp of history, ethics, constitutional law, security policy, or international relations. And because of that, not her gender, is unfit for the role of President. Off the top of my head I can think of more than a dozen women in Congress eminently more qualified than Bachmann on BOTH sides of the political aisle. And Bachmann's husband is relevant for discussion, because he has done things (like accepting federal funding for what is loosely referred to as a "clinic" even though Bachmann's policy position is basically that government funding like that should not happen, yet her family has personally benefited from it. Therefore asking her about that is completely within the bounds of any reporter's duties. When you add to that her vow of submission to her husband, it becomes a reasonable question to ask, "When you have big decisions to make like whether to go to war, are you going to defer to him, and if so, are we not in fact electing him as "the Decider", and not her?" The same question would not be asked of a woman who took no such vow.
Anonymous — August 23, 2011
Bachmann is a poor example for this sort of thing. She's not framed as a "crazy lady." She is a crazy person who happens to be female. And when you say "My husband explicitly controls key choices I make," well, yes, that becomes an issue.
Now, that "cat fight" thing is a good example, but it's weakened by being flanked by two poor examples.
Tomio_of_delila — August 23, 2011
I will be looking at this with great interest as it unfolds.
#3 - I don't know that being asked "Are you a flake?" is sexist. It is rude and an indication that the interview will be lacking in intellectual content. But is it asked because Bachman is a woman? Google "Bachman" and "flake." I think it is more of a reflection of her extreme political views than because she is a woman. We'll keep an eye on what Rick Perry is asked, though.
#2 - This is probably the best example of outright sexism, and for the exact reasons mentioned. Again, we'll see how Rick Perry is handled in the press.
#1 - This is absolutely NOT an example of sexism, and pegging it as such reflects a total lack of understanding of the Evangelical Christian sub-culture. This is someone who said she changed her career path because the Bible told her to submit to her husband's wishes. It is impossible for her to continue to burnish her Evangelical credentials - which is exactly what she was doing - and say that she is not submissive to her husband. Evangelicalism holds that spirituality MUST be a person's first obligation - so voters who understand this are wanting to know if she is going to be a good Evangelical and submit to her husband's desires (for example, "You must defend Israel against the Palestinians at all costs because the Jews are the chosen people of God" - a common belief among Evangelicals) or if a vote cast for her is actually being cast for her to act within her own agency.
Anonymous — August 24, 2011
Regarding "crazy eyes": this looks more to me like an attempt to pull a Howard Dean "rageface" than a women-only attack. It will fail, but only because the same meme doesn't go viral twice.
Yrro Simyarin — September 12, 2011
So this updating the post thing makes the comments *very* confusing.
I disagree with #4. They are ignoring Bachmann because she is an outsider candidate who isn't "mainstream" enough. If she were the only well-polling candidate to be ignored, sexism might be a possibility, but the media also pretty much ignores Ron Paul despite the fact that he finished second (to Bachmann) in the same polls.
The media and parties have worked very hard to present anything tea party related as fringe, unelectable, and therefore not worthy of their attention. Which is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the various straw polls don't decide who is mainstream and who is fringe, then who does? Other than the media companies themselves.
Oliver Crosby — September 12, 2011
Disagree with #1. None of the male competitors said they were submissive to their wives. If they had, I would hope the same question would be asked. People need to know if they're voting for the candidate, or the candidates spouse. And in America (I am not American) there seems to be a prevailing idea that your leader's character is in question. They don't look at the politicians career, they look at the politicians character. They do this regardless of gender.
It's stupid, but it's not sexist.
Anonymous — September 12, 2011
Bachmann made the submissiveness thing an issue. She opened that can of worms. She has to live with it. I'm not even talking about the problem of him influencing her. The first lady or first dude/whatever is going to affect policy.
However, if Bachmann can't ask her husbands opinion on certain things. Marcus Bachmann will not be given security clearances for many matters of national security. Marcus can't be in the room with her for many of the decisions she will face.
This is not a power dynamic that is compatible with operation security.
She has two options, backtrack and just say "I was pandering" or "I can't be president".
And I am a Christian, I've grown up around Christians. I've seen the submission thing take many forms, but in the conservative circles I grew up in, submission was submission in everything.
The fact that Marcus chose her career, one she was quoted as not liking. Bachmann herself said "I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband."
It just doesn't sit well.
Kat — September 12, 2011
Here are more poll data with good visualition:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Ned_Flaherty — September 13, 2011
Here's what all 13 presidential candidates plan for America's 31 million LGBT citizens: www.marriageequality.org/election2012
Anonymous — September 28, 2011
I'll just comment on your updated point #5.
Politicians love to play victim - especially conservative, female politicians. Think how many times Sarah Palin cried sexism in her treatment, for example (some of her claims were legitimate, most weren't). It's great political fodder. This leads me to conclude that Bachmann probably believes she hasn't been exposed to sexism. You can disagree with her, but I'm inclined to think she believes what she is saying since political incentives seem to align with her claiming sexism (especially from the liberal media elite who are bigoted against conservative women - or so I'm told).
As far as I can tell from the Bachmann campaign (though I admit I'm a very casual observer since I don't actually care who the nominee is that much) sexism has played a marginal role. While I don't think sexism was the deciding factor in the Clinton campaign - ultimately Obama was just the better candidate, I think it played a non-trivial role. I think the fundamental difference is that unlike Clinton, who was some obvious radical feminazi bitch, Bachmann nearly fits the idealized conservative role and poses little threat to the patriarchy. Nasty gender hate is much less likely to come out against a women who poses little threat to the recognized role of women in society. While a women becoming President has a nice sentimental value, it wouldn't radically change the role of women in America. Just ask yourself, has electing a black President radically changed the role of blacks in American? It has not, and we have little reason to think a women becoming President would change their role either, unless she actively fought to achieve a radical shift in gender norms - something Bachmann wouldn't do.
Also, I interpret the whole brothers comment pretty benignly.
Laughing Rat — September 28, 2011
This is really useful--I like having several crystal-clear examples all in one place. Thanks for compiling this!
Anonymous — October 8, 2011
Just the obvious statement to #6: One has to wonder what the effects would have been if she'd been the centerfold.
Andrew — October 9, 2011
With respect to example #6, I think both candidates are both out of bounds with their comments. Brown, for the obvious sexism, but also Warren, for deliberately exploiting body shame and belittling the legitimate and fully legal work of nude modelling.
Warren could have used the opportunity posed by the questioner to highlight her working-class roots, her struggle to pay her way through school, her perseverance in the face of financial difficulty, and the competence that eventually earned her degree; such an answer would have probably connected well with voters. Instead, she chose to take an unnecessary jab at her opponent and, by extension, stigmatize everyone who has at some point taken their clothes off for much-needed money - a group that is very disproportionately female - and it backfired.
With that in mind, I think what we see here is not just a female candidate being a victim of sexism, but also a debate in which candidates of both sexes harness the subtle power of sexism for small and petty rhetorical points.
Cowgirlsweetheart73 — October 19, 2011
I believe that woman can become whoever they want to be and succed in every and any feild. There souldn't be anything saying that women should have to be the ones to do the laundry. Yes there are a few things that are just kind of things that men should do just because it is more logical. I like Adrew's comment though, women are more than capable on getting things accomplished with their clothes on! They should be damn proud of that too!
Russell Coker — October 19, 2011
Could you please make a permanent URL for this so I can link to it? The "election-2012" tag isn't used much so it can be used to find the article without that much effort, but it would be good to have an article that didn't change it's URL all the time. Linking to the tag of an article and advising the reader to find the article that matches makes it more inconvenient for the reader and thus less likely that they will follow the link.
Another problem with such URL changes is that someone who is viewing an RSS feed loaded some days (or weeks) ago won't have a valid URL if they want to view the comments.
One of the ways of dealing with this in Wordpress is to use a "Page" for such an article and then make a "Post" that links to it - and have another Post informing the readers every time you update it. Another way is to have a separate Wordpress instance for documents that change periodically which doesn't include the date in the URL, then you can use the date-based blog to announce updates to the non-date based one.
Guzzi2 — November 27, 2011
These sorts of things are why we need to repeal the First Ammendment. Government should be able to control what people say, so we don't have to listen to all of these negative things. There should be no more hiding behind the outdated "Free Speech" garbage. There may have been a time when that was important, but with today's modern, progressive governments, we need to get rid of it.