Not so shocking, but disturbing news that the media, all media, is bad for women candidates, even so called "good press." You've heard the expression "there's no such thing as bad press."
Not so for the woman candidate, according to this account from Think Progress, via Down Ticket Dems. Read on and comment:
Posted: 14 Apr 2013 02:38 PM PDT
As Media Coverage Of A Female
Candidate’s Appearance Go Up, Her Chances Of Winning Go Down
But just days after that comment, a
brand new study shows there’s definitive evidence to back up what the detractors
were saying all along: It might seem small, but pointing out the physical
attributes of a woman in the political arena can have a big effect.
The study, released Monday by
the Name It, Change Itproject,
reveals that mentions of a woman’s appearance when she is running for political
office — whether those mentions are flattering, unflattering, or neutral — has
a negative impact on her electability. That includes “the horserace, her
favorability, her likelihood to be seen as possessing positive traits, and how
likely voters are to vote for her.”
The survey was conducted by asking
1,500 likely voters to read about two candidates, one male (Dan Jones) and one
female (Jane Smith). Some groups received descriptions of the candidates that
did not mention physical attributes. Others received one of three types of
descriptions for the woman:
Neutral description: Smith dressed in a brown blouse, black skirt, and modest pumps
with a short heel…
Positive description: In person, Smith is fit and atractive and looks even younger
than her age. At the press conference, smartly turned out in a ruffled jacket, pencil skirt, and fashionable high heels….
Negative description: Smith unfortunately sported a heavy layer of foundation and
powder that had settled into her forehead lines, creating an unflattering look
for an otherwise pretty woman, along with her famous fake, tacky nails.
When respondents hear the negative
description of the female candidate’s appearance, she gets only 42 percent of
the voters. When they hear the “flattering” description, she gets 43 percent
(and there are fewer undecided votes overall, so her opponent gets an even
bigger lead). With no physical description, Jane Smith gets 50 percent of the
votes.
The same is true for all of her
personal attributes; no matter the description, it affects her negatively:
But the real point of the survey —
and the most salient fact that came from it — is that pushing back on the
comodification of a female candidate’s beauty can be just as impactful as the
criticism itself. Some respondents heard a defense from Jane Smith, saying, “My
appearance is not news and does not deserve to be covered. Rarely do they cover
men in this fashion and by doing so they depict women as less serious and
having less to offer voters.” Others heard a similar defense from Name It,
Change It. In both cases, when they heard that, their votes flipped back.
Indeed, Jane Smith gained her first lead of the entire campaign.
It might seem lighthearted, or fair
game, to comment on Hillary Clinton’s headbands,
or Sheila Jackson
Lee’s colorful suits. But those comments are not without
repercussion. Overt, unequal, and pointed criticisms of women’s appearances are
hurting them politically. And it might help explain that horrible ambition gap that’s
keeping our elected government so heavily male.
Annie-Rose Strasser
is Deputy Managing Editor for ThinkProgress. Before joining American Progress,
she worked for the community organizing non-profit Center for Community Change
as a new media specialist. Previously, Annie-Rose served as a press assistant
for Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Annie-Rose holds a B.A. in English
and Creative Writing from the George Washington University.
Think Progress is a project of the
Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress
Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization.
