Meeks (2012) cites a rich literature from gender studies and communication that describe the difficulties of any person who attempts to fulfill a role, job, or position traditionally associated with the opposite gender. Calling this phenomenon "gender incongruencies", past literature suggests a negative inclination towards those who violate division of labor expectations, thus informing Meek's prediction that coverage of female candidates will follow this pattern. Meeks also calls upon new literature that suggests that people in incongruent gender roles may adopt "subtypes" of their gender to create more complex gender identities that help fill perceived gaps in professional abilities. Because there have been so few female candidates, male candidates have become the norm and thus have set the expectations for candidates. Female candidates are thus "deviant" and "norm breakers" who necessitate additional merit for news coverage.
Performing a content analysis of media coverage in the two highest circulating papers for each candidate's home state, Meeks compared coverage in terms of overall amount of coverage and type of coverage between the female candidates above and their male opponents. Results showed that newspaper coverage of female candidates were statistically more likely to address issues of gender, use both feminine and masculine traits, and discuss issues than the male candidates. Also, as the female candidates ascended to higher political contests (i.e., executive positions), this gendered gap in coverage increased across the board. The only exceptions to this were Palin and Clinton who received less feminine issue coverage and Clinton who received less feminine trait coverage in the executive elections, but it held true for the other 21 categories.
The implications of these results reinforce male hegemony within the political system by categorizing the rise of women to political office as "novelty" or "abnormality". Whereas Obama's "change" was echoed positively in media coverage of his uniqueness to political office, other female candidates are framed as "socially incongruent with political office", perhaps influencing the general public and instilling doubt in the minds of voters to the candidate's capabilities. Meeks concludes that masculine issues (e.g., the economy, war, and defense) are the most prominent in executive elections, female candidates can be viewed as "inauthentic" when advocating masculine platforms or meeting male candidates on those issues. To be inauthentic and incongruent with political office places female candidates at a severe disadvantage in trying to embody the image of a political candidate.
Who will be the next combo-breaker?
Meeks's article is an important contribution to issues that female candidates face when running for political office. I have already mentioned in a previous article that the United States still has progress to be made on achieving true diversity and representation in politics, and I feel that additional research such as Meeks is doing will help to contextualize the problem and perhaps propose real change to the political system. There is, unfortunately, a negative feedback loop, because in order for women not to be seen as "norm breakers", more female candidates have to be associated with and achieve high offices, which is itself inhibited by such labeling.
As a communication and political researcher who has interests in femininity and discrimination, I can only say that I am optimistic that the future of gender equality in politics is coming. I applaud Meeks for continuing this important line of research and sincerely hope that the continuation of the above picture will become more varied, representative, and beautifully diverse over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment