Breast Implications #12: Political Breasts

The other day I found this post on Sociological Images about the use of breasts in political ads in Germany. The CDU party of Germany has been running this ad:

This ad features two women from the CDU party: Vera Lengsefeld (right) and Angela Merkel (left). Both women are wearing rather low cut tops/dresses. The text on the left, over the picture of Merkel, reads "We have more to offer."

By choosing pictures of these two women in low cut tops and using the phrase "We have more to offer" (and I'm sure it was purposeful), the ad is drawing attention to these women's breasts as their one feature to offer that is distinctive. They have more to offer because they have breasts.

It's really interesting to me that the CDU would use these women's breasts to an asset where as Hillary Clinton was criticized to no end for showing the slightest amoung of cleavage. Oh my god! Hillary Clinton has breasts! She is obviously not equipped to handle being president. It's not just that breasts unqualify a person for being president, but focusing on her cleavage in news reports is a way of silencing her intelligence and qualifications for the presidency.

How do the breasts of women in politics function differently in different societies. In Germany, they are obviously viewed as an asset and a good way of differentiating these candidates because they have "more to offer." But in the U.S., breasts are seen as a death sentence for anyone hoping for a career in politics. The U.S. does not want their leaders sexualized in any way. They are apparently just supposed to be asexual beings. Or they are supposed to be men, because it seems to be the problem is with breasts. But breasts will help the women of the CDU in Germany rise above the rest of the competition.

Colbert Takes on Media's Treatment of Women

I love Stephen Colbert.

Watch the clip of last night's "The Word" here. (Sorry I have trouble getting Comedy Central videos to embed)

While I'm not familiar with Archie comics, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail right on the head with last night's "The Word"!

His sarcastic commentary points out one of the main tools to keep women less than: turning women on each other. Turning women on one another is one of the ways that women are kept at a second class status. If women stopped fighting amongst themselves, comparing themselves to one another, etc. I think there is a subconscious fear among many men that women actually have more power than them (as Colbert points out) and by creating in-fighting among women is a way to keep women down.

I also liked how he commented on how women characters are often only defined by the man that they can land. In so many romantic comedies, strong business women are portrayed as not being happy enough until they have found that right man (see my review of The Proposal). Women obviously can't be happy by themselves, women need a man to make them happy.

And finally we get to his great commentary on Hillary Clinton. Only reporting on Clinton's response to a question about her husband is insulting. I think Clinton had every right to have that response. People should be asking her about her opinions on the things she is working on, instead of what Bill thinks about it. Only reporting on her response to that completely diminishes the amazing work that Hillary Clinton is doing.

Stephen Colbert has provided some great insight into the media's treatment of women in his great, sarcastic way.

A First Name Basis

Have you ever noticed that politically powerful women are usually referred to by their first name in the media where as most men are not? Well, I have.

Let me first say that I have been thinking about this for a while (which I will discuss in a little bit), but what really prompted this post and this moment in time was an email that I received from one of my best college buds who is now in D.C. This is what the email said:

I'm really curious as to if you've noticed or why you think that women in politics or really any well know women are known by their first name. Hillary, Sonia, Michelle to name a few. I recently read a subtitle in the Economist magazine which was "Judging Sonia" or the movie about Jane Austen "Becoming Jane". Both great women both only referred to by their first name. I very much doubt that a male justice would get such a headline. Thoughts?

I'm so glad that someone else picked up on this (though I'm sure many have).

During the latter part of my college career I was a research assistant for a professor doing research on the role of gender and race in the 2008 election. As I was gathering articles I often noticed that Obama and McCain were referred to either by solely their last name or as Senator Obama or McCain. But for Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, the media almost always referred to her as Hillary, very rarely as Clinton or Senator Clinton.

I brought this up in the comments of a post on Small Strokes titled "Women and the Family Name" and got some thought-provoking responses. One such response suggested that the media referred to her as Hillary in order to differentiate her from her husband because for 8 years Clinton meant Bill Clinton. I think that the context of the article would make it pretty clear that the were talking about Hillary Clinton. Or they could have referred to her as Senator Clinton because Bill was never a Senator. I think there is more to it than just trying to differentiate Hillary and Bill Clinton.

As my friend pointed out, I have also seen this trend in discussing Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I have often read the "judging Sonia" phrase. I don't, however, think this case was as "severe" as it was with Hillary. Or maybe I just didn't notice it as much because it wasn't put against the stark difference of the referrence to male candidates. But referring to Sotomayor solely as Sonia was pretty widespread throughout the media.

So why is this? Why are women referred to by their first name instead of their last? I see this as a sign of a lack of respect for women in politics; as a way to diminish the power they really have. Men are generally threatened by women with power and this is a way for them to diminish that power.

I also had a discussion with someone a while ago in which it was suggested that Clinton was referred to as Hillary in order to make her more relateable to the general public. If the public is on a "first name basis" with her, maybe it will make her seem more approachable and down to earth. I can kind of see this, but I don't really buy it.

By referring to powerful women by their first name, the media and men in power are showing that these women are not on their level; these women aren't good enough to be referred to by their last name or as Senator, Judge, etc. It also takes away some of the legitimacy that these women have. Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor are both incredibly smart women, but by referring to them by their first name, they might not be taken as seriously as their male counterparts who are referred to by their last name or title.