commotiocordis (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
commotiocordis) wrote2008-12-02 10:19 am
commotiocordis) wrote2008-12-02 10:19 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Oh my god.
I wrote a sort of current event review paper thing for polisci about this study published that says that not only is there a strong correlation between winners of elections and physical attributes, but consistently in head-to-head fictional matchups, women were rated less competent.
The personal attractiveness factor of the candidate has only recently become a relevant issue in presidential politics. The modern rhetorical presidency is based on the executive’s power of persuasion, which calls for not only eloquent speech but a commanding presence in this age of visual mass media. As television addresses allow presidents (or candidates) to cut out the appeal for favorable coverage to the middle men of the carefully cultivated “journalistic fraternity” and speak directly to the people, relation to the people themselves has become of utmost importance. In a study published by the PLoS ONE journal and reported on by the Associated Press , student participants were presented with standardized images of lesser-known candidates from the 2006 House of Representatives election and were asked to indicate their perception of the candidate’s competence, attractiveness, approachability, and dominance on a seven-point scale. These scores were then correlated with results from a series of mock elections where the students were asked to choose between two images presented simultaneously. Researchers were then able to determine that for male candidates, the winners tended to be those who scored highest in competence, dominance, and approachability; for female candidates, the competent and attractive prevailed.
Though the winning male candidates were deemed more “dominant” than “attractive” by the study participants, this is still clearly an image issue, suggesting that the Associated Press’s inference that the study justifies Palin’s expensive wardrobe purchase “while raising questions about the need for a man like John Edwards to invest in a costly haircut” may prove incorrect. Thankfully, the highest correlation between image category rankings and overall candidate preference was in “competence”, suggesting that at least the conscious mind knows the irrelevance of physical attractiveness to presidential performance. The study also highlights another yet formidable obstacle to female achievement in politics—when the representative candidates were pitted against one another, women were consistently rated as less competent. Not only is their attractiveness a more integral element of voter preference, it appears the “old boys’ club” prevails in terms of voter confidence in females’ ability to successfully do their job in the male-dominated field of politics as well. So, though the progression of modern society’s acceptance of women has allowed females entry into the world of politics, it’s still hard to get more than a few feet into the doorway, as evidenced by the deplorable makeup of the 2007 United States Congress, comprised of only 16.8% women. These low proportions of female participation in politics are a global phenomenon that is surprisingly equally pronounced between the more media-driven, first-world cultures (the United States is in 71st place out of 137 rankings of global parliamentary systems) and the more traditional national suspects for female subjugation (see: Sudan, position #66) , which further supports the connection between appearance and voter choice.
The question that remains is whether there is anything we can do about it. Years of conditioning and history have taught us that politics is a place for middle-aged, cigar smoking, overweight, balding, white men; and yet, progress has been made. Sarah Palin following Geraldine Ferraro as a major party’s vice presidential candidate, women in the Speaker’s chair in the House of Representatives, speckled through the cabinet and upper White House administration in the upcoming Obama presidency, and recently promoted to four-star general in the US Army all suggest that while change may be slow, it is coming, despite this image war promulgated by our media-driven society.
This goes on the message board thingie for the class, and somebody actually wrote a response piece (as we're required to do). I say again, oh my god. You've just got to read it.
It’s good to see that competency is still a priority in a voters mind when they cast their ballot. However, while I agree that it is more difficult for women to get into politics, I don’t think the entire reason the Congress is only 16.8% women is because of the “good ole boy” system. I think the biggest factor is that women, for the most part, have things to do that are more important to them.
While I’m obviously not a woman, our society places a great deal of pressure on a woman to take care of the children. And, in recent years, many women have also been forced to take on jobs of their own, and sometimes multiple jobs. In addition, our society pressures the man in a marriage to be the bread winner so even if a woman does take a job, her husband usually has the more powerful profession. While this is not always the case, it tends to be the norm and because of the many tasks women are required to do, it’s hard to have time for other things, like being involved in politics.
In addition, the way our society views marriage makes it very difficult for a woman to be involved in politics. I doubt that if Barack Obama had to take care of his children every day and be President of the United States that he would get much done. In this same way, women who want to be involved in politics need their husbands to take care of their children, but if their husband does in fact take care of the children we tend to see the wife as out of place, almost as a usurper of power. For example, I don’t think I ever saw Sarah Palin’s husband in all of the hours of campaign ads and coverage that I watched. I think a big reason for this is that she didn’t want the public to see her with her husband and think negatively of her. We knew she had a husband, but as long as we didn’t see him, we weren’t thinking about her in a negative light. And, despite the fact that many women work and leave their children with “Mr. Mom,” there’s still a strong stigma attached for both husband and wife.
Lastly, I think a large portion of women stay out of politics because they feel time with their family is more important than being involved in Politics. They want to take care of their families and will vote for representatives that agree with them, but they don’t want to be the one in Washington hashing out the details. In saying that, I don’t want to seem sexist. I know that that is not always the case. I am only drawing conclusions based on what I’ve observed in my own family and amongst friends.
I appreciate your thought provoking essay Alexandria. I agree with you that it is more difficult for women to be in politics, but for a few different reasons. Thank you again for an excellent essay.
Thank you for an excellent essay? No, sir. You do not get the privledge of thanking me for writing an excellent essay because you know what? Not only do your arguments make no sense, as they're organized in some kind of crazyland kind of way, they're wrong. And I could appreciate your arguments if they were at least, you know, decent, but they're not. I see where you're trying to go with the societal stigma against the working woman, but you didn't get there.
And the worst part is that this is one of the best essays I've seen posted on there. (Admittedly, I've not nearly read them all, and a moment ago I just flipped open to one that's actually good, but still.) Such is the caliber of my honors college political science class. Le sigh.
I wrote a sort of current event review paper thing for polisci about this study published that says that not only is there a strong correlation between winners of elections and physical attributes, but consistently in head-to-head fictional matchups, women were rated less competent.
The personal attractiveness factor of the candidate has only recently become a relevant issue in presidential politics. The modern rhetorical presidency is based on the executive’s power of persuasion, which calls for not only eloquent speech but a commanding presence in this age of visual mass media. As television addresses allow presidents (or candidates) to cut out the appeal for favorable coverage to the middle men of the carefully cultivated “journalistic fraternity” and speak directly to the people, relation to the people themselves has become of utmost importance. In a study published by the PLoS ONE journal and reported on by the Associated Press , student participants were presented with standardized images of lesser-known candidates from the 2006 House of Representatives election and were asked to indicate their perception of the candidate’s competence, attractiveness, approachability, and dominance on a seven-point scale. These scores were then correlated with results from a series of mock elections where the students were asked to choose between two images presented simultaneously. Researchers were then able to determine that for male candidates, the winners tended to be those who scored highest in competence, dominance, and approachability; for female candidates, the competent and attractive prevailed.
Though the winning male candidates were deemed more “dominant” than “attractive” by the study participants, this is still clearly an image issue, suggesting that the Associated Press’s inference that the study justifies Palin’s expensive wardrobe purchase “while raising questions about the need for a man like John Edwards to invest in a costly haircut” may prove incorrect. Thankfully, the highest correlation between image category rankings and overall candidate preference was in “competence”, suggesting that at least the conscious mind knows the irrelevance of physical attractiveness to presidential performance. The study also highlights another yet formidable obstacle to female achievement in politics—when the representative candidates were pitted against one another, women were consistently rated as less competent. Not only is their attractiveness a more integral element of voter preference, it appears the “old boys’ club” prevails in terms of voter confidence in females’ ability to successfully do their job in the male-dominated field of politics as well. So, though the progression of modern society’s acceptance of women has allowed females entry into the world of politics, it’s still hard to get more than a few feet into the doorway, as evidenced by the deplorable makeup of the 2007 United States Congress, comprised of only 16.8% women. These low proportions of female participation in politics are a global phenomenon that is surprisingly equally pronounced between the more media-driven, first-world cultures (the United States is in 71st place out of 137 rankings of global parliamentary systems) and the more traditional national suspects for female subjugation (see: Sudan, position #66) , which further supports the connection between appearance and voter choice.
The question that remains is whether there is anything we can do about it. Years of conditioning and history have taught us that politics is a place for middle-aged, cigar smoking, overweight, balding, white men; and yet, progress has been made. Sarah Palin following Geraldine Ferraro as a major party’s vice presidential candidate, women in the Speaker’s chair in the House of Representatives, speckled through the cabinet and upper White House administration in the upcoming Obama presidency, and recently promoted to four-star general in the US Army all suggest that while change may be slow, it is coming, despite this image war promulgated by our media-driven society.
This goes on the message board thingie for the class, and somebody actually wrote a response piece (as we're required to do). I say again, oh my god. You've just got to read it.
It’s good to see that competency is still a priority in a voters mind when they cast their ballot. However, while I agree that it is more difficult for women to get into politics, I don’t think the entire reason the Congress is only 16.8% women is because of the “good ole boy” system. I think the biggest factor is that women, for the most part, have things to do that are more important to them.
While I’m obviously not a woman, our society places a great deal of pressure on a woman to take care of the children. And, in recent years, many women have also been forced to take on jobs of their own, and sometimes multiple jobs. In addition, our society pressures the man in a marriage to be the bread winner so even if a woman does take a job, her husband usually has the more powerful profession. While this is not always the case, it tends to be the norm and because of the many tasks women are required to do, it’s hard to have time for other things, like being involved in politics.
In addition, the way our society views marriage makes it very difficult for a woman to be involved in politics. I doubt that if Barack Obama had to take care of his children every day and be President of the United States that he would get much done. In this same way, women who want to be involved in politics need their husbands to take care of their children, but if their husband does in fact take care of the children we tend to see the wife as out of place, almost as a usurper of power. For example, I don’t think I ever saw Sarah Palin’s husband in all of the hours of campaign ads and coverage that I watched. I think a big reason for this is that she didn’t want the public to see her with her husband and think negatively of her. We knew she had a husband, but as long as we didn’t see him, we weren’t thinking about her in a negative light. And, despite the fact that many women work and leave their children with “Mr. Mom,” there’s still a strong stigma attached for both husband and wife.
Lastly, I think a large portion of women stay out of politics because they feel time with their family is more important than being involved in Politics. They want to take care of their families and will vote for representatives that agree with them, but they don’t want to be the one in Washington hashing out the details. In saying that, I don’t want to seem sexist. I know that that is not always the case. I am only drawing conclusions based on what I’ve observed in my own family and amongst friends.
I appreciate your thought provoking essay Alexandria. I agree with you that it is more difficult for women to be in politics, but for a few different reasons. Thank you again for an excellent essay.
Thank you for an excellent essay? No, sir. You do not get the privledge of thanking me for writing an excellent essay because you know what? Not only do your arguments make no sense, as they're organized in some kind of crazyland kind of way, they're wrong. And I could appreciate your arguments if they were at least, you know, decent, but they're not. I see where you're trying to go with the societal stigma against the working woman, but you didn't get there.
And the worst part is that this is one of the best essays I've seen posted on there. (Admittedly, I've not nearly read them all, and a moment ago I just flipped open to one that's actually good, but still.) Such is the caliber of my honors college political science class. Le sigh.
no subject
Interestingly enough, it's credited with women's right to vote and linked to when the most women started voting that the attractiveness of the candidate became an issue. (although this time, gotta say I'm glad--although I wonder how Bush got into office with that standard out there, lol).
And don't forget that Hilary Clinton running as not a VP, but a presidential candidate was groundbreaking as well. And I don't know how many people noticed, but there was a female third party candidate on the ticket for president. This was just an amazing, historical election in all ways.
With Geraldine Ferraro, the vote loss was actually contributed to women voters, interestingly enough. Women were less likely to vote for her... because she was a woman.
We have so much faith in our gender *rolls eyes* I voted against Clinton and Palin because I disagreed with their politics. It's too bad, I'd rather have voted the first woman into office, but I still got to vote for a huge change. Now, if Obama had been Michelle instead of Barack... LOL, THAT would have been freaking HUGE.
(sorry for the ramblings, being pregnant seriously triggers my ADHD and gemini all-over-the-place-ness, lol)