Part III Feminist Strategies and Activism

women’s issues such as family and childcare, or focusing on their appearance and wardrobe rather than their platforms (e.g., Bachmann and Correa 2013; Byerly and Ross 2006; Harp et al. 2010, 2016; Ritchie 2013; O’Neill et al. 2016; Ross and Comrie 2012; Trimble 2014). Researchers have consistently found that media coverage of women in politics is regularly stereotypical, sexualized, and sexist, with discourses that even cast gender as a burden for those females trying to climb up the political ladder rather than as an asset or a neutral trait (Ross 2009; see also Harp et al. 2010, 2016). These women often contravene hegemonic conventions of a woman’s place and behavior, which subject them to intense media scrutiny, and are often deemed either too masculine—aggressive, ambitious, hard-spoken—or too feminine—passive, emotional, and dependent—to engage in the tough realm of politics (see Harp et al. 2010, 2016). They are often accused of playing the gender card, that is, that their main merit is being a woman (e.g., Falk 2013; Trimble 2014).

The pervasiveness of such media treatment is such that these kinds of findings continue to be reported today in different countries and regions, such as the United States (Harp et al. 2010, 2017; Perks and Johnson 2014), Canada (Trimble et al. 2013, 2015), UK (O’Neill et al. 2016; Ross et al. 2013); New Zealand and Australia (Trimble 2014), Germany (Lünenborg and Maier 2015); Chile (Bachmann and Correa 2013), Nigeria (Ette 2017), Egypt (Hafez 2014), Israel (Lachover 2017), Europe (Garcia-Blanco and Wahl-Jorgensen 2012), and the Pacific Islands (Corbett and Liki 2015). While there have been improvements in media coverage over the last decade, research of traditional mainstream media still points to sexism. Especially important: the situation is even worse when paying attention to minority women (Sanbonmatsu 2015; Ward 2017) though fewer studies have investigated the intersectionality of female politicians who occupy a minority status. Despite inroads, matters of gender equality and intersectionality in politics are still an important issue, and media discourses of women in politics serve as a reflection of the broader phenomenon of sexism and gender biases. Evidence from European countries, for example, suggests that media coverage of female politicians increases in countries where gender equality is progressing in other parts of society (Humprecht and Esser 2017).

Feminist media researchers rely of feminist theorizing when approaching media analysis and building theoretical frameworks from which to analyzing the ways female politicians are portrayed in media. Much of the research approaches the topic from within a framework that acknowledges

public/private binary spheres that situate men as naturally occupying public spaces—including all things traditionally understood as political—and women literally and figuratively residing in private spaces (the home and family). Numerous feminist scholars note Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi and Karen Ross’ (1996) gender mediation thesis, which encourages scholars to consider “the manner in which the mediated presentation of politics is gendered” (103) because of a traditional understanding of politics as an essentially masculine endeavor as well as journalistic practices. Within the context of this thesis, feminist media scholars have looked to various theoretical perspectives to understand the discursive strategies used (not necessarily consciously) in the production of media content about female politicians. Kathleen Jamieson’s (1995) double bind also informs much research in this area of feminist media studies (e.g., Garcia-Blanco and Wahl-Jorgensen 2012; Harp et al. 2016). Jamieson noted people respond to complex situations by separating and “dichotomizing its elements. So, we contrast good and bad, strong and weak … and in doing so assume that a person can’t be both at once—or somewhere in between” (5). Jamieson explained, this double bind is a “rhetorical construct that posits two and only two alternatives, one or both penalizing the person being offered them” (14). In the sense of female politicians, these theoretical perspectives explain why women in politics are punished for displaying traditional masculine attributes and at the same time penalized for being too feminine in the political sphere. For example, Hillary Clinton has been discursively punished for being both too emotional (a feminine trait seen as incompatible with public life) and also for being emotionally insincere for not showing proper gendered emotions (Harp et al. 2016). Feminist rhetorical theorists have also contributed greatly to approaches in the area of women politicians and media, noting the link between language and patriarchy as well as how language helps people understand their world (Foss et al. 2006). Explaining that concepts are shared and noteworthy when they are named, as they then establish “a link with others for whom the concept is meaningful” (Foss et al. 2006, 12). Another theoretical concept that has proven useful and important in this area of study is Judith Butler’s (1990) gender performance theory, that has allowed scholars to consider how female politicians perform gender and, in turn, how those gender performances are understood in mediated discourse (Harp et al. 2010; Trimble et al. 2015).