Where is Warren?

This is the second post in our Feminism and Politics 2019-20 student series. Click here for the first in the series, by Rebecca Frew, on the viral video 'Be a Lady They Said' and its ambiguous critique of 'patriarchal standards of bodily acceptability'.

Written by Lucy McKenzie, BA (Hons) History and Politics and International Relations

The USA is yet to see the day where a female is elected as president. A CBS news poll carried out in 2008 found that 69% of Americans believed that Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic Party nomination in that year, while ultimately unsuccessful, nonetheless made it easier subsequently for women to run (Ford 2011: 156). This statement seems at least partially correct, given the 2020 election witnessed a record six women stand for the Democratic nomination. However, huge barriers still stand in the way of women, including the belief that a female president isn’t consistent with the traditional idea of what a woman should be. I believe there is hope for an American female president in the near future; however, societal views and media practices continue to harm women’s chances. A prime example is the case of Elizabeth Warren.

                                                                                  

Democratic presidential candidate, US Senator Elizabeth Warren, addresses supporters during her campaign event. 
Source: EPA, The Independent, 31 January 2020  

Elizabeth Warren formally announced on 19 February 2019 that she would be running for President. The Democratic senator had some big successes in her campaign, as well as being met with high levels of criticism. A key theme throughout her campaign, especially noticeable in the Iowa Caucuses, was the lack of media coverage Warren received in comparison to her male counterparts - despite gaining higher levels of support than some of them. As journalist Versha Sharma argued, this became glaringly apparent when Warren’s Iowa caucus night speech was cut short on major network TV in favour of switching to rival candidate Joe Biden, even though she was then placed above him in the contest. Her New Hampshire speech was also not carried live on major networks. Warren’s lack of media coverage and presence in comparison to her male competitors is symptomatic of a more general problem with how often and in what ways female politicians are represented. According to Laura Bates, ‘[a]attitudes about the unsuitability of women for political roles are trickling down from the media and political environments’ (Bates 2014: 48). There is now substantial feminist research backing the claim that gender plays a dominant role in the type, tone and extent of media coverage that women candidates receive (Van der Pas and Aaldering 2020).

This is a clear feminist issue as women are a crucial part of politics and don’t deserve to be erased or forgotten by the media. Some feminist scholars have argued that women have needs and interests distinct from those of men, that should be represented - and that it is important for women candidates to be elected as they are more likely to represent those needs and interests (Sapiro 1981). For example, American studies show that, in comparison to men, women in Congress and state legislatures are far more supportive of women’s rights and are more likely to support health and welfare bills that advocate this (cited in Norris 1996: 91). Female politicians can also encourage the participation of other women in politics. According to role model theories, the gender gap in political participation is partly to do with the under-representation of women as officeholders (Mariani et al 2015), and more women elected to high office this would thus encourage more women to participate in political activity and see themselves as political actors. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination provides clear evidence of this, as it was associated with a marked rise in the political involvement of young women (Mariani et al 2015: 728). Although it seems obvious that women should want a female representative, when it comes to high positions like the Presidency I was shocked to find that only 31% of Democratic voters were in favour of a female candidate which begs the question: why is this the case?

One answer lies in the fact that big leadership positions like the presidency hold masculine connotations, associated with traits such as aggression and dominance which are in turn linked to competency to handle tough national matters (Zulli 2019). The association of masculine traits with the presidency has been entrenched for many years, proving to be a huge hurdle for women to attempt to overcome. In this vein, the media consistently showcased ‘the B-Boys’ of the 2019 Democratic race, according to media critic Margaret Sullivan, with Beto (O’Rourke), (Joe) Biden and Bernie (Sanders) overshadowing the presence of the six female candidates and reinforcing the belief that the presidency is a male role. Many of Warren’s supporters noticed the unfavourable actions of the media towards her and in frustration started the twitter hashtag #WhereisWarren? One supporter told the New York Times that Warren’s absence in the media was gendered: ‘She’s a female candidate and the media haven’t taken her seriously’. Cutting her exposure encouraged media consumers to think she did not have a serious chance of being elected as the Democratic choice. As well as this, press coverage is a crucial component of elections as it allows voters to form opinions on the candidate as so few get the opportunity to meet them. By having her speeches cut short or not broadcasted, Warren missed out on the opportunity for voters to connect to her or hear her policy aims. Yet the media is supposed to enhance voter’s knowledge not restrict it. At one point in her campaign, Warren took matters into her own hands and sent an email out to her supporters stating that they could not rely on mainstream media to cover her campaign fairly.

                    

Professor Jen Schradie scrutinizes the lack of media coverage Warren has received after her success in the Iowa Caucuses, France 24, 12 February 2020, Youtube.

As well as Warren receiving less coverage than male contenders, she was harshly criticised in the media because of her gender. Sexism played a big part in this, with doubts voiced about her attitude and electability. There is a difficult struggle for female candidates running for high office to not appear too ‘feminine’, given the role of the president holds masculine connotations, while simultaneously not deviating from feminine gender norms. Warren’s efforts to find this balance were criticised, as she was branded ‘another version of Clinton: "elitist" and not particularly "likable"'. Women candidates are also under more pressure to produce in-depth policy plans in comparison to their male counterparts. This is due to women needing to prove their competency to voters whereas the legitimacy of males is already assumed (Ford 2011: 156). Warren was pressured relentlessly to share her policy proposals on prison reform and childcare, which then came under fire in the media. It is clear that at times Warren was forced to run two races, one for the candidacy and one against the stereotypes of her gender.   

In all, the lack and type of media attention that Warren received in the 2020 Democratic primaries was extremely disappointing - yet another example of unfair disadvantage based on gender. Negative views of women in politics are still prevalent. One explanation lies in continued male dominance of the media: as feminist scholar Meg Hackman found, 'two-thirds of national stories about the 2020 presidential race were written by men'. Although there has been an increase in females running for the Democratic nomination after Hillary Clinton in 2008, they still face barriers relative to men, especially within the media. Warren’s case is a prime example of the common prejudice and media collusion that is facilitating this oppression. Women today should support female candidates running for positions like the president, in recognition of how our own needs and interests should be represented. The question is not whether women are able to carry out the role, but whether the USA is ready for a female president. Women are strong political actors and it’s time we get the opportunity to show it.  

Now click here to read an alternative perspective on Warren's withdrawal from the Democratic nomination - the next blog post in the series, by Mia McGraith Burns.

References

Bates, Laura (2015) Everyday Sexism, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ford, Lynne (2011) Women and Politics: The Pursuit of Equality, 3^rd Edition, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Mariani, Mack et al (2015) ‘See Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin Run? Ideology and the Influence of Female Role Models on Young Women’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 6, Issue 4,  pp. 716-31.

Norris, Pippa (1996) ‘Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster’, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp.89-102.

Sapiro, Virginia (1981) ‘Research frontier essay: When are interests interesting? The problem of political representation of women’, The American Political Science Review, Volume 75, Issue 3, pp. 701–716.

Van der Pas, Daphne Joanna and Loes Aaldering (2020) ‘Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Communication, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp.114–143.

Zulli, Diana (2019) ‘The Changing Norms of Gendered News Coverage: Hillary Clinton in the New York Times, 1969-2016’, Politics and Gender, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 599-62.