Description is a very telling act - an act that often conveys more about the writer or speaker than it does about the person being described. When we describe political figures we are also describing our own politics, whether we intend to or not. The adjectives we apply to his appearance speak volumes about how much of his narrative we believe. Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan - all divisive political figures - were analyzed constantly in the press; the descriptions that surrounded them both in and out of office were excellent indicators of where they stood with the majority of the public. But never has this effect been more drastic than when Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin both appeared on the political scene in 2008. While men are subject to some judgment based on appearance, a woman is often DEFINED by her physical attractiveness relative to media standards. During the 2008 campaign, Clinton’s and Palin’s appearances were used to (incorrectly) support claims about their politics.
Hillary Clinton’s critics have used her physical traits as cannon fodder ever since her first appearance on the political scene, when her husband ran for president. A quick glance at a photo of Clinton can give us the actual facts of her appearance: she generally wears her hair a dark shade of blonde, cut relatively short (whether in a bob or closer around her face). She is famous for her brightly colored pantsuits in shades of red, yellow, and occasionally blue. Beyond these few elements of her appearance, though, it is difficult to comment upon her physicality without invoking adjectives that are less-than-neutral.
In the photo of Clinton speaking before the UN, her lips are set tightly and wrinkles around her eyes and mouth are visible. A detractor might focus on these features by saying that she looks “stern” or “harsh.” She is rarely seen smiling in photos, something that might indicate to opponents that she is unhappy, angry, or even - as many have suggested before - bitchy Because women are generally expected to be the more submissive gender, Hillary’s unsmiling countenance is often cited as evidence that she is “castrating” or “emasculating” - a tough woman who seeks power and wishes to crush all the men in her path. On the other hand, in photos where she does smile, she might be accused of appearing fake. Or a detractor might suggest that the smile is one of secret contempt for her audience rather than genuine joy. Clinton has suffered the most, however, at the hands of those who critique her because her appearance is not one of traditionally-accepted feminine beauty. She is often called “masculine” and “mannish” in the press, suggesting that she is not a real woman and that her power and ambition make her less-than-feminine.
A woman who does conform to traditional standards of beauty suffers just as much, however. Sarah Palin has been critiqued just as harshly as Clinton, but for opposing reasons. While Clinton is viewed negatively for being too manly, Palin is lambasted for being too soft and too feminine. She wears her hair longer than Clinton and often lets it down to frame her face, or clips it up in a fairly soft, feminine style. She is frequently seen smiling and waving in the press - in contrast with Clinton’s firmly set countenance. But their opposing appearances do not mean that Palin is let off the hook. When she smiles at the camera or winks at her audience, critics label her vapid and dumb. When she highlights her hair or spends money on expensive brand-name suits, she is accused of being uncaring and out-of-touch, of spending money on frivolities - when, in reality, she would be equally criticized for going on the campaign trail wearing jeans and a polar fleece.
The media is also fond of making presumptions about the candidates’ personal lives based largely on their appearance. Because Clinton is seen as the more masculine figure, she is labeled “butch” and is portrayed as a dry, desexualized figure incapable of intimate human relationships. Palin, on the other hand, has been parodied in countless pornographic films. During her time on the campaign trail she was routinely sexualized by members of print and television media. Her history as a beauty queen didn’t help; media commentators called her a “bimbo.” Her overt sexualization was a result of the belief that her appearance is inherently “feminine” and the insistence that women who conform to traditional standards of beauty are automatically fodder for sexualization. Both women were critiqued for their appearances the way they might be critiqued for a sexual choice - Clinton was seen as frigid and uninviting, while Palin was accused of being slutty or oversexed.
The labels that critics applied to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during their time in the political spotlight tell us a great deal about how the American media handles women in general. While Clinton was criticized for her refusal to conform to traditional standards of feminine beauty, Palin was equally lambasted for her tendency to adopt those same standards. While all political figures are judged based on their appearance from time to time, women in politics are trapped within a particularly harsh catch-22, a media world in which they will be negatively impacted by any choice they make.
No comments:
Post a Comment