“It was the fact that she was a woman and that was a problem and that was the end of [the] discussion” (Finneman). This quote by Dr. Teri Finneman, the author of “Press Portrayals of Women Politicians, 1870s-2000s” perfectly captures the heart of the problem with the media coverage of female politicians.
The Electorette, hosted by Jennifer Taylor-Skinner, is a podcast that focuses on the political and social challenges of women. It is one of my most favorite ones to listen to about women in politics. The Free-Love Candidate, Women Politicians & the Media with Teri Finneman is the episode I truly found riveting. It features a conversation from 2017 relating to the press coverage of female politicians with Dr. Teri Finneman. The reason that this specific episode is so relevant today is because of the practical implications of various issues women in politics still face with the media.
The most talked about is the double bind. Dr. Teri Finneman describes the double bind as “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” and this completely captures it. The double bind is the idea that women are never enough, no matter what they do, they will always be criticized. Sarah Palin was criticized for being too young and Margret Chase Smith was criticized for being too old. Jeannette Rankin was considered too nice to be taken very seriously while Victoria Woodhull was nicknamed Mrs. Satan. There is no in-between, no middle line.
The second issue, that is still very much relevant today, is the idea of gendered spheres. Constantly in politics, we see women being pushed into more “motherly” policies, policies that focus on women and childcare. The woman who arguably found the most success of all discussed, in terms of general likeability, was Jeannette Rankin who came to embody familial traits and rights for children as her platform. Throughout history, we see a continuous pattern that the most successful female politicians are those that focus on the topics seen as a part of the female sphere.
The third issue, and arguably the biggest difference in male and female candidates is the coverage. The first and biggest topic of conversation around politicians revolves around their policies and beliefs. However, with female politicians, we see a severe lack of this and a bigger coverage of their personal backgrounds, lives as women, and appearances. Though this podcast took place before Kamala Harris, in my own personal experience I found this most relevant in her case. During the 2024 election almost all of America knew Harris. They knew she was a democrat, the last vice president, most importantly, they knew she was a woman. Yet, very few average people knew about her actual policies. If one mentioned Trump or Biden, most could talk for hours on the economy, taxes, healthcare, and immigration. But, with Harris, the most important fact was she had two X chromosomes. It is worth noting that this turned in her favor and she deeply leaned into this angle, yet, it is appalling that as a prominent politician, her policies were not her major focus. The podcast gives further examples of this, specifically with Clinton, Smith, and Palin.
Ultimately, The Electorette’s discussion with Dr. Finneman highlights that in the centuries since the first major female political figure, Mrs. Satan, the media’s framing of female politicians still remains influenced. Women today still face insurmountable issues such as the double bind, gendered spheres, and non-political related coverage that highlight the person not the ideas. In order to achieve truly equal representation, the media and the public, by extension, must learn to shift the focus away from personal lives and unfair standards and scrutinize women on the same level as their male-counterparts.