Annotated Bibliography

Source #1:

Burns, Sarah and Lindsay Eberhardt and Jennifer L. Merolla. “What is the difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull? Presentations of Palin and Gender Stereotypes in the 2008 Presidential Election?” (2009). Claremont Graduate University. Prepared for presentation at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada, September 3^rd – 6^th. Retrieved 12 April 2011, from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451260>.

Burns et al. describe the findings of an online study of a sample of LA county registered voters in October 2008 who either read a brief article on Palin as a mother, Palin as a conservative politician, Palin as an executive, or Palin as critical of Obama (1; 10). For example, the brief article on Palin as a mother referenced Palin as a “hockey mom” and a member of the PTA (13). Since the media possessed little knowledge of Palin as a politician when McCain chose her as his running mate, Burns et al. explain how the media used stereotypes to shape their perceptions of Palin (2). In the section, “Gender Stereotypes,” Burns et al. write, “When voters have little information, they tend to use certain heuristic tools to navigate the complexity of the political system, in an effort to match their preferences with the candidates running for office” (4). In the section, “Factors that Condition Gender Stereotypes,” Burns et al. provide helpful description of “framing,” which is “the way in which the media organizes the facts and opinions presented in a given story, focusing on certain considerations rather than others” (7). This is helpful for my project since I will be looking at how gender stereotypes “frame” perceptions of female candidates. Burns et al. found that the various “frames” of Palin as mother, conservative politician, executive, and critic of Democratic candidates presented varying portrayals of Palin (22). Moreover, unlike past research studies, this study found that the frames that highlighted the femininity of Palin resulted in more positive views of her than the frames that focused on masculine traits. They state, “Interestingly, the substantive effects were smaller for masculine traits than feminine traits, suggesting that Palin benefited more from frames that boosted perceptions of her feminine qualities. This latter findings stands in contrast to research that has shown that feminine characteristics are considered less valuable than traditionally masculine characteristics, especially for higher levels of office” (24).

Source #2:

Bystrom, Dianne. “Gender and Campaign Communication: TV Ads, Web Sites, and Media Coverage” (June 6, 2006). Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. Retrieved 12 April 2011, from the E-Scholarship Repository at <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3nh303r0>.

Bystrom’s paper is focused on three avenues of media coverage of female politicians in political campaigns: newspaper coverage, television commercials, and web sites. Bystrom is concerned that the media overemphasizes women’s traditional gender roles as “mother” and “wife” as well as women’s physical appearance and demeanor. Bystrom focuses on the “objectifying gaze” of female politicians perpetuated by the media.

Bystrom argues that female politicians are considered more responsible than male politicians for the behavior of their spouses and children (1). Moreover, in terms of the objectifying gaze of female politicians in regards to physical appearance, Bystrom provides several examples throughout history of the targeting of female politicians. For example, in terms of wardrobe, in 1998, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun who was running for re-election received greater media attention for her looks than her political experience and stance on political issues. The Chicago Tribune described Moseley-Braun, “‘Though she boasts that her legislative record is one of the best in the Senate, it is not her votes that make many of her supporters go weak in the knees. It is her personality, featuring a signature smile that she flips on like a light switch, leaving her admirers aglow’” (2). When Hillary Clinton was running for the New York Senate seat in 2000, she received unnecessary attention on her eating habits and physical dress. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel described how Clinton had “‘whittled her figure down to a fighting size 8 [by] touching little more than a lettuce leaf during fundraisers’” (3). Moreover, the New York Times described her New York Senate seat win as the “‘First Lady’s Race for the Ages: 62 Counties and 6 Pantsuits’” (3). Moreover, Bystrom points out that women smile more often than male politicians during campaigns because smiling is a “nonverbal strategy that women use to gain acceptance” (13); women also dress in business-attire to appear that they fit in the male-dominated field of politics while they smile to appear likeable (13).

Despite the insightful examples for this article, I staunchly disagree with Bystrom’s claim that “while some stereotyping does exist, the playing field for female candidates is becoming more equal” (5).

Source #3:

Carlin, Diana B and Kelly L. Winfrey. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 60, no. 4 (September-October 2009): 326-343. Retrieved 11 May 2011, from InformaWorld Database accessed through Google Scholar at <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913496518>.

Carlin et al. analyzed the role of sexism in media coverage of the 2008 presidential election in their article “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby?” Carlin et al. cite scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson who explains that women are perceived as unqualified politicians when they are portrayed “femininely” while women who are portrayed “less feminine” and more “masculine” are treated more like men than women. Jamieson explains, “‘Women who are considered feminine will be judged incompetent and women who are competent, unfeminine…who succeed in politics and public life will be scrutinized under a different lens from that applied to successful men’” (327).

In the section “Gender Stereotypes,” Carlin et al. also provide gender stereotypes that were constructed by Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Julia T. Wood in their book Men and Women of the Corporation in 1977. Kanter and Wood argued that professional women in the workplace often encountered four stereotypes: “sex object, mother, pet, and iron maiden” (327). The sex object stereotype entails sexually-charged language of women as well as references to clothing and physical appearance (327). The mother stereotype portrays women as compassionate and gentle. Carlin et al. point out that this stereotype can be helpful for female candidates because it may deem them as possessing more integrity than men; however, it can harm their political ambitions when it depicts mothers as incapable of being politicians because of their responsibilities as a mother to their children (328). It can also depict women politicians as “bad mothers” who neglect their traditional role as mothers. The “‘pet’” or “‘child’” stereotype portrays women as puppets or “cheerleaders” who serve on a campaign for the benefit of men. These stereotypes are incredibly helpful for my project because they serve as coding in the analysis of archival data of YouTube comments pertaining to Sarah Palin. Julia T. Wood describes how this stereotype portrays women as “too weak, too naïve, or unprepared to handle a difficult talk without a man’s help results in childlike treatment and diminishes a woman’s capacity to fulfill leadership functions” (328). The iron maiden stereotype portrays women as embodying masculine rather than female characteristics. This stereotype portrays them negatively because it can result in diminished trust by the electorate because they are not fulfilling the expected gender roles of women (328).

            In the section, “Gendered Media Coverage,” they cite six studies that reveal evidence that the media directs more attention to male politicians than female politicians; however, the media directs greater focus to physical appearance and family matters for female politicians (329). Moreover, the media often cites whether or not a politician is married or a parent more often for female politicians than male politicians (329).

            In the section, “Objectifying Palin and Clinton,” Carlin et al. discuss how Sarah Palin was objectified by the media for her physical appearance and participation in the Miss America program. For example, The Washington Post found it necessary to report that “‘Palin entered the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant and won, playing the flute for her talent. She went on to compete for Miss Alaska and was a runner up’” (330). In the Berkeley Daily Planet, writer Becky O’Malley demeaned Palin by stating, “‘The race for the U.S. presidency is not just one more beauty contest’” (330). Moreover, in the New York Times, writer Maureen Down analogized Palin to a Barbie doll as ‘Caribou Barbie,’ stemming from her passion for hunting in Alaska (330). Furthermore, Reuters published an angled photograph focused on Sarah Palin’s rear while she was walking in a skirt, where a male in the crowd appears as if he is looking between her legs (330-331).

            In the section, “Mother,” Carlin et al. explain how Palin received criticism from the press for bringing her family with her to public political events; the media questioned whether she could successfully serve as Vice President while also being a mother of four children, including an infant with Down Syndrome (333). This attention to familial matters was neither directed to John McCain and Barack Obama to the extent that it was to Palin. A clear example of this criticism was in a New York Times article, “‘With five children, including an infant with Down Syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant seventeen-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try’” (333). Moreover, female politicians who are mothers are sometimes considered “selfish” for “prioritizing” their political ambitions at the expense of their children’s needs; this is not the case for male politicians (334).

            In the section, “Pets and Children,” Carlin et al. argue that Palin was perceived as a child by the McCain campaign when it did not allow the press to speak with Palin for several weeks following her Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican ticket; news anchor Campbell Brown criticized the “child” portrayal of Palin, “‘Tonight, I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. The woman is from Alaska, for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she’s ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now’” (336). Moreover, in another instance, McCain expressed that he was “proud” of Palin and her family for handling the challenges of the campaign. He claimed, “‘I’m proud of her. And she has ignited our party and people all over America that have never been involved in the political process. And I can’t tell how proud I am of her and her family’” (336). Kanter argues that this qualifies as a “‘kind of look-what-she-did-and-she’s-only-a-woman attitude’” (336). Moreover, the “pet” stereotype can portray Palin merely as a puppet used to gain greater attention for the Republican Party due to the public’s fascination with her as a female politician (336).

            In the section, “Iron Maiden,” Carlin et al. explain how Hillary Clinton has often been portrayed as an “iron maiden” who embodies more male characteristics, such as assertiveness, than female characteristics (337). Clinton was perceived as an “iron maiden” for wearing pantsuits while Palin was viewed as a “sex object” who could not be taken seriously for dressing too femininely (338). Political commentator Rush Limbaugh portrayed Palin as a sex object when he said she is “‘not shrill…She’s not going to remind anybody of their ex-wife, she going to remind men, ‘Gee, I wish she was single’” (338). Carlin et al. clearly explain how female politicians struggle to achieve the midpoint of being perceived on the spectrum of “too feminine and incompetent” and “too masculine and competent”; they write, “However, achieving the delicate balance is difficult for any woman as these two very different women proved’” (338).

            In the section, “Is There a Lesson?” Carlin et al. explain how Palin and Clinton must take credit for the inadequacies in their campaigns; however, there is a difference between criticizing Palin and Clinton for their deficiencies as political candidates than criticizing them by using sexist comments. They write, “There is no denial that both Palin and Clinton had strikes against them that contributed to their lack of success, and there are a sufficient number of analyzes to point out flawed campaigns and inexperience. But those strikes were unrelated to their being women” (339).

Source #4:

Heldman, Caroline and Lisa Wade. “Sexualizing Sarah Pain: The Social and Political Context of the Sexual Objectification of Female Candidates” (May 5, 2011). Feminist Forum. Retrieved 11 May 2011, from Google Scholar at <http://www.springerlink.com/content/2272778279332067/>.

In this article, Heldman and Wade analyze the experiments led by Heflick and Goldenberg in 2010 that found that “focus on Palin’s experience ‘led people to perceive Palin as less competent, warm and moral’ (this issue), even less human, and these negative evaluations had electoral consequences” (1). Heflick and Goldenberg describe objectification theory as a “‘strong emphasis placed on women’s appearance [that] leads them to internalize observers’ perspectives and chronically monitor themselves in terms of how others would evaluate their appearance’” (1). Heldman and Wade argue that the sexual objectification of women is at an all-time high particularly due to increased use of the internet on computers and even smart-phones. (2). Moreover, Heldman and Wade cite a study by Zimmerman and Dahlberg in 2008 which found that young women have become more desensitized to the sexual objectification of women in the media than women in 1991 (4). Feminist media critic Jean Kilbourne argued in 2010 that the female objectification of women, “[has] actually gotten much worse…[objectifying images are] more powerful than ever before, much more intrusive than ever before, it’s everywhere, that wasn’t so much the case before...” (5). In the section, “Progress of Women’s Political Leadership,” Heldman and Wade cite that approximately 25% of Americans believe that men are more competent than women as politicians (6). Moreover, the highest percentage of women in Congress has only been 17% (6). Heldman and Wade argue that the media’s diminished attention to female politicians’ policy views discredits their competence (6). Heldman and Wade argue that Palin has received the most sexual objectification in the media in the history of politics. They write, “…it is safe to say that she has received the most sexually objectifying coverage to date. Fourteen percent of Palin’s coverage mentioned her appearance, and it was often intensely misogynistic: ‘looks like every librarian in a Cinemax movie;’ a ‘VPILF’ (‘vice president I’d like to f***’)” (7).

Source #5:

McGinley, Ann C. “Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing Gender, Race, and Class on the Campaign Trail” (June 11, 2009). Denver University Law Review, 86 (2009): 709-725.  UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-04. Retrieved 11 May 2011, from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at  <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375743>.

In this article, Ann McGinley, who is the William S. Boyd Professor of Law, seeks to show the “double bind” that female politicians face: “if they are too feminine, they are deemed incompetent. If they are too masculine, they are considered unlikeable” (710). McGinley points out that women face tougher standards of dress in the workplace than their male counterparts. For example, in terms of physical attractiveness, men are more often perceived as “average” in physical attractiveness than women who fit the dichotomy of “above average” or “below average” more so than the middle ground of “average”; this means that female politicians face extensive criticism for falling into either camp of attractiveness (718). In terms of Palin’s competence as a politician, McGinley points out that Palin may be worthy of legitimate criticism for her inexperience; however, it can be claimed that Obama’s experience is similar to that of Palin but Palin received harsher criticism stemming from the fact that she is a woman (721).

Source #6:

Miller, Melissa K. and Jeffrey S. Peake. “Rookie or Rock Star? Newspaper Coverage of Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential Campaign” (2010). Department of Political Science at Bowling Green State University. Prepared for delivery at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC September 2-5, 2010. Retrieved 12 April 2011, from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643079>.

Miller and Peake analyzed how newspaper portrayals of Sarah Palin influenced voters’ opinions of her. From their analysis of 2,592 news articles, they found that newspapers overall portrayed Sarah Palin in a negative light as a “rookie” rather than a “rock star” (p.1). They found that news articles about Palin written by women or articles that emphasized gender portrayed Palin most positively compared to other articles.

Source #7:

Nelson, Janai S. “Making History: Race, Gender and the Media in the 2008 Elections.” St. John’s University School of Law (November 16, 2009). St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-0188. Retrieved 12 April 2011, from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1629875>.

Nelson describes how the 2008 presidential election was historic due to the prominence of female candidates, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, as well as Barack Obama, the first minority to be elected president in U.S. history. Nelson analyzes how individuals responded to these candidates in discussions on race and gender via media outlets.

Source #8:

Siegel, Jane M. “Thank you, Sarah Palin, for Reminding Us: It’s Not About the Clothes.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law 17, no. 1 (Fall 2009): 144-180. Retrieved 11 May 2011, from  Google Scholar at <http://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webc/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=17+Va.+J.+Soc.+Pol%27y+%26+L.+144&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=d8cb68cce676bb5e1ce5787660ef6c58>.

In her introduction, Siegel, who is an associate professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, explains how the media downplays female politicians’ intelligence and experience while instead focusing on their physical appearance. Spiegel eloquently writes, “To focus on a woman’s appearance is to diminish her substance. It reduces her to an object to be decorated, or, as in Sarah Palin’s case, to a package to be accepted or rejected” (144). In terms of clothing, Siegel explains how women have been forced to wear the “male uniform” of business-themed attire in order to blend into male-dominated workplaces, such as in law (144-145). Professor Kenji Yoshino describes how “women don’t stand out as the feminine ‘other’ because it makes those in the majority (and in power) uncomfortable” (146). For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received extensive attention for years regarding the pantsuits she wore at political events (149). CNN news anchor Campbell Brown argues that male politicians do not receive the same level of attention that female politicians do regarding their physical appearance. She states, “‘There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that with the attention given to Barack Obama’s $1,500 suits or Sen. John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison” (150). Moreover, Spiegel points out how First Lady Michelle Obama is demeaned as an object to be praised or criticized for her physical appearance rather than as a brilliant woman who graduated from an Ivy League university (150). In the section, “Judging women by their appearance encourages the use of stereotypes, and stereotypes control,” Spiegel warns that placing female politicians in “boxes,” the box of femininity and the box of masculinity is incredibly problematic (156). Moreover, Spiegel insightfully states that judging individuals based on their physical appearance makes assumptions that are not accurately reflective of individuals’ qualifications as politicians. She states, “But clothing can’t tell us much of substance. The author of the presidential-campaign study wrote, ‘Unless voters are relying on stereotypes…the clothing of the candidate is unlikely to tell a citizen anything about the policy positions or character of the candidate’” (157). Scholar Katharine Bartlett describes how female politicians face a “‘minefield of choices’” and a “‘tightrope’” trying to acquire credibility from the electorate (168). In the section, “We must change how we talk about women,” Siegel provides the following advice as to how to overcome sexism in the media, “On the personal level (and the personal is political), we must modify our discourse. By ‘we,’ I mean women and men. Refuse to engage in talk about her clothes, or her makeup, or her hair. When someone comments on Michelle Obama’s latest outfit, move the discussion to what she is doing rather than wearing. Talk about colleagues and students in a way that stresses substance, not style” (177). On a positive note, Siegel argues that it may be a positive case that female politicians are stereotyped because it means that women are challenging male-dominated structures. She states, “Even stereotyping might be a good sign: some studies suggest that people resort to stereotypes more often when a subordinate group threatens the dominant group. Because there are more women than ever before in workplaces that are not home, we’re paying more attention to how they look” (179).

Source #9:

Suissa, Rachelle. “The Impact of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin on Female Voter Behavior in the 2008 Presidential Election: A Comparative Perspective” (2010). A Thesis presented to the Department of Political Science at Brooklyn College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts. APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Retrieved 12 April 2011, from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643645>.

In this thesis, Suissa analyzes the role that gender played in the female electorate’s attitudes towards women politicians, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, in the 2008 Presidential election. In the six chapters of this thesis, Suissa focuses on political opportunities for female politicians (Chapter 3), the gender gap between the number of female and male candidates in politics (Chapter 4), the response of women voters to these female politicians’ political campaigns (Chapter 4), and how the female candidates themselves discussed gender in the media (Chapter 5).

Source #10:

Tinsley, Catherine H., Cheldelin, Sandra I., Schneider, Andrea Kupfer and Amanatullah, Emily T. “Negotiating Your Public Identity: Women's Path to Power” (April 20, 2009). Rethinking Negotiation Teaching: Innovations for Context and Culture, C. Honeyman, J. Coben, & G. De Palo, eds., 2009; Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 09-15. Retrieved 11 May 2011, from the The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1392469>.

            In this article, Tinsley et al. analyzed the “misogynistic messages” of media portrayals of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential election (72). In the section, “A Look Back at the Coverage,” Tinsley et al. describe the “sex object” and “iron maiden” stereotype [relating to the Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? article] of Clinton. For example, a KFC restaurant placed a sign in its window that stated, “‘Hillary Special: 2 fat thighs with small breast and a left wing’” (72). Moreover, FOX News commentators argued, “‘Men won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she reminds them of their nagging wives. And when Hillary Clinton speaks, we hear ‘Take out the garbage!’ as well as “‘She needs to run away from the tough b**** image’” (73).

Source #11:

Young, Dannagal G. and Esralew, Sarah. “The Influence of Parodies on Mental Models: Exploring the Tina Fey-Sarah Palin Phenomenon” (2010). APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Retrieved 11 May 2011, from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1643655>.

In this article, Young and Esralew surveyed 225 university undergraduates who answered online surveys regarding Saturday Night Live videos of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and political coverage of Sarah Palin herself. Young and Esralew were interested in the question: Did Tina Fey’s portrayal of Palin on Saturday Night Live contribute to negative attitudes towards Sarah Palin? They describe the purpose of their study, “The current study seeks to test for a possible ‘Fey Effect’ by measuring if Fey’s impersonations of Palin rendered caricatured traits more salient in viewers’ mental constructions of the candidate, namely character traits central to the Fey impersonation, including issues of intelligence, competence, experience and the Governor’s rural background” (1).

            In the section, “Live From New York,” Young and Esralew explain how SNL emerged in the context of increased public distrust of political candidates one year after the Watergate Scandal when President Nixon resigned (7). In the section, “The Fey Effect,” Young and Esralew explain that nineteen million people viewed SNL episodes during the 2008 Presidential election (7). The October 18 episode where Sarah Palin appeared on the show had the biggest audience in more than fourteen years (7-8). Furthremore, Internet video sites such as YouTube and Hulu facilitated even greater viewership of the SNL episodes during the 2008 Presidential election (8). The following excerpt by Young and Esralew clearly describes the impact of the “Fey Effect” on Palin’s run for Vice President:

Fey’s portrayal of Palin won her an Emmy and even placed her in Time’s Person of the Year 2008 issue on the “People Who Mattered List,” inviting the accolade, “Fey made smart sexy and nerdy cool, and she proved that comedy can still have serious political clout: her winking impression of Governor Sarah Palin defined the governor before she had a chance to define herself” (Grossman, 2008). During the 10-week period of the campaign, a total of six parodies aired on SNL in which Fey impersonated Palin, consistently packaging the governor as incompetent, inexperienced, ultra-conservative and rural. (8)

Moreover, in 2008, a Rasmussen poll found that 33% of Independent voters argued that the Fey impersonation of Palin was damaging Palin’s credibility (9).

            In the section, “The Priming of the Palin Caricature,” Young and Esralew explain how the American public was generally unaware of Sarah Palin as a politician when she was selected as McCain’s running mate. For example, the Wikipedia profile on Sarah Palin had been viewed more than 1.1 million times within thirty-six hours (11). Young and Esralew argue that Tiny Fey’s impersonations “provided even more of an opportunity to help inform audience’s mental models of who Palin was” (12).

            In the section, “The Sarah Palin Effect,” Young and Esralew explain that Palin was perceived by some as incompetent due to interviews, such as the CBS Katie Couric interview where Palin struggled answering some of Couric’s questions (26). Therefore, one cannot blame the “Fey Effect” entirely on perceptions of Palin as incompetent for Vice President.