Why are successful women belittled? Yesterday, when the Tory cabinet was announced, the media headlines were that “Women” had been promoted, yet the male politicians were named.
Inevitably there were accusations of women being promoted beyond their ability as ‘tokenism’. Reading these “women’s” biographies, it was clear they were all highly skilled, successful, intelligent individuals. A number of them had been junior ministers during the last government, so had acquired experience.
But the real disappointment was that the men promoted, or invited to be in the cabinet were not scrutinised in the same way. For some reason being a female in a senior political role results in accusations of tokenism, or being “Media friendly” – a term quoted by the BBC on a number of occasions yesterday.
Nicola Sturgeon mentioned on ITV’s “Loose Women” yesterday that she’d been subjected to derogatory remarks about her appearance. She said: ‘What annoys me or worries me most about it is I’m used to reading pretty derogatory things about myself in the newspapers, about how I look, about my hair and all that kind of stuff.
‘So for me it’s water off a duck’s back, but it worries me that younger women who might be thinking about politics, they’ll read that about me and think ‘you know what, I don’t fancy putting myself in the firing line for that’.’
This is a really interesting observation: is ‘society’ and in particular the media influencing women’s decisions to be involved in politics? Instead of respecting women’s experience and skills they bring to the cabinet or other areas of life, they are derided for their appearance, accused of tokenism and being “Media Friendly”.
If we compare this to the spat between the Miliband brothers yesterday. David Miliband finally spoke about his relationship and opinion of his brother Ed, five years after he was beaten to the post of Labour Leader. It was embittered, but respected by the media as an opinion. I have NO doubt if this had been a woman speaking the headlines would have been “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” yet this was “Hell hath no fury like a BROTHER scorned”.
Until we respect the success, experience and skills of women, we can’t move forward as a nation. The BBC, who ironically are accused of being left wing, need to review how they report women’s success, so there is not an underlying message that their merit is less than that of a man. We do need to have the debate “Why are successful women belittled”, then the country can move on.
If you like this post, why not receive our Five Top Tips to being a great communicator. Sign up here.
Election negotiating
Women are belittled and over scrutinized for their success, and it is a shame. What really doesn’t help is other women look down on women in power, viewing them as “bitchy” or “backstabbers,” even if they’re the nicest people in the world. There’s just something about females in authority and in higher-level positions that society struggles with and it is a big shame. I, thankfully, heard the news of the cabinet positions on LBC and the radio station didn’t comment on the fact that there were women in the cabinet but actually gave the names and congratulated them in some instances. Unfortunately, it is very clear that we’re not yet in a society where everyone is equal. No matter how much we try to say we are, there are too many instances that prove otherwise and this is one of them.
Thanks ever so much for your comment Alexandria. I agree: the “Glenda Slagg” style of journalism – and behaviour by a few women is unforgivable. It only undermines the success of senior women. Of course successful women are visible and whatever they do is scrutinised by envious rivals – male and female but it does seem worse when it is from women. I’m pleased LBC covered the news by naming the female MPs; the headlines for the BBC weren’t like that and it was unacceptable particularly when male MPs’ names were mentioned.
Interesting observation. To me, as a man, I didn’t see the reporting in that light (although I’m more than away of the gender-specific perceptional bias research so I may be as under-sensitive in the same way as women can be over-sensitive. 🙁
Something I’ve noticed quite a bit when working with female politicians is that they often resort to shouting, rather than rooting their voices. Obviously men do this as well before they’re trained (as you’ll know!) but the socio-cultural implications of that is different for the two genders. I suspect it’s why Nicola Sturgeon did so very well in debates: she has an excellent voice and *doesn’t* have those problems.
That said, neither of my daughters reports a gender problem in their chosen professions so maybe it’s just politics that’s the last bastion of gender-stupidity? Let’s hope so.
Thank you for your comment Simon. I was wondering if I was being over sensitive! I thought it was somewhat strange that the BBC reporting was that xxx and 4 women had been named as cabinet members. Would you say that Wayne Rooney and 3 Camels had been selected for the England football team? Women are the same species as men!
In my opinion, politics is a brutal area for any individual; seeing excellent cabinet ministers losing their Lib Dem seats last week is evidence of this, and mud slinging and personal attacks appear to be used more and more to win seats. As Nicola Sturgeon said, attacks on personal appearances are particularly tough to receive and are particularly upsetting for women. No one is attracted to politics to have their dress sense and hairstyle attacked! There are many professions where this doesn’t happen and I am very pleased your daughters have positive experiences. I guess they aren’t in politics!
As to women shouting: with respect, this blog wasn’t about women’s voices, but I agree that there are a number of female politicians who would benefit from some voice training and should give me a call! BUT there are also some men that could have some training too!! I have written on women’s voices and have a public speaking topic on this area.
Best wishes
Susan
Fair point about the voice stuff – I was just broadening the conversation but probably strayed off topic.
I take your point about camels and women being the same species. The BBC’s brief, however, (for right or wrong) isn’t to dictate what’s normal: it’s to comment on what’s news. While it’s sadly true that women are newsworthy the fact remains that this *is* newsworthy, precisely because it’s less common than it should be.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to be up in arms that it’s newsworthy, just that it’s hardly the BBC’s fault.
Of course, there’s an argument that the BBC might be in a stronger position to start influencing society for the better than a lot of other organisations, but that’s a dangerous, slippery slope. Educating in one direction could be just as easily used to educate people towards things that (I think we agree are) less ‘right’. It’s a bit of a catch-22, I know, as reporting it as unusual might be interpreted as passively helping to maintain the status quo, but I’m unconvinced it’s the BBC’s role to be a campaigning organisation.
Good point! I think the BBC are damned if they do and damned if they don’t! Yes: it is a public organisation, but it is constantly accused of being biased (by oppositions!) It is interesting that Alexandria, who also commented, mentioned that on LBC, the women’s names were mentioned rather than the blanket “4 women” (nameless). Yes: having more women in the cabinet is newsworthy; it is a shame their names weren’t mentioned. And the fact we are debating this means that we could influence the future “normal” and acceptable. I hope that the next cabinet reshuffle will be reported in a different way by the BBC – no doubt because a researcher has read our debate 😉
Thanks for debating this.