Earlier this year, Tina Brown announced that Hillary Clinton needs to carve out time to go to the gym, while Laura Ingram launched a jab about Meghan McCain's weight. Chloe Angyal from SpliceToday is wondering: why all the woman-on-woman hate?
Angyal neatly sidesteps the ever popular "catfighting women!" angle and instead shifts the focus on why so many conversations about prominent women in the public eye revolve around their physical appearance. She writes:
It's notable that in both of these cases, women were attacking their own. In an age where "bitchy" women make for big news and big box office, it would be easy to imagine that women are to blame for their own double-bind. But the truth is, America has a widespread cultural discomfort with women in positions of power. Sexist remarks about Clinton's appearance and demeanor, made by Chris Matthews and other pundits, were infuriatingly frequent during last year's primaries.
Sadly, this can't just be blamed on the crush of the election cycle - the gendered attacks on women working in and around politics have continued to this very day.
I fully cosign with Angyal when she concludes:
The time has come for America to decide: are we going to be a nation in which any person, regardless of their appearance, can contribute their valuable ideas to our public debate? Or are we going to continue to waste time, and women's talent, chatting about lipstick, hairstyles, shorts and pantsuits?
The Female Journalists Who Weigh Down Political Discussion [Splice Today]
Related: Sexism Sells —- But We're Not Buying It [WMC]