Harp20pp 76-109

4
GENDER EXPECTATIONS:
WOMEN AND THE BODY
Clinton delivered a speech in San Diego, California on June 2, 2016 that contained
her foreign policy goals and attacked Trump for his lack of political experience and
also his inability to take criticism. Trump took to Twitter before her speech even
concluded, tweeting, “Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading
poorly from the teleprompter! She doesn’t even look presidential!” (Collinson &
Merica, 2016). Arguably, Trump could have been talking about his perception that
Clinton lacks public speaking skills; that she reads teleprompters poorly. Another
reading, however, and one that gained force in the public discourse, asserted that
Trump believed Clinton lacked a presidential look simply because she is a woman.
The accusation that Trump’s words were evidence of sexism, though, did not stop
him from continuing to make the claim. For example, at a rally in Cleveland during
the first days of September, Trump said to the crowd, “Does she look presidential,
fellas? Give me a break” (Cirilli, 2016). And with his “fellas” noun, he’s asking
the men only; thus, emphasizing the masculine ideology behind “presidential.”
A few days later, Trump expanded on his comment, offering a clearer picture of its
intended meaning. On September 6, Trump spoke with ABC News’ David Muir
and explained, “I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presi-
dential look.You have to get the job done. I think if she went to Mexico she would
have had a total failure” (ABC News, 2016). Muir followed by asking, “When
you talk about her not looking presidential, are you talking about aesthetics?”
Trump explained, “I’m talking in general,” an explanation that did little to clarify
his thoughts (Levitz, 2016). When Kevin Cirilli, a journalist for Bloomberg TV, an
American-based international cable and satellite business news channel, tweeted
Trump’s remark from the Cleveland rally, many Twitter users said what others were
thinking: Trump believes Clinton does not look presidential because she is not a
man. One user, @IrisHofle, posted two consecutive tweets that illustrated both
the snarky tone of the Twitterverse while pointing to Trump’s seemingly sexist
Gender expectations: women and the body 77
comments. She wrote, “Let’s see, bleached blond thinning comb over and orange
skin. . . .Yes, that looks presidential.” And then, “Or am I missing something? Does
he mean that a woman can’t look presidential?” (Cirilli, 2016).
Trump’s common refrain that Hillary Clinton did not look presidential marked
a significant gender moment during the campaign when notions of what it means
to look presidential made their way into the mainstream daily conversation of
the campaign. As evidenced in the media sphere, the conversation caused a stir
of emotions as many believed it was nothing more than sexist rhetoric to say
that Clinton did not look the part of a President. While this was not the first or
only time discussion about Clinton’s appearance emerged in the mediated politi-
cal conversation during the election, it stands out as significant because Trump’s
repeated refrain against Clinton garnered a lot of media attention, including on
social media, and reached a wide audience. In fact, Trump’s statements about Clin-
ton’s looks highlight one of many moments during the campaign when traditional
notions and outdated constructions about women – particularly women in the
public sphere – entered into the mediated discourse.This chapter considers ways in
which stereotypical discourse based on traditional gender roles, expectations, and
norms related to women’s bodies entered into the mediated conversation during
the campaign. It directs attention to the ways media discourse about Clinton and
other women critiques and highlights the body (from fashion to physical compe-
tence to private bodily functions). The goal of the chapter is to illustrate a pattern
of discourse that focuses on and evaluates women’s bodies and to consider how
these might shape people’s views of women in contemporary American society
and politics.
Trump’s statements that Clinton did not look presidential grew into more than
just a critique of Clinton and her body.The conversation expanded into a mediated
discussion about what it means to look presidential (when every US President so
far has been a man) and how women in politics (and every other realm of life) are
scrutinized more often and more harshly than their male counterparts – through a
critique of their bodies.The discourse ultimately illustrated how tied into notions of
not looking presidential is an age-old issue for women – particularly women in the
public sphere – that they are inspected and dissected for their appearance; their phys-
ical capabilities; the biological or physical basis of their being. This problem plagues
women candidates and politicians who must negotiate the political realm where
masculine qualities are valued while still upholding traditional feminine ideals that
are unfortunately structured in opposition to the masculine. Trump’s words about
Clinton’s un-presidential look were just one of many moments throughout the
campaign when various people entered into the mediated discourse and focused on
gender expectations and ideologies steeped in stereotypes about the female body.
Other women during the campaign also fell victim to this gendered scrutiny, as
the chapter illustrates. Encouragingly, the mediated discourse about women and
women politicians also showed signs of positive change. Some of the change can
be attributed to the vast digital media sphere – including mainstream and alterna-
tive news sources, social media, satire television, and more – which exposes media
78 Gender expectations: women and the body
audiences to a greater variety of voices and perspectives than in the past. The chap-
ter illustrates how this multiplicity of viewpoints suggests a complex understanding
of gender in the mediated sphere; a negotiation for what it means to be a woman
in the contemporary United States.
The chapter focuses on various gender moments throughout the campaign when
Clinton’s body – through her clothing, physical demeanor, and bodily functions –
are made part of the day’s mediated discourse; when women’s faces and level of
attractiveness are criticized for not fitting traditional feminine beauty standards; and
when stereotypical notions of weaknesses, fragility, and femininity are associated with
women in ways that are harmful to them personally and to the public discourse.The
chapter offers a context in which to understand the analysis by synthesizing a body
of work by communication and media scholars who have studied the construction
of women and women politicians in media.The analysis, too, goes beyond highlight-
ing ways in which tropes about women’s bodies still appear in mediated discourse
and provides examples of how this hypercritical inspection of women is countered
and critiqued in the public sphere. The chapter illustrates how conversations about
Clinton (and others) represent a broader rhetoric about women’s bodies and a not-
so-subtle form of sexism that fits clearly into the trope of women as the weaker
of the genders. In detailing the history of this, the chapter demonstrates how the
construction of women/feminine as the weaker gender is a stereotype that plagued
media coverage (and discourse) about Clinton.
Looking presidential and being female

As Trump deployed the sexist stereotype about Clinton’s un-presidential
look, numerous voices in the discourse called out sexism as inherent in his
comments. For example, on The Rachel Maddow Show, an MSNBC left-leaning
news talk show, numerous clips showing Trump stating that Clinton does not
look presidential were presented before a segment of him explaining what he
meant – that “in general” she does not have the look of a President. Maddow
then interviewed Frank Rich of New York Magazine. Rich said, “I just think it’s
like everything he does, it’s frozen back in some locker room, whatever, prep
school he was in . . . it’s completely out of touch” (Maddow, 2016). An article
in September 2016, published on MSNBC’s website and titled, “What does it
mean to ‘look presidential’?,” noted how frequently male politicians have been
described as looking presidential. The article, which framed the subject as steeped
in sexist ideologies, explained:
In May 2007, Time magazine published a largely flattering story on Mitt

Romney, and the headline on the cover told readers he ‘looks like a presi-
dent.’ A variety of pundits said largely the same thing. Four years later, Bob
Dole endorsed Romney, saying the former governor ‘looks like a president.’
In the same cycle, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen wrote a column
touting Texas’ Rick Perry as someone who ‘actually looks like a president.’
(Benen, 2016)
The writer noted how these comments were all about appearance and not behav-
ior. He explained, “Many have a central-casting image in their mind about what
a president is supposed to look like, and evidently, middle-aged white guys fit
the bill” (Benen, 2016). These examples illustrate how widespread the backlash to
Trump’s statements was – appearing in mainstream broadcast and online content.
Unsurprising, however, those who supported Trump’s comments seemed to align
with his ideological and political perspectives and vice versa. In other words,Trump
supporters, Republicans, and those who wanted an outsider in the White House
found his statements to be harmless while others were offended.
The attack on Clinton for not looking presidential represented only one of
many examples during the campaign when Trump assailed a woman based on
her appearance and level of attractiveness. For example, in an article published in
September 2015 in Rolling Stone, a monthly American magazine focusing on pop
culture,Trump aimed disparaging comments at Carly Fiorina, who, at the time, was
another Republican presidential hopeful. The magazine’s author reported that as
Trump looked at an image of Fiorina,
Trump’s expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on

Fiorina. ‘Look at that face!’ he cries. ‘Would anyone vote for that? Can you
imagine that, the face of our next president?!’ . . . ‘I mean, she’s a woman, and
I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?’
(Solotaroff, 2015)
As this example helps to illustrate, women candidates during the 2016 election
were scrutinized not just for their overall or general appearance – as in the “in
general” Trump used to describe Clinton – but very specifically and personally,
too. This section of the chapter considers examples throughout the campaign that
show ways women were critically analyzed in mediated discourse for their outer
appearance and clothing (including Clinton’s much discussed pantsuits).The exam-
ples are plentiful, but the chapter details how the discourse is much more complex
than in past decades. Academic research showing how and how frequently women
politicians in media discourse are discussed in relation to their appearance is plen-
tiful as well. The complexity of the coverage comes from a relatively new media
environment where mediated political discourse included many voices fighting
against sexist rhetoric. The broadening of channels and voices meant sexist rhetoric
that relied on these tired stereotypical constructions was questioned and debated.
Those voices that entered into the dialogue and countered pervasive traditional
constructions of women offered a feminist ideology through which to view power-
ful women. As this section illustrates, while women politicians’ looks, clothing, and
physical demeanor are still being discussed in stereotypical ways, they are also being
talked about broadly in the mediated public sphere from a feminist sensibility.
The prevalence of comments about women’s attractiveness and the subsequent
backlash over such critique is well illustrated in a discursive event that occurred
after a debate in September when Fox News’ Brit Hume summarized Clinton’s
debate performance by saying she was “composed, smug sometimes, not necessarily
attractive” (Borchers, 2016). While Hume later clarified his comments, explain-
ing that he was talking about her “demeanor” and not her appearance, numerous
people called out Hume’s original statement. For example, on Twitter one user
called him a “sexist dinosaur,” while another tweeted, “.@brithume just said on
national TV that Hillary’s face was ‘not attractive.’ Tell me again that sexism isn’t
a factor in this election” (Borchers, 2016). Hume also had his supporters in the
Twitter discourse and elsewhere – those who took his apology at face value and
believed he was not talking about Clinton’s actual physical appearance. The Wash-
ington Post’s The Fix, a regular online section covering politics, addressed Hume’s
comment and his detractors, illustrating how the issue garnered concern within the
mainstream media. USA Today covered the Hume controversy, too, with one article
noting that Hume made no comments about Trump’s attractiveness (Bowerman,
2016). Gendered critique of Clinton was not just the vague notion she did not look
presidential or attractive, but also followed traditional and historic ways that women
politicians (and women in general) have been critiqued using gender norms and
stereotypes, including for what they wear.
What she’s wearing

Throughout Clinton’s political career and life in the spotlight – including as First
Lady – media content has repeatedly focused on her clothing. This mediated
conversation seemed particularly pronounced during her first run for President
when she battled with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008.
Especially memorable are the numerous articles and pundits who commented on
Clinton’s choice of clothing during the campaign: pantsuits (Craft, 2008). Clinton’s
pantsuits became fodder within fashion media but also often entered into media
stories in subtle ways, in ways that male politicians’ clothing did not. That is to say,
regularly and as a tangential comment. Examples from stories in The NewYork Times
include: “improbably blue pantsuit” and “no-nonsense pantsuit” (Hoyt, 2008).
A New York Magazine piece, which addressed the difficulties of being a woman in
politics, still included the line, “Those drab pantsuits and sensible pumps seemed
to define her psyche to the very core” (Stansell, 2008). The articulation of Clinton
to pantsuits became prevalent during the 2008 election and continued in media
discourse through the 2016 election, including via various memes. An especially
popular meme showed numerous images of Clinton in multiple colorful pantsuits
lined alongside one another to form a rainbow effect. A quick search for “Clinton
pantsuits” on Google Images offers several variations of this meme. A number of
the stories and commentaries that mentioned Clinton’s pantsuits during this latest
election offered superficial or nasty fashion commentary or simply stated the fact as
a superfluous detail. For example, Jesse Waters, an American conservative political
commentator on the Fox News channel, called Clinton “an empty pantsuit; there’s
nothing beneath the surface there” during a segment on February 11, 2016 (Fox
News, 2016a). On a Fox and Friends segment in August, 2016, the hosts featured a
story calling Clinton hypocritical for wearing suits made outside the United States
(Susan Beverly Hills, 2016).The company that made the suits in question, however,
released a statement calling the news segment inaccurate. While accuracy is
certainly important in journalism and a topic for discussion, the point in using this
example is to show the various ways Clinton’s clothing became part of the news
discourse.
Other articles, including “Why the Pantsuit” published in The Atlantic, a
long-standing American magazine, critically addressed the bind political women
encounter when trying to dress for the political sphere (Garber, 2016). The author
recounted an incident during the 2008 campaign when news organizations
published stories about Clinton’s cleavage, explaining:
Her shirt failed to properly – which is to say, abashedly – disguise the fact
that Clinton, a wife and mother and soon-to-be Madam Secretary, was in
possession of a pair of breasts; for that reason, the shirt became the topic
of discussion within some of the nation’s news outlets of record. . . . Today,
Cleavagegate serves mostly as a hazy reminder of the particular challenge that
Clinton, as a woman who dares also to be a leader, has been made to navigate
over the long course of her public life; the media’s often aggressively ambiva-
lent relationship with women who seek power.
(Garber, 2016)
Another example: a two-minute segment on CNN reported by national corre-

spondent Jeanne Moos and dedicated to Clinton’s pantsuits offered both the serious
and silly side of the discourse. The segment highlighted Clinton’s fashion choices,
explaining that “She wore custom Ralph Lauren,” but also explained how Clinton’s
choice to wear white represented a nod to the Suffragette movement. These exam-
ples are just a few that exemplify the ways Clinton’s clothing occupied the political
discourse during the 2016 campaign – even while taking a feminist perspective and
offering criticism of the gendered norms of the political world.
It was another story about Clinton’s clothing choice, however, that marked a
significant gender moment during the campaign, as the jacket she wore spawned
a lively mediated discussion. The example also offers an interesting case study in
terms of journalism practices, accuracy, and how unverified information spreads in
the media sphere. In the first week of June, Clinton attracted criticism for wearing
a Giorgio Armani jacket estimated to be worth more than $12,000 during a speech
in April purportedly about inequality. While the actual price of the jacket and the
topic of the speech are in dispute, what makes this a significant gender moment
during the campaign is the simple fact that scrutiny aimed at Clinton’s clothing
took center stage in the mediated discourse. The story originated in the tabloid
New York Post, in a piece titled “The Surprising Strategy behind Hillary Clinton’s
Designer Wardrobe” (Bourne, 2016). In the article, the author began by pointing to
a speech in April when Clinton talked about “income inequality, job creation and
helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as
an everywoman. But an everywoman she is not – she gave the speech in a $12,495
Giorgio Armani tweed jacket” (Bourne, 2016). The lead of the article inspired an
especially lively mediated conversation, bolstered by social media. CNBC aired
a segment about the jacket and simply stated that to wear such a costly jacket
when speaking about inequality sent mixed messages (Whitten, 2016a). A Face-
book post titled “Hillary Clinton Wore a $12,000 Armani jacket During a Speech
About Inequality” trended on Facebook along with various other posts about the
jacket, garnering hundreds of thousands of likes and thousands of shares. Publica-
tions from MarketWatch, a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Company that operates a
financial information website, to People magazine, an American weekly covering
celebrity and human interest stories, wrote about the Armani jacket, too (Kratofil,
2016; MarketWatch, 2016).While many of these stories simply repeated the facts (as
reported by the New York Post) and noted an ensuing controversy on social media,
numerous opinion pieces, political pundits, and social media users mocked Clinton.
Breitbart News Network, a far-right syndicated American news and opinion website,
published numerous pieces that ridiculed Clinton’s choice to wear such an expen-
sive jacket. For example, on June 8, an article quoted Trump’s political strategist
Kellyanne Conway remarking, “If I can just get her $12,000 Armani jacket from
last night and hock it, I can pay for, like, one kid’s tuition next year” (Hayward,
2016). Another article on Breitbart compared the cost of the dress Ivanka Trump,
Donald Trump’s daughter, wore when she introduced her father at the Republican
National Convention to the apparent cost of Clinton’s jacket. The article stated,
“Trump’s decision to adorn her reasonably priced clothing line makes her relat-
able to every woman and it’s in stark contrast to presumptive Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton’s decision to wear a $12,485 Giorgio Armani jacket during her
New York primary win in April” (Swoyer, 2016b). Fox News, understood to be
the most right-leaning of the mainstream American cable news channels, also
talked about the jacket. Presumably in an attempt to contextualize and balance the
conversation, the article addressed Trump’s suit costs and also the critique Sarah
Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008, received for the cost of
her campaign wardrobe. However, the article also offered a heavy dose of criticism
aimed at Clinton’s clothing choices past and present. The article began: “Hillary
Clinton’s once-dowdy wardrobe has been given a major fashion reboot – but some
say the new designer duds are sending mixed messages. Clinton, whose go-to outfit
for more than a decade has been the pantsuit, has recently traded up to pricier
polished ensembles” (Fox News, 2016b).
On the other hand, numerous people came to Clinton’s defense during the
lively conversation about her jacket, noting the double bind and double standards
women politicians face as they navigate appropriate attire in the political sphere.
For example, in a piece published in Money magazine and titled “The Internet is
Mad that Hillary Clinton Dresses Nicely,” the author wrote,“For someone reported
to be incredibly media savvy and calculating, it’s not great optics. But as other
attacks on Clinton – likely the first female nominee for president of a major U.S.
party – go, this is less substance and more double-standard” (Adamczyk, 2016).
The author, along with numerous others, noted that Trump wears Brioni Italian
suits that cost up to $17,000 each. Other articles also took up the topic of Trump’s
suits, reporting they cost upwards of $5,000 (Ciarla, 2016; Whitten, 2016b).
A commentary published in the online version of the Dallas Morning News noted,
Running for president as the first female nominated by a major party has put
her in a unique situation. With no previous president to guide her fashion
choices, she is constantly trying to define what a female president should look
like by adjusting her image to be both relatable to the public and aspirational.
(Ciarla, 2016)
Noting that, “Clinton has been berated in the past for her choice of nonflattering,
generic suits,” the author pointed out how the cost of Trump’s clothing has been a
non-story – only mentioned in stories centered on Clinton’s wardrobe. A CNBC
story asked, “What’s more infuriating than Hillary Clinton wearing a $12,000
jacket?” before answering, “The fact that so many people care” (Whitten, 2016b).
The author then quoted someone of Media Style NYC who asked:“Why is it always
the women who are questioned for what they spend on their clothes?” (Whitten,
2016b). Another segment got at the double bind that Clinton and other women
politicians face. It explained, “Clinton is ‘damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t,’
said Rade. If Clinton were to wear a lower priced wardrobe, she would be criticized
for not wearing the same caliber of clothing as her competitors” (Whitten, 2016b).
A fashion column published in The Guardian US edition and titled, “How Should
Hillary Dress? However She Goddamn Pleases,” also addressed the no-win situation
women politicians encounter, offering a feminist perspective to counter the tradi-
tional gendered discourse women endure in the public sphere. The column read:
She just needs to be perfectly groomed at all times, but not look high-
maintenance; she must wear gorgeous clothes, but they must not cost any
money; she should look relatable but never ‘mumsy’; she must be feminine
but not girly; she needs to look tough, but not like a bitch; she has to have
perfect hair but spend no money on it; also her hair must not be too long
(witchy) or too short (Jimmy Krankie); she must never have plastic surgery,
but nor can she look old; she must think about her appearance at all times
and simultaneously never think about such a frivolous issue; she has to look
reassuringly presidential, which means looking like past male presidents, but
she must never look masculine; she can’t wear dresses (too girly), but she
also can’t wear trousers (too butch); she can’t wear makeup, but she must
also always look as good as if she was wearing makeup; she should dress
age-appropriate, but she must also never look like a 68-year-old woman; she
should celebrate being a woman, but she also must not remind any men of
their mother/ex-wife/any woman in their life who once made them feel sad.
(Freeman, 2016)
Backlash to the original New York Post article also called out the publication for
claiming what Clinton spent on her jacket without actually verifying the story.
Fashionista.com, a fashion industry website covering news, designers, and style
advice, noted inaccuracies in the original Post story, including that the actual mate-
rial of the jacket was not tweed as originally reported. As for the price of the jacket,
the author pointed out that Clinton did not necessarily pay the full retail price.
The article’s author explained, “it would not be outrageous to think that design-
ers might also be quietly gifting clothes to Clinton” (McCall, 2016). The notion
of the double-bind facing Clinton was also acknowledged in the article: “It must
be said that it’s somewhat ironic that Clinton, often lambasted for her lack of style,
is now being lambasted for wearing a look quite literally straight off the runway”
(McCall, 2016). This was not the only article that questioned the facts presented in
the original story (and that were reproduced throughout the media sphere). Some
articles posited that the clothing Clinton wears could be on loan, another practice
of major designers. So, while the New York Post’s story offered ammunition against
Clinton – and an additional means for critiquing her appearance – it was also called
out for its sloppy reporting and lack of verified facts regarding how much Clinton
actually paid for the jacket.
The media storm that followed the Post’s reporting – in which a reporter seem-
ingly looked up the price tag of a clothing item and did not verify how much
Clinton paid for it – illustrates a problem with mediated discourse in the 24–7
news and social media world. The original story and that one unverified detail
were repeated in mainstream media and shared on social media extensively. Further,
in examining the actual full text of the speech in question – Clinton’s April 2016
New York speech – the words “income inequality” did not appear once, and while
the wide-ranging speech covered many themes, income inequality was only briefly
discussed rather than the topic of the speech as reported in the original story
(Gorman, 2016). The New York Post did not only publish a story with dubious
claims, the story also included this superfluous and snide critique: “As first lady,
Clinton wore frumpy pastel skirtsuits. As New York senator and secretary of state,
she attempted a more serious look, wearing pantsuits in a rainbow of colors – so
mocked that they sparked memes” (Bourne, 2016). The article, then, not only illus-
trates the traction that a story about a woman politician’s clothing can gain, but
also shows the nasty criticism women are susceptible to in the public arena when it
comes to their appearance and bodies.
Feminist perspectives on women’s appearance

Showing a keen sense of understanding for the sexism women politicians face –
generally and in the political and mediated sphere – numerous people during the
campaign voiced their concern with sexist comments related to women’s appear-
ance.The remarks came from Trump, media figures, anti-Clinton voters, and various
others who entered into the public conversation. So, while Clinton’s clothing and
appearance certainly made headlines and occupied mediated discourse, the general
discussion and tone of much of the conversation about Clinton’s clothing illustrated
what seems to be a shift in the broad media discourse about how women politi-
cians are talked about; a change that no doubt has occurred over time but that is
significant, nonetheless. In fact, there existed a generous amount of feminist voices
and perspectives that made their way into the political discourse to counter the
traditional patriarchal notion of gender and expectations about women’s appear-
ance. A fashion and style piece in the New York Times noted the shift seen with
Clinton’s coverage. The column titled “How Hillary Clinton Ended the Clothing
Conversation” offered:
Opinion is divided over who won the last Democratic debate, Hillary Clin-
ton or Bernie Sanders. And polls are awfully close in Iowa. But in one area
at least, Mrs. Clinton appears to have already triumphed: She has finally,
23 years after she first stepped on the national stage as first lady, stopped the
conversation about her clothes. Consider, during and after the debate on
Sunday, there was, for the first time I can remember, barely a whisper about
what she wore.
(Friedman, 2016a)
The author of the Times’ piece, however, does unfortunately go on to write that
Clinton succeeded in quieting comments about her fashion “by boring everyone
into silence” – illustrating what has not changed in the discourse. The article offers
reason to cheer and jeer, as it both points out stereotypical coverage of women poli-
ticians and the changes seen in coverage of Clinton, but at the same time, critiques
her clothing choice. The tone and intention, though, offers an example of a differ-
ent type of conversation from past decades when coverage tended to simply be a
critique of clothing and style. This article and others like it initiate a more complex
conversation about women, fashion, and appearances. Other articles throughout
the campaign addressed Clinton’s clothing but from a perspective critical of past
or traditional coverage of women in power and traditional gender ideologies. For
example, an article in The Washington Post style section titled “Why Washington’s
most Powerful Women are Wearing this Jacket” addressed the problems women face
in public spaces. The column began:
It’s an unfair and brutal truth: ‘The more women talk, the more men turn
off,’ says Nina McLemore. ‘One of the challenges for women is to learn to say
fewer words in a lower voice.’ To be clear, McLemore doesn’t condone this
prejudice. As a former executive at Liz Claiborne, she has always encouraged
women to speak up. But she is a pragmatist. ‘We have to accept it and work
around it.’
(Givhan, 2016)
The column then went on to identify the many women in politics who wear the
designer’s “softly tailored jackets.” As this example shows, while the conversation
about women’s clothing still took up space in the mediated discourse during the
2016 election, the discussion exhibited a self-awareness and critique of sexism.
Another example related to Clinton’s appearance that gained media attention
offered a glimpse into new ways women politicians are being talked about in
contemporary US culture – that is to say, a celebration of moments when women
go against the idealized and normative expectations of women’s beauty. Mic, a rela-
tively new American Internet media company covering breaking news and opinion
aimed at Millennials, published an article with the headline “Hillary Clinton Wore
Little Makeup for Her Speech Last Night and People Loved It” (Lubitz, 2016).The
article again illustrated the complex ways in which Clinton’s appearance is still a
topic of media discourse but, at the same time, the discourse included a critique of
the problems women in the public sphere face in terms of being assessed for their
appearance so frequently and intensely. The article, published nine days after the
election, explained:
[. . .] she had an unexpected, rather refreshing look: wearing far less makeup
than usual, her hair without its signature waves. As a human being, not wear-
ing makeup should absolutely not be a big deal at all for Clinton. But as a
politician who has been under an intense spotlight for years, making her first
appearance with a nationally televised speech and not wearing much makeup,
it felt like a statement. Twitter thought so too.
(Lubitz, 2016)
The article quoted a Twitter user who wrote: “Love that @HillaryClinton decided
not to wear makeup in her first speech off the campaign. She’s clearly had it
with the #patriarchy.” Another Twitter user was quoted writing, “My aesthetic is
@HillaryClinton giving a post-election speech with no makeup on because queen
truly has no more fucks to give” (Lubitz, 2016).
An article heavily shared on Facebook and through other social media sites
offered an example of how a feminist lens colored the discourse throughout the
election. A widely shared article originally published on Quartz, a digital news
outlet started in 2012 and focused on journalism with a broad worldview, was titled,
“Hillary Clinton’s Husband Wore a Fetching Pantsuit to Honor her Nomination
for US President.” The article used satire to highlight the traditional ways women
are evaluated in public, with the author mocking the publicized details of women’s
clothing and appearance that typically accompany their big moments in public
(Avins, 2016). She stated:
We’ve yet to read an interview with the person who styled Bill’s silver locks
for last night’s DNC appearance, or even see a brief in Women’s Wear Daily or
GQ crediting the designers who dressed him for the occasion. Did he buy
his suit online? . . . Did he go to a store? Work directly with a designer? We
just don’t know, which means it’s going to be really difficult for this particular
navy suit to sell out, as so many of the dresses worn by Michelle Obama have
over the past eight years.
(Avins, 2016)
The political mediated discourse surrounding Clinton’s and other women’s

clothing throughout the campaign revealed another interesting and, seemingly,
emerging means of discussing women’s clothing and appearance – as a form of
symbolic messaging. For example, much discourse focused on the suit color Clin-
ton chose the night she accepted the Democratic nomination. The reason: Clinton
wore white, the color US suffragists wore when they marched for women’s right
to vote. The New York Times’ fashion columnist wrote under the headline “Why
Hillary Wore White” a mocking lead sentence asking, “Did she look presidential?”
(Friedman, 2016b). Writing about Clinton’s white pantsuit, the author noted, “But
it was also layered with meaning, demonstrating that she understands the way fash-
ion can be useful in contemporary politics and is willing to leverage that. That
suit, quietly yet clearly, made reference to history, specifically the history of the
women’s movement” (Friedman, 2016b). The column also explained that when
Geraldine Ferraro accepted the 1984 Democratic nomination as the first female
candidate for vice president, she also wore white. Several other media outlets noted
the symbolism of Clinton’s white suit. Glamour magazine, a long-standing monthly
American women’s periodical, noted, “Last night, Hillary Clinton made history as
the first woman to accept the presidential nomination, and when choosing what to
wear, she paid homage to other pioneering women who came before her” (Rao,
2016). This discourse offered a richer conversation about Clinton’s clothing and
one that draws attention to and contextualizes the history and struggle for women
in obtaining positions of power in American society.
The white pantsuit does not stand alone as the only time during the campaign
that journalists and others framed Clinton’s clothing in terms of symbolic messaging.
Numerous media outlets also noted Clinton’s choice of purple when she gave her
concession speech – though journalist had various interpretations. McClatchy DC
Bureau published an article on November 9, 2016 with the simple headline,“Clinton
Wears the Color Purple for Concession” (Irby, 2016). The author explained,
“Purple is known as a color to encourage unity between the Republicans and
Democratic parties, which are represented by the colors red and blue, respectively.
Purple is also used to denote swing states” (Irby, 2016). Numerous other media
outlets (including across the globe) reported on Clinton’s color choice for the
event, stating that it represented unity in US politics (see Evans & Bucktin, 2016;
MacCormaic, 2016). Fortune magazine, on the other hand, interpreted Clinton’s
wearing of the color purple as a nod to the suffrage movement – suffrage activists in
the United States and Britain have used both white and purple to symbolize their
movement (Bellstrom, 2016). Other media voices offered this same interpretation.
For example, in The Sydney Morning Herald, the author reported that “The Colour
is significant for its association to the Suffragette movement” (Clarke, 2016).
Twitter user @mviser tweeted: “In the Methodist tradition, of which Hillary
Clinton comes, purple represents both royalty and penitence. That is why she is
wearing it” (Irby, 2016). US News & World Report, an American media company that
publishes news and consumer advice, noted that the purple signified all of these –
unity, the suffrage movement, and royalty (Dicker, 2016). Seemingly, none of these
media outlets that offered interpretations of Clinton’s color choices actually asked
her. The point here, however, is not about the accuracy of interpretation (though
it does arouse concerns or questions about journalistic norms). The intention of
this section is to draw attention to what seems to be a relatively new way media
discourse is focusing on women’s clothing. Rather than focus on style, these media
outlets offered interpretations about Clinton’s clothing choices informed by history
and politics. The conversation about Clinton’s clothing offers insight into both
how women’s appearance and clothing are still making headlines and how the
conversation has changed. It also hints at the fact that Clinton is using traditional
journalism norms – expecting there will be reporting on what she wears – to her
advantage and taking a role in steering media messages. Seemingly, anyway, she is
working to shape the messages she wants to send through her clothing choices and,
therefore, manipulating media discourse. This is not to say that Clinton is the first
or only woman to use fashion for the symbolic construction of a message, but to
highlight how this occurred in media discourse during this election. The concept
is certainly worth additional study, particularly as this type of mediated fashion
discourse regarding powerful women seems to be more pervasive now than in
earlier decades.
As expected, Clinton was not the single focus of appearance and fashion cover-
age during the election. Women entering into the public sphere and world of
politics were all fair game. Some of these women too received a deeper kind of
coverage, albeit still related to their clothing and appearance. An article in the New
York Times discussed the then First Lady Michelle Obama’s choice of designer,
Christian Siriano, when she spoke at the Democratic Convention, noting it as a
symbolic choice (Friedman, 2016b).The column in the fashion section of the Times
explained,
Throughout her time in the White House, the first lady has made something
of a secondary cause out of supporting new, independent American designers,
and choosing her clothes not only because she likes them but because their
back story has a certain resonance that goes beyond the aesthetic. Monday
night was no different. Fashion is not known for its embrace of togetherness
(more for its exclusion). But Mr. Siriano is.
(Friedman, 2016b)
Elle, a worldwide lifestyle magazine, published an article titled “Let Us Now

Praise the Immaculate Shade of Joyce Beatty” that explained how Democratic
Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio wore the same dress during the Democratic
Convention that Trump’s wife, Melania, wore during her Republican convention
speech (LeVine, 2016). Melania Trump’s speech became controversial because it

closely mimicked a speech Michelle Obama had given eight years earlier. When
Beatty wore the same dress as Melania Trump just a few weeks later, the Twit-
tersphere lit up with jokes about how Beatty had plagiarized Melania Trump’s
dress. Beatty, however, maintained that she did not know she was wearing the same
dress. The reporting and discussion of the dress, though, still represents a seemingly
newer form of fashion discourse from what previous media research on women and
politics has found. Rather than critique the fit, cut, color, or price, the conversa-
tion about Beatty’s dress centered on symbolism, messages, and meaning-making
through one’s clothing choice.
These narratives about the symbolic nature of women’s clothing choices argu-
ably show the savvy way in which women in powerful positions (excluding Beatty
who said it was an accidental mimicking) can shift the media discourse by using
traditional feminine topics like fashion to make political statements. After all, Clin-
ton and Obama clearly understand that their clothes will be a topic of conversation,
and this gives them a means for steering the conversation. While women’s cloth-
ing still occupies a space in the mediated discourse, the conversation has certainly
shifted.To what degree this shift has occurred, however, is unclear and worth further
research. What can be said is that these articles offer an interesting move away from
the typical coverage of women politicians’ looks.That is the positive side.The nega-
tive is that, at the same time, this coverage illustrates how women’s appearance and
clothing are still scrutinized and seen as newsworthy.
History of media and women politicians

The morning after Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination at the national
convention, numerous newspapers published front page stories highlighting the
historic moment while running a picture of former President Bill Clinton along-
side the story. An article originally published by journalist Tracie Powell, at All
Digitocracy, an online media company that writes about politics, technology, and
diversity issues, noted the problematic image of Hillary Clinton’s husband accom-
panying the story rather than a picture of Hillary.The story was widely republished
on other websites. Under the headline “This is What Erasure Looks Like,” the
author explained,
Hillary Rodham Clinton made history on Wednesday, shattering the glass

ceiling in American presidential elections by becoming the first woman
nominated by a major political party for the highest office in the land. But
you wouldn’t know that by looking at today’s front pages of several major
American daily newspapers.
(Powell, 2016)
The article pointed to several newspapers that ran photos of Bill Clinton instead
of Hillary Clinton, including The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The
Chicago Tribune. While tossing around journalism norms and routines that might
explain (though not justify) the absence of Hillary Clinton’s image, Powell did
note that it could have been worse, offering as an example The Oregonian newspa-
per that did not even place the historic news on its front page. Powell ultimately
called the newspapers’ behavior a form of erasure of both Hillary Clinton and
a major moment in the history of women. She explained, “By displaying her
husband on the front page, and not Hillary Clinton, the news organizations are
effectively undermining a significant moment in history. It may not be the editors’
intent, but intent is not what audiences see when they look at these front pages”
(Powell, 2016).
This kind of erasure of women, along with their linkage to their husbands, is
not a new problem at the intersection of media content, women, and politics. Early
feminist media research began to call out the problematic construction of women
in news, providing quantitative proof that content presented women in stereotypi-
cal ways, including with a focus on appearance, passivity, and nurturing, and within
the context of domesticity (Carter & Steiner, 2004). The pioneering work of Gaye
Tuchman, who argued that women are symbolically annihilated in news represen-
tation, impacted the broader area of analysis. In Hearth and Home: Images of Women
in the Mass Media (1978), Tuchman adapted the concept of symbolic annihilation
within the context of feminist media analysis to explain women’s absence in mass
communication content. The term was used to explain how “powerful groups in
society suppress the less powerful by marginalizing them to such an extent that they
are rendered virtually invisible as a representable group” (Carter & Steiner, 2004,
p. 13). Tuchman described women’s denigration, victimization, and trivialization
in mass communication content as ways symbolic annihilation functioned. While
the media environment has changed significantly since the 1970s when Tuchman
and other feminist academics were first analyzing and critiquing representations
of women, some of the ways women are represented in media have changed very
little. Empirical evidence analyzing media coverage of politicians has consistently
shown that the content differs in the US and throughout the world dependent on
if the politician is male or female. The evidence indicates that women are under-
represented in mainstream news media, undermined, and linked to stereotypical
gendered notions that reduce them to the domestic sphere and private roles and that
question their suitability for political office and the public sphere (Byerly & Ross,
2006; Loke, Harp, & Bachmann, 2011; O’Neill, Savigny, & Cann, 2016). Through
these media messages, traditional understandings of women’s roles and circum-
stances are reinforced. Historically, then, for women in politics, media coverage has
presented another roadblock in attaining office. Central to the problem is that news
coverage has tended to rely on stereotypes that reinforce gender roles, for example,
those that shape women as “inherently” or “naturally” affectionate, warm, compas-
sionate, and secretive (Best & Williams, 1982). Further, when it comes to women
politicians, news media discourse frequently concentrates on their appearance and
the unnecessary articulation made between their sense of style/physical appearance
and their competence (Bystrom, 2006; Ross & Sreberny, 2000). Rosas-Moreno
and Bachmann (2014) summarized, “Women in politics receive less coverage, are
more likely than men to be paraphrased instead of quoted, and their platforms are
usually second- or third-tier material, whereas their family issues, sartorial style, and
personality traits are given high prominence” (p. 132).
Recent empirical research from across the globe, including in the United States,
Oceania, Latin America, and Europe, shows that despite changes in recent decades
in women’s political and social rights, women politicians still undergo powerful
media scrutiny that is highly negative and gender based, if not plain sexist (Lachover,
2012; Zurbriggen & Sherman, 2010). Research shows that “media representation of
female leadership (political and otherwise) in different cultures and societies implic-
itly express judgments on models of femininity, contributing to the legitimization
of desirable gender behaviors (such as a woman’s place) and taken-for-granted
differences” (Bachmann, Harp, & Loke 2017, p. 3). Margreth Lünenborg and Tanja
Maier (2015) found journalists acknowledge the authority of powerful women
such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while still gendering the reporting
of women running for and in office. Harp, Loke, and Bachmann (2016) found
something similar in their analysis of coverage of Clinton. Through analysis of
stereotyping, visibility, and framing of women politicians, researchers have recently
come to similar conclusions about New Zealand’s Labour party leader and Prime
Minister Helen Clark (Ross & Comrie 2012); European female parliamentarians
(Garcia-Blanco & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2012); Australia’s first female Prime Minister,
Julia Gillard (Sawer, 2013); Argentina’s President Cristina Fernàndez de Kirch-
ner (Van Dembroucke, 2014); Canadian party leaders (Gidengil & Everitt, 2003);
Belgium members of parliament (Hooghe, Jacobs, & Claes, 2015); and British
members of parliament (O’Neill et al., 2016).The general consensus of the research
indicates that women politicians are generally less visible than their male counter-
parts and media apply sex stereotypical frames when covering women politicians.
For example, Hooghe et al. (2015) found in coverage of the Belgian Parliament that
women politicians in the news were “significantly less likely to be allotted time, and
they receive less speaking time than their male colleagues. Moreover, results show
that this gap in media coverage is present especially for elite and thus newsworthy
positions” (p. 395). The authors go on to note that even while political systems are
moving toward equal (or closer to equal) representation, gender media bias persists.
Specifically related to women politicians and appearance, Van Dembroucke
(2014) found in examining Argentina’s President that media assigned three primary
roles: Stupid Girl, a simple facade for a male politician who was her life partner;
Wicked Widow, someone insincere and staging emotions; and Frivolous Diva, based
on a critique of her appearance and clothing. Van Dembroucke (2014) noted,
“Women holding positions of power invariably feel the burden of having to comply
with norms of etiquette having to do with ‘appropriate’ attire, unlike their male
counterparts, who are rarely scrutinized in those terms” (p. 1063). Flicker (2013)
critiqued how women who perform femininity in the political sphere are judged
harshly and seen as deficient in the field of politics. These women are imprisoned
in a double bind, however, she explained, because “when they refuse typical female
looks and submit to male dress code, their performance is commented as conspicu-
ous” (p. 201).
O’Neill et al. (2016) found coverage of women politicians in the UK remains
troublesome, “with the focus for women, by 2012 at least, differing from their male
counterparts, with them appearing more often in non-political stories and with
a greater emphasis on the ‘personal’ ” (pp. 303–304). The authors, however, noted
how their data painted a more complex picture: “It is fair to say that routine cover-
age is relatively straightforward most of the time. Nor is the press homogeneous in
its approach to women politicians. Some journalists challenge and condemn what
they perceive to be sexist depictions” (O’Neill et al., 2016, p. 303). Rosas-Moreno
and Bachmann’s (2014) research backed up this claim, as does the analysis in this
chapter. Further, Rosas-Moreno and Bachmann found that when examining news
coverage of reelected female heads of state in Germany, Africa, and Chile compared
to coverage of their first elections, that the content was less stereotypically gendered.
Not surprisingly, media discourse has framed Hillary Clinton in all of these ways
noted by scholars: as a façade or extension of her husband’s presidency; as someone
who is insincere and has faked her emotions; as not quite feminine enough and not
quite masculine enough to lead; and, of course, by her appearance and through a
fashion framework. In her both successful and uncommon career in politics, Clinton
has spent more than two decades in the media spotlight. Much mass communication
and media research has specifically investigated Hillary Clinton, as no other Ameri-
can female politician has been covered more intensely and closely in news media
and mediated discourse during the last 25 years (Tucker-McLaughlin & Campbell,
2012). Empirical studies show coverage of Clinton has been both misogynistic and
anti-feminist. Considering that Clinton is a self-proclaimed feminist, and that ample
evidence of media coverage demonizing feminism exists, the anti-feminist coverage
does not come as a surprise. Consider Rebecca Ann Lind and Colleen Salo’s (2002)
examination of US television and radio content that found feminists were more
likely to be labeled as “bitches/bitchy,” “jerks,” and “bad” compared to women in
general. Scharrer (2002) quantitatively analyzed news coverage of Hillary Clinton’s
bid for the Senate, comparing her coverage to that of a male politician in New
York, and found that Clinton received more negative coverage. Another researcher
examined the construction of Clinton’s laugh in media discourse – the so-called
“Clinton cackle” (Romaniuk, 2016). Romaniuk found that the media coined the
term to describe Clinton’s laughter in news interviews and framed the action in a
particularly negative way, associated with a particular gendered persona – the witch
(see also Romaniuk, 2009).
Regina Lawrence and Melody Rose’s (2010) examination of television and
newspaper coverage during the 2008 presidential campaign when Clinton first
battled for the Democratic nomination showed that negative comments were
more frequently directed at Clinton, and the news more often cast her campaign
as struggling, even during moments in the campaign when she was the front-
runner. Bachmann et al. (2017) examined magazine covers of Clinton from 2010
through 2015 and found Clinton was presented as power-hungry, emasculating,
and a secretive politician, with the covers both overtly and subtly warning citizens
about her authenticity and ambition. Among the tropes found on the covers was a
constant linking of Clinton to her husband, Bill.The authors concluded that maga-
zine covers analyzed for the study
illustrated a dominant image of a highly disruptive person. Thus, not only is

Clinton a counter-stereotypical woman, but her marriage is less traditional,
and she challenges traditional norms in American society. She is, then, over-
stepping the boundaries of her expected/traditional roles so that often in
subtle ways her gender identity becomes scrutinized within this discursive
mediated space.
(Bachmann et al., 2017, p. 15)
Examining online media and digital imagery, Ritchie (2012) found that during the
2008 presidential campaign Clinton’s bid for the White House was constructed as
improper, preposterous, dangerous, and unnatural. Her analysis “demonstrated the
potential of online media to produce damaging representations of female politi-
cians” (Ritchie, 2012, p. 114). Harp et al. (2016) analyzed coverage of Clinton’s 2013
congressional committee hearings regarding the attack on the American consulate
in Benghazi, Libya. They found mixed results, both straight-forward journalistic
and less stereotypical coverage of a female politician and also stereotypical feminine
frames that questioned her competency as a leader. Additionally, the authors noted,
“coverage hinted at a new bind pitting competence against authenticity, with Clin-
ton’s emotional displays during the hearing deemed as either a lack of control that
undermined her capability or an insincere show of emotion to escape the blame
for the situation” (p. 193). Edwards and McDonald (2010) examined editorial
cartoons depicting Hillary Clinton and/or Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential
campaign, when Palin was named the Republican vice presidential nominee and
Clinton fought against Obama for the Democratic nomination. Their work stands
out for its nuanced findings.The authors found that the two women were depicted
quite differently by cartoonists.They summarize: “we suggest that difference studies
and traditional modes of inquiry require adaption to a more nuanced and complex
view of gender as a political dynamic” in media studies (Edwards & McDonald,
2010, p. 326).
The body
The presidency is a man’s job. A female has more hormones. She could start a war in
10 seconds.
(Holmes, 2016)
This quote came from a segment aired in August 2016 on The Daily Show, a widely
viewed satirical news show on the Comedy Central network. A correspondent on the
show interviewed Trump supporters at a rally and seemingly had no trouble finding
people who held sexist ideas about women and politics. The segment ultimately
mocked the Trump supporters for their bigoted views and lack of knowledge on
issues, illustrating an intolerance for those beliefs. For example, the correspondent
responded to the woman’s statement above by saying: “Haven’t all wars been started
by men?” (Holmes, 2016). As this example shows, however, women’s bodies – the
biological – are used against them in an attempt to highlight their lack of fitness
for public office (and, in this case, President). Women in the political sphere are
subjected to this gender-focused critique that highlights their status as other in poli-
tics; as feminine and female within a masculine and male space. These critiques are
not new to women who dare to exert power in public spaces and certainly not
new to Clinton, as the research here showed. Throughout Clinton’s time in US
politics, she has been assessed for her looks, the sound of her voice, the sincerity of
her words and emotions, and the appropriateness of her behavior as a woman and
as a politician.The expectations for her (and women in politics) are often a no-win
situation; a double bind. Women in politics are supposed to maintain their appro-
priate femininity while also illustrating the attributes of a political leader, which are
traditionally masculine. And in being female these women are othered in the male
space of politics. During the election, Clinton’s body – from her hormones to her
physical fitness – became a focus in the mediated discourse. Other women who
dared enter the mediated space risked these same kinds of critiques.
Women’s physical weakness

One particular gender moment during the election campaign drew attention to
Clinton’s body, health, and stamina in the context of her fitness for office. Trump’s
comments and incessant media rhetoric kept this narrative alive. In reality, however,
the conversation about Clinton’s physical fitness had been present in certain areas
of the media sphere since early in the campaign. The moment that sent the topic
into the center of media discourse, though, occurred in September 2016 when
Clinton left a ceremony in New York commemorating the 15th anniversary of the
September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. Video on various news
stations soon surfaced showing a stumbling and nearly falling Clinton being helped
into a waiting vehicle (BBC News, 2016). Her doctors, a few days later, released a
statement saying she had been diagnosed with pneumonia (Smith, 2016).
By September 14, at a rally in Ohio, Trump publicly questioned Clinton’s stam-
ina for the presidential role. He said to the audience: “You think Hillary would be
able to stand up here for an hour and do this? I don’t think so. I don’t think so”
(Smith, 2016). The next day, during a morning radio interview, when Trump was
asked if Clinton had the “stamina” for the role of President, he answered “Well,
I don’t know. But for this, you need tremendous stamina” (Smith, 2016). Trump
continued his attack on Clinton’s stamina during the first presidential debate on
September 26, 2016, when he said, “She doesn’t have the look. She doesn’t have the
stamina” (Cohen, 2017).
This narrative about Clinton’s poor health and lack of stamina had surfaced in
far right-leaning media outlets much earlier in the campaign and had only been
fueled by her public stumbling in September. Trump had also used this gendered
and sexist attack on Clinton before September. For example, in August 2016, during
a talk about foreign policy, he said Clinton “lacks the mental and physical stamina
to take on ISIS and all of the many adversaries we face, not only in terrorism, but in
trade, and every other challenge we must confront” (Engel, 2016). In this statement,
Trump reinforces the idea that the job of President requires someone tough, and in
turn, harkens the image of a tough and masculine President. Clinton – a woman –
does not; cannot fill that requirement. Early in the campaign, numerous theories
about Clinton’s poor health took up space in the social media discourse as well
as in conservative (or right-leaning) media, including on Breitbart News (Cardillo,
2016). More examples came from the Drudge Report, the American news aggrega-
tor with a conservative spin, which published several stories related to Clinton’s
precarious health, including one from The American Mirror, a right-wing publication
that has been dogged with accusations of false and misleading news. The stories
claimed Clinton’s health was failing and urged the mainstream media to investigate
(Concha, 2016). The September 11, 2016 incident seemingly offered the evidence
needed for stories about Clinton’s health to make their way beyond the fringe
media and into the mainstream.
The moment Clinton stumbled into her car after leaving the September 11
memorial ceremony, mainstream media outlets picked up the ill-health/poor stam-
ina narrative that had been circulating for months and ran with it. Essentially, it
brought conspiracy theories about Clinton’s health fueled by the far right into the
mainstream. It also brought a typical trope about women to the forefront: that they
are weak, delicate, and lack stamina when compared to men. Traditional gender
roles and stereotypes mark women as the weaker sex; whereas men are seen as
strong, women are fragile and in need of protection. And while this may seem
an utterly outdated notion of men and women, fragments of the ideology still
exist, both in overt and subtle ways, as indicated by these examples about Clinton’s
health and physical fitness. That Clinton was dogged by questions of her physical
(and mental fitness) for office, her stamina, and her ability to be tough enough
offers evidence of the ways traditional gender stereotypes played into critiques
and scrutiny of Clinton. Some may argue that frail imagery is a stereotype used to
describe elderly adults, which could help explain the accusation against Clinton
rather than sexism. However, when considering that Trump is two years older, this
explanation falls short. As stated above, it was not just conservative media outlets,
either, that argued for a deeper look into Clinton’s health. For example, the Los
Angeles Times published a commentary under the headline, “Yes, Hillary Clinton’s
Health is a Valid Issue” (Goldberg, 2016). The author, Jonah Goldberg, syndicated
American conservative columnist, argued that Clinton’s secretive nature (secre-
tive being another common gendered trope), along with public evidence of her
poor health – including leaving the 9–11 ceremony early and a coughing fit at a
rally in Cleveland a few days earlier – was cause for concern. The Washington Post
published a column hours after Clinton left the memorial and was seen stumbling
into her car, with the headline “Hillary Clinton’s Health Just Became a Real Issue
in the Presidential Campaign” (Cillizza, 2016). The story echoed the Los Ange-
les Times’ argument. However, the column was published before Clinton’s doctor
announced her pneumonia diagnosis. The RT, a Russian international television
network funded by the Russian government, published a piece summarizing the
turn the Clinton health narrative took after September 11, 2016:
‘The question begs had she not had the fainting spell today in New York,
when was she going to tell the country that she had pneumonia, if she was
going to tell the country,’ Schultz explains, noting that Clinton will come
under ‘an enormous amount of scrutiny’ during the final stretch of the
campaign.
This disclosure problem has even become the focus of some major
US media outlets that had previously dismissed the Hillary health-talk as
un-newsworthy conspiracy theories.
‘Mainstream media hasn’t liked discussing this topic. . . . Now, suddenly,
this is a national debate, whereas before it was more done by the “fringe”
people associated with supporters of Donald Trump,’ Dr Max Abrahms, an
assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University, told RT.
( RT.com, 2016)
Media coverage of Clinton’s supposed health crisis also brought feminist voices
into the discourse, contextualizing the conversation within a framework and history
of gender roles, stereotypes, and expectations. These voices addressed the obsession
with Clinton’s health and stamina by calling the interest little more than sexism at
work. For example, on September 12, 2016, Salon, a liberal-leaning American news
and opinion website created in 1995, published a piece titled “Hillary Powers Through
Pneumonia – Because that’s What Women Do” (Williams, 2016). The author wrote:
Clinton’s health has been a front and center topic of public speculation and
armchair diagnoses for several months now, all couched in the vague concern
about whether this woman – this woman with actual political experience
and knowledge – is less qualified to run the country than her Twitter-troll
reality-show-star opponent. It’s a popular ploy: Ladies, aren’t you too weak to
do this stuff? Why don’t you just sit down and have a lemonade and leave the
heavy lifting of running the world to the menfolk, dear?
(Williams, 2016)
Before the author concluded, she wrote:
Let it be noted that while Donald Trump got out of military service because
he had bone spurs in his heels, for a woman to acknowledge illness or an
existing condition or the routine rhythms of the female reproductive system
often has serious negative career consequences. We fear being viewed as

weak, so we hustle through the job, hiding and downplaying our diagnoses
and hoping nobody notices.
(Williams, 2016)
CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour also pointed to the gendered nature

of Clinton’s intense health coverage by asking on September 12: “can’t a girl have
a sick day or two?” (Vales, 2016). Amanpour also used a sarcastic tone to get her
point across:
Surely this can’t be a case of a human being having an off day. No, like so
many things Hillary, the media are having a field day. Off to the races with
another debilitating case of indignant outrage. This must be another typical
Clinton conspiracy to fool them with a total transparency breakdown.
She noted too, “When it comes to overqualified women having to try 100 times
harder than underqualified men to get a break, or even a level playing field –
well, we know that story.” She went on to argue that past Presidents’ health issues
(including John F. Kennedy’s struggle with Addison’s disease) were seen as less
newsworthy and even hidden by the press in the past. In The Washington Post on
September 13, 2016, columnist Kathleen Parker noted that after Clinton left the
9–11 event early,
Anchors and commentators hit auto-pundit to produce the question du jour:

Can this woman handle the presidency? Please. This woman has a bad cold.
She needs rest. She’ll be fine.
Another question also arose, at least in many women’s minds: Would
anyone ask the same question about a man under similar circumstances?
Here’s the more pertinent question: Why do women feel they can’t admit
to being sick? You know the answer. It’s because women fear showing any
sign of weakness lest others presume the worst – that she’s not as good as
a man.
(Parker, 2016)
The Huffington Post, a liberal American news and opinion website, published a
commentary titled, “Hillary’s Pneumonia: The Media’s Lowest Moment” with a
subhead that read: “A 68-year-old woman with pneumonia still kept a schedule
that most of us wouldn’t make it through. That’s not weak. That’s actually tough as
hell” (Schemeltzer, 2016). A New York Times columnist also mocked the conspiracy
theories related to Clinton’s health – including that Clinton was suffering from
numerous ailments (Tufekci, 2016). While acknowledging that waiting two days
after her stumbling incident on 9–11 before disclosing her pneumonia diagnosis
likely increased the suspicion of those who think she was hiding something
about her health, the columnist noted, “But there’s also no amount of disclosure
that would change the minds of people who think she’s been hiding epilepsy,
Parkinson’s and dementia” (Tufekci, 2016).
Clinton also showed she understood the sexist nature of the intense scrutiny
she received about her physical ability to do the job. This occurred during the first
presidential debate, when Trump accused Clinton of lacking the stamina needed
to fulfill the job of President. Clinton declared the accusation sexist rhetoric
typical of Trump. Bustle, an online American women’s magazine founded in 2013,
summarized Clinton’s reaction while noting the stereotypes female politicians (and
women in generally) deal with regularly. The article explained:
For her part, Clinton clearly knew that Trump was trying to implicate her
gender in the argument. She called him out on it – and she showed, based on
experience, that she can multitask, negotiate, and work tirelessly as a woman.
It’s an argument she shouldn’t have to make, but she has probably become
used to it at this point.
‘As soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal . . . or
even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can
talk to me about stamina,’ Clinton fired back. ‘He tried to switch from looks
to stamina, but this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs, and dogs.’
(Gladu, 2016)
Ultimately, the discourse about Clinton’s health and stamina shows both ways
in which sexism and patriarchal gender ideologies make their way into public
discourse and how alternative (feminist) notions contest these understandings and
help to rearticulate gender norms and ideologies in US culture. In other words, it
illustrates not only the contemporary struggle over gender ideologies and expecta-
tions, but also how gender stereotypes and traditional gender ideologies are still
used against women, specifically in the political sphere.
The bathroom break

Another moment, and quite possibly one that carries some embarrassment for
Clinton because it relates to private bodily functions, occurred early in the election.
The moment occurred during the third Democratic debate on December 19, 2015
when candidates were given five-minute bathroom breaks in which the broadcast
would go to a commercial break (Chozick, 2016). Clinton, however, did not make
it back to the stage in the allotted time and the televised debate resumed without
her. As one New York Times reporter explained:
Hillary Clinton had exactly one minute and 45 seconds to walk out of the
gymnasium at St Anselm College to the ladies’ restroom and one minute and
45 seconds to return to her place on stage.
Not a lot of wiggle room.
With the men’s room significantly closer to the debate stage, Mrs. Clin-
ton’s male opponents, . . . made it back quicker and, well, it takes women
longer. . .
(Chozick, 2016)
Of course, this made for an awkward moment for Clinton as she was evidently
missing and then had to reenter the stage while the debate was already in progress.
Incidentally, the world was made aware of Clinton’s bodily functions, typically and
culturally a rather private affair. The moment also signified Clinton’s status as the
other in a world of men. The seemingly long bathroom break was covered by the
press as well as social media users. Some simply reported the reason for her late
return to the stage – the long walk – while others speculated that the instance
offered evidence of Clinton’s ill health and lack of stamina. Just a few weeks later,
in January of 2016, Breitbart News, a conservative media outlet, published an arti-
cle under the headline “Law Enforcement Officials, Medical Professionals: There’s
Something Seriously Wrong with Hillary Clinton’s Health” (Swoyer, 2016a). The
story was primarily based on an interview with John Cardillo, who posted on
Twitter saying, “Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary’s debate
‘bathroom break’ wasn’t that, but flare up of problems from brain injury” (Cardillo,
2016). Breitbart wrote the story based on this Twitter informant (who had formerly
provided VIP security details for the New York Police Department), his two
unnamed sources, and a veteran Republican strategist and long-time Trump associ-
ate Roger Stone, who also said he had heard of Clinton’s medical problems. Cardillo
is quoted in length:
These are two people that aren’t just personal friends. I worked with one and
then post-law enforcement worked with another on some related things. So,
these aren’t anonymous people. These are good friends. Both of them told
me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk or a policy
speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage –
and have to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so
fatigued, dizzy and disoriented.
(Swoyer, 2016a)
Stone, who worked for Trump’s campaign, is quoted as saying, “A number of New
York Democrats, very prominent, well-know, wealthy New York Democrats, told
me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and they were surprised
that she was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina”
(Cardillo, 2016). The news story did not offer verification of these claims by speak-
ing to any of the unnamed sources.
While it may not have been the impetus for a narrative about Clinton’s poor
health, the televised bathroom break certainly fed the narrative. Arguably, the
entire incident could have been avoided if the organizers of the debate had more
consideration for women and their particular needs. After all, according to reports,
Clinton’s camp did point out to debate organizers before the debate that the
women’s restroom was a much longer walk from the stage than the men’s and it
would be difficult for Clinton to get there and back in the allotted time (Choz-
ick, 2016). The incident did more than add fuel to the conspiracy theories about
Clinton’s health, however, as it made public something that is typically considered
private – functions of the body. That this happened to the only woman on stage
and that organizers of the debate did not consider the bathroom break from a
woman’s perspective highlighted Clinton’s outsider and other status in the campaign.
And for anyone who doubts the problematic way the bathroom break situated
Clinton, consider what Trump said about it at a campaign rally: “I know where
she went – it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it . . . it’s too disgusting. Don’t
say it. It’s disgusting” (Hilln, 2016). Rush Limbaugh, an American radio show host
and conservative political commentator, said about the incident: “Why not wear a
diaper? If you can’t hold it for two hours get a Depends” (Hilln, 2016).
Women as targets in the public sphere

The criticisms of women’s appearance and bodies went beyond what Hillary Clin-
ton endured in the media sphere – as Trump’s statements about Fiorina quoted
earlier illustrated. Further, it is not something that only women politicians hear,
but women who dare take up space in the public sphere. Several examples that
appeared in the mediated campaign discourse offer evidence of this point. And, on
a discouraging note, Trump (a presidential candidate and eventually the 45th US
President) initiated much of this critique of women, either via Twitter or through
coverage of his words in news and entertainment media. Coverage of Trump’s
insults and evaluation of women’s bodies and appearance began shortly after he
declared his candidacy on June 16, 2015 (though a look back at media records
shows a pattern of behavior that spans decades). Weeks after Trump declared his
candidacy, he made headlines in August 2015 when, during an interview with The
New York Times, he criticized a prominent 42-year-old model and television host,
Heidi Klum, explaining, “Sadly she is no longer a 10” (Dowd, 2015). Another
moment that garnered a great deal of media attention occurred after a Republican
primary event in August 2015 when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, serving as modera-
tor, asked Trump a question about misogynistic and sexist comments he has made
about women, including calling them “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals”
(Yan, 2015). Trump later said to CNN’s Don Lemon about Kelly: “You could see
there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her . . . whatever”
(Rucker, 2015). Trump clarified in a later tweet that when he said “whatever”
he was talking about blood coming from her nose. The comment, however, was
largely interpreted as talking about menstruation and was not-so-subtlety hint-
ing at stereotypes that indicate women who are menstruating are ruled by their
hormones; that they are irrational and moody (Stubbs, 2008). Trump received a
great deal of backlash for the comment, from political pundits, media personalities,
and the general public via Twitter and social media. A number of people, however,
took Trump’s clarification at face value, defended him, and called out the offended
as being hyper-sensitive. Consequently, Trump’s comment also inspired a criti-
cal discussion about his behavior – misogyny – toward women throughout the
campaign and even before. Numerous commentators appeared in mainstream
media, on nightly talk shows, and throughout social media, examining and criti-
quing Trump’s behavior toward women. Trump’s own words and Twitter practices
calling attention to women’s bodies and appearance continued to keep this conver-
sation going throughout the campaign. For example, on March 23, 2016, Trump
tweeted two photographic images side-by-side: one of an unflattering picture of
Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s wife and one of his own wife, Melania Trump (a former
model), with the comment “the images are worth a thousand words” – essentially
saying with his tweet: my wife is better looking than your wife (Blake, 2016).
A CNN Politics article published on September 28, 2016 listed a number of
instances when Trump targeted women with “cruel” objectifying insults. In the
article, the author highlighted a moment in the campaign discourse when an insult
Trump had made about a former Miss Universe winner became part of the conver-
sation in a televised presidential debate. Trump had called the woman “Miss Piggy”
and then called into Fox News to defend his name-calling, explaining, “ ‘She was a
winner (of the pageant), and, you know, she gained a massive amount of weight, and
it was a real problem,’Trump said.‘We had a real problem’ ” (Krieg, 2016).While it is
true Trump targeted men using derogatory language as well, analysis illustrates how
the barbs aimed at women took on a particular gendered nature as they frequently
assessed women’s bodies and appearance.
Conclusion
The chapter shows how discourse regarding women’s bodies became a focus of
media conversations and critiques in various ways during the 2016 presidential
election.Throughout the campaign, multiple discursive mediated moments focused
on a woman’s appearance, and most often that woman was Hillary Clinton. Beyond
appearance, however, women are critiqued in other gendered ways that rely on
traditional feminine and female ideologies related to the body. Not only was Clin-
ton called out for not looking presidential and for her choices in clothing, but also
her physical strength and stamina were questioned. Media attention focused on her
private bodily functions – her bathroom break – too. Other women who inserted
themselves into the political media sphere suffered these same objectifying and
insulting critiques of the body as well. And still other women were pulled into the
discourse. A supermodel and beauty competition winner were denigrated on the
basis of their bodies and looks; a journalist was dragged into a controversy about
menstruation; Carley Fiorina endured criticism based on her looks; and a politi-
cian’s wife was compared to a model in a “look whose wife is prettier” taunt. Sadly,
these are not new or surprising constructions of women who dare take up space in
the public sphere. The chapter, however, offers more than the same old bad news
for women. Within the discourse, a significant feminist voice finds a place – in
mainstream news media, on satire television shows, and via social media platforms.
Seemingly, the new media ecosphere is allowing a broader conversation; a space
for a multitude of perspectives to enter into public conversation. This is certainly a
different media space than in decades past. It is a public space that provides oppor-
tunities for alternative viewpoints to enter into public discourse; one in which
traditional hegemonic notions of gender, power, and politics collide with feminist
ideas about gender, women’s capabilities, and sexism. These voices fighting against
gender inequalities, outdated notions about women, and sexist rhetoric aimed at
women politicians are far from marginalized. Instead, they appear in the mainstream
as well as more obscure spaces, and they are in dialogue with traditional/patriar-
chal ideas about gender. The analysis in this chapter also indicates that particular
gender ideologies, stereotypes, and perspectives – whether traditional/patriarchal
or feminist – often occupy media spaces that reinforce an audience’s viewpoints. In
other words, sex-based and sexist critiques of Clinton were much more likely to be
found in conservative and right-leaning publications with a more traditional and
conservative audience. Consequently, a defense of Clinton and feminist perspectives
was not typically found in these media spaces. Centrist and left-leaning magazines
and news publications were more likely to attack perceived sexism or, as in the case
of some newspapers, provide both perspectives. The ideological polarization that is
palpable in American culture, then, is evident in ways media content constructed
Clinton during the campaign. Twitter and other social media spaces, on the other
hand, offered voices from across political perspectives.
Ultimately, the examples of how women politicians (and women generally) were
constructed in media discourse demonstrates how a dialogue about gender, or ways
in which negotiations for meanings about gender, are occurring in the broader
mediated public space. At the same time, the examples illustrate how the biological
is used against women; how women’s bodies, appearance, and physical capabilities
become part of political discourse. In this sense, the news from this chapter can be
taken in both a positive and negative light. Most encouraging is the mainstream-
ing of feminist ideologies in the mediated discourse that call out and contextualize
sexist constructions of women politicians, misogyny, and women’s place in the
political and public sphere. What is not encouraging are the sexist ways in which
Donald Trump and others spoke of women and, in particular, Clinton during the
campaign. The analysis illustrates sophisticated feminist theories and perspectives in
the mediated discourse, including the problematic history for women in the public
sphere. It seems the hard work of feminists in the academy is paying off as their
voices and critical analyses are making it out of the so-called ivory tower and into
mainstream media conversations. Numerous writers talked of the double bind that
women politicians endure as they are expected to embody the masculine attributes
demanded of a President while also acting sufficiently feminine; to be sufficiently
attractive and feminine but to illustrate a certain physical stamina reserved in our
minds for men; to look like all of the other men who have become President of
the United States even though one is a woman. As the incident with and discussion
about Clinton’s jacket helped illustrate, she has suffered years of critique for her
clothing – whether they be too frumpy or too expensive. This is the double bind.
And while many people in the public discourse understand that, according to the
chapter content, many do not.
Another point illustrated well within this chapter relates to Stuart Hall’s concep-
tualization of encoding and decoding. Hall (1980) explained that a producer of a
media message encodes meaning into that content, but in decoding that message,
the receiver of that message might draw new and unintended meanings. There are
multiple examples within this analysis that illustrate multiple interpretations of the
same media content, whether the content was simply a replay of a politician’s words
or the interpretations of a journalist. The multiple interpretations of Clinton’s
clothing the night she conceded the presidency and wore purple stands out as an
example of the various ways journalists interpreted the symbolic event. Response
to Trump’s bleeding comment about Megyn Kelly also illustrates this point. While
some people in the media sphere took Trump’s explanation at face value, others
believed Trump was talking about menstruation. What is important here is not the
real or true meaning of the original message, for in discourse there are not real or
true meanings, only interpretations. Hall’s model offers a means for understanding
this, and these examples illustrate well how these multiple interpretations occur. It
also offers a framework for understanding why the mediated political discourse can
at times be a volatile public space, for people truly do not see/interpret/understand
things the same way.
The intention of this chapter was to show how the female body – as a site of
critique, an object, and a representation of limitations and disadvantages – enters
into political discourse. How often these points of conversation about women
occur and how they have changed over time is beyond the scope of this research’s
methodology, though I have offered some general impressions related to these two
points based on familiarity with the field of study and a deep soak of the topic.
Further, one can only speculate on how the discoveries in this chapter might
shape people’s and voters’ views of women in contemporary society and politics.
What is known, however, is that American media and culture are not the only
places where these issues about women and politics are being discussed, nor the
only places to speculate on what these findings might mean. An article published
in Mint, an Indian financial daily newspaper, only a few months after the election
explained:
The moment a woman contends for power, people start talking about her
looks and her wardrobe, as if she is seeking approval of the electorate not on
the basis of her competence but looks. Whether they come from contempo-
rary male politicians or commentators, coarse and misogynistic remarks about
women’s body and their appearance undermine their sense of legitimacy.
(Masoodi, 2017)
References
ABC News. (2016). Exclusive: Donald Trump and Mike Pence set to “divide and conquer” [Video
File]. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/exclusive-donald-trump-
mike-pence-set-divide-conquer-41887408
Adamczyk, A. (2016, June 7). The Internet is mad that Hillary Clinton dresses nicely. Money.
Retrieved from http://time.com/money/4360235/hillary-clinton-armani-donald-trump-
suit/
Avins, J. (2016, July 27). Hillary Clinton’s husband wore a fetching pantsuit to honor her
nomination for US president. QUARTZ. Retrieved from https://qz.com/743526/
hillary-clintons-husband-wore-a-fetching-pantsuit-to-honor-her-nomination-for-us-
president/
Bachmann, I., Harp, D., & Loke, J. (2017). Covering Clinton (2010–2015): Meaning-making
strategies in US magazine covers. Feminist Media Studies, 18(5), 793–809.
BBC News. (2016, September 12). Hillary Clinton “stumbles” at 9/11 event – BBC News.
Video File. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onb88xnMlo8
Bellstrom, K. (2016, November 9). This is why Hillary Clinton wore purple to give
her concession speech. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/
hillary-clinton-concession-speech-purple/
Benen, S. (2016, September 6). What does it mean to look presidential? MSNBC. Retrieved
from www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-does-it-mean-look-presidential
Best, D., & Williams, J. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
Blake, A. (2016, September 23). 9 truly awful things Ted Cruz and Donald Trump said about
each other. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/09/23/9-truly-awful-things-that-were-said-between-ted-cruz-and-the-
man-hell-now-support-donald-trump/?utm_term=.e3dac2ae2ff7
Borchers, C. (2016, September 26). Fox News’s Brit Hume says Hillary Clinton was “not
necessarily attractive” during the debate. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.wash
ingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/fox-newss-brit-hume-says-hillary-clin
ton-was-not-necessarily-attractive-during-the-debate/?utm_term=.46be39fd69d8
Bourne, L. (2016, June 5).The surprising strategy behind Hillary Clinton’s designer wardrobe.
New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2016/06/05/hillarys-extravagant-
campaign-wardrobe-costs-at-least-200k/
Bowerman, M. (2016, September 27). Fox News’ Brit Hume under fire for saying Clin-
ton “not necessarily attractive”. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com/story/
news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/27/fox-news-presidential-debate-hillary-clinton-
appearance-brit-hume/91155602/
Byerly, C. M., & Ross, K. (2006). Women and media: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Black-
well Publishing.
Bystrom, D. (2006). Advertising, websites and media coverage: Gender and communica-
tion along the campaign trail. In Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics
(pp. 239–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cardillo, J. (2016, January 4). John Cardillo on Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved from https://twit
ter.com/johncardillo/status/684057854328705025
Carter, C., & Steiner, L. (2004). Critical readings: Media and gender. Maidenhead: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Chozick, A. (2016). Finally, an explanation for Hillary Clinton’s long bathroom break. The
New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/20/
finally-an-explanation-for-hillary-clintons-long-bathroom-break/
Ciarla, J. (2016, June 2016). How Clinton communicates with her clothes. The Dallas Morn-
ing News. Retrieved from www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/06/10/
jessica-ciarla-how-clinton-communicates-with-her-clothes
Cillizza, C. (2016, September 11). Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the
presidential campaign. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/
news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/11/hillary-clintons-health-just-became-a-real-issue-in-the-
presidential-campaign/?utm_term=.36566f871307
Cirilli, K. (2016, September 6). Kevin Cirilli on Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved from https://twit
ter.com/kevcirilli/status/772827212366176256
Clarke, J. (2016, November 10). Why Hillary Clinton wore purple to concede to Donald
Trump. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/
why-hillary-clinton-wore-purple-to-concede-to-donald-trump-20161110-gsmemr.
html
Cohen, C. (2017, July 14). Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one
place. The Telegraph. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-
trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/
Collinson, S., & Merica, D. (2016, June 3). Hillary Clinton’s evisceration of Donald Trump. CNN.
Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-
policy-speech/index.html
Concha, J. (2016, August 8). Drudge report knocks Clinton’s health. The Hill. Retrieved from
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/290736-drudge-report-knocks-
clintons-health
Craft, C. (2008, February 29). The hidden “ism”. SF Gate. Retrieved from www.sfgate.com/
opinion/article/The-hidden-ism-3293115.php
Dicker, R. (2016, November 9). Why did the Clintons wear purple? US News. Retrieved from
www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/why-were-bill-and-hillary-clinton-wearing-
purple-at-her-concession-speech
Dowd, M. (2015, August 15). Introducing Donald Trump, diplomat. The New York Times.
Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/introducing-donald-
trump-diplomat.html?_r=0
Edwards, J. L., & McDonald, C. A. (2010). Reading Hillary and Sarah: Contradictions of
feminism and representation in 2008 campaign political cartoons. American Behavioral
Scientist, 54(3), 313–329.
Engel, P. (2016, August 15). Trump: Clinton doesn’t have the “physical stamina” to defeat
ISIS. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hillary-
clinton-physical-stamina-isis-2016-8
Evans, N., & Bucktin, C. (2016, November 11). The moving reason why Hillary Clinton
wore purple for her concession speech. Mirror. Retrieved from www.mirror.co.uk/news/
world-news/moving-reason-hillary-clinton-wore-9230587
Flicker, E. (2013). Fashionable (dis-) order in politics: Gender, power and the dilemma of the
suit. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(2), 183–201.
Fox News. (2016a, February 11). Watters: Hillary is an empty pantsuit [Video File]. Retrieved
from http://video.foxnews.com/v/4751344416001/?#sp=show-clips
Fox News. (2016b, June 7). Clinton’s high fashion makeover sends mixed messages. Retrieved
from www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/07/clintons-high-fashion-makeover-sends-
mixed-messages.html
Freeman, H. (2016, June 13). How should Hillary Clinton dress? However she goddamn
pleases. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/
how-should-hillary-clinton-dress-however-she-goddamn-pleases
Friedman, V. (2016a, January 20). How Hillary Clinton ended the clothing conversation.
The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/fashion/hillary-
clinton-pantsuit-style-2016-campaign.html
Friedman, V. (2016b, July 29). Why Hilary wore white. The New York Times. Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/fashion/hillary-clinton-democratic-national-conven
tion.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Garber, M. (2016, August 2). Why the pantsuit? The Atlantic. Retrieved from www.theatlan
tic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/08/youre-fashionable-enough-hillary/493877/
Garcia-Blanco, I., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2012). The discursive construction of women poli-
ticians in the European press. Feminist Media Studies, 12(3), 422–441.
Gidengil, E., & Everitt, J. (2003). Conventional coverage/unconventional politicians: Gender
and media coverage of Canadian leaders’ debates, 1993, 1997, 2000. Canadian Journal of
Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 36(3), 559–577.
Givhan, R. (2016, June 26). Why are Washington’s most powerful women all wearing
this jacket? The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/
style/why-are-washingtons-most-powerful-women-all-wearing-this-jacket/2016/
06/26/b468d646-3706–11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html?utm_term=.9ba70e
69bc73
Gladu, A. (2016, September 26). Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton doesn’t have “the look”
to be president & here’s what he really means. Bustle. Retrieved from www.bustle.com/
articles/186231-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-the-look-to-be-presi
dent-heres-what-he
Goldberg, J. (2016, September 12). Yes, Hillary Clinton’s health is a valid issue. Los Ange-
les Times. Retrieved from www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-clinton-
health-20160912-snap-story.html
Gorman, M. (2016, April 20). Full transcript: Hillary Clinton’s New York primary victory
speech. Newsweek. Retrieved from www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-full-transcript-
new-york-victory-speech-450349
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Cul-
ture, media, language-working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79 (pp. 117–127). London:
Routledge.
Harp, D., Loke, J., & Bachmann, I. (2016). Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi hearing coverage:
Political competence, authenticity, and the persistence of the double bind. Women’s Studies
in Communication, 39(2), 193–210. doi:10.1080/07491409.2016.1171267
Hayward, J. (2016, June 8). Kellyanne Conway: “Millennial women have rejected Hillary
Clinton in her own party”. Breitbart. Retrieved from www.breitbart.com/2016-presi
dential-race/2016/06/08/kellyanne-conway-hillary-clintons-historic-nomination-
millennial-women-rejected-party/
Hilln, T. (2016, Nov. 6). Here’s every wildly sexist moment from the 2016 presidential elec-
tion. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/heres-every-wildly-
sexist-moment-from-the-2016-presidential-election-2016-11
Holmes, J. (2016, August 23). All these Donald Trump voters can’t pass Trump’s immigra-
tion test. Esquire. Retrieved from www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a47935/
daily-show-trump-supporters-test/
Hooghe, M., Jacobs, L., & Claes, E. (2015). Enduring gender bias in reporting on political
elite positions: Media coverage of female MPs in Belgian news broadcasts (2003–2011).
The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(4), 395–414.
Hoyt, C. (2008, June 22). Pantsuits and the presidency. The New York Times. Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22pubed.html
Irby, K. (2016, November 9). Clinton wears the color purple for concession. McClatchy
DC. Retrieved from www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/arti
cle113652699.html
Kratofil, C. (2016, June 7). Hillary Clinton wears $12,495 Armani jacket during speech
about inequality. People. Retrieved from https://people.com/style/hillary-clinton-wears-
expensive-armani-jacket-during-new-york-primary-victory-speech/
Krieg, G. (2016, September 28). Donald Trump’s trouble with women – an incomplete
list. CNN. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/donald-trump-women-
problems/index.html
Lachover, E. (2012). Just being a woman isn’t enough any more: Israeli television news of
women in local politics. Feminist Media Studies, 12(3), 442–458.
Lawrence, R., & Rose, M. (2010). Hillary Clinton’s race for the white house: Gender politics and
the media on the campaign trail. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
LeVine, L. (2016, July 29). Democratic congresswoman copied Melania Trump’s R.N.C. dress,
but not her speech. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/07/
joyce-beatty-melania-trump-same-dress
Levitz, E. (2016, September 6). Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton lacks a “presidential look”.
New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/
donald-trump-says-clinton-doesnt-look-presidential.html
Lind, R. A., & Salo, C. (2002). The framing of feminists and feminism in news and public
affairs programs in U.S. electronic media. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 211–228.
Loke, J., Harp, D., & Bachmann, I. (2011). Mothering and governing: How news articulates
hegemonic gender roles in the case of governors Jane Swift and Sarah Palin. Journalism
Studies, 12(2), 205–220.
Lubitz, R. (2016, November 17). Hillary Clinton wore little makeup for her speech last
night – and people loved it. Mic. Retrieved from https://mic.com/articles/159711/
hillary-clinton-wore-little-makeup-for-her-speech-last-night-and-people-loved-
it?source=TDB&utm_campaign=partner&utm_medium=social&utm_source=
dailybeast&via=FB_Page#.CntdaZXXG
Lünenborg, M., & Maier,T. (2015). “Power Politician” or “Fighting Bureaucrat”: Gender and
power in German political coverage. Media, Culture & Society, 37(2), 180–196.
MacCormaic, R. (2016, November 9). Hillary Clinton: “This is painful, and it will be
for a long time”. Irish Times. Retrieved from www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/
hillary-clinton-this-is-painful-and-it-will-be-for-a-long-time-1.2861289
Maddow, R. [MSNBC]. (2016, September 6). Trump winks again with “presidential look”
argument [Video File]. Retrieved from www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/
trump-winks-again-with-presidential-look-759206979907?v=railb&playlist=associated
MarketWatch. (2016, June 6). Hillary Clinton gave inequality speech in a $12,000 Armani
jacket. Retrieved from www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-gave-inequality-
speech-in-an-armani-jacket-2016-06-06
Masoodi, A. (2017, January 26). Why women politicians are judged by their looks and
not competence. LiveMint. Retrieved from www.livemint.com/Politics/AeRoc16S
1daqlfDkFk12VO/Why-women-politicians-are-judged-by-their-looks-and-not-comp.
html?facet=amp&utm_source=googleamp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign
=googleamp
McCall,T. (2016, June 8). Actually, Hillary Clinton’s jacket costs $7,497. Fashionista. Retrieved
from https://fashionista.com/2016/06/hillary-clinton-giorgio-armani
O’Neill, D., Savigny, H., & Cann,V. (2016).Women politicians in the UK press: Not seen and
not heard? Feminist Media Studies, 16(2), 293–307.
Parker, K. (2016, September 13). Why did Clinton hide her pneumonia? Because she’s a
woman. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-
did-clinton-hide-her-pneumonia-because-shes-a-woman/2016/09/13/e3e9f538-79cf-
11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.4cb2ff8719a0
Powell, T. (2016, July 27). This is what erasure looks like. All Digitocracy. Retrieved from
http://alldigitocracy.org/this-is-what-erasure-looks-like/
Rao,P.(2016,July 29).Hillary Clinton’s white pantsuit at the DNC honored the suffragists.Glam-
our. Retrieved from www.glamour.com/story/hillary-clintons-white-pantsuit-at-the-dnc
Ritchie, J. (2012). Creating a monster: Online media constructions of Hillary Clinton during
the democratic primary campaign, 2007–8. Feminist Media Studies, 13(1), 102–119.
Romaniuk, T. (2009). The “Clinton Cackle”: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s laughter in news
interviews. Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 7, 17–49.
Romaniuk, T. (2016). On the relevance of gender in the analysis of discourse: A case study
from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential bid in 2007–2008. Discourse & Society, 27(5),
533–553.
Rosas-Moreno, T., & Bachmann, I. (2014). Becoming less gendered: A comparison of (inter)
national press coverage of first female government heads who win again at the polls. In
M. Raicheva-Stover & E. Ibroscheva (Eds.), Women in politics and the media in emerging
democracies (pp. 131–146). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Ross, K., & Comrie, M. (2012). The rules of the (Leadership) game: Gender, politics and
news. Journalism, 13(8), 969–984.
Ross, K., & Sreberny, A. (2000). Women in the house: Media representations of women
politicians. In A. Sreberny & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), Gender, politics and communication
(pp. 79–99). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
RT.com. (2016). Trump says health will be an election issue after Clinton falls ill at 9/11 memorial.
Retrieved from www.rt.com/usa/359077-trump-clinton-health-election/
Rucker, P. (2015, August 8). Trump says Fox’s Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her
wherever”. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
politics/wp/2015/08/07/trump-says-foxs-megyn-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-
her-wherever/?utm_term=.7d2d23968359
Sawer, M. (2013). Misogyny and misrepresentation:Women in Australian parliaments. Political
Science, 65(1), 105–117.
Scharrer, E. (2002). An “Improbable Leap”: A content analysis of newspaper coverage of
Hillary Clinton’s transition from first lady to senate candidate. Journalism Studies, 3(3),
393–406.
Schemeltzer, E. (2016, September 11). Hillary’s pneumonia: The media’s lowest moment.
Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillarys-pneumonia-
the-medias-lowest-moment_us_57d5d5fae4b0f831f70721ff
Smith, A. (2016, September 15). Donald Trump is starting to repeatedly needle Hillary
Clinton’s “stamina”. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/
donald-trump-hillary-clinton-health-stamina-2016-9
Solotaroff, P. (2015, September 9). Trump seriously: On the trail with the GOP’s tough
guy. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-
seriously-on-the-trail-with-the-gops-tough-guy-41447/
Stansell, C. (2008, June 15). Like a natural woman. New York Magazine. Retrieved from
http://nymag.com/news/politics/47842/
Stubbs, M. L. (2008). Cultural perceptions and practices around menarche and adolescent
menstruation in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1135(1),
58–66.
Susan Beverly Hills. (2016, August 8). Fox News inaccurately reported that Hillary Clinton’s
pantsuit from Susanna Beverly Hills was manufactured outside of the United States. PR
Newswire. Retrieved from www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fox-news-inaccurately-
reported-that-hillary-clintons-pantsuit-from-susanna-beverly-hills-was-manufactured-
outside-of-the-united-states-300310571.html
Swoyer, A. (2016a, January 6). Law enforcement officials, medical professionals: There’s
something seriously wrong with Hillary Clinton’s health. Breitbart. Retrieved from www.
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/law-enforcement-officials-medical-profes
sionals-theres-something-seriously-wrong-hillary-clintons-health/
Swoyer, A. (2016b, July 22). The everyday woman: Ivanka’s $138 dress versus Hillary’s
$12,495 jacket. Breitbart. Retrieved from www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-
race/2016/07/22/ivanka-rocks-138-macys-dresthe-everyday-woman-ivankas-
138-dress-versus-hillarys-12495-jacket/
Tuchman, G., Daniels, A. K., & Benet, J. (1978). Hearth & home: Images of women in the mass
media. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tucker-McLaughlin, M., & Campbell, K. (2012). A grounded theory analysis: Hillary Clin-
ton represented as innovator and voiceless in TV news. Electronic News, 6(1), 3–19.
Tufekci, Z. (2016, September 12). Did you hear the latest about Hillary? The New York Times.
Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/opinion/campaign-stops/did-you-
hear-the-latest-about-hillary.html?_r=2
Vales, L. (2016, September 12). Amanpour on Clinton health: “Can’t a girl have a sick day?”
CNN. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/politics/amanpour-hillary-clinton-
health-2016-election/index.html
Van Dembroucke, C. (2014). Exploring media representations of Argentina’s president Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner. Feminist Media Studies, 14(6), 1056–1070.
Whitten, S. (2016a, June 6). Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a
speech about inequality. CNBC. Retrieved from www.cnbc.com/2016/06/06/
hillary-clinton-wore-an-armani-jacket-during-a-speech-about-inequality.html?utm_
content=buffer97e4f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_
campaign=buffer%3F__source%3Dfacebook%7Csocial%7Clink%7C060716%7C6PM%
7Chillary-clinton-jacket
Whitten, S. (2016b, June 9). This is why Hillary Clinton wore a $12,000 Armani jacket.
CNBC. Retrieved from www.cnbc.com/2016/06/09/this-is-why-hillary-clinton-wore-a-
12000-armani-jacket.html
Williams, M. E. (2016, September 12). Hillary powers through pneumonia – because
that’s what women do. Salon. Retrieved from www.salon.com/2016/09/12/
hillary-powers-through-pneumonia-because-thats-what-women-do/
Yan, H. (2015, August 8). Donald Trump’s “blood” comment about Megyn Kelly draws out-
rage. CNN. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-
megyn-kelly-comment/index.html
Zurbriggen, E., & Sherman, A. M. (2010). Race and gender in the 2008 U.S. presidential
election: A content analysis of editorial cartoons. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
10(1), 223–247.

Harp20pp 76-109

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harp20pp 76-109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4

Looking presidential and being female

In May 2007, Time magazine published a largely flattering story on Mitt

Trump’s expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on

What she’s wearing

Another example: a two-minute segment on CNN reported by national corre-

Feminist perspectives on women’s appearance

The political mediated discourse surrounding Clinton’s and other women’s

Elle, a worldwide lifestyle magazine, published an article titled “Let Us Now

speech (LeVine, 2016). Melania Trump’s speech became controversial because it

History of media and women politicians

Hillary Rodham Clinton made history on Wednesday, shattering the glass

illustrated a dominant image of a highly disruptive person. Thus, not only is

Women’s physical weakness

Before the author concluded, she wrote:

often has serious negative career consequences. We fear being viewed as

CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour also pointed to the gendered nature

Anchors and commentators hit auto-pundit to produce the question du jour:

The bathroom break

Women as targets in the public sphere

You might also like