As interesting as the Sexy Media chapter was, Women in/and News was what really got me fuming. I'm actually showing my 1320 students Miss Representation today, so the timing couldn't have been better. What really makes me angry/disheartened though is that even with this information, so many people still a) don't think women are portrayed/represented unfairly in the media or b) don't have a problem with it. Some of my students last semester thought Miss Representation was an attack on men in general--now I'm all for an intelligent debate, but come on. It's that mentality that keeps the Fox News "War on Men" train running. Why are people so afraid to admit that there is something wrong with the way women are represented in the news and in the media in general? It reminds me of the goal behind the Obscene Publications Act passed in Britain in 1857: to prevent "the possibility of overthrowing patriarchy through women's emancipation" (67). (How sad is it that I can even draw a parallel between the attitude toward gender equality in 1857 and in 2013?) It seems as though every time it is brought up that women are not, in fact, treated/viewed/represented as equals, there is an immediate, tenfold rebuttal that we need to leave those poor men alone.

I'd say rant over, but not quite---this chapter gave me too much to work with (and so early in the morning too! Nothing like some gender inequality-fueled rage with my morning coffee). I highlighted this passage in the chapter where it discusses one disconcerting yet undiscussed fact about the under-representation of women in news stories: "There is never any acknowledgement that what we see, read, and listen to in the news is the result of myriad selection decisions which follow so-called journalistic conventions in terms of what constitutes a 'good' news story" (92).There is so much time and thought put into which stories are important enough to be aired, and the fact that women rarely make the cut as something other than victims is just sad. That reminded me, although not directly related (although isn't it all?), of one part in M.R. where they discuss how, in Nancy Pelosi's four years as speaker of the House, she never once appeared on the cover of a national magazine; John Boehner, however, appeared on five covers within his first four weeks. Men are consistently projected as holding positions of power. When women hold those same positions, however, it's sort of swept under the rug.

Then we have our female news anchors, who do get attention but for all the wrong things. "Is she showing too much leg? Is her neckline too low? Are those implants?" The focus is always on their appearance. I hate to have to air my family's dirty laundry, but over Christmas break, I could hear my dad downstairs gawking at the television when I assume Fox News, his 24/7 source of information, was reporting on some woman who did not look like their usual cocktail waitress-esque "journalists": "Ughh, what's with her hair? She looks like she just got out of the shower!" No one talks about Glenn Beck in terms of his hotness. I guess it would be jarring to see a woman represented on Fox who doesn't look like she's about to compete in a beauty pageant.

I know, I know. I'm doing it too--focusing on the appearance of female Fox News reporters rather than hearing the words that come out of their mouths. But they look the way they do for a reason, and it's the same reason why Fox wouldn't touch Rachel Maddow with a ten-foot pole (despite the fact that she's liberal and wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole either). As the lovely Ann Coulter says, "All pretty girls are right-wingers."

I leave you with this--2012 in review in terms of news media (which, of course, was pretty bleak for women). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5X_biBOYk