Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:18 PM Apr 2013

Coverage Of Women Candidates’ Appearance Hurts Their Electability, Study Finds [View all]

Source: TPM

PEMA LEVY APRIL 8, 2013, 1:18 PM 1169
A number of unlikely sources defended President Obama last week when he called California Attorney General Kamala Harris “the best looking attorney general” and was later forced to apologize for it. His defenders mostly sang a common refrain: What’s the harm in complimenting a woman’s appearance?

As if on cue, a study released Monday showed that media coverage of a woman candidate’s appearance actually makes people less likely to vote for her — even if the comments are positive.

“Women candidates pay a real price when they are covered in a way that focuses on their appearance,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners, which conducted the survey along with Chesapeake Beach Consulting, said in a statement. “Even what we thought was benign coverage about how a woman dresses has a negative impact on her vote and whether voters perceive her as in touch, likeable, confident, effective, and qualified. And, in close races, sexist coverage on top of the attacks that every candidate faces can make the difference between winning and losing.”

The survey found that a female candidate takes a hit in her “favorability,” “her likelihood to be seen as possessing positive traits” and “how likely voters are to vote for her.” A woman candidate loses 11 percentage points on the issue of “being in touch” when voters read about her appearance. Similarly, her likeability goes down six points, and whether voters see her as “confident,” “effective” and “qualified” each go down by five.

-snip-

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/study-women-candidate-appearance.php?ref=fpb





21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That's the idea. nt bemildred Apr 2013 #1
I wonder if there are any studies about the effects of mentioning men's appearance. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #2
Mens' looks are rarely mentioned. marybourg Apr 2013 #4
True, not like it is about women. But it does get mentioned, and does not seem to hurt men. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #5
mentioning a man is handsome doesn't really help or hurt, he is judged more on the issues JI7 Apr 2013 #6
Exactly. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #9
Not true. Dennis Kucinich is often viewed as too short and wimpy looking to be "presidential." nt Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #7
It is also often mentioned Mr.Bill Apr 2013 #8
I don't think talk of his looks cost him his seat. Gerrymandering did. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #11
I'm at work. Too busy for more than a one liner. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #12
It is always intrusive to discuss how people look without their invitation. bemildred Apr 2013 #20
No surprise here oldandhappy Apr 2013 #3
I've always been intrigued by the variety of styles and colors of Congressional women KansDem Apr 2013 #10
aw look at Ms. Duckworth Skittles Apr 2013 #14
everytime i think americans can not get more shallow...... dembotoz Apr 2013 #13
Men never have to worry about it treestar Apr 2013 #15
That always bothered me about the Ashley Judd for Senate discussions caraher Apr 2013 #16
Backwards daybranch Apr 2013 #19
I'm not denying that being attractive helped put Judd into the picture caraher Apr 2013 #21
And complete sentence should have read demcoat Apr 2013 #17
I get it daybranch Apr 2013 #18
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Coverage Of Women Candida...