For decades, women
have been stereotyped as either half-naked sex objects or vulnerable, emotionally
unstable items ridden with eating disorders as opposed to living and breathing
human beings (Brenna Coleman, 2010). Women have been fighting for societal
rights since the first convention in New York in 1848 (Australian Women’s
History Forum, 2002). One may assume this hard work, endurance and determination
has paid off over the past sixteen decades, but has it really? Women’s rights
are a major societal issue and even though they have grown and improved over
the years, there is still room for improvement. When it comes to the media and
it’s gender specific news coverage it can sometimes be questioned as to how far
women’s rights truly have come. The media will still cause uproar and show
gender bias if a female prime minister governs Australia for the first time, if
that same prime minister is unmarried and if there are calls for women to serve
among men on the frontline. The following essay will analyse and discuss how the
Sydney Morning Herald newspaper represents women and how they are objectified
and marginalised in its news coverage.
In June of 2010,
after Kevin Rudd lost the support of his
political party and stood aside, Julia Gillard was appointed Prime Minister of
Australia (Prime Minister of Australia, 2010). In this modernised era of social
equality and Australia’s pride in women’s rights, the number of television news
stories and newspaper articles that had been coupled with titles such as,
‘Gillard Becomes First Female PM’ (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2010) was shocking
and incongruent with prevailing values and ideologies of women’s rights. Does
‘Gillard Becomes Australia’s Prime Minister’ not suffice for a headline?
Apparently not. Instead of welcoming Gillard, or reporting on the actual
political story at hand, the media decided to turn the story into a debacle in
which Gillard is almost positioned as a fish out of water simply due to her
gender. It is debatable whether she is the right person for the job, but the
fact that she is a woman has nothing to do with her quality of leadership or
national governance.
Not only was Gillard targeted
for being the ‘first female’ prime minister of Australia but also for being
unmarried. Julia Gillard is not married, however she is in a de facto relationship
of six years (The Australian, 2010). But why is this of concern to Australia’s
media? If Gillard were a male would it still be classed as newsworthy? The
Sydney Morning Herald published an article in July of 2010 titled, ‘Unmarried
Gillard Wedded to a Notion that Upholds Injustice’ (The Sydney Morning Herald,
2010) which included a quote from a person stating that “Gillard is doing it
for all the unmarried, barren atheists”. The media often portrays women as
domestic creatures rather than business leaders or sporting legends, therefore
the fact that Gillard is not married somewhat depicts her as undomesticated
which is seemingly newsworthy. While women have been legally allowed to stand
for Australian parliament since 1903 (Australian Women’s History Forum, 2002),
it appears media are behind in the times and are still publishing stories that
are irrelevant to the importance of Australian politics.
An article released by the Media Awareness Network states that even
though the number of female professionals has increased, the majority of news outlets
continues to trust men rather than women (Media Awareness Network, 2010). Journalists
would prefer to focus on women’s personal lives rather than their knowledge and
area of expertise. According to the article, ‘Media Coverage of Women and Women’s Issues’ (Media Awareness
Network, 2010), stories on Julia Gillard’s ladylikeness, Anna Bligh’s shoe
collection and Peta-Kaye Croft’s afternoon nap ritual are likely headlining
stories rather than those that are potentially politics related. In 2000 a
study conducted in over 70 countries by The
Association of Women Journalists discovered
that a mere 10% of news coverage was related to women, and an insignificant 18%
quoted women. The White House Project, a
not for profit organisation igniting the leadership of women in business,
indicates that only 21% of all news subjects, people interviewed or whom the
news was about, was female (The White House Project, 2012). These figures are
proof that women’s rights have not reached their peak performance within the
media fraternity and that males are still depicted as more intelligible and
trustworthy than women.
In an article published by the
business magazine In The Black, Lynda
Dugdale states that many companies are enforcing gender diversity policies to
ensure the number of women in executive leadership positions increases. Major
companies in Norway have entrenched themselves so much in leadership gender
balance that women now hold 40% of all board positions. With gender diversity
becoming part of Norwegians every day lifestyle, this is not surprising (In the
Black, 2012). The article proceeds to explain that diversity is needed to
guarantee global companies meet their global outlook and a global outlook does
not just involve a male viewpoint. So if
large companies around the globe are implementing gender diversity programs and
the numbers of women in executive leadership positions are constantly
increasing, why are the media still reporting on such irrelevant stories?
Another controversial, gender
biased role is that of our front-line male soldiers fighting for Australia in
Iraq. There has been longtime ambiguity and controversy plaguing the role of
women on the frontline. In an article written by Professor Catharine Lumby of
the University of New South Wales, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Professor Lumby distinguishes gender roles under different circumstances. For
moral standpoints, society has been brought up in a culture where women play
the caring, compassionate and nurturing role and men play the protecting,
supporting and providing part (Scientific Blogging, 2008). But is this still
the case in the twenty-first century and should frontline soldiers be
influenced by Grandma’s morals and beliefs? According to the Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS, 2006) the number of women in the workforce has increased
considerably from 40% to 53% between 1979 and 2004 whereas the number of men in
the workforce decreased from 74% to 68% in the same time frame. This is a clear
indicator that women are edging away from the nappies and household chores and instead
seeking rewarding careers? Not only are women changing their ways but society
is also changing their interpretation of the black and white, American dream of
a family.
Lumby constructs a valid
argument when considering women returning from the war-stricken zone in a
black, zip-up bag. But once again, how is it any different to a man returning
home in the same bag? It most certainly is not, and the government agrees. On September
27, 2011 the Australian Government ruled women the right to fight on the
frontline alongside men (Minister for the Status of Women, 2011). The ruling
made media headlines around the world with the New York Times publishing an article titled, ‘Australia Says It
Will Open Combat Roles to Women’, The
Telegraph in the United Kingdom distributing an article titled, ‘Australian
Women Allowed to Take On Frontline Military Role’, and The New Zealand Herald also
published an article titled, ‘Women
Will Now Fight on Australia’s Frontline. Australian women winning the right to
fight alongside their fellow male soldiers should not be depicted as a major
societal issue nor warrant worldwide publication, though the media exaggerated
the story much to the extent that ensures the continuing of the marginalisation
of women.
Women being socially accepted
as equivalent to men is not a major societal concern, however the distorted and
exaggerated stereotype of women being domesticated creatures and the modern-day
media blowing everything out of proportion causes the continued inequality
present today. Today’s media is largely to blame for the considerable ostracism
of women. If it were not for their constant and irrelevant news headlines,
everyone in society would be open to their own, unbiased opinion and
consequently, be treated equally. The
question of ‘Why the media still trusts men rather than women’ continues to
stand unanswered. The media should be informing the community of the real and
genuine news stories breaking and depending on the most qualified professional
in the industry for their knowledge and expertise on the relevant story no
matter what their gender. As a modern society it is time the media left the
real news to the newspapers and the gossip to the magazines. Embracing the
equality between men and women, without the media turning it into a national
front-page news headline, is the pathway to opening doors and stepping out of the
harshly stereotyped reality that is world history.
References
§ - (n.a). (2010) Media Portrayals of Women and Women’s
Issues. Viewed 02 May 2012. Retrieved from < http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/>
§ - (n.a). (2008) Women Nurture and Men Assert In
Negotiations? Just a Stereotype
§ - Australia’s
Women History Forum: Timeline, viewed 3 May 2012, <http://www.womenshistory.com.au/timeline.asp>
§ - Coleman, B.
(2010). Media Portrayal of Women, viewed
02 May 2012, retrieved from <http://brennacoleman.suite101.com/media-portrayal-of-women-a189870>
§ - Glavinic, T,
2010, ‘Exclusion, Misrepresentation and Discrimination: Still Prevalent for
Women in American Media and Politics’ Student Pulse, Online Academic Student
Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, viewed 21 March 2012, <http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/129/exclusion-misrepresentation-and-discrimination-still-prevalent-for-women-in-american-media-and-politics>
§ - Herald Sun 2011,
‘Women Heading To The Frontline’ 28 September, viewed 21 March 2012, via Herald
Sun webpage
§ - Imbornoni, A.
(n.d.) Women’s Rights Movement in the US.
Retrieved from <http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html>
§ - Ingham, H 1995,
The Portrayal of Women on Television, viewed 21 March 2012, <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/hzi9401.html>
§ - Lunn, S. (2010)
Let’s Wait and See on Marriage Says Julia Gillard’s Partner, The Australian, retrieved from <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/lets-wait-and-see-on-marriage-says-julia-gillards-partner/story-fn5vfgwx-1225884011977>
§ - McKinsey and
Company 2010, Women at the top of corporations: Making it happen, viewed 4 May 2012 via Women Matter
§ - McKinsey and
Company 2012, Making the Breakthrough, viewed 4 May 2012 via Women Matter
§ - Morning
Herald 2010, ‘Gillard
Becomes First Female PM, 24 June, viewed 02 May 2012, via The Sydney Morning
Herald webpage
§ - New
Zealand Herald 2010,
‘Women Will Now Fight on Australia’s Frontline, 28 September, viewed 02 May
2012, via The New Zealand Herald webpage
§ - Prime Minister
of Australia 2010, Your PM, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra
§ - Sydney Morning
Herald 2010, Unmarried
Gillard Wedded to a Notion that Upholds Injustice, viewed 3 May 2012, via The
Sydney Morning Herald Webpage
§ - Shah, A. (2010).
Women’s Rights. Viewed 02 May 2012.
Retrieved from < http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights#WomenandtheMedia>
§ - The Australian Bureau of Statistics.
(2007). Trends in Women’s Employment,
cat no. (4102.0). Canberra, Australia: Author.
§ - The Global Media
Monitoring Project 2010, Who Makes The
News?, viewed 21 March, 2012 <http://www.whomakesthenews.org/images/stories/restricted/national/Australia.pdf>
§ - The Hon.
Kate Ellis MP. (2010). Tax Forum and
Women on the Frontline. Viewed 02 May 2012. Retrieved < http://www.kateellis.fahcsia.gov.au/transcripts/Pages/ke_t_pvo_skynews_4october2011.aspx>
§ - The New York Times 2011, Australia Says It
Will Open Combat to Women, viewed 02 May 2012, via the New York Times webpage
§ - The Sydney Morning Herald 2010, Gillard
Becomes First Female Prime Minister As Tearful Rudd Stands Aside, viewed 02 May
2012, via the Sydney Morning Herald webpage
§ - The
Telegraph 2011,
Australian Women Allowed to Take on Frontline Military Role, September 27,
viewed 02 May 2012 via The Telegraph webpage
No comments:
Post a Comment