By Griffy Vigneron (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: April 3, 2013
Ever since the blog Madam Premier was posted online, the media has been concerned about sexism in attitudes about and coverage of BC premier Christy Clark. Some claim the sexist remarks are a reflection of Clark’s poor ability being premier, but that just seems like a poor excuse for a case of scapegoatism.
The blog is a collection of YouTube posts, tweets, Facebook comments, news response posts and the occasional news article. Almost all of the posts show sexism towards Canada’s several provincial female premiers.
“Trying to be more like men throws away the only advantage [women] have. Floppy grey pant suits don’t suit,” is a sexist comment reposted on Madam Premier from Iain Hunter’s article on Clark for The Times Columnist. It is one of the few examples of blatant sexism directly taken from media coverage.
I’m not personally a huge fan of Clark, or the Liberals for that matter. But at the same time, it is unfair to criticise her or her leadership abilities based on the fact that she is a woman.
That being said, I don’t think that anyone should be harping at anyone in politics for reasons unrelated to their jobs. Constructive criticism of our government officials would seem to be far better than mudslinging, which goes on in politics all the time.
Humanity as a whole is marvellous in its ability to find problems with things. We’re not so good at finding solutions. Instead, we find it easy turn those in leadership positions into scapegoats. We expect our leaders to find solutions for everyone and every problem, on their own. When they don’t, as is always going to be the case, we start mudslinging – blaming it on whomever was supposed to fix things. After all, it’s not like we’re supposed to find solutions right?
Of course, sometimes we assume a politician is going to fix a problem and they don’t. We vote them in for a reason, and they don’t follow up to our expectations. It’s kind of obvious that no one can please everyone, right? But we seem to expect that. We get upset when a politician is unable satisfy the unique needs of every individual who voted for them, especially when that need is ours.
The easiest and most thought-free way to deal with the unsatisfactory performance of government officials is to start mudslinging. While this may be a sign of a real problem at hand, it doesn’t solve anything. It just makes people feel worse, and not just premiers.
If a sexist comment is directed towards Christy Clark, implying she can’t do her job because she’s a woman this is going to make other women doubt their ability. It’s the same if a male premier is criticized on his job because he’s old, and as such, obviously a “creep.” Comments like that shift the perspective to older men being seen as creeps; this affects men even when they’re not the initial target.
That being said, aside from a few posts involving coverage directly from the news, like Hunter’s, it seems to me like most of the sexist coverage on Madam Premier is mainly the outcome of internet trolling. YouTube comment feeds, Facebook, Twitter, all of these are places known to attract outrageous offensive comments. People are able to hide behind the anonymity of their computer screens, without taking any real flack.
No matter the source, sexism is harmful. Mudslinging is the same. While I think offensive sexist commentary is harmful to Christy Clark and other women, I think it brings to the bigger picture all the mudslinging and negative commentaries that go on around politicians.
While sexist commentary may or may not reflect a poor public opinion of Clark, it doesn’t change the fact it’s wrong. Whether it’s Clark or any other politician, none of them deserve the psychological abuse. It is not constructive criticism.
Any sexism or mudslinging harms not just the politicians, but others too. And it certainly doesn’t constructively help in the making of a better government.
