Similar (and much more sophisticated) to my complaints about profiles of artists in magazines, it delves into the complex reasons while profiles of female politicians done by women's magazines contribute to the problem of misogyny and prejudice against women in politics.
It provides a lot of great, concrete examples and touches on both the large and small consequences of the treatment of these women in these publications. It also articulates some great insights into the mechanisms of media that harm the status of women in politics, leaderships, and in image-making in general.
One of my favorite insights from the article:
Things are “just sort of supposed to happen” to powerful women—good things, determined by fortuity instead of fortitude. For women in politics, whose responsibilities extend to a public constituency, passivity is a hard pose to hold. Politicians are supposed to make things happen – not only for themselves, but for others. But women in politics are profiled like Disney princesses: vaguely appointed, lavishly decked out in gowns, smiling, packaged and sold.I appreciate the way this succinctly describes the conundrum women who are public figures experience. And although, the article does not delve into this issue explicitly, it also nods to the compounding effect American consumerism contributes to the situation. A large part of the "Princess Effect" finds its origins in our consumerist economy's need to reinforce the consumerist habits of its citizenry.
Another strong part of the piece:
