Notable Anti-Feminist Women Lose Races. Now what?

For all the buzz they generated as “controversial” female conservatives, Meg Whitman, Christine O’Donnell, and Sharron Angle all went down in defeat. Only Angle was in serious contention (the other two lost by double figures), and even she lost by 5.6% to the fairly unpopular incumbent Harry Reid in a purple state during a bad election year for Democrats.

While their campaigns generated attention for how their politics would oppress other women, it is hard to say whether the attention turned people against them… or whether the allowed them to enjoy the kind of numbers they achieved in the first place. I’m inclined to go with the former for Whitman since she is otherwise notable for her business success, and with the latter for O’Donnell since a few men would buy into her pretty picture on TV.

While they are not undeserving of attention, the deluge of attention on them left other issues to remain in the dark, whether it be other candidates, feminist progress, or simply issues not related to feminism or political races. O’Donnell’s race in particular was not especially competitive, and for the attention on her to persist presented a real lost opportunity to focus on other matters.

For some perspective, news media is motivated to report on “novelties,” and female candidates — especially conservative female candidates — are still regarded as such. While this is sex-based discrimination, it is a case of adverse impact rather than adverse treatment. In a future election year, the novelty will not be as strong, so the issue may correct itself to a degree, although novelty-based discrimination will still remain in place.

With the exception of Whitman for her business merits, these candidates will likely disappear from the national stage just as quickly as they arrived. This episode of anti-feminist women running for office has come to an end, and the sequels likely won’t earn the same level of attention. I am thrilled to be able to move past this chapter, but as much as it pains me to focus on it some more, I wonder if there is something else we should be learning here. How do we get media to ration attention in an appropriate manner rather than just obsess over the hottest trend, especially when that “hot” story has not just stalled but has turned irrelevant? How do we keep from falling into the trap of obsessing over “novel” stories?

To me, it seems that whatever “novel” details there are to a story, it is okay to acknowledge it and have an appropriately-sized discussion about it, but it should not serve as a major factor in people continuing to follow said story. We should look at stories primarily according to their merits. While the idea of an anti-feminist woman is interesting on some level, the fact an anti-feminist candidate is a woman should not be driving months of coverage. If a media source wants to focus on female politicians with anti-feminist policies, it should do its best to offer male politicians of a similar persuasion the same level of scrutiny. Individuals must bear that same responsibility. The idea of an anti-feminist woman should not be a story over and over again. The many different ways a relevant politician may be anti-feminist (or feminist for that matter) are what may deserve extended coverage.