Great article. One would think overt sexism on the media’s part would come back to bite them where it hurts but, sadly, what we are witnessing is one more instance of male dominance taking care of male dominance. While there are many males who willingly use their gray matter to look passed the obvious bias of the many male jurnos and their tabloid tactics, they’re in the minority. Most let their little head do most of the thinking. But this should surprise no one; the tendency toward male dominance has strong biological links. Biology is not only responsible for the "Y" chromosome and the secondary sexual characteristics separating men from women, it also determines lineage. If you don't have ancestral roots in a family with wealth and power your chances of reaching and influencing those at the top are slim to none. In Stronach's case lineage has paid off, she is at the top in the corporate world. However, even more sinister than the importance of family ties is the evolution of and societal support (mainly males supporting males) for the 'sociopathic' personality. Those that display an overt preoccupation with capitalistic accumulation of wealth and power are seen as desirable while those with socialistic behaviours are suppressed. Once again Stronach is the exception that proves the rule. She has what it takes, “a rather impressive accomplishment”. “It's no accident that there are so few women in the corridors of power”. However, in the eyes of those wishing for an end to the old boys club, women in politics have been neutered, and they play the political game by men's rules. In Stronach’s case the damage is done, thanks to dickhead journalism, neutering is no longer possible.

Sing it, sister! I've been deeply irritated by the media's coverage of Ms. Stronach as well. Thanks for offering a refreshing critique.

Deborah thanks for such a well thought out piece and for not side-stepping around the issues at hand.

Great article! But I think some of the commentary here focusses a bit too much on biology, and a bit too little on sociology. The fact is that we live in a patriarchal *society*, and it's not just men that hold those outdated views; anyone who actually takes the time to speak with non-feminist women will know this. Don't be too quick to support the same sort of boliogical-determinist thinking that got Ms. Stronach the unfair coverage in the first place.

Excellent article! Articulate, well written and researched with excellent observations, as per usual. Deborah Campbell is a definite asset to the Tyee!

Why be surprised that media go for the the easy angle-- so she's getting slammed in ways a Brian Stronach would not; it's all in the great tradition of journalism, put down anyone who sticks their head up. She is trying for a big piece of cake without having "earned" it. If she were a male doing the same thing, the media would nip at his heels just as hard, they just wouldn't comment that they were encased in designer shoes.

Excellent article!! It is about time somebody told the media to take a shower. To Dave: The Desmond Morris "Naked Ape" sociology B.S. is SO tired. So what are you saying? "We live in a sexist society, so get used to it?" She focuses too much on biology? WHAT?? By biology, do you mean mentioning a person's gender? I read a lot of biology, and I didn't notice any biological references in the article at all.

Excellent article. It would be nice if the media would treat Stronach fairly, but then it would be nice for fairy tales to be true too. Good luck to Ms. Stronach and a pox on the sexist yahoos in our media.

Absolutely right, most coverage has been highly unfair to women and I think it's appalling. However, that's TV culture for you -- and has there been a male candidate since before JF Kennedy who's been elected for his ideas? Even "Honest Ed" Broadbent admits that he relented and allowed makeup before camera time just so he could get people to listen to him. You can be the biggest thinker since Descartes or Socrates, but if you're butt ugly you won't get two seconds of airtime, ergo no votes. Sad, eh?

Unfortunately, until evolutionary forces replace the human male/female dichotomy with something a little more androgynous we are stuck with a biological basis for a great part of human behaviour. As far as focusing on more sociological determinants is concerned, they are inseparable from the biological. We are not simply biological or sociological or political or spiritual, we are composites of all factors and each of us is a unique blend of the world around us. In North American societies media degradation of the female body is so entrenched that, with the exception of a few folks, it is considered acceptable behaviour. The media’s focus on female clothing, hair colour, body shape and size is a response to (male dominated) corporate pressure. It serves to objectify, control and exploit women for profit. Ms. Stronach has suffered the wrath of the ‘beauty myth’.

Great article. And I think that inspite of having no idea what you look like. The sad part is this attitude is endemic of societies general malaise to the actual substance of any current event. Examples of this behavior pop up every day. Real debate on the half truths and lies of Heir G.W. Bush is pathetic. Yet Heir Micheal Powell, chairman of the FCC, is calling for an imediate and expeditious inquiry as to how a female breast (although probably a fake one) accidentally got exposed on national television. "Accidently" concluding Iraq had weapons of mass destruction getting an inquiry...close to a year and counting. Watching numerous deaths a minute on other shows is ok for the family but seeing a Janet Jackson's breast is a tradgedy. We mock women for being good looking and in politics and berate them for showing there bodies. Some times it is so embarrassing to be a guy.

Excellent article.

thanks Deborah for your wonderful piece. i do agree that the sexism exhibited by media in their coverage of belinda stronach is repulsive. and that it is in the same 'vile strain' as that which produced and maintains the taliban. and i think there is yet another facet to what is happening with the way that belinda stronach is being 'constructed' in the public sphere. what is happening to her bears a striking resemblance to what happened to kim campbell and to rita johnson, both women with considerable experience and canniness. these latter two women were handed bags filled with broken parties - parties without a real hope of winning the then upcoming elections. men [and no doubt women, too] who were busy saving their own political asses packed those bags. the bag stronach could be left holding is filled with something no one's quite sure about - which may turn out to smell bad. stronach is being set up. the blatant sexism which you so usefully describe is part of how it is possible to tell just how thorough a set up is at hand.

We live in a world where Janet Jackson's mammary appenadge eclipsed Groundhog Day. Expecting the media to focus on brains versus beauty? Did the little guy see his shadow or not?

Lots of good points but I have to disagree with your portrayal of the reaction to Stockwell Day's jet-ski mishap. I don't remember the criticism being how he looked in a wet-suit, at least not from the pundits I read. The heat was directed at the crass and shameless attempt to inject American-style emptiness into our political discourse, and the further debasement that is inevitable when we fix our gaze on the (fake) personalities of the party leaders. Until Ms Stronach is actually prepared to divulge coherent positions in a meaningful way, she should be ignored. But it's too late for that. The best we can hope for is that when she finally shows us how to "bake a bigger economic pie", the real pie-guy will be ready and waiting for her.

Thanks for the thoughtful article. Kim Campbell was also a blonde last ditch effort to get votes for the Federal Conservatives after Mulroney left in disgrace. People! You're feeling sorry for a multi-billionaire far right-winger! She comes from an Alliance/Reform world ... totally opposite to progressive thinking. Everyone loved Diana of Wales but haha Alliance we also remember Margaret Thatcher.

The sad part is that she may actually have something smart and coherent to say. She may even be able to produce a policy platform that is inclusive, canadian and shows leadership strength. Judgement will have to wait until then. It is clear that the comments and writing in the press say to me: How do we fight this woman? Uh, lets make her look and sound like a dumb blonde! Verdict: I think the boys are scared! And the boys need to grow up!

I would take issue with this sentence: "... the insistence on branding Belinda Stronach as "daddy's little rich girl" or "the heiress," wouldn't be objectionable if it was evenly applied." I think I, for one, have applied it evenly. Certainly Paul Martin is an heir to both a financial and political fortune. In fact, the choice could well be which millionaire do you want to be your leader? But I find another double-standard, also, right in this article: "It didn't stop a cheerleader with a C average from becoming the leader of the "free world" on the basis of his dad's connections." Stronach is a university drop-out with only one year completed. What is the chances your daughters would be CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation without benefit of a degree? Without her dad's connections where would she be?

Sean, I think that is exactly the point Deborah Campbell was making.

Belinda Stronach deserves to fly or crash based on her abilities and experience, NOT the colour of her hair or the fact that she's "hot" (a matter of taste and opinion anyhow). If the national media can't find it in their tiny little hearts to treat her the same way they treat other politicians, maybe a well-placed, American-style lawsuit or two would smarten up the "horny boy" reporters!

"Unfortunately, until evolutionary forces replace the human male/female dichotomy with something a little more androgynous we are stuck with a biological basis for a great part of human behaviour." Smile at that one above. To which it occurs to me that already, forms of pewter dish sex and the factory raising of children may be the "ultimate solution" afterall. Though Dave makes at least as good a point about the contradictory women's views of themselves. And they do seem willing enough, in very many cases, to play the beauty/sex object game themselves. It's there everywhere around us right now; the New Naked Liberated (?) Woman. But that said, the essential point of the writer here, and most of the commentary is certainly correct. Along with this really ugly emerging New World Order everywhere, there does seem to be a resurgence, or at least a new vigour being given to the objectification, or one might more accurately say "commodification" (reduction to a commodity) of sexuality in general, and the female form in particular. A man these days can't turn his head anywhere, whether it be in the grocery store, on the telly or wherever, without the sight of bare female flesh being dangled like a bauble before him. That it's having an impact shouldn't be the least surprising. We too are what we are, to a very large degree. There has been a great turning away of males from a great many cultural "forms" , which I think I've been observing for quite some time now. It is not only women who are more hesitant about relationships, for one example, especially marriage.Men are also more seriously and critically scrutinizing this hallowed institution for what's in it for them, and, I suspect, at some varyingly unconcious primordial level, with concern for the outcomes of the potential product of their loins. As well, and this one I don't fully understand, TV, like fictional literature by the way, is increasingly being viewed as a "chick thing", to which media moguls I again suspect have belatedly twigged onto. It's the same thing with "magazines" and many other heretofore perceived "feminized cultural products". Hence, if you want to catch male attention, the overwhelming presence of cleavage in the New World Order Culture. And I'm not so sure it's only the "patriarchal" media and advertising culture draping these "enhanced" airbrushed sexual images everywhere, in order to catch male attention and loosen the contents of their wallets from them. A savvy matriarchal culture seems very much present in the corporate driven mix as well, actually. But then New Capitalism, much like Old Capitalism actually, to which the new "power dressing" woman desparately gives her loyalty and creativity, at least as much as her male counterparts, has ever tended to encourage and reduce everything down to a commodity of one sort of another-, for barter, sale and the manipulation of male and female workers and consumers (by and large, the same persons really.) Afterall, one should at least be aware that the New World Order had a mother too-, Margaret Thatcher. And her vision of the seed was not so much different from that of Ronald Reagan's.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Jerry says. It is difficult not to notice that there has been a backward slide since the 70's. And much of that slide, in my opinion, is attributable to mass youth culture where, while there are strong female characters, mostly we are inundated with young females using their sexuality as a marketing tool and calling it empowerment or the use of females as adornments by male artists with songs extolling big bottoms or thong bikinis. But I think added to this is the continuing dumbing down of culture. And sadly, this trend caters to the worst aspects of male stereotypes. So we get man TV and radio for men where the only thing lower than the sexist images and commentary is the toilet humour. Yet, these programs succeed. Or at least seem to. But then we live in a society where the SUV remains the top selling vehicle despite a war over Iraqi oil which cost, according to some estimates, as many as 60,000 lives. So what are you going to do? If you can't beat them ... Janet Jackson's what?

And in the public arena, no less politics, being a "cute and hunky" kind of male is definitely a bonus, and an attractant for "non-androgenous" female attention and voters. Let's face it. Said or not. Bill Clinton. :) There's much bullshit about, on all sides of the gender line.

These are old complaints for good reason I suppose. Men in the public eye have to put up with some of these same issues though, ask Joe Clark or Robert Stanfield. Jack Layton projects a sexy image and I have heard NDP women refer to it publicly.

Excellent article overall, but the comment that "the media portrayal of Belinda Stronach draws from the same vile strain of sexism that brought us the Taliban" is a bit much. I doubt that even Stonach's most sexist detractors support anything remotely resembling the sort of oppression and violence that occurred under the Taliban.

That "men face discrimination too" is a terrifically lame arguement. Take just a brief moment to think about it. Scenerio 1: Professionally dressed Fat Man walks into room and proceeds to set up a presentation. Most will assume he is management or above. Scenerio 2: Professionally dressed Fat Woman walks into room and proceeds to set up a presentation. Most will assume she's admin staff with a weight problem. My point here is that sure men can be portrayed as sexy (eg Trudeau) or fat or ugly or bald or uneducated (Michael Moore), but it won't interfere with their professional credibility. With women, as Deborah Campbell makes clear, the framework of interpretation is different. Imagine the outrage if Mulroney had shown a little bare shoulder back in the day. Ha ha, what fun the media might have had. But his political credibility would have been distinctly separated. Yet, when Kim Campbell did it, her credibility was challenged. If I were to focus on Belinda Stronach's political stance, she's radically right-wing with a "open for business" agenda that I can't stand. I know where most (male) politicians stand with their views. I just wish the media would focus more on Stronach's views and less on her looks, so that the really important information can get out.

Thanks Deborah for an excellent article. Although I'd never vote for a Conservative, I find it embarrassing to listen to and read the blatant sexist views from the young and old dinosaurs in the press. One striking element for me in the Stronach media coverage is how the mainstream corporate conservative media has demeaned her efforts to talk about ideas. The corporate conservative media is fond of mentioning that the left is too self critical but here we have the media devaluing and minimizing Stronach's message. The corporate media regularily turns a blind eye to the wrongdoings of "others", namely, white conservative males, but is harshly critical of women, gays and lesbians, different races, and guys with left leaning tendencies. People like Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Martha Stewart, Glen Clark, Kim Campbell, to name a few, are criticized extremely harshly. I'm not an apologist for any of these people but I think it is grossly unfair for the media to practice such a blatant double standard in their coverage. To a lesser degree, the eastern-based media is critical of Western politicians from the Alliance party since they are critical of eastern-based power structure.

primary botox watch - - "John Kerry’s long, angular face has something of the abstraction of a tribal mask. The features are at once stark and exaggerated, and, with the exception of his mouth, none of the parts appear to move." - Philip Gourevitch, the New Yorker.

"Although I'd never vote for a Conservative..." Wait until you leave your 20s behind you, junior, or have a family, then you'll have a whole new perspective. As for that nasty corporate media beating up on everyone but white men, give me a break.

Deborah Campbell speaks to a reality. The reality is that a sexist attack on a woman in a political position sells news. Its a sad statement about the times we live in. It is going to be this way until more women are owners of newspapers - hopefully women who are wise to the institutional sexism that permeates every aspect of our daily lives - including the morning news. If sexist attitiudes weren't culturally acceptable, they would not be in print. Sexist attitudes prevale because people have become so indiffernt to sexism, they don't recognize sexism when it is on the front page of the morning news.

Deborah Campbell speaks to a reality. The reality is that a sexist attack on a woman in a political position sells news. Its a sad statement about the times we live in. It is going to be this way until more women are owners of newspapers - hopefully women who are wise to the institutional sexism that permeates every aspect of our daily lives - including the morning news. If sexist attitiudes weren't culturally acceptable, they would not be in print. Sexist attitudes prevale because people have become so indiffernt to sexism, they don't recognize sexism when it is on the front page of the morning news.

A couple of words of caution - it is unwise to consider coverage and commentary in the same manner. Roy McGregor is a commentator. It never was his job to give a straight interpretation in the first place, and I don't necessarily think his comments represent the reportage of the situation. Ditto for Rex Murphy, or Tom Olsen. By far most radio listeners and newspaper readers get their news from wire service reporters - with occasional local "beat" reporters doing national stories for their papers. It is the television networks and big newspapers that tend to use "name" reporters. My point is that you can't uniformly blame the media - we get our news from varied and largely unnamed sources. I guess what I think is interesting about this is the choices those journalists made in building their stories. One of the main ways that reporters use to build a story is to ask - what is different and unique about this? These folks would have a cornucopia of choices - first Belinda Stronach is different because she is a woman. Beyond Deb Gray and Elsie Wayne, name another woman on the conservative side. Tough, isn't it? Second, she is the daughter of a famous Canadian - Frank Stronach. Third, she is wealthy - a unique charaacteristics if there ever was one. Fourth, she is good looking - without being sexist, I must say that Tony Clement and Steven Harper are pretty bland people - at least this was a woman of flair and style and that is definitely different. The consistent choice of putting her looks up at the top of the story is indicative of sexism, no question. I just wonder how many of the reporters and editors who worked on those stories were women. I wonder how they dealt with the situation, and I wonder if any complaints about the nature of the coverage were addressed in the newsroom. Hopefully the furor will settle down so we can hear about her policy and vision. The political scene needs new faces - and more of them have to be women - good luck to her

"Imagine the outrage if Mulroney had shown a little bare shoulder back in the day. Ha ha, what fun the media might have had. But his political credibility would have been distinctly separated." Really? Tell it to Stockwell Day whose credibility was pretty much sunk even though the jet ski came ashore.

"Although I'd never vote for a Conservative..." Quote "Wait until you leave your 20s behind you, junior, or have a family, then you'll have a whole new perspective." Hey Artie. How do you know how old I am, and how do you know I don't have a family? I'm well out of my twenties and I do have a family. If you read my posting, I said the media regularly ignores the wrongdoing of white conservative men. For instance, look at the coverage of the BC Liberals in the local newspapers versus the coverage the NDP received. As Steve Burgess said when talking to employees at the Global/Sun/Province, "criticizing the BC Liberals is not encouraged." Read the National Post? Tell me how much white conservative males are criticized there.

I'm with you Chris. I'm pleasantly into my sixties... Yeah, and so far loving it. .. with four kids and eight grandchildren, and I never have nor never will vote conservative. And again, bang on in your reference to our inappropriately labelled "Liberals", as a prime example substantiating your claim of special treatment for conservative white (?) males. Though I do note a goodly number of them are also conservative white women, just as reactionary as their male counterparts. Even more so, some of them, like Christy Clark, because they possibly feel they've got something to prove. (Somebody wipe the flippin' smirk from her face. One of you ladies, of course. :) What's slowly taking shape out there is not so much a "gender" war folks, as a "class" war. And as that becomes more and more clear, those men AND women who are determined to berate, slander and belittle each other with their spurious claims and counter claims, down to the last ditch, are going to be left in the dust of their own irrelevance. Let them fight over whose better equipped to make the power point presentation at the board meeting. :)

Who is Paris Hilton?? I enjoyed this article- nice to see the comments from men, too. Sexism will not disappear overnight, clearly. But the fact that there is even a forum on this issue, that both women AND men are writing, that people notice what the media is doing, is heartening. Plus, I'm having so much fun casually flashing newspapers with her photo in front of my ESL students and then letting them know, "Oh no, she isn't a model or actress; this young woman is the CEO of an auto company and running for political office". Watching the sparkle in the eyes of my female Korean and Japanese students is priceless...!

Excellent article and then debate. I offer the following as an insight into what is happening with the media coverage of politics in the Excited States. http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/campaign.html

She is a soccer mom! Hot? Maybe to some old coot in Ottawa. But she is bright and she has new ideas and she isn't old school. But your article is true to form on media perspective. They are acting like teen age boys who just found a hole in the wall, leading to the girls shower.

The old boys club lives on, not only in the chambers of government, but around the media too it seems. Frankly, I'm tired of the both of them. That said, I find Stronach's prescence and positioning quite refreshing. And I think she is a perfect opponent to what Paul Martin represents in the political arena.

So who is surprised by this, exactly? Perhaps those who believe the news media have any concerns other than maximizing profit for their owners and performing ritual obeisance to the emblems of power. Sex sells, especially tawdry sexual innuendo aimed at our presumed betters. Sex gossip distracts us from forming actual thoughts, and that distraction is the essential task of the media. Everything else, including what we might call "real news", is merely filler. 'Twas ever thus.

It's nothing new -- which doesn't make it any less ugly. Having worked for a number of female MPs, and for a couple of female NDP Leaders, I've long been aware of the difference in coverage. As long as men own the media, I'm not optimistic about change, unfortunately.

I am sorry but i hate your article and i think thta you are one hundred percent wrong with your thinking.

Belinda Stronach is for the people of this Country. Because she an strong advocate for human rights. Belinda is for the people but if she is not able to become leader or change the Conservative Party then she should join the NDP's because Belinda reminds me of an NDP Politician. Belinda Stronach is the New Energy that Jack Layton is looking for. I hope Belinda will read this.

Belinda Stronach is for the people of this Country. Because she an strong advocate for human rights. Belinda is for the people but if she is not able to become leader or change the Conservative Party then she should join the NDP's because Belinda reminds me of an NDP Politician. Belinda Stronach is the New Energy that Jack Layton is looking for. I hope Belinda will read this.