Monica Potts, senior writer for The American Prospect, wrote the article “The Burdens of Female Politician.” This article discuses the burdens that female politicians must face when they step into office or are running for office. One of the first burdens they face is the obvious thought that they are less capable than their male counterparts. Another problem they face is the media attention they receive. The higher up a female politician gets, the more the media works to make them look ridiculous or silly. This was the case with Sarah Palin who was expected to run for the 2012 presidential race but decided not to after the world made her seem stupid in comparison to other politicians. Next there are cases like Hillary Clinton who seemed to do more as First Lady than she did as a candidate. Whether this is all true or not relies with what the media decides to show us. The media general picks out the bad in candidates and tends to show that side of them more than the good. I feel like the weight that is put on female politicians is much greater than males. This could easily account for the lack of females in office and explain why fewer women are running these days.

Katie Heimers article “Hillary Clinton and the Media: From Intelligent and Fair to Appallingly Sexist and Pointless” talks about the medias relentless bashing of Hillary Clinton and other government women. The author describes the problem with the double standard that is put on female government officials. This includes criticizing them for being to soft and gentle and then criticizing them for being to forceful or upfront. The medias approach to women in government has gotten a little out of hand. With headlines focusing on what they are wearing and how they styled their hair as opposed to what their stance on issues are or their achievements in office. People are forced to read what the media puts out there and frankly what the media is putting out there is junk. I have never seen an article talking about what male congressmen were wearing, or about how their hair was cut. I’ve never seen a headline that read “Iowa congressman wears pink tie” or anything close to that. So why is the media bashing women? I think it is a matter of something new and different and many people do not accept change well. This author suggests that we as voters and citizens of America should write to editors and tell them that this is wrong. Most news stations and magazines will run the stories that get the most attention. Unfortunately people would rather read about the bad of someone than the good they are doing. Sometimes we forget that politicians are there to help improve our country, shouldn’t we be a little nicer to them?

After reading Palin, Sexism and Women in Politics I came to side with the author. It was something that I hadn’t really thought about that was brought to my attention. One thing that really kinda of made me mad was how the Senior Administration Official just blew of the reporter. I feel like this actually happens more often than not, people are getting ignored because of their sex or race. This does not make any sense to me because just the reporter being in the room qualified her enough to be there and the fact that she got blown off by someone who should be a lot smarter than that and recognize that is really demeaning. I like how the author was able to connect her personal experience to the issues that Sarah Palin faced. It makes Palin seem more relatable, and reinforces the idea that she is just a human like the rest of us. I think it is all to common for the media and other political figures to dismiss women. Just because they haven’t been around the government for as long as men does not make them any less qualified to do the job. Also being a women and having a family should not take away from the seriousness of women in government. I don’t know about other people but I would fear an angry mother more than a government politician. Angry mothers get things done, slick polititians do not.

“Congress with a womens touch” discusses the idea that if more women were in congress that it would be more productive and civil. The author writes on Kirsten Gillibrand, junior senator from New York, and describes how she feels on the subject. Gillibrand says that women are more sensitive towards others and could bring a more peaceful tone to congress. This new tone could actually improve the willingness of others, mainly the male congressmen, to work together on issues. This article doesn’t bring up some new idea, it has been thought that by increasing the number of women in congress that America could better represent and better function as a government. With more women in government office there would be greater light shed on women’s social issues. Also within the article it was brought up that when women are part of a group, the overall IQ of the group rises. That goes to say that the more diversity within congress, the more they could accomplish. One of the main problems with congress is that they tend to argue and become more aggressive without really accomplishing much. If women were present in the room I think men would be less likely to act that way, and the women tend to be more gentle in their arguments. Whether you agree with the article or not, it is hard to see how more women in congress couldn’t help. The system needs some change, and more women just might be what the country needs.

Jennifer Steinhauers article in The New York Times, “John Boehner and the and the Politics of Crying”, talks specifically about speaker of the house John Boehner and his numerous bouts with tears. The media likes to make cracks at Boehner for crying while in public, but I think that this makes him more relatable. It’s not as if he is crying over little things, every time he has cried has been over something significant and meaningful. Although this can be seen as a form of “acting” or a way to get people to feel sorry for politicians and their issues, they are just human. We expect politicians to be these perfect people who have never done anything wrong and live these perfect lives. Sometimes we forget that they too were born in a small town, had to work tough jobs, and have families like we do. Personally I don’t care if a politician cries or not. If they do that means they have a heart and soul, if they don’t then it means they have incredible self control. Who wouldn’t get a little emotional when talking about a subject they really care about? The emotion of the topic plus the added pressure of all these people watching you would be enough to make anyone tear up. Sometimes I feel like the media focuses on the dumbest things to get peoples interest in politics. This is just another thing for the public to pick out and criticize politicians for their wrong doings or to give them credit.

The article “New study shows heavy male politicians considered more reliable, honest than thinner counterparts” written by Daily News author Rich Schapiro discusses the view of politicians based on their weight. He states that voters are more likely to pick a candidate who is overweight than a skinny one. The research also showed that when it came to women politicians, skinny was in. Whether this research was extensive or not is something to take into consideration. I can understand why more Americans would pick a heavier candidate simply because they are more relatable to the general obese American population. As to whether these candidates are more reliable and honest? How can you really measure something like that? It seems to me that this article may be showing some trend that is going on in America, but is not based on hard proven facts. It could be possible that Americans are picking heavier candidates because they seem more honest because they aren’t trying to hide behind some physical front. This all goes to show that we can never get away from the stereotypes. Choosing a politician by their values and their sides should always be the most important factor, but I can see where people would choose someone who looked more reliable. Do I think that Newt Gingrich has a better chance because he is heavier than Mitt Romney…well no. Appearence is just another thing for Americans to criticize. In the end Americans will generally pick the best candidate based on the issues they back and their stance. If they happen to be a fan of chips and fast food then so be it, they are just more American.

Joelle Schmitz article “Women in Politics? The U.S is Failing” discusses the issue of Americas governemtn concerning women. According to Schmitz the U.S is behing 89 other countries in women representation in government. The outlook for more women in poilitics looks grimm, in fact it could very well decline due to recent disgression with women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. When people see how the media portrays these women in government they become convinced that all women are like this when given power. They begin to fear the thought of more and more women in upper level government. Some governments require a certain percentage of women to be in the representing government. This seems to make sense because how can a population be represented without one of them in office. America could be hurting because of this dilemma. We are behind the current status quo and that puts us at risk of being pushed from the top nations. The only way to change this is to become more accepting of women. This includes not using demeaning language.

Newsweeks cover of Michele Bachmann portrays the politician in a very unflattering way. She is seen with a sort of “crazy” expression on her face. Whether this is a sexist cover or not is one based on opinion. It could be argued that this was just Newsweeks way of placing bias on one political party, or it could be said that this is Newsweeks way of saying it is against women in politics. Author Jessica Grose discusses in her article the effects of a cover like this one. She says that this is just another way to gain attention, and it is working. MAgazines will do anything to get more publications, even if it means crossing the line of sexism. By looking at other candidates such as men like Mike Huckabee we see them shown in a serious light, unlike Bachmanns cover. Another cover of Sarah Palin shows her wearing shorts and doesn’t portray women as serious political figures. The cover itself is not a big issue, but the underlying idea is. Why are women not being considered as political figures? Personally I think it all goes back to our culture. Since the beginning of America women have been held back and looked down upon when it comes to leadership and ability. If other countries can involve women in their government why cant America? The sexist nature of our country could be hurting our world political power. It may just be a magazine cover, but it shows the real American view on women in politics.

Diana L. Tucker’s article “The Making of the Perfect Sacrifice: A Rhetorical Analysis of Football Coaches’ Descriptions of their Wives” discusses the lives of football coaches wives and how the coaches view them. Many see a coaches wife as the scapegoat for the coach because she is perceived as better than the rest of the world. A coach can take his troubles and dump them on his wife because she should be strong enough to handle them. Through the article the author explains how the coaches wife should be perfect. They should be beautiful, well kept, overall good citizen, have good mothering skills, and be a family caregiver. In the social aspect women are expected to hold various gatherings of people. Such as open houses after home games, holding dinners, participating in large banquets, etc. This ensured that the wife was a part of the coaches life and also painted a good picture for the public. Overall a coaches wife is expected to be more than she really is. I don’t think that this is necessarily fair to her. As a coaches wife she should stand by her husband and support him, but shouldn’t be made out to be some “perfect” lady. Women should be allowed to live their own life free from the burdens of the coach and that atmosphere. For example, if the roles were reversed would a coaches husband be expected to the same tasks? Unfortunately I do not think that is the case. The differences between men and women will always be too much for them to really be equal.

“Television and Aerobic Sport: Empowerment and Patriarchy in Denise Austin’s Daily Workouts” by Melissa Camacho discusses aerobic workouts and the thought that they are mainly a women dominated sport. People usually associate aerobic workouts as weight loss programs and less manly workouts because they tend to include dancing in the moves. Shows like Daily Workout  are geared towards women and particularly weight loss as opposed to fitness and healthy living. The language in the shows uses phrases like “burn the fat” and “lose that pot belly” which suggests that the women need to loss weight and are not just using the videos to improve health.

The article does a good job of making the feelings of the author clear to the readers. The sentences flow nicely and is easy to read. Also the information is well researched and backed by numerous references. Although the article is well written I found it a bit dry. There are few things that make it interesting. Overall the article was effective at making the authors point clear, but it is kind of boring and could be suited for a different audience.