I'm a journalism student, so I critique the news media more than I'd like to admit. Sometimes, it's nit-picky, nerdy-journalist things, and sometimes it's just atrocious.
CNN had a story online last night about three families killed in a plane crash on their way to vacation . The story is devasting — all three families had young children and two of the three women killed were sisters.
Now, CNN.com isn't exactly a bastion of good journalism, but I was shocked when I was this:
A dental practice in Valley Springs, California, said dentist Michael Pullen and his wife, Vanessa, were on the plane with their 9-year-old daughter, Sydney, and 7-year-old son, Christopher. The family is from Galt, California.
Dr. James DuHamel of DuHamel & Pullen Family Dental said the two families were related. Vanessa Pullen, a physician in Elk Grove, was the sister of Amy Jacobson, he said.
First reference of the Pullen family lists Michael Pullen as a dentists and Vanessa Pullen as "his wife." At first I read this to mean she didn't work. Then the next paragaph identifies her as a physician. According to CNN, Vanessa's marriage to Michael Pullen takes precedence over that fact that she was a doctor.
Now, to be fair, it's hard to ID so many people in one sentence. But from a purely journalistic standpoint here, Vanessa Pullen is more important, not her husband. She, her children, her sister and her children all died. The way this story was written makes it about the me. All three women are refered to as "his wife," not as their own person.
I'm not sure I'm explaining my feelings well here...but does this make sense?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why does being a wife erase your life's accomplishments?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12701
Yes, it does make sense.
I have been thinking a lot about the anti-wife attitude that I keep seeing everywhere. Not only the idea that being a wife erases the rest of who you are as a person and makes you secondary to your husband, but also the fact that wives are so commonly the butt of jokes. The idea is apparently that once a woman becomes a wife, she is nothing but an ugly nag who spends your money and prevents you from having poker night with the guys.
We really can't win, can we? If you don't get married, you're a pathetic spinster, and if you do get married, your personality and accomplishments get erased and replaced with a caricature.
I have been mentally saving up information for a looonng community post about this, and I will definitely have to link back to this post.
Good catch.
I echo that sentiment - good catch - as I don't think I would have seen it on my own (regrettably)
I think that the justification for that would be that it's his office that gave the information, so he really has to be mentioned first, along with his profession -- otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to say that a dental practice was reporting that. That just applies to this particular story, though; I've seen plenty of other stories where families were mentioned similarly, with the husband's profession mentioned right away and the wife's later, that didn't have the justification of the source being the husband's office.
I agree. As a newspaper reporter AND a feminist, I see no sinister motives here. Michael Pullen's dental practice is reporting the information, so it only makes sense to identify him first. I'd do the same thing if I were writing this story.
But from a purely journalistic standpoint here, Vanessa Pullen is more important, not her husband. She, her children, her sister and her children all died.
Well, Michael Pullen also died and from a journalistic and human standpoint, I'd say that all the deaths here are equal in gravity. Reporters don't rank deaths according to the education levels of the deceased. And even if that were the case, a dentist and a physician are on equal academic standing.
Rachel,
The media make value judgements about who's deaths are more important ALL THE TIME.
Ever read coverage of bombings in the Middle East?
The Israeli victims get names and short bios - not so the Arab victims.
When a plane crashes in the Congo, we hear about the American victims first (and we actually get info about who they are) then the White European victims (with slightly less info) and then we get a number of approximately how many Blacks died (if there's space, they MIGHT get divided by nationality "230 Congolese, 7 Zambians" ect).
The same thing goes with gender - men are more important than women, and a wife is subordinate to her husband.
So, when a man dies, we hear that he was a cardiologist, or an auto mechanic, or whatever and his family is way down on the list, but when a woman dies, it doesn't matter if she was a decorated combat veteran of the Iraq war or a prominent orthopedic surgeon, the first thing we hear about her is that she was a "wife and mother of 3".
You'll probably read about the ages of her children before you get any more info about her or who she was.
Race, nationality and gender bias are as normalized in the mainstream media as class bias is.
That's why you'll hear that "Frank Gehry built the Getty Museum" - even though 2,000 construction workers actually BUILT it - he just drew the blueprints, and even that was done by a dozen junior architects and draftspeople!
But only Gehry is "important" - those thousands of people who actually did the work are "less than" him, and it reflects in the press coverage.
Just look carefully through the papers and you'll see that kind of casual matter-of-fact bias all over the place.
Is it intentional or by accident?
That's really irrelevant - it's effect on the public discourse is far more important than intent.
Does sexism only exist when there are sinister motives?
I'm just wondering, do you think the reporter even contacted her practice for information on the family?
I have no idea. The article has been updated some since when this was posted, but it still doesn't mention anything about her office other than where it is.
Why do you insist on calling the children hers?
The children are THEIRS....he is the biological father and a guardian with legal equal privileges.
That's a good point...I'm not sure why I said it that way. I was trying to point out that the relationship between the two women is the uniting factor in the story, not that the fathers didn't matter.
I'll have to pay closer attention to that. Thanks!
My apologies. I assumed a malicious, intentional wording.
thank you for noticing these things:) you are not alone, I always see things like this in the media (although I'm not a journalist). although I rarely get to do anything about it
His practice reported the death. I mean, how would you write it... "A dental practice in Valley Springs, California, said a physician who happened to be married to one of their dentists, Vanessa Pullen, and her husband, the dentist, Michael Pullen..." There's no way to get it to flow unless you acknowledge why a dental practice reported it. Indeed, I doubt they would have mentioned the man's profession at all in that paragraph if not for the fact that they heard it from a dental practice and they need to explain their source-- if the police had simply reported it, it would likely have read "Drs. Michael and Vanessa Pullen and their children" or something.
And why is a physician more important than a dentist? How do we know who is more prominent in the community? How much money you make is not indicative of your importance; a new article in a local paper here once listed "Mrs. XXX XXXXX, a homemaker and prominent figure in the town, and her husband, XXX, a local DA" because the wife was the one who people would recognize, and thus in a journalistic sense was the more important one.
The article doesn't say that Dr. Michael Pullen's office reported his death. It only says his office "said" Pullen was on the plane. Journalists could easily have found his office since Dentists advertise and called his office to confirm that it was him.
I was struck by that sexism too - all 6 of the adult passengers on the plane were medical professionals, but the CNN account referred to Michael Pullen's medical practice, but not Vanessa's dental practice.
She was just "his wife".
And yes, that is sexism.
A partial digression, but courtesy of Pharyngula, I have the exquisite displeasure of presenting this utterly vile article at "Christian News Wire".
When I click "report abuse," what is supposed to happen to let me know that it worked?
I hit "Report Abuse" also and sent an email.
It is pretty funny that this troll calls women "stupid" but he can't even form a coherent sentence. Obviously, he's not smart enough to hold a "man's job" much less a woman's!
Hi
Some really interesting points made here. I just can't believe sometimes how little things have changed over the years. I've just finished writing an historical novel about one woman's struggle with life after marriage 'The Separate Principle' - but I'm shocked how actually this still goes on today. What happened to the idea of marriage being an equal partnership?
Thanks for sharing
Emily B
I see this shit all the time, and it drives me nuts.
"Mr. Allen Vansburg and his wife, Allia, own and operate a plumbing business."
Why not give her a last name? Why ID him first, then her second? I often seen men's names being put before women's. It happens even with my friends. "We're going out with Andy and Becca tonight."
The phrase, "so and so and his wife" is essentially a saying at this point, rooted in our language. We're just going to have to work at unrooting it.
I'm guessing the couple has the same last name in the example you gave.
Still, maybe "Allen and Allia Vansburg own and operate a plumbing business" would be better.
On the note of "patriarchy is bad for men," I was reminded of a funeral I attended a few years back. The deceased was a firefighter and served for years as an assistant chief. Throughout my childhood I spent a lot of time with him and his family because his children was my best friends.
Anyway, at his funeral, I heard a lot about his heroism on the job and what a great man he was. It would have been nice if someone had mentioned what a great father he was. He spent a lot of time with his three children and had a great relationship with them, I am sure that he would have liked to be remembered for that, too.
Make that, "his children were my best friends." Epic grammar fail!
Today I was thinking about some blog(sorry I don't hava a quote or link) in which a sentence read "Americans encouraged their wives go to work in the 1960's" or some such. All my life I have been seeing references to Americans...their wives; Spaniards... their wives; Native Americans... their wives, etc, etc. The implication is that Americans, Spaniards, Native Americans, Hottentots and so on and so forth are all men (apparently married men, at that). It's a similar phenomena to the one theteresela noted.
By the way, it's wonderful to see this discussion of the nitty gritty trivia of sexism. Sometimes I feel like a crazy woman.
Has anyone seen the March People magazine?
The cover spread on Natasha Richardson, one of the most famous and talented actresses of modern Broadway, calls her 'the wife of LIAM NEESON and mother of two.' This is not just poor choice/arrangement of words, this is a blatant failure (or refusal) to acknowledge the career of a true professional, even though her career was her most identifiable role (I had no idea she was married to Liam Neeson, and I follow Broadway).
On that note, RIP Ms. Richardson. You and your astonishing voice will be missed.
I have a couple of examples that show how unintentional sexism works even when the news article or text gets it right. 1. A female corporate pilot did a miraculous job of landing a crippled jet. All passengers praised her abilities, composure, and smooth landing. I sent the article to my male friend, who can be sexist at times but is generally fair-minded. Later, when discussing the landing, my male friend referred to the pilot as male. I said no, it was a female. He argued with me and was very confident I was wrong. We had to go back to the article, where it clearly said the pilot was a woman. However, in his head, that possibility was so foreign that he sub-consciously changed the sex. It blew my mind. 2. A male acquaintance (we'll call him "John" sent an email to a few people to let us know he and his wife would be moving back to our area if they could find decent jobs. Later, a male in the group was referring to the move and saying if John can find work, they will move back. I said John had clearly stated they would both need to find decent jobs to afford the move. My friend insisted that the wife didn't work. Again, we had to go back to the original email to settle the dispute.
Things like this really scare me. How often does this happen where this truth-shifting goes completely unnoticed? Take, for example, the "women speak 7,000 words a day more than men" email that was going around and that was also published in a very popular book (sadly, by a female author). Well, look it up on Snopes or any urban myth website. It is completely made up and passed off as truth. Yet, ask around and you'll find most people believe it. Also, I've seen it repeated in various news articles. I guess the reporters never think to question the source. It's very frustrating.
One more thing, I did a research paper in college that had to do with the way we use language. The tradition of addressing something to Mrs. did not start until some sexist pig set forth with a bunch of rules about how things would be labeled (including women). I found it interesting that Martha Washington was never referred to as Mrs. George Washington. She lived before the rule became popular. I've always told family members if they ever send something addressed to me as Mrs. , I will mark it as "Return to sender. No such person at this address." Telling them upfront serves two purposes. It makes me feel better and it keeps me from getting invited to stupid events. ;-)
Interesting, and also something I've been thinking about as stories about Natasha Richardson have been coming out - the overwhelming focus on the fact that she was married to Liam Neeson.
I was thinking about the way it is usually written: "(female), wife of (male)"
and I may be wrong, but I don't think you usually see this written: "(male), husband of (female)"
I have seen it, but it is more likely to read "husband TO" - which sounds more active (like husbandry?). As though the man "husbands" the wife, if that makes sense. Whereas "wife of" just sounds possessive and passive, with the female being the passively possessed, of course.
All you have to do is look through a newspaper to find out that it is still a common practice to name a woman in terms of her relationship to a man; wife, daughter, etc. It is still common practice for the media to label women in this fashion. Even when the focus is on the professional accomplishments of a woman she may still be labeled as the wife of so-and-so, with the professional label for the husband given in more detail than that of the wife. This is still a prevalent issue in society so keep writing about it.