Learn more about running for office and find resources to combat online harassment.

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

  WASHINGTON, D.C. — There is agreement among voters that social media followed by cable news and broadcast news are the top places that they see the most sexist treatment of women candidates and elected officials, according to research conducted during the final days of the U.S. presidential election.

  Twenty-seven percent of voters said that they see the most sexism toward women candidates and elected officials in social media, compared to 16 percent for cable television news and 12 percent for broadcast television news. Talk radio, magazines, blogs, friends and family, and newspapers were cited less frequently, according to the survey, which was commissioned by Name It. Change It., a joint non-partisan media-monitoring and accountability project of the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run. The NICI project studies and documents sexist media coverage of women candidates and public leaders. Voters were asked to choose the source that has the most sexist treatment of female political figures in the recent election.

  “This research shows an awareness of media sexism toward women candidates and elected officials and affirms the power of the media in shaping opinions, influencing perceptions, and fostering stereotypes,” said Julie Burton, president of the Women’s Media Center. “The fact that 87 percent of voters could report seeing sexist media coverage of women candidates underscores both the problem and the need for media accountability for this kind of content—especially on social media, which had substantially more reports of sexism than other media platforms. Women swim in a sea of media sexism every day, and the impact on our culture and on the roles for women in society is bad for women and bad for democracy.”

  “It’s very telling that when voters were asked to choose a political source that tends to have the most sexist treatment of women candidates and elected officials, only 13 percent couldn’t choose a source,” said Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners. “It shows that voters were aware and acknowledge that they’re seeing sexist content about female politicians on their screens, across the airwaves, and in print.”

  Ninety-two percent of millennial voters offered their opinion on the most sexist media coverage of women candidates.

  “We’ve told millions of young women and girls that anything is possible. And many believe it to be true. But when 92 percent of millennial voters can report seeing sexist treatment of women candidates, it raises the question: How does this affect the aspirations of girls who one day wish to run for office?” said Erin Loos Cutraro, co-founder and CEO of She Should Run.

  Voters’ Views of Sexist Treatment of Women Candidates by Media by Age, Race, Political Affiliation:

  The research illustrated the variances in how voters see sexist treatment of women candidates in media by age, race, and political affiliation.

  Thirty-nine percent of voters under the age of 35 said social media tended to have the most sexist treatment of women, with significantly smaller percentages saying cable television news and broadcast news.

  Latino and African American voters were more likely to say that sexist treatment was more rampant on social media than other sources. Thirty-two percent of Latinos cited social media as the most sexist while 31 percent of African Americans did so. This was especially true for African American and Latino men, at 37 percent and 40 percent, respectively. More than a quarter, 26 percent, of white voters, white men, and white women said social media is the most sexist.

  Sharable Infographic for Facebook and Twitter: Where Voters Saw Most Sexist Treatment of Women Candidates in Media

  METHODOLOGY:

  Lake Research Partners and The Tarrance Group designed the pre-election and election night omnibus survey, which was conducted November 6 – 8, 2016 by telephone-using professional interviewers. The survey has a margin of error among likely voters overall of +/-2.0 percent at the 95 percent confidence interval. The margin of error is higher among subgroups.

  The links below showcase additional NICI research:

  • Name It. Change It research on the negative impact sexist media coverage has on the political standing of women candidates

  • Infographic on the research (explained by stick figures)

  • WMC Media Guide to Gender Neutral Coverage of Women Candidates and Public Leaders

  • Name It Change It research: Original project research

  For more information, contact Cristal Williams Chancellor, WMC director of communications, at cristal@womensmediacenter.com or 202-587-1636.

“Throughout her campaign for presidency Hillary Clinton portrayed herself as a polished yet approachable grandmother figure noted for her big smile and perfectly coiffed bouffant rarely stepping out with a hair out of place.” Read more.

“With her opponent dogged by accusations of sexual assault, Hillary Clinton had strong odds as she entered the third presidential debate on Wednesday. Only one thing seemed to threaten her chances of victory: her smile.” Read more.

“Journalists, like everyone, assume certain things are true. One of those things is that journalists serve democracy by questioning presidential candidates and holding them to account. This is a good assumption in theory.” Read more.

“Hillary’s having a big night in the primaries. So, she’s shouting angrily in her victory speech. Supporters loving it. What’s she mad at?” Read more.

“One of the trickier things to teach people about public speaking is that the microphone works, you don’t have to actually yell,” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell told “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, noting that “there’s a private version of Hillary Clinton that’s very winning and very charming, that’s because there’s no microphone.” Read more.

Peggy Noonan complained that Clinton’s voice becomes “loud, flat and harassing to the ear” when she emphasizes applause lines. 

“She lately reminds me of the landlady yelling up the stairs that your kids have left their bikes in the hall again,” she wrote.

Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera earlier this month compared Clinton to former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, whose 2004 campaign went down in flames after his infamous scream after the Iowa caucuses.

Fox News host Sean Hannity on the same program said Clinton “looked angry, she sounded angry” during her remarks after finishing in a virtual tie with Sanders in Iowa. Read more.

During Thursday’s debate, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza called her “Hyper aggressive.” Read more.

Woodward Criticizes The “Style And Delivery” Of Clinton’s Speeches Because “She Shouts.” On the February 3 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward slammed Hillary Clinton’s communication “style and delivery,” saying “there’s something unrelaxed about” it because “she shouts.” Co-host Joe Scarborough suggested that “nobody told her that the microphone works. Read More.

Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera called her raised voice “unpleasant” and wondered if she had a hearing problem. Sean Hannity said he found it to be “angry, bitter, screaming.” Read more.

Katie Pavlich, a conservative writer and guest on the show, upped the ante a bit further. “If Hillary Clinton can’t handle some criticism about her voice maybe being a little too grating, I’m not sure she can handle being president of the United States,” Pavlich said. Read more.

Female lawmakers were particularly galled by recent statements by Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward, one of the nation’s most respected journalists, characterizing Clinton’s tone as “screaming.”

“She shouts. There’s something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

The comment prompted the show’s host, Joe Scarborough, to interject, ”I was watching her and I said to myself, ‘Has nobody told her how the microphone works?’ Read more.

After long-time CNN veteran David Gergen called Clinton “angry” in her speech, the cable channel went to former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter to complain, “Let us not slip into some gender bias here. A man raises his voice, he’s enthusiastic.” Read more.

There’s the voice, of course, which a (female) writer in The Philadelphia Inquirer finds lacks “elegance and grace,” and Peggy Noonan says “reminds me of the landlady yelling.” Then there is that charge faced by professional women that they are too aggressive and ambitious. Read more.

Read more.

Conservative radio show host Steve Deace sent out a misogynistic tweet Tuesday night after Fiorina, the only female presidential hopeful on the stage for the Republican debate, gave her opening remarks.

“Wow….Fiorina goes full vagina right away,” Deace tweeted. Read more.

They appear desperate, weak — and girlish.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s been spooked in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination by the surging Bernie Sanders, is trying to vanquish her competitor by playing the chick card — from the bottom of the deck.

And Carly Fiorina, who has struggled, and so far failed, to rise amid the pack of Republicans seeking to compete for the highest office in the land, is playing the poor-me girly-girl card. Read more.

CNN’s Michael Smerconish had criticized the former Hewlett Packard CEO’s failure to smile during the second GOP presidential debate in September.

“She’s got to smile,” he said, adding that she should “loosen up a bit.” Read more.

A new article in the National Review, ostensibly about the foreign policy stances of Hawaii House member Tulsi Gabbard, begins: “She’s young, she’s hip, and she’s beautiful. She’s also a combat veteran and a Democrat.” This is just under the headline, which reads: “Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who’s Turning Heads by Challenging Obama’s Foreign Policy. 

Rojas wrote:

Whether Janet Yellen, President Barack Obama’s latest pick to head the Federal Reserve, proves to be the financial genius our sputtering economy so desperately needs, remains to be seen. At least we know her mind won’t be preoccupied with haute couture.

Tutwiler’s take on the repeat outfit? “Yikes.”

As we posted on Facebook and Twitter and have written repeatedly on this blog, this appearance coverage is inappropriate, unnecessary and hurtful for female politicians. Journalist Erin McCann tweeted a useful flow chart for figuring out if talking about Yellen’s clothes is an OK thing to do:

In addition to Name It. Change It., outlets like Jezebel, The Atlantic and CNN also called these columnists out for the inappropriate nature of their comments. CNN pointed out that all of Yellen’s male predecessors repeated outfits without mention, yet Yellen received this high level of scrutiny. Female politicians are often on the receiving end of appearance coverage that their male counterparts never face.

When we tweeted McCann’s chart at Rojas, we even received a positive response:

The next day, he posted an apology for his previous post, writing:

Message received, America. Perhaps I should leave all the fashion policing to the Joan Rivers and Tim Gunns of the world.

We named the problem. He acknowledged the issue and promised to not do it again. We’ll keep working to get more members of the media to join him so we can eradicate sexist coverage for good. How’s about it Patrick Tutwiler? Such a vow would be a great way to start off your job as the new editor of DC Fishbowl!

“Sound stereotypical?” she writes. “Welcome to nature.”

In an earlier post, Name it. Change It. weighed in on this topic, explaining why positive stereotypes can be just as harmful, and sexist, as negative ones.

But the conversation continues. And, this time, the sexism is much more blatant.

On last Tuesday morning’s episode of “The View,” co-host Jenny McCarthy asked conservative pundit Ann Coulter: “If a woman ran the country, would there have been a government shutdown?”

Coulter’s response:

Well, this probably won’t be popular with this audience. I’m not sure I agree with the premise. I think there’s a reason the words “bitchy” and “hysteria” come from females.

Such a comment should come as no surprise. Coulter is the same person who once divulged to the New York Observer that she wished women’s right to vote could be taken away so that we wouldn’t have another Democratic president. She’s a well-known provocateur who makes outlandish remarks as part of her act. What she says, though, is usually too absurd to necessitate a response.

But this time, Coulter brings up some deeply held biases against women that usually stay bubbling under the surface of our culture’s national discourse. This makes it worth discussing.

Ann Coulter is right. There is a reason why the words “bitch” and “hysteria” are associated with women. But it has nothing to do with biological determinism.  

When, historically, a hierarchal structure has rewarded women for being complacent and submissive, women who are strong, angry, or outspoken are stereotyped as bitchy, irrational, or hysterical. Using these loaded phrases is a means to an end. They are tools to dismiss women’s voices and maintain the status quo.

What is interesting is that Coulter did end up backtracking when the rest of the women on “The View” objected to her unashamed sexism.

 “All right, you’re right. Men are the ones that came up with those words as words for women—fine, you’ve won me over,” she said.

Admitting that these words didn’t come out of thin air to magically describe women’s inner nature is a good step for Coulter. Perhaps she is adjusting to the almost exclusively female audience of “The View,” or the fact that she is on broadcast television instead of her normal perch on conservative cable news. Either way, it was a welcome retraction.

Unfortunately, Ann Coulter is not the only one who bases her arguments and opinions on antiquated notions of gender essentialism. This has been made obvious by some of the recent media coverage of women in government. It’s great that women in the Senate were leaders in ending the shutdown. And it’s imperative to discuss what government would look like with more equal representation. But let’s just quit it with the stereotypes, positive or negative. It cheapens the discussion.

Now that the 16-day shutdown of the federal government is finally over, the media has been seeking those who made the deal happen and they have decide it was the women of the Senate. Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer, writing for The New York Times, decided it was the women on the bipartisan budget committee who affected change. Their story “Senate Women Lead in Effort to Find Accord” focuses on Maine’s Senator Susan Collins and a coalition she formed with other female senators, they pointed to the collaborative leadership style of women and their ability to work together as the catalyst for agreement. They write:

In a Senate still dominated by men, women on both sides of the partisan divide proved to be the driving forces that shaped a negotiated settlement.

Other outlets took a similar angle that it was the women – possibly because they were women—who changed the tone of the discussion. Time declared that “Women Are The Only Adults Left in Washington,” while USA Today called the women “Senate Sisters.” The Huffington Post gave women full credit for “getting us out” and many others list this instance as a case for getting more women into politics.

Name It. Change It. is often critical of negative stereotypes of women, but positive stereotypes – such as the concept of collaborative work being a specific trait of women – can also be harmful. As Marc Tracy, writing for The New Republic, points out in his coverage, viewing all women as compromising and collaborative is still engaging in gender essentialism. Women can be just as stubborn, willful, or stuck in their ways as men – or as helpful, collaborative and willing to seek compromise. When generalizations are made about an entire gender, it limits what is considered acceptable behavior.

Men are often praised for sticking to their guns, standing up for their values and never compromising. If we stick to this essentialist narrative, it’s unclear if woman would be praised for those same qualities.

The media can offer praise to the women of the Senate for their work to end the shutdown. Such praise only becomes problematic when it emphasis that work in characteristics that allegedly all women possess.

When President Obama announced that he was nominating economist and vice chair Janet Yellen as the new head of the Federal Reserve, media outlets made many comparisons between her and better known figures. But The Daily Caller brought media coverage to a new low with their inappropriate, confusing and offensive comparison: a slideshow compiled by Jordan Demcher entitled “Who’s hotter: Janet Yellen or Miley Cyrus?”

Wondering what the women who’s been described as the most qualified Fed chair ever might have in common with a former child star known for her attempts at twerking? According to The Daily Caller, Yellen and Miley are connected by their ability to polarize. They write, “You don’t get to the top of the game without being a wrecking ball and pissing some people off, and these two hotties are living examples of that.”

Haha, get the joke? Because Yellen is 67 and that makes it a totally witty thing to call her a hottie! Yeah maybe she’s about to be become one of the most important people in the country — as The Washington Post explains, the Fed “decide[s] how much money there should be in the economy — too much, and there will be inflation; too little, and there will be high unemployment” … but look at how old and ugly she is!

The Daily Caller wants us to find Yellen — who’s about to become one of the most influential people in the world —silly, gross and strange – like Miley Cyrus’ last performance at the VMAs. (Bonus insult, Demcher gets to be all-judgey on the young female pop star.)

Shockingly, The Daily Caller didn’t create a slideshows comparing current Fed chair Ben Bernanke and Justin Bieber, because Bernanke’s looks and age are irrelevant to his job performance. What a strange concept.

Let’s just spell it out: The Daily Caller doesn’t like Janet Yellen. But what they don’t like is her politics. Fine. If The Daily Caller disagrees with Janet Yellen’s political views, they have every right to make that case. Instead, they chose cheap and repulsive attacks, dragging down political discussion and exhibiting their sexism at the same time. 

Yup. They went the “How does a working mom do it?” route. In an effort to use some catchy alliteration (diplomats and diapers both start with the letter D!) they encapsulated the segment by the most gendered part of the interview. And the strangest part, diapers weren’t even mentioned at all.

As Dodai Stewart at Jezebel points out:

Power is 43 and has two kids under the age of 5, ONE of whom wears diapers. Strangely, while Savannah Guthrie’s interview with Power does touch on her children, there’s actually no mention of diapers. Someone just decided that “diplomats and diapers” sounded good and slapped it on the chyron at the bottom of the screen.

Don’t get me wrong, discussing the struggle between balancing work and raising children is a valid topic. Many families struggle with this, and since it’s an interview in her home it probably makes some sense for Guthrie to ask Power’s thoughts on juggling these two aspects of her life—as Jezebel points out: Power’s son wanders into the interview at one point.

But, can you imagine a male ambassador’s interview being summed up by a similar chryon? The point is, the question of how a mom balances work and family comes up much more frequently than how a dad does it. This is probably why the chyron editor chose to write this headline, it’s a familiar topic that people can relate to and recognize. But until the problem between balancing work and raising kids is associated with working men as much as it is with working women, it will remain gendered, and thus, fair game for criticism. 

We were critical of this appearance coverage of her filibuster back in June. Mentioning the shoes now, seems even more unnecessary. The AP once again noted her “pink running shoes” in the very first line of their story about Davis’ probable run for governor. It was the same when AP’s wrote their first story on Davis’ filibuster as it was happening. In fact, because the AP gave the detail such prominence back in June – writing it into their tweet even—is likely why the media are still focused on shoes today.

But now it’s not just the AP who routinely brings up the “pink shoes” as an adjective to Davis’ title. NPR referred to her as “the pink-sneakered Davis” in its post about her campaign plans, although at least they used that modifier to refer back to June’s events. This was not the case when Slate mentioned  “her now iconic pink sneakers” without connecting them at all to the filibuster, making the necessity of that detail even more unclear. The Huffington Post San Francisco mentioned them in an article about social media, The Los Angeles Times brought them up in an article about the lawsuit against the law she tried to stop, and The Daily Mail couldn’t write a headline without mentioning them.

But Davis’ potential announcement of her entry into the Texas gubernatorial race was not the only reason her name was bandied about by the media. Last week Sen. Ted Cruz was also talking-and-talking for a remarkable number of hours – and so some media commentators wanted to know if two different legislators were treated the same in their coverage. Some were looking for a “liberal bia” in media coverage, even if it could be pointed out that despite the actions being similar (filibustering) they were playing out on different scales (Federal vs. state) and done for different political outcomes.

Name It. Change It. also wanted to see if the coverage was similar – but mostly whether Cruz’s shoes were given as much attention as Davis’. It turns out some media outlets did mention that Ted Cruz wore “black Nikes.” The detail was never given as much prominence as Davis’ shoes, however. Most outlets did not report the color and type of shoes Cruz wore in the first lines or headlines of their stories. Nor did Cruz get dubbed “the black Nike’d Senator.” (Will future stories about his presidential aspirations be started with the sentence “Senator Ted Cruz, who wore black tennis shoes for his 19 hour filibuster…”)

Conservative media also sometimes used Cruz’s actions to bring up Davis’ shoes in a negative way.

Conservative pundit Erick Erickson tweeted:

Meanwhile The Washington Times diminutively called them “cute pink tennis shoes.”

Our research shows that any sort of appearance coverage — even if it’s positive — hurts a female candidate’s favorability with the electorate. When the media talks about Davis’ pink sneakers, they’re needlessly drawing attention to something that’s insignificant to her candidacy. The constant mentioning of the color of the shoes – pink – is just another way the media have been “coloring” Davis’ future candidacy. Meanwhile Cruz’s shoes have only been mentioned because he is being compared to Davis. Had her sneakers not been made a topic of discussion, what he wore would never have been considered noteworthy to mention now. But even though Cruz’ shoes were sometimes mentioned by the media, Cruz’ identity and his brand, aren’t being pegged to the color and type of shoes he wore. Wendy Davis, on the other hand, isn’t as lucky.

Other outlets have covered Davis’ imminent campaign announcement without commenting on the sneakers at all and thus avoided identifying her by an inconsequential article of clothing. The media can’t seem to agree on how we should interpret the sneakers: Are we supposed to find them iconic, cute, or infamous? No matter the opinion, it’s simply irrelevant to the political conversation.

Author Simon van Zuylen-Wood discussed Buono’s seven years in the state Assembly and 11 years in the state Senate, two of them as majority leader. He wrote that she is a forceful speaker and does well on camera and discussed the difficulties of running a campaign against a very popular governor. But, in the midst of an anecdote about a visit to a homeless encampment, he included an unnecessary comment about Buono’s appearance, mentioning that she “looks a decade younger than she is, her light copper hair cut stylishly below the jaw line.”

Media commentary about a candidate’s appearance is normally reserved for women who run for office. In the case of the New Jersey gubernatorial race, it has been suggested that Chris Christie is getting some media commentary about his appearance but probably not to level of detail about the cut and color of his hair. Regardless of whether Buono and Christie are getting appearance coverage in completely equal amounts, it should be obvious that such commentary should be irrelevant in election coverage.

One thing we do know is that our research shows that seemingly positive media commentary about a female candidate’s appearance—especially about her hair and using a phrase like “looks even younger than her age,”—decreases voter support for her. Once even mildly sexist comments are made, voters see her less favorably and as less trustworthy and effective. The Daily Beast should have stuck to coverage of her qualifications and left comments about her appearance on the sidelines.

Here are a series of headlines regarding Vogue’s profile on Davis:

Wendy Davis’ Shoes Get An Upgrade Courtesy Of Vogue

Wendy Davis Wore High Heels in Vogue

Wendy Davis in heels and in Vogue

Texas lawmaker Wendy Davis goes glam in Vogue pose

No matter how substantive the Vogue article is, the takeaway message to the media was: let’s talk about Wendy Davis’s shoes and appearance.  This goes to show that when one media outlet comments on a female politician’s appearance, it can snowball into becoming a focal point for a lot more stories.

In addition to the headlines on her wardrobe, another take away from the Vogue profile was painting Wendy Davis as a “cool mom.” Washington Post wrote an article with the headline: Wendy Davis airs ‘cool mom’ status in Vogue profile.

The first line of the article reads:

While Texas Sen. Wendy Davis (D) considers a gubernatorial run to paint the Lone Star State purple, she’s working on perfecting her ‘cool mom’ status.

In addition to having a misleading headline in that nowhere does the article expand on Davis’s “cool mom” status, the lead diverts attention from the fact that she is considering running for Governor to some opaque image of a mom trying to act hip with her kids. BuzzFeed went further with the idea in writing: “6 Times Wendy Davis Was A Cool Mom In Her Vogue Profile”

Here is the list:

1. She hosts Super Bowl parties and loves the New England Patriots, which her BFF’s family owns.
2. Her boyfriend is the “scruffy but handsome” former mayor of cool town Austin.
3. Family conversations hit on “Girls” and the appropriateness of yoga pants.
4. She knows cool brands.
5. She likes high-end sweatpants and wine.
6. Her Fourth of July Outfit.

What do any of these have to do with Davis being a mom? Is being a “cool mom” even a compliment? The memes Buzzfeed use of Amy Poehler in the movie “Mean Girls” certainly indicate the contrary. Note how many examples they give that have to do with her clothing. Does being a “cool mom” simply mean you dress well? Again, this is where the reversibility test comes in. If a similar high-profile male politician conducted a filibuster that got him national attention, would we start commenting on the shoes he wears, the outfits he puts together, and discuss his status as a “cool dad?” Wendy Davis has overcome significant personal obstacles, is highly accomplished, and is a popular democrat in a very conservative state, with so many reasons to write about her, why is the media fixated on her wardrobe?

The first mention of the color of Quinn’s dress came during their live blogging of the debate. An ‘observation’ by Christina Greer, a political science professor at Fordham University, noted that Quinn’s “choice to wear pink seems forced.” The second mention, from an article written by Annie Karni, offers more insight into the perceived intentions behind Quinn’s outfit choice.

Quinn made no mention of her fight to become the city’s first woman mayor – but wearing a hot pink dress and a pastel pink blazer, she played up a visual difference between herself and the crowd of men sharing the stage.

It is important to note that Quinn’s outfit did stand out from those of her peers, and that politicians certainly make strategic decisions when it comes to their appearance (Lindsey Meeks has an interesting blog post about strategic appearance and colors in politics). It would be foolish to think that, with all the careful planning that goes into their image and branding for their campaign, politicians would just throw on outfits without a thought to how it will be perceived by the public.

That being said, when we comment on and analyze the color of Christine Quinn’s dress, we need to keep context in mind. Maybe Quinn was wearing pink to appeal to women voters (we could have a whole other conversation about why its problematic to assume that pink would automatically appeal to women) or stand out from her male peers. Maybe she just really likes the color pink and thinks it looks good on her. The fact is we have no idea why she wore a pink dress. We don’t know what her motivation was and we probably never will.

The problem with this type of analytic coverage is that, since we already know that appearance coverage disproportionately affects women, it implies that a woman politician’s fashion choices are somehow more symbolic than her male counterparts’.  If all we hear about is the psychoanalysis of the outfits of women candidates, the implication is that Christine Quinn’s pink dress is meaningful and “forced,” but Bill de Blasio’s red tie (which also stood out among the candidates) is not. Regardless of what she is wearing, Quinn will always stand out because she is the only women candidate in a group of men. And although the New York Daily News pieces may not be explicitly sexist, the problematic focus on psychoanalyzing the appearance of only women candidates further separates her from her peers, which is not necessarily good for her campaign or the campaigns of other women.

*CC image courtesy of kellyhogaboom on Flickr

Erickson responded to what he called “a tizzy on Twitter” from “the left,” because obviously only liberal-leaning folks have a problem with sexist name-calling. We were wrong, he said, to take issue with his comment, because he couldn’t have been more right. Abortion Barbie “fits her perfectly,” which is surprising news. We hadn’t realized Erickson was brought on as a branding specialist for Davis’ campaign! That must be why Erickson thinks it’s up to him to tell the world who Wendy Davis is. If she could do it herself, he wouldn’t need to, right?

Erickson also reminds us that he’s not the first to call a female politician “Barbie.” Back in 2008, Sarah Palin was dubbed Caribou Barbie, a tactic used to call her qualifications into question. Because Caribou Barbie came from “our side,” the leftist pitchfork-wavers Erickson imagines anti-sexists to be, he argues there’s no basis for outrage over Abortion Barbie. There’s only one problem with that: Caribou Barbie wasn’t okay either. By any stretch. The very first sentence on our website is “When you attack one woman, you attack all women.” It’s not okay to degrade someone you disagree with, whether that’s Sarah Palin or Wendy Davis.

Besides, Mr. Erickson, two wrongs don’t make you right. And they don’t cancel out sexism.