‘Mansplaining’ UK election coverage marginalises women’s concerns, study finds

[IwantToRetire]

Since campaigning began on 30 May, only seven of the top 20 most prominent figures in election coverage have been women. In the past week, that figure fell to six.

Researchers looked at the speaking time given to women and men across campaign coverage and found women accounted for only 22%. Among politicians, Kay said, “this is even less: it’s 19.4% speaking time on television for women and 18.8% in the press. It’s a really stark divide.”

“We normally think about man­splaining as a kind of interpersonal problem, where men are speaking over women,” said Kay. While there are instances of this, she said, researchers have also identified a pattern of “media mansplaining”, where election-related interviews with sources from government, academia, business, trade unions and thinktanks are also mostly male.

“Women are not being given meaningful or representative voices in the election campaign. They’re being systemically marginalised, so it’s trying to think about mansplaining on a ­systemic level. When women are represented, it tends to be as laypeople, not as experts.”

Three of the women who received most coverage in the past week did so because of comments made about the rights of trans people, with JK Rowling given the sixth most media attention of all individuals.

“Previously, women’s issues when they appeared in the media would have been around health, mothering, childcare,” said Kay. “What we’re seeing in this election is that women’s issues are being framed around the conflict around ‘gender ideology’. A potential interesting finding is how that focus might be crowding out other issues pertaining to women.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/30/mansplaining-uk-election-coverage-marginalises-womens-concerns-study-finds

And although a guardian link, actually an Observer article.

Doubt this article is saying anything that FWR dont know / experience.

(Also sorry if there is a thread about this already. The board has been so busy since the start of the week have found it hard to keep track.)

I would agree , I actually think the maleness is part of the tribalism in politics. It's like having a favourite football team no matter how well or badly they do, they ll blindly follow them.
I don't think most political decisions affect men as much as they do women, education Child safeguarding, women's rights should be shared concerns but if you go on Reddit you'll see they're not. Healthcare affects women more our bodies go through much more than the male body .
family finances are often a female preserve as well.
As long as men have football and a job I think a lot of what else goes on in society is largely irrelevant for them.
edited to add in a bit more

systemically marginalised
We know.
But is it accidental or purposeful?

I actually think the maleness is part of the tribalism in politics

I think that is such an important point.

Even if you were really committed to a Party or an issue, it is almost certain that to "join in" you are forced to conform to a male dominated structure, way of behaving - and thinking!

But also the football / tribalism is also so dominant that a lot of women just get edged out, or hang on by becoming the willing but silent follower.

And I think this is being made worse and worse because a lot of media coverage is in the same theme. Somewhere between a reality show and a sporting competition. And journalists competing against each other to be the one who provoked the latest "gotcha" moment.

Apart from the politics themselves, the way they are conducted is draining and uninspiring.

I agree with the football team metaphor, most of the men I know made their choice of party years ago and just vote for them every time, without knowing where their 'team' stand on any issues.

First half, great, yes, it is awful how much women are now being systematically shut down and made irrelevant and it's becoming a man's world.

Second half.... oh ffs. Yes, absolutely, women fighting not to lose their rights in law are 'shutting out' other womanly important issues (from the under 20% of air time they're permitted by penis people) such as childcare. (Which obvs isn't ever a man/Dad issue.)

I'd swear, but we're not supposed to be 'angry' are we? Or 'shrill'. And sweary is right out. If we don't have equality, then I'm not going to be co operating with male head pats on approved girly stuff.

... women fighting not to lose their rights in law are 'shutting out' other important issues (from the under 20% of air time they're permitted by penis people) such as childcare.

Admit I gave this comment the benefit of doubt, ie that the media bandwidth women are allowed to have meant that if women insist on talking about sex based rights, then the media aren't going to give coverage to any other issues women may also care about.

Not forgetting childcare isn't a "women's" issue. Its an issue for parents / carers of children.

I saw an article in the telegraph earlier about a female mathematician and her predictions based on betting stats and other data - the (also female) journalist described what she wore to their meeting, and it struck me as odd, as I can't imagine an article about a male mathematician covering his clothing choices.