Bitch Media started off as Bitch magazine, a feminist zine first published in January 1996 by Lisa Jervis, Benjamin Shaykin, and Andi Zeisler. Since 1996, the non-profit multimedia organization has expanded to include an online presence that analyzes politics, mainstream media, and pop culture through a feminist lens, offering a podcast and articles posted daily. The physical magazine also continues to be printed quarterly. In an article posted September 27, 2016, writer Sarah Mirk points out the inequality of time each candidate spent speaking in the presidential debate the night prior – the Republican candidate, Donald Trump is “running for the title of Mansplainer in Chief,” (2016, para. 1) consistently interrupting and talking over Democratic
…show more content…
In a 2014 study conducted by researcher Adrienne Hancock and student Benjamin Rubin of the George Washington University, it was noted that interruptions used significantly more when the conversation partner is a woman. The study combined 40 participants – 20 females and 20 males – and paired them up to record their gender-neutral discussions. Hancock and Rubin found that intrusive interruptions, not unlike those done by Trump to Clinton, were used against women in both man-to-woman conversations as well as woman-to-woman conversations. They suggest that this “may be influenced more by the speaker’s schema of gender norms than by gender characteristics of the speaker” (p. 58), meaning that the speaker’s idea of how women should be spoken to defines their conversation skills with …show more content…
In her article, Mirk writes that she felt as though Trump was rambling considerably more than Clinton during the debate, and her suspicions were confirmed when she studied the transcript closely – Trump spoke about 16 percent more frequently when compared to Clinton (2016, para. 5). Mirk noted that the Democratic nominee would “simply wait quietly and smile…without uttering a word” (2016, para. 5) as her Republican opponent babbled. As Crawford states, “if a woman does interrupt another speaker, she risks social disapproval” (2012, p. 36), which is a very real hazard for this female candidate in an already vicious political climate. Clinton’s only option to come out the bigger person in the debate was to maintain respectful silence while her debate partner spoke, regardless of what he chattered on about. Even so, at the end of the debate, Mirk writes that a male political pundit stated Clinton was “over prepared” (2016, para. 7) – though Clinton held her tongue or stuck to sharing exclusively factual information, she was still criticized. While “mansplaining” is one of the more subconscious conversation-dominating tactics, it serves as a perpetuation of the idea that women should be seen, not heard. Likewise, it devalues a woman’s knowledge and encourages the view that men should be the ones in charge of a conversation. Actively working against mansplaining can be done by doing things
In a 2014 study conducted by researcher Adrienne Hancock and student Benjamin Rubin of the George Washington University, it was noted that interruptions used significantly more when the conversation partner is a woman. The study combined 40 participants – 20 females and 20 males – and paired them up to record their gender-neutral discussions. Hancock and Rubin found that intrusive interruptions, not unlike those done by Trump to Clinton, were used against women in both man-to-woman conversations as well as woman-to-woman conversations. They suggest that this “may be influenced more by the speaker’s schema of gender norms than by gender characteristics of the speaker” (p. 58), meaning that the speaker’s idea of how women should be spoken to defines their conversation skills with …show more content…
In her article, Mirk writes that she felt as though Trump was rambling considerably more than Clinton during the debate, and her suspicions were confirmed when she studied the transcript closely – Trump spoke about 16 percent more frequently when compared to Clinton (2016, para. 5). Mirk noted that the Democratic nominee would “simply wait quietly and smile…without uttering a word” (2016, para. 5) as her Republican opponent babbled. As Crawford states, “if a woman does interrupt another speaker, she risks social disapproval” (2012, p. 36), which is a very real hazard for this female candidate in an already vicious political climate. Clinton’s only option to come out the bigger person in the debate was to maintain respectful silence while her debate partner spoke, regardless of what he chattered on about. Even so, at the end of the debate, Mirk writes that a male political pundit stated Clinton was “over prepared” (2016, para. 7) – though Clinton held her tongue or stuck to sharing exclusively factual information, she was still criticized. While “mansplaining” is one of the more subconscious conversation-dominating tactics, it serves as a perpetuation of the idea that women should be seen, not heard. Likewise, it devalues a woman’s knowledge and encourages the view that men should be the ones in charge of a conversation. Actively working against mansplaining can be done by doing things