Indira Gandhi

Gender mattered for Gandhi in complex ways. “No woman could be more alienated from her sex than she is” (Manushi Collective, 1979 page 4)

Her rise to power, goals, leadership style, and overall effectiveness can be considered as being significantly influenced by the patriarchal political system in which women in power must forget that they are women and that as women they are unequal in order to survive. It was also argued that in order to survive in the political system, women politicians must make themselves like the male-stereotypical males aggressive, competitive, ruthless, and authoritarian and on the other hand, continue to play the “good woman” role.

• DNA’s article referred to Indira Gandhi as the only man in her cabinet even though her entire cabinet was male-dominated. (DNA, Nov 19, 2013)
• India Today referred to her as “goongi gudiya” which can be translated to a “dumb doll” (India Today, Nov 19, 2017)
• It was also exhibited that the saree was more a proclamation of intent than style for Indira Gandhi. (Hindustan Times, Jan 26, 2018)

The National Herald draws a critical comparison between the portrayal of Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi. While Modi is hailed as a strong decision-maker, Indira Gandhi is dubbed as ‘selfish’ and heavily criticised for being assertive. This seems to convey how male and female politicians are differently portrayed in the media even while the issues tackled by the two prime ministers had the same level of significance, Gandhi was held negatively responsible for the same decisions that Modi was hailed for. Since women politicians receive more personal coverage than their male colleagues (Pas & Aldering, 2020), they are highlighted to be overly ambitious when taking decisions which lie at par with their male counterparts.

This shows how Gandhi faced a lot of sexism in her media coverage which therein changed how people perceived her considering the media plays an important role in not only information but shaping the opinions and behaviours of Individuals.

Margaret Thatcher

The gender bias in media coverage was not just limited to India. Apart from Thatcher’s historical and political significance, the emphasis on her gender in her media coverage has been striking.

• Margaret Thatcher proved you didn’t have to dress like a man to be powerful (The Mail, April 9, 2013)
• Margaret Thatcher: A better politician than Wife and Mother (The Times, April 9, 2013)
• Furthermore, she was addressed as “The great she-elephant” essentially portraying her as the verb form of “to handbag” (The Newstatesman, Feb 26, 2009)
• With reference to the sinking of the Belgrano ship incident, it was claimed that her achievement as Britain’s first female prime minister likely contributed to the idea of a female leader becoming more acceptable, and the war solidified her status as the “Iron Lady. (Kennedy, 2019)

Thatcher had to be very careful not to make any mistakes in her attempts to overcome these obstacles since any errors would have been blamed on her gender. Since she was the first female PM, whatever she did set a benchmark for women. The public would ascribe any of her mistakes to the entire gender even though they did not credit any of her personal triumphs to it. (stone, 2016)

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Both Thatcher and Gandhi have been addressed as the only man in their respective cabinets- a reference to their domineering behaviour. There seems to be a powerful need in the media to invest their personas with perceived ‘feminine’ traits. Statements including, “Margaret Thatcher: a better politician than a wife or mother” essentially try to create a comparison between the perceived femininities and masculinities of the society and how both the leaders sought to balance between the two. Sexist terms including “goongi gudiya” and Head-girl/schoolgirl were also used to describe them.

Their clothing generated media attention as well. Gandhi didn’t ever dress femininely by donning a saree. It represented strength and a male authority figure. (Hindustan Times, Jan 26, 2018) and that Thatcher understood the power of clothes and showed that It was possible for a woman to be strong-willed without losing her femininity. (Telegraph, 9 April 2013)

The sinking of the Belgrano ship has added another thread of comparison between the two leaders. While the Falklands incident is attributed to the fact that Thatcher wanted to preserve her image as the “Iron Lady”, there is no data on the Emergency in India that can be associated with Gandhi’s willingness to retain her coverage as a “tough” leader.

Thus, even though the two politicians were fairly different in terms of their ideological inclination and policies, they were still covered similarly through a sex-stereotypical lens.

CONCLUSION

Politics still rests in an old boys’ club because women politicians are anomalies, they are profiled and covered in the media much more on the basis of their gender rather than their statecraft in comparison to their male counterparts. Thus, a number of thematic frames positioned women leaders as outsiders who are winning against all odds only by being non-feminine portraits. (Norris,1997).

The paper reflects that there exists a clear gender bias in the media portrayal of female politicians wherein the focus is more on their physical appearances. Furthermore, it suggests that women in powerful positions receive similar media coverage despite their differences as they were viewed through a sex-stereotyped lens. (Norris, 1997). We have understood how their gender seems to play a more important role than their political inclination in drawing similarities or differences between them.

Lastly, while there has been a theoretical set-up pertaining to how gender is blamed for the lack of competence among female politicians (Stone, 2016) but media coverage, as analysed, had fewer differences before and after a political setback, although they continued to be sexist throughout.

I acknowledge the limitations in my research. Firstly, given that the scope of my study is very narrow, prior research studies that are relevant to my topic are limited. Secondly, the chosen qualitative methodology may reflect subjective bias. Thirdly, due to paucity of time, data analysis (number of mentions, poll results etc.) has been avoided because of which the research is less measurable. Moreover, sufficient data was not available in order to draw a comparison with set parameters.

Future studies can aim to identify the gender bias in press coverage of new politicians and how it has differed from previous female leaders. I invite other keen researchers to investigate how gendered media portrayal affects politicians’ behaviour.