Cited by 78Gender Politics and RepresentationMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingGender, Feminism, and Media

Fed‐up with Blair's babes, Gordon's gals, Cameron's cuties, Nick's nymphets: Challenging gendered media representations of women political leaders

Mavin, Sharon, Bryans, Patricia, Cunningham, Rosie·2010·Gender in Management: An International Journal

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to highlight gendered media constructions which discourage women's acceptability as political leaders and trivialise or ignore their contribution. Design/methodology/approach: Media analysis of UK newspapers, government web sites, worldwide web relating to the UK 2010 government election, women MPs and in particular representations of Harriet Harman and Theresa May. Findings: Media constructions of UK women political leaders are gendered and powerful in messaging women's (un)acceptability as leaders against embedded stereotypes. Being invisible via tokenism and yet spotlighted on the basis of their gender, media constructions trivialize their contribution, thus detracting from their credibility as leaders. Research limitations/implications: UK‐based study grounded in opportune “snapshot” media analysis during election and resultant formation of UK coalition Government. Focus on two women political leaders, results may not be generalisable. Practical implications: Raises awareness of the numerical minority status of UK women political leaders, the invisibility‐visibility contradiction and the power of the media to construct women leaders against gender stereotypes. Call for continued challenge to gendered leader stereotypes and women's representation in UK political leadership. Originality/value: Highlights power of media to perpetuate gender stereotypes of UK women political leaders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/17542411011081365

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • National newspaper coverage of the 2010 U.K. general election persisted in treating women unfavorably.

    “national newspaper coverage of the 2010 election persisted in treating women unfavorably (Campbell and Childs 2010;Harmer and Wring 2013;Mavin et al. 2010;Ross et al. 2013).”

    From Intersectionality and Press Coverage of Political Campaigns (2017) · cites this paper as Mavin et al. 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mavin, S., Bryans, P., & Cunningham, R.
Affiliations
Northumbria University (GB)
Venue
Gender in Management: An International Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2010-10-05
Volume
25
Issue
7
Pages
550-569
ISSN
1754-2413 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1597703643
Cited by
78
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Gender in Management An International Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
Keywords
gender stereotypes, women politicians, media representation, women in politics, tokenism, 2010 UK general election, Theresa May, gendered leadership, women's political representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review