OPINION: The Fourth Estate must not be complicit in perpetuating patriarchy, sexism and bigotry, writes Sindi Mabaso-Koyana
AS Women’s Month draws to a close, we need to take a closer look at how some sections of the media portray or report on women in leadership positions.
American investor, businesswoman and former Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer is one of the women leaders who has openly spoken out against “media bias” against female leaders and top managers.
“I have tried to be gender blind and believe tech is a gender-neutral zone, but I do think there has been gender-charged reporting.
“We all see the things that only plague women leaders, like articles that focus on their appearance – like Hillary Clinton (when she was running for the US presidency) sporting a new pantsuit,” Mayer was quoted as saying by Financial Times.
A July 2016 BBC Business article pointed out how British newspapers, in particular, chose to focus on Theresa May’s shoes when she became the UK Prime Minister, and how the US media zoomed in on Clinton’s pantsuits and “shouting” when she gave speeches. It seems even the new media (digital) is just like the traditional media when it comes to its coverage of women, misrepresenting them (in Africa).
According to Sharon Adetutu Omotoso of University of Ibadan: “The new media continues in the ways of the old conventional media – that is, it supports patriarchy and negative portrayal of women.”
Recently, the Swiss Press Council has made an adverse ruling against a newspaper (Aarggauer Zeitung) for a sexist reportage on World Trade Organisation director-general Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, choosing to refer to her as a grandmother instead of her professional accolades, which I must say are spectacular.
What is crystal clear is that, even in this day and age, some sections of the media continue to use discriminatory language and tone, when reporting on women leaders and top managers. A recent news article on outgoing Woolworths chief executive Zyda Rylands leaves much to be desired, as it is also steeped in a disempowering language.
The Business Day article, dated August 24, 2021, features a problematic headline – “Woolies SA boss ‘demoted’ to focus on her food unit success”.
It is rather an unfortunate heading, in that it reinforces a stereotype that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. In addition, the use of the verb “demote” amounts to disempowering language, as it seeks to insinuate that she is supposed to be fired, but is somehow being done a favour, staying on until 2024.
What has actually happened here is what is normally known as restructuring, which is a normal occurrence in business, especially in tough economic times. From time to time, companies and organisations revisit their structures, to determine their relevance in order to achieve optimal results.
Rylands’ impeccable credentials speak for themselves. Therefore, a noun “demotion” can never be used in a sentence which refers to her. She has proven, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that she is in a league of her own, a woman whose business acumen befits a legendary status.
Any human being, including women, have the right to choose their areas of focus and their organisations. The media, if progressive, would encourage and support them to focus on their areas of strength, instead of putting a spotlight on areas they are not passionate about.
It is okay to redesign one’s portfolio. It is okay to say: ’I choose this instead of that’. Let us be conscious of the culture we drive by the language we use.
The media, which plays an important role in society or any democracy, needs to reflect on its tone and language usage, when reporting or commenting on issues related to women. The Fourth Estate must not find itself being complicit in perpetuating patriarchy, sexism and bigotry.
* Sindi Mabaso-Koyana is independent chairperson of the South African Sugar Association, and founder of African Women Chartered Accountants.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of IOL