And of course, there’s Heidi Klum strutting down the runway in the Victoria’s Secret fashion show with a very flat belly, mere months after giving birth to her son.

Nowhere is the woman whose belly was stitched up with staples after an emergency c-section and now hangs over the jeans she wore before she got pregnant. We never see the woman who lost her baby weight, but has extra abominable skin from when she carried twins. The mother with breasts that sag after she finished breastfeeding isn’t anywhere either.

Some might say those images aren’t beautiful, which is why we never see them. But never having access to something means the public has no chance to decide for themselves or to gain some respect for bodies that nurtured another human being for nine months and brought it into the world. Even more, other women aren’t given the chance to stop making unrealistic demands of their own bodies after pregnancy when they see others who look just like they do.

The Internet is making strides in providing a place for women (and men) to see how pregnancy really changes a woman’s body, even if TV and print still shun the mother’s body. The Shape of a Mother* is a blog for women to post photographs of themselves before, after and during pregnancy. A few of the women enjoy flat stomachs post-pregnancy but the majority of the photos are gritty and realistic. Women have scar tissue along c-section scars, extensive stretch marks and breasts they barely recognize. Although they express frustration that their bodies have changed, almost all the posters say the changes in their bodies were worth it because those changes gave them their children.

It’s only one site on the big, bad internet, but it’s a step towards some semblance of realism in a sea of airbrushed bellies, fake breasts and advertisements for the Mommy Makeover.

*Caution: The Shape of the Mother site contains nudity.

But men and boys haven’t escaped being pigeonholed by the media. Male characterization in media has created a disturbing trend that defines the male as someone who is violent, tough and unyieldingly devoted to their own masculinity. It’s scary and it’s harmful. Bruce Willis, in all his action movie glory, has done nothing but perpetuate this stereotype. They learn that violence is the only way to get their point across.

Tough Guise, an educational film created in 2000, claims the media perpetuates violence in masculinity that isn’t outside the norm but considered a fundamental part of what it means to be a man:

Manhood is defined as connected with dominance, power and control … 90% of physical assault is committed by men. Men are responsible for between 85 and 95% of child sexual abuse. An awful lot of boys are inflicting an awful lot on pain on themselves and on others.

dvd season of the witch download

It doesn’t seem possible to be strong, powerful and independent without being violent. It doesn’t seem possible to be successful without limiting the opportunities of others. The film suffers from some over-simplification of the subject, but touches on the unrealistic expectations the media heaps on young men. It does draw attention to the fact that men haven’t necessarily latched on to a cause of eradicating the harmful stereotypes, as many women have. If what it means to be a man means a reliance on power, perhaps the concept of finding an identity undefined by dominance over others, and a society that continually validates this identity, is too frightening to pursue.

It’s easy to forget that writers and activists like Gloria Steinem have worked for years to bring the discussion of gender issues into the public forum and into stories covered by the media. Gender is clearly still an issue interwoven with power dynamics and politics and is abundantly evident in stories chronicling the U.S. presidential race. Gender and race are the consistent topics broached by journalists, and have come to define the race for a Democratic candidate.

Steinem penned an op-ed last month about the troubling aspects of gender, and how its intricacies are different than the intricacies of race:

“But what worries me is that (Obama) is seen as unifying by his race while (Clinton) is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.”

Steinem’s piece does not denounce race as an essential subject of discussion and examination, but highlights the unfortunate fact that a woman running for one of the most powerful positions in the world is still contentious, divisive and deeply upsetting for many people. After all, there’s a group on Facebook called “Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich.”

It might be tiring hearing about gender issues on page A2 every morning, if the paper you read broaches the subject. But those stories should continue to appear, until a female candidate in presidential politics is no longer worthy of intense scrutiny because of the reproductive organs she possesses and those who choose to vote for her aren’t scrutinized for making a gendered choice.

American news media has taken MWWS to a whole new level with their portrayal of a new binary relationship: the missing, helpless pregnant woman and her aggressive and violent husband or boyfriend. The case of Laci Peterson, who went missing while eight months pregnant, and was later found murdered by her husband, set a certain precedent for the way media latched on to similar stories. The idea that the aggressive male was evil enough to kill his unborn child as well as his female companion seems to sell more papers.

Criticism of this issue is tricky. Domestic violence against women is a troubling problem and news coverage of that can’t necessarily be attributed to an obsession with MWWS. But domestic violence isn’t covered as though all men and women are equal in the eyes of the media — because they aren’t.

Men are victims of domestic abuse too, and we rarely hear about that. Young men go missing from poor neighbourhoods and we rarely hear about that, either. If we trusted the mainstream media to tell us about who goes missing in North America, we’d be led to believe pregnant women are the only ones who ever go missing.

Don’t worry, you’re reading the right blog. According to a recent story on Alternet about gendered perceptions of intelligence, men really are more intelligent than women – or so they think. According to the story, women tend to think their IQ is five points lower than it actually is. Men are guilty of the opposite. The study was undertaken under the generally accepted (but sometimes debated) theory that men and women are of equal intelligence.

Media is certainly partly to blame for a female underestimation of intelligence. If women see themselves as mere victims, bimbos and homemakers in the media, it’s not surprising they feel less intelligent than they actually are. It’s hard not to buy into what TV, newspapers, commercials and magazines tell you. If a woman is looking to hold a high-power position in the media industry, the same scenario plays out when she sees the majority of those positions are held by white men. If a woman was smart enough, she’d already have the position, right?

No. That’s not right.

According to a 2001 study from the International Federation of Journalists, 28 per cent of newspaper journalists and 37 per cent of TV journalists in Canada are women. In 2002, the Canadian Newspaper Association said only eight per cent of the country’s editor-in-chiefs were female.

While they wait for the world to catch on to their abilities, women need to consider how their impressions of themselves are formed. One of their biggest barriers could be that they don’t think they’re smart enough. And if women looking to get into the media industry don’t think they’re smart enough, they have no chance of creating media that reflects women as they are, and not how a male dominated industry thinks they should be.

But this kind of journalism didn’t accompany the series of events that led up to the Pickton investigation. Women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside started to go missing in the 1980s. The media didn’t seem to care, and neither did the police. Perhaps they didn’t think it was news that another prostitute had left the streets. It only seems to reinforce the notion that some women deserve more media attention than others. Even worse, it makes the statement that certain lives don’t mean as much as others. The media’s willingness to ignore the disappearance of these women only kept the public in the dark.

When four-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing from a hotel room in Portugal, media outlets from around the world went into a frenzy. Glued to their television screens, ordinary citizens couldn’t get over the horror of the beautiful, doe-eyed girl’s mysterious disappearance. She was young and helpless, they said. She needed to be saved.

The missing sex workers were children once too and were deeply loved by their families and friends. But their status as prostitutes meant they didn’t deserve the same attention and were not worthy of coverage from the media and compassion from the public.

Because women now regularly outnumber men in Canadian journalism schools, it’s hard to believe that newsrooms and the stories that come out of these newsrooms still lack an appropriate gender balance. How can an industry fed by young women continue to pump out stories chock full of bias and stereotype?

Women cover hard news alongside men, tackle political issues and follow the war in Afghanistan. But besides the obvious objectification of celebrity icons, women in the journalism industry still regularly fill the roles of sexy weather girls and the primary writers of fluffy, human interest stories.

A 2007 study from Media Action found that despite the gains women have made in the broadcasting industry, whether they’re on TV or the ones producing stories, women were still significantly dissatisfied with how they appeared on TV. In their eyes, they were “skinny, sleazy and stupid.”

As a woman, reading that does not feel good. We must also consider, when taking stock of the gender of the news anchors of Canada’s three major TV networks, that when woman aren’t appearing skinny, sleazy and stupid, they aren’t appearing at all.

Media Action has expressed frustration as they tackle an issue many news organizations believe they have already solved. To be fair, gender issues aren’t the only item on the table. Journalism organizations are faced with reflecting a world defined by multiculturalism, fraud, race relations, poverty, waring countries and diversity. It isn’t easy.

But it won’t get better unless we make it better and consider gender balance as important as fair reporting and integrity in journalism.

In reality, gender bias in the media is heavily ingrained in North American culture and takes many forms more severe than criticism for shedding a few tears.

Male politicians have undoubtedly let a few tears slip here and there or collapsed under the heavy responsibility of their public positions, but media outlets rarely pounce on these incidents as evidence that these men are too emotional to do their jobs. Clinton was attacked for lacking the strength to run the U.S. and for using phony tears as a way to garner votes.

The manipulation of the unsavoury behaviour of women, however, is fair game for print media, gossip blogs and viral videos. Magazine sales surged when they told the story of Jamie-Lynn Spears, who is pregnant at 16. Spears’older sister, Britney, is photographed incessantly for failing to wear underwear during nights out on the town and for struggling with mental illness.

Bob Herbert, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, claims the media storm surrounding Clinton’s emotional moment is just a greater indication of systemic misogyny in mainstream news and American life. He says a staggering number of media outlets and media consumers contribute to a dangerous reinforcement of conditions that encourage the objectification of women and domestic violence.

Clinton wore her underwear in New Hampshire. She didn’t abandon her daughter or hit someone with her car, but her moment of emotion was still a major story. The tears she shed might be newsworthy, and media criticism is both inevitable and necessary, but high quality journalism should judge presidential candidates by their merits and not by what journalists consider male or female characteristics.