The year was 2017 and I remember standing in a queue at the supermarket, eyes roving over the shelves of magazines and tabloids until they eventually landed on something: the front page of the Daily Mail, showing the then-Prime Minister, Theresa May and First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon in smart jackets and pencil skirts. It was in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, and the pair had met in Glasgow to discuss the triggering of Article 50 and the UK’s imminent departure from the European Union.
There they were, two incredibly powerful women sitting side by side, beaming at the cameras, unaware of how this image would be distorted by the press.
‘Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it!’ read the headline.
It should have been a story of two leaders coming together to engage in serious negotiations, but instead, May and Sturgeon were reduced to eye-candy status to be ogled at.
Double Standards
Eight years later, our collective fixation with female politicians’ attire has not waned.
We undeniably have double standards when it comes to how we judge men and women in power, something that Mary Ann Sieghart, journalist and author of The Authority Gap, has noticed during her thirty-year career:
‘The clothes that women wear are criticised, their bodies are dissected,’ she says. ‘It’s revolting. We never focus on what male MPs look like.’
Unfortunately, this is true. A study called ‘Playing House,’ which sought to examine the intersection between gender and politics, concluded that the judgements made about female politicians’ clothes are never administered to male colleagues. Whilst men can routinely get away with stained ties and dandruff-ridden blazers, if a woman … ‘were to appear in a similar state of dishevelment, she would make front page news that day and questions would be asked about whether she was fit to be a Member of Parliament.’ Sure, the occasional journalist will comment on BoJo’s crumpled suits, Sunak’s Sambas or Starmer’s £2000-worth collection of glasses, but we do not relentlessly criticise male politicians for their appearance, and it certainly never makes headline news. However, if a high-profile woman like Angela Merkel, the former Chancellor of Germany, were to ‘wear the same blazer four times in two weeks’ then ‘the letters [would] start pouring in.’
So, as long as female politicians remain preened, they’ll evade condemnation, right? No. Because a woman in the public eye who is too well-dressed is objectified. Take Christine Lagarde, for example. She is currently president of the European Central Bank and has previously served as the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, alongside her work as a lawyer and politician. But when the Observer introduced Lagarde to its readers, it described her as ‘attired in Chanel suits and Hermés scarves, along with jazzy bracelets and fur-lined ponchos.’ What useful information could be gleaned from this description? What impression would this leave on those who have never heard of Lagarde before? That she is intelligent and capable? Or that she is fashion-obsessed?
Something similar recently happened to Angela Rayner. During a rare appearance with the King and the Prime Minister for a Cornish housing project, she was described by the BBC as ‘being known for her individual fashion style’ because she opted to ‘[wear] a pair of leopard print 1950s-style shoes.’ Not a jot about her role as Deputy Prime Minister or Housing Secretary. There was also no mention of what her male counterparts were wearing. Because of their gender, Lagarde and Rayner have been scrutinised, not by their credentials, but by their taste in clothing.
If a female politician is polished, then she is accused of being vacant and too preoccupied with her appearance to be taken seriously. But if her wardrobe is lacking, then she is branded a careless slob who doesn’t deserve her position. It is a tough tightrope to walk. Women are being forced to consider how they can avoid drawing attention to their style choices, so that voters take note of what they are saying, rather than what they are wearing. Perhaps, as many have speculated, this is why Kamala Harris opted for relatively conservative pantsuits during the 2024 US presidential race.
Appearance Weaponised
Women should not have to think so carefully about their wardrobe and the public’s reaction. And yet, they do. If they want to persuade voters that they are competent and fight off the opposition, their dress sense needs to be spot-on.
All too often, female politicians find themselves at the centre of unwanted attention when members of rival parties weaponise their appearance for personal gain. This is something Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the former president of Denmark, experienced whilst she was in power. During her time as leader of the Social Democrats, she earned the moniker ‘Gucci Helle’ because she owned a handbag from the designer brand. It was an unfortunate nickname that followed her throughout her political career and was often used by colleagues both within and outside her party to present her as ‘void of substance’ and ‘too posh,’ a tactic that sought to turn her predominantly working-class supporters against her. When male politicians feel threatened by their female colleagues, they try to … ‘diminish the power of women by criticising things that are not substantial, like the size of their bags or the clothes they wore,’ says Michelle Bachelet, the former President of Chile.
It is an issue that even plagues female politicians in a relatively gender-equal nation like the UK. Just two years ago, Angela Rayner was accused of ‘distracting’ Boris Johnson by crossing and uncrossing her legs whilst wearing a skirt. An anonymous Conservative MP alleged that she ‘employ[ed] the tactic’ during the PMQs because ‘she [couldn’t] compete with Boris’s Oxford Union debating training,’ a statement that sounds like it came straight out of the Stone Age. Rayner quickly dismissed the comment as a ‘desperate, perverted smear,’ but the fact that this occurred in the first place just proves that a female politician cannot even sit down without being sexualised by her colleagues. This is not a thing of the past. Since Labour came to power in July, criticism of female MPs’ clothing choices has only increased, with Rayner, Sue Gray, Lisa Nandy and Bridget Phillipson all coming under fire.
These case studies demonstrate that misogyny in politics is not confined to one country. It is a global epidemic. We still live in a world where women are largely judged by their appearance rather than their moral or political character. According to a study by Girlguiding, the situation has become so bad in the UK that it is dissuading girls from pursuing politics. Perhaps now, after a record number of female MPs have been elected to Parliament, this antiquated behaviour will finally stop. For the sake of the next generation, I hope so.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
