Sisters are doing it to themselves

Written by Kamila Kocialkowska Saturday, 21 November 2009 13:37

Kamila Kocialkowska argues that when it comes to politics women are their own worst enemies...

Are women taken seriously in politics yet? Not if Silvio Berlusconi has anything to do with it, perhaps, but you’d assume that in the vastly more politically correct culture of the British Isles, we’d have gained some irrevocable equality by now. However, there have been a surprising amount of complaints of sexism in our political spheres this year. Back in June Caroline Flint famously resigned as Europe Minister with the crippling remark that Gordon Brown and Co. treat women in the government as mere ‘window dressing’. This accusation of closeted misogyny was helped when Harriet Harman faced uncensored ridicule for what Rod Liddle described as ‘reductive, bone-headed, conservative feminism’. He proceeded to sum up her considerable achievements in The Spectator, in an article which opened with the carefully considered question, ‘So, Harriet Harman… would you?’

The latest enraged feminist is Tanya Gold, who published a Guardian column with a fairly furious rant about the way ‘our political culture trivializes women’. Her article details many examples of the ways society ‘encourages the physical objectification of female politicians’. Her evidence to support these claims consists of a list of recent headline-grabbing articles about the sartorial decisions of female politicians.

She has a point; there has been an on-going and in-depth debate over Sarah Brown and Samantha Cameron’s outfit choices, (high street or designer?) Also fair amounts of press attention related to Liz Truss’s gold jacket, Theresa May’s leopard print shoes, and Ann Widdecombe’s hair, seem to provide Gold with irrefutable facts that we refuse to take women in politics seriously. She concludes that ‘in politics, the condition of femininity itself remains a story and a distraction’. While men are judged on their political actions and policies, women cannot escape wardrobe scrutiny; presumably evidence that, in terms of gender equality, society has not really progressed since the fifties.

Though she admits ‘there is no one enemy in this’, the subtle implication lurking behind the article is that there is; men and their misogynistic ways and demeaning attitudes. There is a fairly major flaw in this argument; the only people who actually care about Samantha Cameron’s shoes, are women. The only people who ever read, write, think or care about whether her dress is from Marks & Spencer, are women. Obsession with how our female politicians look, then, is not sexist. It is symptomatic of our craving of celebrity culture, and is a primarily female phenomena.

When Samantha donned her Zara heels for the Conservative Party Conference, she presumably anticipated that they would rack up some fashion column inches. But I’m sure she was far less concerned about the ogling male gaze which may objectify her, than the vindictive female gaze which would digest her every style decision and post internet blogs about its relative failings.

Admittedly, if you read the Daily Mail, or a paper of similar quality, feminist stances on women in positions of power may not be as ubiquitous as one would hope. But since when does this automatically negate all the serious political analysis which still exists in abundance? Gold’s rant seems bizarrely misplaced in our particular political climate. All-female shortlists, anyone? The greatest influx of women into parliament in British history? Realistically, it's only fair to say that women now are taken far more seriously in politics than we ever were before and things can only get better, if only we could stop bitching.

It is true, sadly, that we are cripplingly obsessed with the appearance of women in politics, and this is somewhat demeaning. But its roots, far from being devised by bigoted men, are in the culture of trashy magazines with their unprecedented popularity for close-up paparazzi shots of cellulite-dimpled thighs, microscopic scrutiny of fashion decisions, and general magnification of bodily imperfections. This, coupled with the recent rise in internet blogs, has given way to pioneering levels of debate over celebrities' appearances.

This, I’m sorry to say, is almost entirely the doing of women. Men aren’t inclined to follow fashion blogs. How can we honestly call ourselves feminists and viciously criticise men for objectifying us when women do it on a larger, more vindictive scale every week in Heat? I’m surprised there is no word in the English language for this type of all-female misogyny, as it strikes me that the way women treat other women is often much worse than the way men do.

There is an astounding amount of joy to be gleaned from photos of famous women looking bad. Wrong outfit choices, smeared make-up, unwashed hair; these things are written about at length with voyeuristic glee and lapped up by huge numbers. Naturally, being in the public eye, means that this is transferred onto women in politics, and so a culture is created where a disproportionate weight is attached to looking pretty. So when Gold complains that we 'encourage the objectification of female politicians', she’s right, except the ‘we’ here is us, women. Ironically, men are, by and large, the innocent bystanders in this vicious circle.

Comments

Add New