How the Media Makes it Hard for Female Politicians to Get Dressed
By: Monique Bijoux
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Politics, Fashion, Media

How the Media Makes it Hard for Female Politicians to Get Dressed

W hen it comes to fashion, female politicians are trapped in a lose-lose situation

Photo by Christian Fregnan on Unsplash

When it comes to fashion, female politicians are trapped in a lose-lose situation. Whether it be a pantsuit, a dress, or something else entirely, the wardrobe choices of female politicians are constantly under scrutiny in a way that is very rarely done to male politicians. Such undue scrutiny further alienates them. The media’s obsession with the way female politicians dress is inherently sexist. The ways in which the media portrays female politicians reinforces gender stereotypes, which both delegitimizes female politicians and makes it harder for them to successfully challenge those very stereotypes.

Media portrayals

A clothing rack showcasing several of Hillary Clinton’s suits

Media portrayals of female politicians uphold gender stereotypes, which serves to delegitimize them. Linda Trimble, a political science professor at the University of Alberta, conducted a study that looked at media reports about politicians. The results showed that the appearances of female politicians were discussed in a higher percentage of media reports than were the appearances of male politicians. Trimble conducted a quantitative analysis of the results, which revealed that media stories about female politicians go into deep detail about their physical appearance, including lengthy descriptions of their clothing and makeup, whereas reports on male politicians’ physical appearance were merely a few words long. When male politicians’ clothing was described, it was mainly done in an effort to further illustrate their demeanour as a politician rather than in order to critique their wardrobe choices. The results also showed that for both men and women, descriptions of their clothing were linked to evaluations of their authenticity and authority, with women’s authenticity and authority being brought into question more frequently than males’.

The presence of a woman in politics is already a disruption, and the media’s focus on their clothing instead of their platform can be read as an effort to mediate the dissonance caused by the presence of a woman in a male-coded career.

This hyperfixation on female politicians’ clothing can be viewed as an attempt at delegitimization, which is the process of undermining a person or a group of people in order to diminish their validity, which works as a form of exclusion. Positions of power are typically held by males, and this is especially prevalent in politics. The connection between maleness and power then leads to the association of male-coded attitudes and traits with positions of power. Feminist scholar Judith Butler contests that women are associated with and constrained to the body, whereas men are free from such confinement. Author-activist Susan Brownmiller asserts that female fashion is crucial to the preservation of gender oppression, and more specifically, female oppression.

These two viewpoints help to illustrate the implications of the media’s focus on female politicians’ clothing. The presence of a woman in politics is already a disruption, and the media’s focus on their clothing instead of their platform can be read as an effort to mediate the dissonance caused by the presence of a woman in a male-coded career.

Critiques of female politicians’ wardrobes serve several purposes. First, it highlights their femaleness, othering them, making it extra apparent that they are viewed as an anomaly. This othering is explicitly demonstrated by the level of detail included in media stories about female politicians’ clothing. Furthermore, equating female politicians with dress reduces them to a gendered stereotype. As Butler stated, women are associated with the body, and the media’s focus on their appearance only highlights this assertion. For example, Hanna Suchocka, former prime minister of Poland, was ridiculed by journalists for wearing a bright pink jacket, to which she asked: “Why? Why is that not possible? I am first a woman, second I am prime minister … so it is difficult.” The implication of the media’s mockery is that femininity and the role of prime minister are incompatible. This sexism serves to delegitimize the subject.

Clinton in a pantsuit, revising her speech.

Hillary Clinton’s adoption of her pantsuit look is demonstrative of the effects of the media’s hyperfixation on women’s clothing. Before she settled on the pantsuit, Clinton had dabbled with several different styles, for which she was heavily criticized. As seen in a 2015 Daily Mail UK article that listed Clinton’s twenty worst outfits from the past fifty years, Clinton was labelled as “frumpy,” and “out of place,” amongst other things. Clinton’s adherence to the pantsuit look was done in an effort to altogether disqualify herself from conversations about fashion, and while articles about her clothes did not cease completely, they did slow down to some degree. The very fact that Clinton found it necessary to shift her wardrobe to almost exclusively pantsuits in order to be taken seriously clearly shows just how pervasive the media is in reinforcing gender norms. The pantsuit is an article of clothing that is male-coded and associated with power. Even though the critiques did not stop altogether, they lessened in frequency because she was wearing an article of clothing that was male-coded, which lessened the dissonance between her femininity and her seeking a role in a male-dominated career. Clinton’s needing to present in a more “masculine” manner in order to lessen the media scrutiny she received and in turn, be taken more seriously, reflects the problematic nature of how the media portrays female politicians. As seen with the results of Trimble’s study and exemplified through Hillary Clinton and her pantsuits, the sexist manner in which the media focuses on female politicians’ clothing delegitimizes them.

Politicians challenging gender norms

Makeup is viewed as a signal of femininity, and wearing it serves to further highlight their otherness in a male-dominated field of work. Conservative makeup is a way of attempting to mediate this dissonance.

As discussed by Cheryl Wischhover in “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Red Lipstick is a Symbol of Change,” women in politics are expected to keep their clothing and makeup conservative, nothing too attention-grabbing. The “makeup tax,” explained by Olga Khazan in “The Makeup Tax,” requires women to spend time and money on makeup because that is what is expected of them, since showing up to the workplace without makeup often incites negative attention. Thus, female politicians are trapped in a what can easily become a lose-lose situation. They are expected to wear makeup to work, because going in completely bare-faced is not deemed acceptable. On the other hand, the makeup female politicians do wear to work is expected to be toned-down. Makeup is viewed as a signal of femininity, and wearing it serves to further highlight their otherness in a male-dominated field of work. Conservative makeup is a way of attempting to mediate this dissonance. By still wearing makeup, female politicians are able to appease the expected female presentation norms, but by making sure this makeup is not too eye-catching, they can attempt to blend into the male-coded environment.

Ocasio-Cortez at her swearing-in ceremony

United States representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an example of a female politician who embraces and employs femininity with intent, challenging how she is expected to present herself in the political realm. She fully embraces femininity, proudly and purposefully wearing bold makeup. Ocasio-Cortez showed up to her swearing-in ceremony in January 2019 in an all-white suit complete with bright red lipstick and gold hoop earrings. About her makeup up, Ocasio-Cortez’s tweeted: “Lip+hoops were inspired by Sonia Sotomayor, who was advised to wear neutral-colored nail polish to her confirmation hearings to avoid scrutiny. She kept her red. Next time someone tells Bronx girls to take off their hoops, they can just say they’re dressing like a Congresswoman.”

A tweet from Ocasio-Cortez

For Latinas, red lipstick and gold hoop earrings are culturally significant, a significance which is discussed by Frances Solá-Santiago in “What Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Hoop Earrings Mean to Latina Women Like Me.” According to Solá-Santiago, for Latinas, hoop earrings signify womanhood, but in certain environments, hoop earrings could prevent one from being taken seriously or be used as fuel for racist taunts from others. The tweet illustrates the power behind the intent of Ocasio-Cortez’s makeup choices. She did not wear red lipstick only because she wanted to. Her red lipstick is a statement signifying her refusal to blend in, her refusal to be toned-down just because that was what was expected of her in politics. Her hoop earrings demonstrate her refusal to reject her heritage in order to fit into the predominantly white landscape of politics. It is the intent behind Ocasio-Cortez’s choices that makes them all the more powerful. While Ocasio-Cortez’s intent has its merits, if the media decides to only focus on the aesthetic value of her makeup and not take into account its deeper meaning, then some of that meaning will be lost. Even though, Ocasio-Cortez has the advantage of social media, in which she can take control of the narrative and explain the reasoning behind her choices, the media’s portrayal of her choices still makes it harder for her to challenge gender presentation norms in the political realm.