By Meagan Brooks (she/her)
Content warning: discussions of misogyny and beauty standards
As of 2020, only 57 out of 193 UN-recognised countries have had a female head of government (Gillard & Okonjo-Iweala, 2020). The many barriers to political leadership faced by women and those assigned female at birth (AFAB) has been extensively studied and discussed. Therefore, in this piece I would like to explore the ongoing difficulties faced by women once they have obtained a political position, specifically penalisation of expressing femininity and the pressure to conform to a male-dominated environment. When women gain leadership roles, does expressing femininity correlate to media coverage that seeks to undermine their authority and the respect they deserve as democratically voted in leaders? Patriarchal values in leadership positions means that even if we get more women in power, the system will still be male-dominated until we shift how we culturally view leaders.
In her book Women and Power, Mary Beard presents the argument that society’s cultural and mental template for what a person in power looks like is male. She argues that society does not have a template for what a powerful woman looks like, therefore, women in power must conform to the masculine template. Sometime referred to as ‘power-dressing’, Western political leaders like Hilary Clinton and Angela Merkal wear pantsuits, with boxy silhouettes, neutral makeup, minimal jewellery, and no nail polish. A watered-down kind of femininity. In Women and Leadership Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala assert that female leaders lose valuable time on their appearance and not always by choice. Male leaders have an unofficial professional uniform - a suit, shirt, and tie, whilst no such uniform has emerged for women in power. Due to this unknowable standard, women in leadership must spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy on styling, or risk having their political ideas overshadowed by media criticism of their outfit.
This is a global phenomenon, women such as Julia Gillard, Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher were all publicly criticised over their appearance during their time in power. Merkel has been accused of looking ‘dowdy’, but when male leaders wear suits and boxy clothes they are referred to as looking ‘profession’ or ‘put together’. Gillard and Thatcher both had their hair analysed by the media. No area of appearance from clothes, jewellery, to body size and shape goes untouched. Shouldn’t our journalists be focusing on the issues at hand and not if the prime minister wore pants or a skirt, or had a haircut recently? Would focusing on leadership decisions that impact citizens of that nation not be a better use of resources and public discourse?
Excessive commentary related to appearance is used to undermine efforts for political change. The media treatment of Animal Justice Party MP, Georgie Purcell has focused on leveraging her appearance and past to unfairly discredit her, whilst treating her work in the Legislative council as a mere footnote. Purcell was elected to the Victorian Legislative Council in November 2022. Since her election, she has faced media backlash on how she presents herself. This culminated in a recent incident where 9 News appeared to alter an image of her to increase her breasts size and expose some midriff. Whether the intent was to gain clicks through the ancient ‘sex sells’ technique, intentionally undermine Purcell or, a ‘software error’ as 9 claims, cannot be confirmed. However, the resulting media cycle focusing on the image rather than Purcell’s anti duck shooting campaign evidence the result. The cultural and media obsession with a woman’s appearance distracted from her political ideas.
2022 research from Raise Our Voice Australia revealed that 87 per cent of media coverage about women in politics was negative, and appearance is often low-hanging fruit that is targeted. Whilst criticism and mockery of appearance is usually limited to occasional political cartoons for male politicians, their female counterparts face a near-constant onslaught. During her time as Prime Minister, Julia Gillard faced a continuous stream of commentary of her attire, with the topic featured everywhere from new articles to talk shows.
Institutional change to overcome the presentation bias that is used to undermine women in leadership. Ad Hominem attacks on politicians is so ingrained into our political workings, with politicians from underrepresented groups the most likely to be victimised. This bias is not only preventing women from expressing themselves, it also acts as a barrier to gaining and maintaining leadership positions. We cannot place the onus of this onto female politicians with empty excuses like ‘she chose to the wear that’, we instead must acknowledge the gendered history of what is perceived as ‘respected and powerful’. Women in positions of leadership should be respected whether they wear a pink mini skirt or a navy pantsuit. No matter how one presents them self they deserve to be considered for positions of power, and if they gain the position that authority should be respected regardless of their appearance. Gender justice in leadership does not just look like more women and gender-diverse people in power, it also means they can dress any way they wish without it undermining their acts as leaders.