Why do we care what female politicians wear?

From Theresa May to AOC, to be a woman in politics is to be constantly under scrutiny from the fashion police

Early last week, not long before the public headed to the polls to vote in one of the most hotly contested elections in US history, the American Right boiled over with vitriol aimed at House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her crime? Having the temerity to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair.

While some expressed outrage at the magazine for choosing to spotlight AOC over the recently confirmed US Supreme Court judge Amy Coney Barrett (a mathematical impossibility given that, thanks to long print lead times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was likely still alive when the AOC cover was finalised) most of the ire was directed at the $14,000 worth of designer clothing worn by the politician on the cover and in the accompanying spread.

Let’s get one thing out of the way early on: these clothes do not belong to AOC. As with almost every fashion shoot ever conceived for a glossy magazine, every piece was borrowed from designers by the magazine’s fashion stylists. While the subject may be consulted on their preferences - in this case AOC specified that LGBTQ+ and BIPOC designers were represented - the looks, visual concept and overall aesthetic are largely at the magazine’s discretion. AOC did not, as was later suggested, keep any of the clothes featured in the shoot.

So what spurred the presumably media-savvy Laura Ingraham of Fox News and Republican House candidate Lauren Boebert to tweet statements such as, “I wonder what brand of socialism allows you to get a $14,000 suit for Vogue [sic] photoshoots. See you soon, Alexandria. Looking forward to dismantling your socialist agenda in my finest Macy’s clothes like normal working people”? In AOC’s case the reasons are three-fold, a) she’s a woman, b) she’s a left wing Democrat and c) she’s Latina - all of which mark her out as a prime target for that special brand of right wing racism and misogyny.

This, of course, is not AOC’s first time through the ringer and she brushed off the incident by tweeting, “The whole ‘she wore clothes in a magazine, let’s pretend they’re hers’ gimmick is the classic Republican strategy of ‘let’s willfully act stupid, and if the public doesn’t take our performative stupidity seriously then we’ll claim bias’.” In reality, it is exactly AOC’s willingness to lean into the factors outlined above that have made her so successful. She’s as likely to be found sharing lipstick recommendations on Instagram Stories as she is issuing damning speeches in Congress and her trademark red lip and gold hoop earrings are a constant reminder that she hasn’t forgotten her working class, Puerto Rican heritage - much to the delight of her many young and female fans.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Credit: Creative Commons/Nrkbeta

The inherent hypocrisy in these statements coming from the right also goes without saying. President Trump is no stranger to a multi-thousand dollar suit while Melania Trump appeared on a 2017 cover of Vanity Fair Mexico appearing to be literally eating a diamond necklace. Tiffany Trump, while admittedly not a politician, was one of the first self-proclaimed ‘Rich Kids of Instagram’.

Yet, while AOC may be an extreme case, this is merely the latest in a long and tired narrative of political commentators (on both sides) dissecting the outfits of female politicians and judging them based on appearance alone. Who can forget the furore that erupted when then-Prime Minister Theresa May appeared in a Sunday Times ‘at home’ interview in 2016 wearing a pair of £995 Amanda Wakeley leather trousers? Or when the Daily Mail decided it appropriate to headline a story about a meeting between the UK’s two most powerful political figures - Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May - with the headline ‘Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-It!’? It’s hard to imagine the same kind of commentary being levelled at a meeting of, say, Tony Blair and George Bush - both fans of a very expensive suit.

Hillary Clinton. Credit: Gage Skidmore

As with most gendered double standards, the problem with fashion and female politicians is an ancient one. In a 1917 profile of Jeanette Rankin, the first female member of the US congress, the Washington Post wrote, “[she is] thoroughly feminine—from her charmingly coiffed swirl of chestnut hair to the small, high and distinctively French heels. She is given to soft and clinging gowns, and, according to her own confession, is very fond of moving pictures.” This desire to treat female politicians as society page figures, rather than subjecting them to the same hard line examination of their policies and political messages as men, continued for decades. As did outdated dress codes. Women, for example, were not allowed to wear trousers on the floor of the US Senate until the early 1990s - a garment which Hillary Clinton discovered during the 2016 presidential race still has the potential to attract much criticism.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with taking note of a politician’s appearance. These are public figures who leave nothing to chance and there are often important and intentional messages to be read in the way they present themselves. However, while men do attract some criticism - Obama and the tan suit springs to mind - it is the couching of condemnation levelled at women in demeaning, infantilising and diminishing speech that reveals the true issue here. Simply put, there are still many who do not believe women belong in the political sphere.

Writing for Vox, Anna North explains, “When women politicians are criticized for their clothes, then, it’s about more than the cut or cost of a garment. It’s often a reminder that, in a fundamental way, they don’t belong. Equality wouldn’t mean total silence on the subject of women’s clothing [but]… In a time when a congresswoman’s nondescript black jacket and coat can inspire mockery, that kind of equality can seem out of reach.” Or as AOC herself put it in a 2018 tweet, journalists obsess about her clothes because “women like me aren’t supposed to run for office”.

The cumulative effect of this discourse can make it seem as if female politicians are in a no-win situation. Present yourself professionally in clothes within your means - even if this includes high-end designers - and be accused of being frivolous or out of touch with ‘real’ people. Restrict yourself to high street clothing and open yourself up to criticisms of slovenliness and ethical and environmental unfriendliness.

But there is a third option. If they’re going to insist on noticing nothing but your clothes, give them something to take notice of - and in the process beat your detractors at their own game. The Suffragettes, with their white, purple and green colour palette and feminine silhouettes, are a prime example of asserting power by reclaiming the means of their vilification and have inspired many politicians since. The all-white outfit worn by Hillary Clinton to President Trump’s inauguration has long been thought of as a reference to the suffrage movement and was recently echoed by the white Carolina Herrera suit Kamala Harris chose over her usual black or navy attire for her 2020 election acceptance speech. Female Democrats have also used dress numerous times to express their defiance and willingness to rock the status quo. Take, for example, their decision to uniformly wear white (another suffrage reference) to the 2019 State of the Union address following the success of the wall of black they created at the previous year’s address in solidarity with #MeToo and the Time’s Up movement.

So will we ever reach a place where female politicians can dress as they see fit without comment in the same way as male politicians? The answer, sadly, is that it looks unlikely. But, just maybe, fashion can be the secret super power women can use to assert their political messages and make themselves heard.

---

RBG's collars were more than accessories

Read more

how fashion helped create the teenager

Read more