CATRIONA STEWART
Why we must think before we fire off a sexism tag –
WOMEN. There’s a lot of them around at the moment. It’s strange, as a young woman, how inured you become to not seeing yourself reflected back when gazing at certain spheres.
I thought about this during Ghostbusters II, how it felt almost revolutionary to see women as science geek, all-action protagonists, strapping on their proton packs and blasting... er... ginormous ghost pilgrims.
In politics it’s the same thing. A woman was a lone beast, an unusual flash of colour among a sea of dull suits. Not now. Women. Everywhere.
And immediately the problems start. My colleague, the political reporter Tom Gordon, caused a hoo-hah when he pointed out Theresa May’s red shoes as she climbed the steps of Bute House to meet with Nicola Sturgeon. He was accused of casting a sexist slur.
When pro-independence paper The National styled Theresa May as Cruella de Vil, a senior executive was asked on national television to explain himself, having attracted similar accusations of sexism. Female politicians take a battering when it comes to their appearances. Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly had her weight commented on. Rush Limbaugh, a US talk show host, said of Hillary Clinton: “Will this country want to watch a woman get older before their eyes?”
Women in the public sphere find their clothes a hindrance. Mrs Clinton’s pant suits are commented on, Ms Sturgeon’s sartorial choices are endlessly scrutinised.
Richard Stewart, a Canadian mayor, heard women in his town say that to enter politics they would have to have to buy a new wardrobe so, to see, Mr Stewart wore the same suit every day for 15 months and not a soul noticed.
Michael Gove recently wore fancy buckled shoes, with a naughty wink of silver, but these drew no attention because no one was looking.
Women like clothes, generally. There are entire magazines dedicated to the pursuit of clothes. Women’s clothes are, generally, fancier than men’s. They add literal and figurative colour to a story.
While it is absolutely the case that commentators and fellow politicians try to trivialise women by critiquing the way they look, it is not the case any mention of a woman’s appearance constitutes sexism. Politics is a nasty business. Steve Bell, the Guardian cartoonist, draws David Cameron with a condom for a head. There are few professions where you’d daily have to see yourself with a prophylactic face.
Eric Pickles was lampooned for his weight. In the US, New Jersey governor Chris Christie was told he would never be president as he was too fat.
Boris Johnson is famous for his ridiculous hair. Conversely, Mitt Romney’s perfect hair was used as evidence of his falseness. Justin Trudeau, the Canadian PM, is a renowned dreamboat, while Barack Obama rocks slick suits and dress shoes. Vladimir Putin wears stack heels, we’re told.
Fashion is just fashion and mentioning it is not automatically sexism.
What is sexist is when female politicians are judged by their decision to have or not have children. Or when unashamedly gendered epithets are used against them: “Wee Nippy”, say. Or when newly-promoted female MPs are dubbed “Cameron’s Cuties”.
It’s important to recognise the distinction – otherwise we risk aiming our proton packs at the wrong targets, draining ourselves of any useful energy.
Women’s clothes are, generally, fancier than men’s. They add literal and figurative colour to a story