Vogue profile backlash rooted in sexism
Good looking, fashionable people in world leadership are rare birds. So are politicians younger than 50. This makes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the rarest of rare birds: He is a handsome world leader in his early 40s with a similarly fashionable and attractive spouse.
A PhD is not required then to determine why Vogue magazine recently profiled Canada’s first couple. Hot, powerful people in designer clothes are fun to look at. This tenet rings true for everyone: whether you are a card-carrying Conservative perched on a tractor trailer in Alberta or a latte-sipping Liberal stuck in traffic on a Toronto streetcar — when the world’s foremost fashion magazine gives your PM and his wife the time of day, you pay attention. And, apparently, you cringe.
The takeaway from the Vogue profile — which spawned a Canadian news cycle devoted entirely to the story’s social media backlash — is that Trudeau is an irresponsible airhead. How dare he pose for a fashion magazine — an American magazine of all things — when he has a country to govern! “Those who believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau puts style over substance are directed to the forthcoming issue of Vogue,” the National Post opined on Facebook this week.
Only in Canada — a nation so averse to style and bravado of any kind — does a Vogue profile about Justin Trudeau provoke more controversy than the fashion magazine’s glowing 2011 profile of Asma Assad, the wife of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. Trudeau and his wife may not be war criminals but it appears by Canadian standards they are far worse: they’re proud.
But the backlash to the Vogue story irks for a more insidious reason than simple Canadian prudishness. It irks because no matter how you cut it, outrage to Trudeau’s fashion dalliance is inherently sexist. When former PM Stephen Harper took breaks from governance to take in professional sports games with his kids or give comment to the Hockey News, the Conservative patriarch did not face accusations of putting “Sports over Substance.”
So why, when it comes to world leaders, is attention paid to sports more legitimate than attention paid to style? Because sports are a traditionally male pastime and fashion is traditionally female. The former is a noble hobby — the stuff Canada is made of — and the latter is an unserious, ostentatious, silly waste of time. Male pastimes humanize politicians; female pastimes humiliate them. This principle doesn’t just apply to fashion, but to any “soft” women-oriented subject.
Remember Carol Toller’s excellent profile of Trudeau in Chatelaine magazine last year? Conservatives and, oddly enough, some feminists expressed similar outrage to Toller’s lifestyle piece for its focus on Trudeau’s family, personal style and home decor — subjects they deemed frivolous and stupid. Who cares what kind of socks he wears or what his backyard looks like? We want to hear about policy! This criticism was pretty rich coming from a mostly conservative cohort, a demographic very happy to hear about Harper’s love for hockey history and classic rock.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Justin Trudeau: he has made about 100 promises he likely can’t keep, he is prone to gaffes a high school student council president would avoid. And regardless of his natural ability, passion or charisma, he holds the most powerful post in the nation in large part because of his last name.
But please — don’t fault the guy for being dapper. To do so is as unfair as faulting Harper for being un-dapper. (Good hair or helmet hair: neither should define a leader’s tenure in government.) It is also indicative of a sexist double standard that casts people (read: women) who take an interest in the way they dress as grossly superficial and morally suspect. “We want to hear about the real issues, not this fluff!” a point made frequently in the face of Trudeau’s photo shoot would hold more sway were it not for the fact that political discourse is routinely mired in fluff. The difference though is that the prevailing fluff in our political culture is made for and consumed by men.
Here’s to the day when “Who are you rooting for in the playoffs?” is a question no more acceptable or more common in politics than “Who are you wearing?” Emma Teitel is a National columnist. Her column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.