Glamour, Britain’s best selling woman’s magazine, recently ran a feature rating ‘inspirational women’ in a number of categories. So far, so feminist. Don’t be fooled.
In their ‘Politics’ (!) section, Michelle Obama came top, with Sarah Brown and Samantha ‘SamCam’ Cameron making all-too predictable appearances further down the list. Are these women politicians? No. They are political WAGs. We might tut over their matronly fashion sense; coo over their baby bumps, even shed a tear for their personal tragedies. But, it is wrong to thrust them upon us as role models. Drippy tributes to their noble husbands do not make political WAGs inspirational in their own right.
So, who should the media be touting as women of political substance? Caroline Lucas, maybe? She has led the Green Party since 2008 and been one of just two UK Green MEPs since 1999. She is also the favourite to win the Brighton Pavilion constituency seat in a few weeks time, which would give the Greens their first parliamentary representation. She has written extensively and campaigned on contentious issues such as globalisation, green economics and animal rights. She has a PhD. So, why must we be subjected to gushing interviews with what are, in all honesty, political non-entities – when names like Caroline Lucas would fail to raise even the faintest flicker of recognition in most young people?
Women would never aspire merely to be the wife of a movie star, the girlfriend of a singer or the partner of a doctor or lawyer. So, why assume that women would aspire to support politicians rather than becoming them?
The sad fact remains, however, that politics remains a largely male dominated sphere. In recent years, efforts have been made to increase female participation in politics, but the truth is that positive discrimination is a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Young women from all backgrounds need to want to participate; they must realise they are just as competent as their male counterparts. Simply propelling them artificially into Westminster is bound to be abortive.
The newspapers insist upon telling us useless information about women concerned with politics. We hear about Clegg’s plans to scrap tuition fees, and his wife’s £45 eco-friendly handbag; Obama’s landmark healthcare legislation and Michelle’s penchant for sleeveless dresses; Cameron’s gripes with national insurance and SamCam’s £29 Zara shoes (she wore them three times in three days, girls!) The women we are being taught to emulate in politics seem little more than clothes-horses and baby-makers who adore their husbands and think more about the school-run than the state of the economy.
The problem, however, is deeper rooted still. Even serious female politicians are subject to often embarrassing, personal media scrutiny. The host of women ushered into the Commons in 1997, for example, were unkindly dubbed ‘Blair’s Babes’. In 2007, the new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, gave a speech on terrorism but was greeted by newspaper headlines discussing the moderately revealing outfit she had worn, with The Sun describing her as a ‘busty Home Secretary’ who dressed in ‘racy gear’. Apparently they mixed up their front and third pages.
Furthermore, the elected women themselves seem a little confused about the nature of the roles they are meant to play. Labour MP Caroline Flint resigned as Minister for Europe last year, angrily branding Brown’s government as ‘two-tier’, treating female politicians as ‘window-dressing’. Yet, Flint herself had previously posed for a full-length photoshoot with The Observer, with shots including the MP reclining suggestively on a divan. Women are always implicitly (and too often, explicitly) encouraged to use their looks to manipulate, in a way that men, quite simply, are not.
The media is almost exclusively to blame for all this. In raising the profile of political WAGs and ignoring bona fide women politicians, then subsequently vilifying those brave enough to enter the arena for their figures and dress sense, rather than their policies, the media projects a Catch-22 situation upon aspiring female politicians. Most of them decide to stay out of the Westminster minefield – and with this entrenched sexist attitude to female politicians, who’d blame them?
Political creeds entirely aside, give me Caroline, Hillary, or even the Bible-bashing Sarah Palin as role models. Let’s put SamCam, Sarah and Mrs Obama aside: in order for women to progress at all in politics, we must aspire to be leaders, not leaders’ consorts.
"Women are always implicitly (and too often, explicitly) encouraged to use their looks to manipulate, in a way that men, quite simply, are not." Not sure about this.. DC's campaign posters, anyone?!?
otherwise great article.
Inspirational, and a call to action. I'm looking forward to reading more artcles by this promising newcomer.
Great article. I'm not sure I want to 'put aside' SamCam, Sarah Brown and Michelle Obama, though, all of them successful and powerful women in their own right, and undoubtedly role models (though I agree, not political ones).
Perhaps we should question why they're expected to give up their jobs when their husbands take office.
Because Caroline Lucas is a dangerous twerp?
This is so refreshing to see amidst all the other rubbish that's being put up about pole fitness lessons. Excellent article.
I read your article after the first TV Leaders debate and it prompted an idea. How about a Live TV debate with the three Leaders’ wives? Maybe chaired by the Speaker’s wife? This could add some much needed glamour to the election debate.
I agree that the WAGs should not be viewed as role models but I don't think it is fair to blame media pressure for the way some women in politics behave. All choices are made freely- you wouldn't catch Maggie on a divan.
On a side issue I think Hillary should be excluded from any 'role model' list for staying married to Bill to boost her Presidential chances. I think it gives the impression that power is to be sought at any cost but I realise that's not really what was being discussed.
I don't know if we can just blame the media and go to bed. The media outlets exist to sell themselves; they wouldn't create this image if they didn't think they had an audience. Maybe it's more about background sexism in the public.
It's really funny about Michelle Obama, though. She went to Harvard, and the moment she gets to the White House, suddenly she has to do the gardening. Every time a first lady tries to assert herself, though, she gets kicked in the face, at least during her time as first lady.
Fantastic article, really well-written. I completely agree with you and it infuriates me the way that the media focus on 'the wives' and value them on their looks and fashion sense. I look forward to reading more of your stuff!