Yesterday Everyday Feminism, published an article by Danica Johnson entitled "When Female Politicians Become Victims of Their Own Fashion." This article touches on the political dangers of fashion - good or bad.

Johnson cites findings from the Women's Media Center and Celinda Lake which indicate that language surrounding fashion in regards to female political candidates outstandingly lowers poll ratings. Research shows that the drop in polls is true of both Republican and Democratic candidate, and is the result of both right and left-leaning media. The connection between female candidates and fashion deters voters from taking the candidate seriously "because the focus has been moved from her intellect and merit to her appearance."

I wholeheartedly agree with Johnson on the major notions of her article - "you don't vote for someone because they are fashionable. You vote for them based on their politics."


This is all true but, here's where I'm at... 

I believe, with absolutely no supporting research except my anecdotal experience, that the reason polls plummet for female candidates when their image is discussed isn't because it deters from their intelligence, but because it reminds voters that the candidate, is in fact female.

Johnson cites the negativity in these references in that while the media feels free to weave in fashion obeservations about female candidates, it is rarely present in discussions of male candidates.

We don't comment on the ill fitting suits of male representatives (of which there are plenty) or the countless victims of the comb-over (like, I feel bad for these guys, who told them that was a good idea?).

And thus here's where my feminist philosophy lies....

Gender, as an identity, exists. It is not going to stop-existing. Masculine and Feminine expressions have existed since the dawn of time. Eve may or may not have bitten the apple because of her inherent inclination to bright colors. Who knows?

The problem, says me, is that as a society we still associate being female, but more so being feminine, with weakness. A feminine political candidate might cry too much in office. A feminine candidate won't have the military background to support appropriate national security measures, a feminine candidate would take too much time primping in the bathroom to address a national crisis.... the list goes on and on and on.

I believe that historically, for women to be success in the proverbial "workplace" - we have had to take on masculine tendencies and social gender expression - be less emotional, wear dark colors, pull your hair back. Feminine characteristics are still not welcome in the workplace.

The more masculine we could be, the more successful. If you could cover any indicators of femininity you could be respected and therefore promoted. And why?

To me, the point of feminism is to create equality for all persons - regardless of sex, or gender expression. An ideal society is one of total gender neutrality. Not one where these expressions don't exist but instead one where they are so fluid that they are no longer relevant.

I believe a significant part of this problem lies at the feet of other women. Mean girl behaviors make their way up the political chain. We belittle and demean female candidates when we observe that their shoes don't match their eyes. And donta-you-snap-your-last-season-prada-shoes-at-me-honey your way around it... we do it. 

I believe that I should be able to stand in front of my peers and be perceived, regardless of my gender or fashionable self-expression, as a kick-butt intellect. I also believe that I should be able to stand there without conventionally engaging in any beauty standards should I so choose and still be considered the same.

While I believe fashion and politics shouldn't share forums of criticism - obvi except here - I don't necessarily agree with Johnson that not talking about female candidates and their notions of conventional femininity is the solution.

Wendy Davis , Texas Senator, performed a jaw-dropping 13-hour filibuster for a bill that would close almost all of the family planning facilities in Texas. No eating, no drinking, no leaning over to rest - Senator Davis wore a back brace to support her during a grueling shift many cannot even image. Now, regardless of your opinions on the bill or party affiliation, this as a political strategy was and is a big deal.

Senator Davis performed her marathon 'buster with poise and articulation, and did so wearing hot pink sneakers. Johnson said that the commentary surround her sneakers hurt Davis as a political figure and that even those who were trying to talk her up were undoubtibly knocking her down.

I disagree. #NotSorry

What about the thousands of women who raced to Amazon to purchase the same sneaker. Women across the country sporting hot pink athletic gear as a symbol of solidaity and power.

Think of the millions upon billions of sneakers that have been sold using names like Michael Jordan, or Larry Bird, or Magic Johnson.

Air Jordans are for shooting hoops, jumping higher and running faster....  the Mizuno Women's Wave Rider 16 in hot pink and neon yellow are for making social change - whether it's a 10 plus hour filibuster or a march on Washington. (Just read the reviews on Amazon and they'll tell you so...)

It's human nature to mimic those we find admirable - this is the notion of celebrity after all. I'd love to live in a world where the fashion foot forward is by that of a strong-minded female politician, as opposed to the various K-named alternatives. A world where young women and girls look to their fashion icons in admiration of their their skill, and not their sex appeal. A world where women are empowered by the actions of those in magazines instead of demoralized.

I think that the only way to force the correlation between strength and intellect, power and progression, and female candidates, isn't to ride the language of femininity from the forum, but to shout it from the hilltops Capitol Hilltop.

Yes, Michelle Obama has bangs, and they look fabulous on her all the while she promotes healthy lifestyles. Michelle Women have hair and conventionally it's styled - move on. We can take candidates seriously without having a blatant disregard for gender expressions at the very same time.

So, to our former Secretaries of State - you rock that pink piping on your suite for a pop of color. Keeping speaking powerfully and articulately out of lips toned with a fabulously complimentary stain.

As women we should be able to express ourselves in whatever way we chose - masculine, feminine, hyper, or completely void of gender expression. We should be able to express femininity without fear of sexual harassment in the workplace, or the  dropping of digits in our political polls.

While the headline cites "fashion" as the faux pas, the real criminal is gender discrimination via association. The association of incapability with simply being female, and all of the conventional notions that go with it.

I can love your lipstick and still hate your politics.

The Huffington Post published an article yesterday "Why 'Love Your Body' Campaigns Aren't Working". Author, Isabel Foxen Duke, related our inability to love ourselves - through the eyes of these campaigns - with the messages and lifestyles that  we associate with them. As women we are socialized to fear our bodies, that weight is a deterrant for others from loving us, that if we have cellulite we can't get our dream jobs, or touching thighs mean we'll never have the wrap-around porch we've always dreamed of.


I wanted to put my own '2 cents' in on why these campaigns don't work. Why Dove, or Victoria Secret or any other projection of "love yourself just the way you are" doesn't work.

To begin, a little background music to get us in the mood.... wink, wink




The reason that I believe these campaigns are so ineffective is because they lack fluidity. They send a message of self-acceptance frozen in time. These ads send a message of self-love but don't provide a commentary or jargon for change. They don't allow us to effectively and positively talk about changing our bodies without prosecuting them: "If you love your body, why would you change it?" or "If you are trying to change you clearly don't love yourself."

Uggg... can't I simultaneously think I'm awesome while still having physical ambitions that are varied from my current capabilities?

As women, I don't believe the seeking of perfection will ever dissipate - it will never go away. The "true-to-life" models that are appearing on billboards or in magazine spreads, or the intentional choice of companies not to airbrush their models - these are all as Duke says an:

 "important first step, but not necessarily the 'answer' for women suffering from body hatred now."

We need a campaign that teaches us to love our bodies and appreciate their strengths, while also providing a language base for how to talk about our bodies, or how to effectively - and happily - change them into what we want them to be. We need a campaign that will change the way we think and see beauty - one that for us, female perfectionist, will give us a quantifiable means of recognizing change beyond the number on the tiny tag in back of our pants.

Our body talk needs to change.

We fear the word "fat" because we have no notion of what it is or isn't. Women who are suffering from body hatred completely lack the ability to see their bodies for what they are; the stress and pressure of the comparison game holds us back and makes us blind. We can't see the strength and shape of our own bodies because we are so busy looking at those of others.

Let Me Hear Your Body Talk How-To:

Sunday evening, the newest Miss USA was crown in Las Vegas, Nevada. The newly crowned Miss USA, hailing from the the Constitution State, and her counterpart Miss America are carriers of iconic imagery of the American beauty culture. They are subject to criticism as well as admiration. Their standing, success, and opposition are fueled by the dichotomies of my favorite subject: feminism and femininity. 

Not only was this article published by a CBS affiliate for readers to enjoy, (not a site where objectifying articles are available in daily dose i.e. Barstool, The Chive), but it came with an interactive component as well! After all, what’s belittlement and projected low self-worth without a survey:

The choice of this woman to perform as a dancer puts forward by some that by dancing in “this way” and in “this venue” she has given consent for physically criticism; that as a public figure, we as “the public” are entitled to cast judgment on her and her body.

Commentary in the article then puts forwards the notion that some ambiguous men, somewhere out there may not see this as an issue:

“Besides… not every man likes women to be toothpick skinny. In face, I’d say most men prefer a little extra meat on her bones. Am I right? What do you think? Is this chick ‘too chunk’ to be a cheerleader?”

In light of everything else that is wrong with this article – I have to ask: What more do you want? Is it really “extra meat"? Or is it just “meat” – it is just a natural physical composition and development of a – dare I say, awesome - female body? 

Through this woman’s dance career she has undoubtedly been criticized – for showmanship, skill-set, and performance – measurable, tangible notions that can be compared from one to the next. But when will it stop? When will I be able to stop comparing my body to hers, and her to another? Not on ability or movement, but shape, and size? 

This idiotic article touches on one of the most deeply rooted and relevant “female-issues;” our self-worth. The ability of women – not just cheerleaders or dancers – to have a true love and appreciation for the abilities and capabilities of their bodies is engendered by our social construction. A construction that this article truly epitomizes.

When this beautiful blonde cheerleader is the target of an attack, it leaves “normal women” like me to ask: is anybody safe? Is any body safe? 

We have to be a part of the change in social commentary. To affirm the bodies and capabilities of others we must first learn to do it to and for ourselves. 

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/22/is-this-girl-too-chunky-to-be-an-okc-thunder-cheerleader/