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.

"We're not done yet! We've still got a long way to go!"

The American Census Bureau identified 685,000 men and 916,000 women graduated from college in 2009. While this statistic is from four years ago - the 25% differential has not changed.

[Ten years from now we'll still be on top]

More women than ever (and more women than men) are attending and graduating from four-year degree programs across the country. This is an empowering statistic - the crack in the glass ceiling can't be far behind, right? More women are being exposed to, and participating in, STEM programming (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), and therefore gaining entry into the most competitive global markets.

[Schooled me to the game]

Are you familiar with the old saying "if it's too good to be true, it probably is"?

While women across the country are flexing their mental muscles, the trade off is an overwhelming dark cloud of student debt. It is estimated that outstanding student loan debt, belonging to men and women, is at a whopping $1 trillion.

[Now I know my duty]

Yesterday, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said that the collection and profit of the U.S. Government off of student debt is "morally wrong."

"Instead of helping our students, the government is making a profit on student loans... That is wrong. It is morally wrong. That is obscene."

I, like thousands of other young Americans, am a product of Federal loans, and have just sign, sealed, and delivered, on my next financial package to pay for law school. Like thousands, I have been impacted by the inability of our Congressional leaders to act in preventing a change in student loan rates - which will, on average cost students an additional $1,000 a year in interest payments.

[Can't get no PhD, {Congress} holds me down]

The worst part? My ability to pay back my loans - even though more women than men are graduating from colleges and universities, even though more women than men are being accepted into colleges and universities  - is adversely oppressive. If I'm like my average female counterparts, I will not only take longer to pay back my loans, I will also end up paying more over the life of the loans.

While higher education is seeing an inverse gender gap, the "real world" is graduating women into a culture that still under pays and under values the work of women.

[I don't know what, they want from me]

All things being held equal, men working in the same entry-level jobs (after receiving degrees in the same fields) will earn an estimated $7,000 more than their had-been female classmates. And it doesn't stop there! Once my male co-workers and I progress out of entry-level work, the wage gap will increase to (as identified by the NPWF in a study of U.S. Census Bureau data) $11,084!

[It's like the more money we come across, the more problems we see]

That means when I filed my Master Promissory Note with the U.S. Department of Education I should have included my own asterisk next to my estimated post-graduate income: *note: of female gender, still earning 77 cents to every male dollar. 

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was supposed to end the practice of "paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job" - yet, the National Partnership For Women and Families found that this discrepancy is ever present - all 50 states, and the 50 largest metropolitan areas are all proponents of the disparity.

The number game continues - only to be more confusing! The Pew Research Center reported that 40% of American households are the economic result of female breadwinners.

[Bag a money much longer than yours]

This means that women today are not only more likely to graduate college, but at the same time get paid less than the men they graduated with - all while exists a rising likelihood of someday being the primary monetary pillar of their house and home.

All of a sudden that $1,000 increase in annual interest payments seems to be multiplied times a million. The encouragingly female environment that I was exposed to as an undergrad is quickly fading into the quicksand of reality.



What can we do? 

Call your congressional leaders. 

Support legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

Learn about transparent pay systems. 

Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of dentist, James Knight's decision to fired one of his self-proclaimed best employees, Melissa Nelson, because he found her too attractive and therefore a risk to his marriage.