Do Theresa May’s shoes subtly telegraph her collusion with the patriarchy?
No, but that suggestion was offered in the opinion pages of the New York Times on Friday. An op-ed on the long-standing feminist tradition of over analyzing women’s clothing (ironic, right?) argued that UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s sexualized footwear fuels toxic stereotypes about women.
In a rather creative act of self-validation, author Joan Smith began her argument by sanctioning the act of critiquing a female politician’s wardrobe selection by arguing that May invites it.
“This is the first time in three decades that a mainstream British political party has gone to the polls with both a female leader and a serious expectation of winning. Isn’t it demeaning, not to say sexist, to focus on how she dresses?” Smith asked. “The problem for feminists like me, who would normally leap to a female politician’s defense, is that Mrs. May would never complain about any of this attention. She gives every impression of liking it. ”
Because May, like most women, appreciates compliments on her outfits, and does not go out of her way to chastise the media for focusing on her wardrobe, she’s complicit in the perpetuation of damaging stereotypes, according to Smith.
“Mrs. May’s refusal to confront the infantile misogyny of the media leaves her open to the accusation that she got where she is not by challenging patriarchy, but by colluding with it,” Smith wrote. “What does it say about gender equality in Britain that the politician tipped to win by a landslide in next month’s election is most famous for her footwear?”
What does it say about Smith that she attributes May’s popularity to her outfits, rather than her policies?
She further accuses May of using her “leopard-print heels” as a form of camouflage to divert attention from “unpalatable” statements, strategically “[distracting] Britain’s popular press with an unexpected choice of accessory.”
In sum, Smith is arguing that May’s wardrobe perpetuates sexist stereotypes by fueling articles about her clothes, not her policies… in an article about her clothes, not her policies.
This is a case study in feminists over complicating situations by working themselves into convoluted logical lathers.
The argument hinges on the assumption that May weaponizes her wardrobe to distract from her policies, which in and of itself feels a lot like a sexist stereotype about women, reducing them to sex objects more interested in obsessing over their appearances, even when they pour efforts into policy.
If May’s wardrobe is enough to convince most of an entire country that she’s a decent prime minister, why is Smith blaming her for wearing fashionable shoes and not focusing solely on the media’s decision to be distracted by those shoes?
Female politicians should be able to dress well and still be taken seriously, but feminists will accuse them of dressing too well and the media will sexualize them.
I would love to know what Smith’s solution to this pressing problem is: What level of fashionability should May match her footwear to? Medium? Who gets to make that categorization?
If you don’t want female politicians to be subjected to sexist stereotypes, perhaps the best solution is not to impose tests on their wardrobes.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
