Beyond the ugly stereotype

Janet Street-Porter recently criticised Louise Mensch for courting media attention through her clothing, writing for the Daily Mail: “Memo to women MPs: you can’t be a clothes horse AND a feminist!” Effectively, the article asks how Mensch expects to be taken seriously in her professional life whilst she continues to make an effort with her appearance. Feminists believe in equal pay, rights and opportunities for women. Therefore, there’s no reason why Mensch can’t be a feminist and dress however the hell she likes. I certainly wasn’t aware that women have to choose between being taken seriously and looking good.

It seems that Janet Street-Porter has bought into the stereotype of feminism hook, line and sinker. Of course Louise Mensch can’t be a feminist. She has long and groomed hair, wears a fitted skirt suit and high heels. God forbid, the woman smiles for the cameras. But where are her Birkenstocks? Where’s her baggy, unflattering clothing? A hugely damaging stereotype has developed, making ‘feminist’ an unmentionable word amongst many young women. It has become unfashionable to stand up for women’s rights. But why? There’s no reason women can’t believe in equal opportunities and pay whilst making an effort with their appearance.

Yes, she posed for a GQ magazine photo shoot. But so did David Cameron. Mensch may or may not have had a facelift. But we don’t see the same level of uproar about male politicians who may or may not have had hair plugs. Despite being in the public eye, Mensch has a personal choice about how she dresses and the cosmetic surgery she chooses to have. Theresa May also has a choice whether or not she wears kitten heels, just like any male politician is free to choose between a green and a blue tie. It’s irrelevant to their jobs whether they’re stylish or not – they have more important things to do.

A significant proportion of the population does dislike Mensch, but it’s the same with any politician. The problem is that they aren’t all being judged by the same standards. It’s up to Mensch’s constituents to decide whether they’ll re-elect her based on her politics, not her Dolce and Gabbana skirt.

In my view, Mensch is making a more valid feminist statement than Janet Street-Porter by wearing what she wants. As long as she’s smart, it shouldn’t matter if she’s fashionable. We need to redefine the popular perception of ‘feminist’, not to mean a badly dressed woman but someone who stands up for equality.

Mensch doesn’t deserve special considerations or allowances. All she deserves is a level playing field with male politicians, where debate is focused on her politics, not her sense of style. If we allow this debate to damage Mensch’s political career, it sets the precedent that successful women can’t be permitted style.