From the backhanded ‘You’re too pretty to be a politician’ to crudely labelling Indira Gandhi as ‘an old witch’, we have seen women being nitpicked over their physical appearance for centuries. They’re either too fat or too skinny, too pale or too dark, too much or too little. It seems as if they have to be just the right amount of pretty. This begs the question- What is the perfectly pretty political face?
Claudette Colvin didn’t have it and neither did Hilary Clinton. Consequently, they had to suffer the backlog of not being able to fit into the unrealistic beauty standards of their times. Branded as ‘too dark-skinned’ to be the face of the civil rights movement, the former activist was never acknowledged for being the first black woman who refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. That’s right! The 15-year old was first to exhibit the act of defiance that lit a spark of rebellion in the United States of America. The latter, however, has often made the headlines for her ‘droopy’ and ‘worn-out’ appearance. Some journalists even marked her appearance as a hindrance to her political career, stating that people wouldn’t be too keen to watch the woman grow old right in front of their eyes.
We like to believe that there’s no such phenomenon as pretty privilege in the realm of politics. However, that approach has been debunked over the years. With countless historical shreds of evidence and research, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking all we want from our leaders is intelligence and servitude. A study conducted by Alex Todorov revealed that people are more likely to vote for candidates with a ‘competent’ facial structure. This entails a more defined face, high cheekbones and signs of maturity. The observation favored masculine facial structures more than the soft, feminine ones. The blatant dismissal of certain faces is inherently rooted in misogyny. It reveals that women are seen as less competent than their male counterparts because of something as trifling as their looks.
This tendency to base a woman’s worth on her physical appearance is an age-old practice. A woman’s talent, dedication and hard work are futile if she fails to charm people with her beauty. She isn’t evaluated based on her skills but instead for her clothes, her hairstyle, her makeup and so on. One chipped nail caught on tape and her political views are instantly chucked into the trash can. The Trinamool Congress MP, Nusrat Jahan, has also been on the receiving end of this discrimination. She was trolled mercilessly by netizens on her decision to wear western attire to the parliament. A few even went as far as to call her disrespectful for not dressing up in the traditional Indian ensemble. Nusrat Jahan’s ingenuous act of dressing to her heart’s content was met with several raised eyebrows and this reflects a deep, sexist practice of measuring a woman’s credibility through her clothes. Their male counterparts, however, are never policed for their choices in such a ghastly manner. A woman has to bend over backward for her opinions to be considered legitimate, while a man can just speak and command power.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are innumerable instances of Indian female politicians being scrutinized for even adorning traditional jewelry. The BJP leader, Smriti Irani, has been subjected to vile, sexist remarks from Jaydeep Kawade. The PRP leader remarked, “Let me tell you a thing about Smriti Irani. She wears a big bindi on her forehead and someone told me that when a woman changes her husband frequently, the size of her bindi keeps growing.” The leader’s argument is shameful, nonsensical and adopts a derogatory tone towards every Indian woman. This makes us wonder- in the age of gender equality, why are women viewed as nothing, but eye-candies? Why do men naturally possess a ‘political face’, yet there exist pre-conceived notions about what a female politician should look like? Why does society advocate for women’s empowerment but binds them with chains and pulls them down to the depths of the abyss in the same breath?
The answer to those questions lies in deep-rooted misogyny and the false belief that men are more suited for roles of leadership in political arenas. For a woman to succeed in politics, her appearance is of paramount importance, more so than her skills and competency. The question that remains is- will women ever be able to soar as free as a bird, detach themselves from the shackles of patriarchy and be fairly judged for their aptitude and not for how silky their hair is? Until we have more representation of women in the political sphere, it will be an arduous task to alter the prevalent political face. We might have made considerable strides away from the wretched treatment of women in the 1800s but I believe we still have a long, rugged road ahead of us.