The villain they scripted for her: the limitation of women in politics.

The political sphere has always been heavily male dominated. Decision making sits
in male hands, with statistics stating that 64% of elected local officials; 73% of
parliamentarians; 77% of cabinet ministers and 90% of heads of state are male.
Currently it is estimated that it will take another 162 years to completely address the
gender inequality within politics. Whilst Female representation in this sphere has
improved, with female parliamentary presence doubling since 1995, that
representation is still heavily limited by sexism. Women in politics often face
prejudice for their gender, being restricted by a particular gender narrative that
poisons empowerment. Yet when they try to break free of this mould by rejecting such
discourse and challenging it, the narrative is often twisted into something villainous.

One inescapable factor limiting female politicians is the major presence of gender
narrative in political discourse. A university of Florida study revealed that when
looking at candidates’ agendas and actions reported in the media, male politicians
are commonly linked with words such as courageous, persistent, independent, and
aggressive. However, female candidate’s agendas are often accompanied by
descriptions of their physical appearance or gender attributes.

Not only that, but gender can even influence voter thinking before candidates have
even had a chance to express themselves politically. A study from Durham
University involving a simulated congressional election showed that even before the
start of the simulated election, voters had more uncertainty towards female
candidates than men. The female candidates subsequently underwent increased
scrutiny from voters. The study found that when the male candidates deviated from
party lines it was seen as bold leadership, whilst female deviation was regarded as
disloyal.

Sometimes it even goes as far as to employing derogatory terms that specifically
target female candidates. During the 2010 UK general election, the term ‘Cameron
Cutie’ was coined to refer to female prospective parliamentary candidates from the
conservative party. Conversely, the male equivalent that was used was ‘mates of
Dave.’ Clearly there is a large gap between the male and female discourse here,
infantilising the female candidates whilst promoting the boyish nature of the male
candidates. Therefore, female politicians are often boxed into a particular narrative
where their gender is more interesting and newsworthy than what they can offer as a
politician.

In the existence of a synonymous relationship between femineity and weakness in
the political sphere, some female politicians have fought against it. They present as
harsher and stronger to escape the narrative. Yet this rejection often leads to
villainization of female politicians. One example of this is Hilary Clinton. Hillary had to
be more ruthless to elevate herself as a female in her political climate, but this in turn
led to scrutiny. She was a key figure, being the first female nominee for president
from a major political party. But this strength was twisted into a villainous narrative.

The media was particularly guilty of this, describing her as a ‘servant of Satan’ and
contributed to the circulation of #killary. In 2015, her opposing candidate Donald
Trump even retweeted a comment stating ‘”If Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what
makes her think she can satisfy America?” Hence weaponizing her gender. Trump
even directly referred to her in debates as the devil. Yet when we look at Donald
Trump now, and how he has tainted America, it really raises the question of why was
it Hillary who was deemed the villain?

We are seeing this currently with the suspected appointment of Dame Antonia
Romero, who is rumoured to become the first female appointed as cabinet secretary
in the UK. Whilst she is facing some allegations on bullying which is currently
tarnishing her image, and she is being criticised for her tendency for self-promotion,
it is key to ask the question – would she be facing this same level of scrutiny if she
was a man? Would the self-promotion be interpreted as strength if she were male?
Would other male politicians be so eager to carefully pick apart her image if it were
his image instead?

Overall, female empowerment in politics is heavily limited by prejudice. When
women do not fit the pre-meditate Mold of weakness, the narrative is reversed and
they become evil, threatening, and dangerous. A quote from a ‘Medium’ article sums
this up neatly in one single quote ‘it doesn’t matter what the woman has to say, the
fact that she has spoken out at all made her a target.’

• feminism
• gender inequality
• politics