History of Feminism

But the most telling detail is the way it described the female MPs as walking “the Downing Street catwalk”. Because in the deluded mindset of the Mail and many other media outlets, women exist to be looked at, and for their hotness to be judged accordingly, hence the paper’s insistence that women “flaunt” their legs (when they are in fact just walking) or that they are on a “catwalk” (when they are simply on their way to work.) McVey cravenly, or maybe just obtusely, insisted she wasn’t bothered by the Mail’s coverage because “it highlights all these wonderful women”. Yes, and their thighs. Oh, thank you for thinking I’m hot, Daily Mail!

Hillary Clinton’s hotness or otherwise has, of course, long been a source of public debate, from discussions about her “cankles” to musings over whether her fondness for trouser suits suggests she’s “confused about her gender”.

But wait, you cry. Waddabboutdamenz?! Surely male politicians’ looks and fashion choices are discussed too, yeah? Indeed they are, strawman reader. But when a male politician’s looks and clothes are discussed, they are done so in regards to how statesmanlike he looks, how in-charge-of-the-red-button he seems – not whether some newspaper editor wants to give him one. And anyway, seeing as women are still – despite the talk of Manageddon this week – in the minority in American and British governments, any comparison between treatment meted out to them and male politicians by the press is, from the off, bogus.

So, can we imagine a world in which women are not judged primarily on their hotness or notness? Probably not, no. But maybe we can imagine a world in which a woman wasn’t expected to be grateful because some idiot male journalist drools over her. Man, that would be so hot.