Systemic Sexism: Don’t Judge a Woman by her Red Bottoms
If your problem is that luxury brands exist, then say so. If your problem is that some people have buckets of money and others have none, then say so. If your problem is Michelle Rempel Garner is so out of touch that even her shoes annoy you, then say so. Skip the specious link between what she wears and what she says.
As with all prejudice, the most insidious kind of sexism is the systemic kind. The casual ways we (men, women, nonbinary people) view the world from the default male perspective. These small assumptions and judgements are more difficult to root out than the kind of obvious gender-based inequity that can be quantified on a HR form or a Human Rights Commission.
I have noticed that the refusal to accept that these gender-based assumptions and judgements exist is actually more prevalent among younger people than older.
In our 30s and under, it can feel for some like men and women are on equal footing.* From your workplace to your friend group, many people are facing similar kinds of challenges. It doesn’t always “feel” like some have it harder than others, as it pertains to cis peoples’ gender.
(*In this instance, I speak in the binary because I hope we can all agree that trans men, trans women and nonbinary people feel the impact of gender more keenly than cis men and cis women. Nothing in this essay is intended to take away from their struggles with inequity. That is an important issue on which I am not an expert, and so do not opine, other than to offer my unfailing support to their cause of equity and respect.)
Why Are These Young People Denying Subtle Bias Against Femmes?
The older you get, the higher you are likely to climb in your chosen field. More men make this climb than women. It’s not uncommon to become the lone femme voice in the room at those upper echelons. That’s when you really notice that the scrutiny you’ve faced has at times not been in good faith, equal to what your male peers face.
Appearance is one of those areas of unbalanced scrutiny. Wardrobe, aging, body type and personal grooming are all included in what I call “appearance.”
This is why I’m sensitive to a woman’s consumption habits being assessed as a stand-in for her overall values and indeed, value.
Our Choices Reflect Our Values, but We Define Those Values Ourselves
It’s obvious the two are linked of course. People buy what they buy because of their values. But others don’t know what drove the ownership of an item, so can’t judge what exactly it says about that person.
An analogy would be vegetarian/veganism. People make the choice because of their values, of course. But not because they all share the same values. I became a vegetarian because I saw how animals are slaughtered for meat while covering Canadian food crises over the last 20 years as a journalist. I simply no longer found meat appetizing after seeing factory meat production.
Meanwhile, others are vegan because they believe every kind of animal exploitation is inexcusable. Still others do it for health reasons. It’s impossible to say with accuracy, “oh you’re a vegan, that means you have values of x, y and z.”
The same logic can and should be applied to consumption choices of all kinds. It would be obviously sexist to say “You buy luxury shoes because you’re a woman and women like shoes,” but it’s equally inaccurate to say, “You buy luxury shoes, therefore you believe you’re worth more than others.”
This was how I read the subtext of a Tweet about Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner being criticized for her choice of footwear. It was not the first time so-called progressives have reduced her to her wardrobe to score a cheap shot.
A cheap shot is exactly how I would describe the attack on her shoes. Garner was wearing what some perceive to be expensive designer shoes. (Here’s a pair of red bottom shoes on Wish for $32. We have no idea how much MRG’s shoes cost at the time I’m writing this.) When the contrast between her feelings on luxury shoes and her feelings on Liberal vaccine expenditures was noted, the conversation predictably devolved.
I feel the need to underscore I’m no champion of Michelle Rempel Garner. (read: I’ve directed a ton of my shit posting toward her) Her comments about overspending on COVID vaccines are ridiculous. However a) criticizing every aspect of health procurement, including costs, is her job.
Literally. That is actually what the Official Opposition members are in parliament to do. I personally abhor the Conservative party, but I also believe someone needs to hold the Trudeau Liberals to account.
And b) we don’t know anything about her values vis à vis consumption habits. To make the leap that those are $1000 shoes, ergo she never again has the right to criticize government spending, is a partisan gadfly’s low blow and no more.
Why not just criticize her stance on the spending? Or note where the Harper government (of which she was a part) failed on procurement?
Answer: Because she is a woman.
Men and Women: Not the Same Scrutiny
I offer credit to my critics on Twitter who quite rightly pointed out we DO in fact criticize Justin Trudeau for his socks and Jagmeet Singh for his fancy watch. I was wrong when I said online that men “never” face wardrobe criticism.
A more accurate way to articulate what I was trying to say would be to note that men in certain positions are viewed with that level of petty scrutiny, but especially (though not exclusively) about items we view as frivolous because they’re associated with the likes and interests of femme people.
An opposition MP being judged for her wardrobe and a party leader’s every choice being judged are not the same thing. Show me a male opposition or back bench MP who has been derided about what his attire says, relative to the validity of his point.
Quite the opposite, on the rare occasion male parliamentarians’ sartorial choices are mentioned, it’s in appreciation or mild joshing, and not related to their performance.
Even in past serious criticism of Trudeau and Singh’s attire, the link was not made to their perspective being less of value due to the attire.
This may seem to some a subtle difference. However as I have said, it’s the subtle sexism that is the hardest to root out and therefore must be called out.
There is plenty to criticize in MRG’s comments about vaccines. But it’s petty, unnecessary and yes, sexist to imply her shoes further invalidate her already-easily-debunked viewpoint.
Why Should We Care
Some people basically said to me, “But Bridget, her criticism of vaccine price is the point that was being made by the shoe critique. You’re an idiot for caring about sexism when COVID is a separate and more important issue.”
I disagree. If anything, COVID has underscored insidious, oft-unexamined areas of misogyny.
Droves of women are leaving the workplace to care for children who aren’t in school. Why are women the ones who are more likely to be in charge of household work? Why are women more likely to make less money than a male spouse, and therefore more likely leave their job? Nearly two thirds of frontline workers are women. Vaccine side effects are more prevalent in women. Paid sick days disproportionately benefit women.
COVID is a women’s issue.
So when a woman in government is brushed aside using a sexist metric, it perpetuates negative outcomes for all women, and therefore perpetuates negative outcomes in the fight against COVID.
Professional Women and Wardrobe
A woman spending money on herself is uniformly more scrutinized than a man doing the same. Further, people splurging on themselves is viewed through our patriarchy-shaped lens.
For example, if a well-paid professional spends $8,000 on a Cannondale mountain bike, they are unlikely to be judged for not buying a less spendy bike of another brand. If they were, their justifications of “quality” or “customization” are likely to be taken at face value.
Wardrobe purchases, more likely to be enjoyed by women & femmes, automatically have less validity than vehicles or technology, which men consume more enthusiastically.
It’s Not About the Shoes
I acknowledge fully that spending Rolex money on a personal item seems out of touch when there are, say, unhoused people in the world. That’s a valid criticism.
The spirit of that argument has more to do with the overall inequity of wealth distribution, which disproportionately benefits men.
If your problem is that luxury brands exist, then say so. If your problem is that some people have buckets of money and others have none, then say so. If your problem is Michelle Rempel Garner is so out of touch that even her shoes annoy you, then say so. Skip the specious link between what she wears and what she says.
Don’t baselessly imply that a woman’s choice of what you believe to be a pair of costly shoes is inherently tied to her behaviour and comments.
All that does is perpetuate the myth that a woman’s appearance is an appropriate aspect by which to judge her contribution.
