I meant to link to Danny Hayes’ research on female politicians and physical appearance a week ago, but #bloggerfail. Let me do it now and then pick up on the ongoing controversy.
In the Washington Post, Danny Hayes and Susan Lawless discussed a recent research project, which found that negative coverage of a woman’s appearance doesn’t have a huge impact on their election.
But a recent study we conducted suggests otherwise. We find that women don’t pay a higher price than men for coverage of their appearance. Unflattering coverage does hurt, but it lowers voters’ assessments of both men and women equally. Like other emerging political science research, we show that voters don’t hold women and men to different standards on the campaign trail.
There’s some methodology fights going on between Hayes/Lawless and another organization that found that negative coverage of female candidates did matter.
At the same time, there’s another battle going on about Nancy Davis’ appearance. Some blog says she’s cute, because she’s had some work done. Althouse and Slate sneers. I sneer, too.
I suspect that looks matter in politics, just as they matter in any professional career. Nobody gets to be CEO without a neat wardrobe and a good haircut. However, I don’t think that you have look like a Barbie doll (or a Ken doll) to get elected. There’s a big difference between looking neat and polished and looking like Angelina Jolie.
Apt. 11d 
I’m not sure. I think there’s a skewing of what it means to look normal, which includes more fitness, better makeup, better teeth, better hair, and, yes, botox and plastic surgery.
The biggest change for Wendy Russel seems to be her hair (different color, straightening and styling — and a better photographer). I’m sure most people consider that change within bounds. It’s become standard to use braces to look better (not just to fix teeth) and some of the work these days, at very young ages, is designed to actually reshape the developing jaw. And, in some communities, nose reshaping, breast implants, . . . . have become practically standard.
As those changes occur around us, we start to redefine what looks different and the demands of looking “neat and polished” become higher.
LikeLike
Also, photos make people look better these days (not as much for candids, but certainly for any formal picture). These days I think most women’s professional photos are touched up a bit to remove a bit of shadows, wrinkles, pimples, to brighten eyes, darken lips and eyelashes, . . . .
LikeLike
The picture here reminds me, Hillary is going to be the next president unless she strangles a waitress or something.
LikeLike
At least, that’s how I see it. The signs are that the Republican primary will produce a candidate too far to the right to win and I can’t think who else might win the Democratic primary.
LikeLike