Senator Krysten Sinema is fashioning herself as a maverick, like many Arizona senators before her. Yet she has done so in a clumsy and disappointing manner, letting down many in her home state who voted for her under the promise of pursuing a more liberal agenda than her predecessors. She is not well-liked by a majority of Democrats. Arizonans are increasingly frustrated at her refusal to work with her party to pass the Build Back Better Act, derailing the Biden agenda alongside West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. These are all valid criticisms of Sinema. So why do the journalists looking to condemn the Arizona Senator insist on getting in their own way?
On October 2, 2021, The New York Times published an article titled “Sinema Stars in her Own Film.” A recent Slate piece on Senator Kyrsten Sinema featured a subheading reading, “her style has overtaken her substance.” News outlets just can’t seem to help themselves in mentioning Sinema’s colorful fashion sense—subliminally (or not so subliminally) zeroing in on her femininity with each remark. Reputable columnists looking to produce a successful critique of Senator Sinema will not find the answer in these tired arguments; in fact, it may even backfire.
The United States Senate has seen fifty-eight female senators. Three hundred ninety-five women have served in the House of Representatives. Why do we still seem to lack the language to discuss the women in these positions? Journalists continue to frame female politicians as image-oriented, consider AOC à la Met Gala, while equally conscious male politicians needn’t consider whether or not their flashy tie will be the next Politico headline.
Female politicians are lauded for their fashion sense in the media. Campaigns use the savvy stylings of their candidates to promote them. Personality cults form based on the intrigue of a woman who can legislate and dress herself until that woman lets us down. We praise the femininity of our legislators until we can weaponize it against them.
I am of the opinion that the moment you invoke flashy attributes, you have lost your own case. Not only is it problematic, it is sloppy. Consider the Trump playbook: Do something genuinely harmful to the country, then tweet something outrageous. The media will latch on to the zany tweet, the shiny object, rather than the act of damage. Consequently, Trump can criticize the media for ignoring real issues to focus on his personal life. So how far can these comments on Sinema’s unconventional style even take an argument? Such comments are sexist and they detract from the substantive policy conversation that desperately needs to be had. If an article simultaneously criticizes Sinema’s cozying up to big pharma and her “Dangerous Creature” sweater, which point do you think her supporters will invoke to poke a hole in the author’s reasoning?
If we don’t begin to take our female politicians seriously, we make it easier for them to take advantage of us. Talk about a lose-lose.
