Anthony Giddens • Sociology 6th edition

Blog




 

Latest Updates

14
Apr
2010

So where’s your wife, then?

It’s UK election time again and, yes, the media are still reproducing and circulating the same old entrenched ideas about the place of women in the political sphere. It hardly comes as a surprise, but that doesn’t make it any less depressing and the eagerness of political parties to play the game is dismal. Here’s Sarah Brown, dutiful and loving wife of the prime minister, posing for the cameras. And there’s Samantha Cameron, pounding the campaign trail with her opposition-leader husband. Pick up a copy of Hello! and see the happy couples smiling and holding hands. Read about Sarah’s polka-dot dress and Samantha wearing comfortable clothes now that she’s pregnant. It’s just one media event after another. Samantha on WebCameron at last, Sarah endlessly on Twitter.

But wait, surely someone’s missing? When the main political parties launched their campaigns in early April, the Lib Dem leader was accosted by reporters. Where was Miriam? Nick Clegg’s wife, Miriam González Durántez, was nowhere to be seen. How could this be? Because it was a weekday - she was at work. Not propping up her husband, just getting on with her own job. Well really!

None of this is ‘progressive’, as the main parties are claiming their policies are. None of it is even politics. In-depth reports about ‘the SamCam effect’ and endless discussion of ‘the Sarah Brown strategy’ are not signs of progress. In fact, in terms of female representation, it’s beginning to feel as if we’ve regressed to the 1950s and I’m heartily sick of it. The real line-up in the current election campaign is exclusively male. It’s almost as though the last 40 or 50 years never happened. The only visible, and occasionally audible, women are two US-style ‘first ladies’. These women’s participation in their spouses’ work is fine, of course, but they are not elected representatives and they have no political power in their own right. They are publicly displayed as decorative supports who add a humanizing, personalizing touch to their husbands’ political profiles. This not only diminishes women’s participation in politics, but also degrades our whole political process. An election is supposed to be about policies, not politicians’ wives. Now if we were seeing public displays of same-sex civil partners, now that would be some sort of political statement – a challenge to heteronormativity, at least.

The personal will always be political. But transforming politics into the personal? That’s just absurd.

Mary Talbot is Secretary of the International Gender and Language Association. This month sees the release of the second edition of her popular book Language and Gender, a clear and engaging overview of foundational research and current trends in the interdisciplinary study of language, gender, and sexuality, and ‘an essential guide for new generations of students’ (Mary Bucholtz, UCSB) .

 

 


Comments

In order to post a comment you must sign in.
Reply by: MarieB on 30.04.10 - 1116 days ago

I completely agree with this article. It makes me really angry not only that politicians’ wives are treated as little more than appendages but also that these women allow themselves to be treated and represented in such a way. I would be interested to know what their motivations are; do they genuinely want to fill a supporting role or do they feel that they have to behave in a certain way? Do the public have expectations of how leaders’ wives should behave? This isn’t just a British issue either; at international summits there are just as many column inches devoted to Carla Bruni’s choice of shoes and Michelle Obama’s dresses as there are to the political issues being discussed. It’s also noticeable that it is only female partners who are the subject of such media scrutiny (Angela Merkel’s husband for example, rarely accompanies her on state visits.) Why does a politician’s wife think that it is acceptable to be portrayed as little more than a demure clothes-horse?

Reply by: rich_s on 04.05.10 - 1112 days ago

yeah, I agree with MarieB about what the wives think about this. i hate to say it, but i always think Sarah Brown's tweeting is like the only way she can get a word in - like a mother having little digs at their kids for not tidying up, or a steady stream of little nagging or something. she doesn;t seem to get to speak fully or properly. i don;t know if the media treated cherie blair any differently but i think she came across as a serious and independent part of the Blair duo. after all, she made it onto the One Show to talk about *her*, rather than about tony!

Reply by: WorkShy on 05.05.10 - 1111 days ago

The recent TV debates show how much politics now is about charisma and not substance. The focus on Leaders' Totty is just an extension of this. It's the world we live in - get used to it/

Reply by: Angela on 06.05.10 - 1110 days ago

It's sadly true. I think if we look back to the 1990s, we had Hilary Clinton and Cherie Booth both attempting to pursue their own high-flying careers whilst their husband were off trying to ruin the world, but the media seemed to think that such independent wives were incompatible. It really is as if we've all gone back to the 1950s where wives were decorative and fragrantly silent. Sigh...