Earlier this week, I wrote an op-ed with a constructive critique of Vice President Kamala Harris’ sense of style, offering a strategy for how she could better leverage her wardrobe for political success. I anticipated some negative reactions given the high-pressure pressure cooker context that is T-minus two weeks to election day. But I did not expect such a chorus of criticism; the op-ed (and I) received much backlash—some of it foul-mouthed and vitriolic—labeling my thesis sexist, and worse still.
Even actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who is stumping for Harris, weighed in with her signature “shut UP” in a Threads post. But as an actor—and a Veep star, no less—she surely knows the importance of a wardrobe stylist? And politics is theater, with American presidential elections playing out on the biggest stage in the world.
I would argue, however, that it’s sexist not to acknowledge the ways women—especially female politicians—are held to a higher standard in their appearance, affect, output and just about every aspect. Indeed, I’m sure it’s a coincidence, but the day after my op-ed was published, Harris debuted a fresh new look at a Georgia rally: a casual tee tucked into jeans, paired with a soft blazer, accented by a strong belt, bold jewelry and, of course, the most important accessory—former President Barack Obama raising his hand with hers in a victory pose.
Some asked why Harris is being critiqued when Donald Trump, an orange-faced frump, isn’t. That’s the point: Trump, a man, can get away with it! Wouldn’t it be a better world if that wasn’t the case? Yes. But must we navigate the reality of the world in which we live, with the double standards, patriarchy and sexism that we seek to dismantle? Also yes.
My critics are missing my point, which is meant to help women navigate perceptions to get to the highest levels of power. I have done this for myself, for tech founders and other business leaders. Unlike her opponent, the youthful, vibrant and telegenic Harris can use style and semiotics as powerful psychological weapons in her communications arsenal.
As Catherine Jackson, the image consultant quoted in my original piece, said to a critic on LinkedIn: “This is about using everything in her toolkit to win and if she wants to influence, inspire and motivate, the significance of style and the psychology of color, even at a subconscious level, should never be underestimated.”
We know that messaging matters. (And especially when new polling tells us the race is neck and neck.) The dueling campaigns have collectively poured more than a billion dollars into defining their candidates’ images, according to The Wall Street Journal—but Harris and her allies have spent nearly twice as much as Trump, “much of it aimed at introducing her on more favorable terms to voters.”
I’ve written previously about the psychological underpinnings that impact how female politicians are viewed, and how women can be sunk by a dynamic called the “warmth-competence” matrix, coined by psychologists at Princeton University. Women who are seen as “warm” are also perceived as “incompetent,” and vice versa; if a woman looks “competent,” she come across as an ice princess—as Hillary Clinton was judged. If she appears too welcoming, like the mom next door, the perception is she can’t handle a tough gig—like, you know, the presidency.
Studies also show that if women are seen to try too hard to compensate for one of these seemingly-lacking attributes—warmth or competence—their efforts backfire. Harris’ boxy suits placate sexist expectations that women must be masculine and not feminine in order to succeed, but don’t do her justice or even really ring true. And that’s why it’s called a “double bind.”
The best way women in her position—or, indeed, many positions of power—can succeed is through subtext. In Harris’ case, given her rich cultural background, there are so many ways she can communicate her warmth, her identity and her youthfulness through style—crucially, in ways that would also express her competence.
We must be strategic about navigating the sexist standards that women face, even in the 21st century, and call it out—doing so doesn’t make us sexist ourselves.
Furthermore, few men have the standing to make these points to female leaders. So it’s up to women to speak truth to each other. To show each other how to go all in, to manifest our success by analyzing the realities of how we are perceived, as well as how we want to be perceived— because we shouldn’t compromise on that deeply existential choice in our personal agency. This way, we can put our best foot forward.