Sexism and politics: General elections should not be beauty pageants | Straits Times op-ed 10 May 2025

Don’t be too young. Don’t be too old. Don’t be unattractive—but don’t be too attractive either.

This is the impossible balancing act women in politics are expected to perform: while their male counterparts are assessed largely on policy and performance, female candidates have to fight a parallel campaign involving their age, looks, marital status and wardrobe, often eclipsing their political positions.

Just look at this cursory snapshot of social media comments on women’s candidates during GE2025 that we at SHE (SG Her Empowerment) compiled:

The snapshot clearly shows that across platforms and parties, women candidates are subject to toxic comments pertaining to their gender.

Women in Politics: Judged Before They’re Heard

Once a woman enters the political spotlight, her appearance becomes public property. From Reddit threads to Facebook groups, her weight, facial features, and clothing are dissected. Political forums become beauty contests, and policy discussions are sidelined.

Those who don’t conform to conventional beauty ideals are mocked. Those who do are sexualised. A female candidate’s misstep becomes ammunition not for fair critique, but for insults grounded in gender and appearance.

Post from: https://www.reddit.com/r/SingaporeRaw/comments/1k5ue62/where_is_the_baby_face/

Even compliments carry baggage. Online “fanclubs” spring up around women candidates, but their admiration often focuses primarily on looks—with overtly sexual undertones. When political competence is acknowledged, it’s often paired with remarks about attractiveness, suggesting substance is only palatable if it’s photogenic.

This culture of objectification isn’t new. Back in GE2011, Nicole Seah and Tin Pei Ling—both first-time candidates—were pitted against each other in the media in a manner more akin to reality TV rivals than political peers. A similar dynamic persists today, amplified by the speed and reach of social media.

In one recent Reddit post, a netizen claimed a female candidate had “more substance than any of [other parties’] flower pots.” While meant as praise, it reduced other women to decoration—highlighting how even positive comparisons can reinforce gendered tropes.

Post from: https://www.reddit.com/r/SingaporeRaw/comments/1k9vk3e/our_stephanie_tan_psp_has_more_substance_than_any/  

As Workers’ Party candidate Alexis Dang aptly put it, “All of us here are multifaceted individuals, so I don't think one image can define us.”

Ageism, Marital Status, and the Double Bind

Women in politics face a no-win scenario when it comes to age. Older candidates are mocked as “aunties.” Younger ones are either dismissed as inexperienced or subject to cynical speculation about scandal—based on nothing more than how they look.

Marital status also becomes fair game. Single women are scrutinised for not being married; married women are asked how they’ll balance politics with family responsibilities. These lines have little to do with a candidate’s actual capability. Are male candidates subject to similar questioning?

Post and comments from: https://www.facebook.com/groups/348293689060800/posts/1784534225436732  

The Weight of Intersectionality

Sexism in politics often intersects with other forms of discrimination—particularly race and religion.

Red Dot United’s Liyana Dhamirah was subjected to such vicious racialised and misogynistic online abuse that she filed a police report. Her party rightly condemned the remarks as “blatant, offensive attacks on her identity as a Malay-Muslim woman.”

Such hostility doesn’t just shape public perception. It determines who feels safe to step forward. When women—especially minority women—are forced to weigh their desire to serve against the personal cost of relentless abuse, many simply choose not to run.

That is a loss for Singapore—for both women and men.

What’s at Stake

When women are pushed out of the public sphere, we lose perspectives that are essential to good governance. A truly representative democracy cannot be built on conditions that devalue half the population before they’ve even had a chance to speak.

Singapore prides itself on being a meritocracy. But merit means more than just talent. Meritocracy also requires fairness—an environment where everyone has a shot, regardless of gender.

At SHE, we are committed to building that environment.

A Call to Action

Outrage alone isn’t enough. If we’re serious about making politics more representative, we must move beyond slogans and into structural change. That means:

·         Media outlets must audit how they’ve covered women in past elections—and stop entertaining appearance-based narratives.

·         Political parties should have:

o   Internal codes of conduct around gender bias and enforce them—even for staff, volunteers and “keyboard supporters”.

o   Protective media training for female candidates to counter harassment, shut down objectification, and redirect narratives back to policy.

o   Response teams to report, debunk, and neutralise online attacks—don’t leave women candidates to fight alone.

·         Voters should not just call out misogyny or report toxic content, but examine why we so often associate leadership with a particular look, tone, or gender. Are we commenting on the candidate’s political ability or importing irrelevant gender considerations?

Let’s stand with the women who run. Let’s demand a political culture that sees them as politicians, full-stop—not lightning rods for commentary on their bodies, ages or marital status. Representation isn’t just about who runs. It’s about whether they’re given a fair fight.

Only then can Singapore tap the full range of talent our society has to offer.