Public Stunts and Political Statements

In Australian politics, women’s clothing has often been used as a tool for spectacle or criticism. Pauline Hanson’s infamous burka stunt in the Senate was framed as a political prank, yet it reinforced the idea that women’s attire is open for public debate. More recently, Senator Penny Wong was criticised for not wearing a dress to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s wedding, showing how even personal choices at private events are scrutinised. These examples highlight how women in public life are judged not only for their words and actions but also for their appearance, often in ways that men are not.

Clothing and Blame in Sexual Assault

There remains a persistent belief in some quarters that what a woman wears can provoke sexual attacks or assaults. Survivors of sexual assault often find themselves accused or judged because of their clothing, as if their attire somehow invited violence. This victim-blaming culture shifts responsibility away from perpetrators and places it unfairly on women. Courts and media reports have documented cases where defence arguments focus on the victim’s skirt length or neckline rather than the crime itself. Such narratives perpetuate harmful myths and discourage women from reporting assaults.

Professional Judgement Based on Appearance

Women’s clothing choices also affect how they are perceived in the workplace. A woman may be deemed less capable of doing her job if she dresses outside expected norms. Something as simple as wearing high heels can determine outcomes: while heels are often seen as professional or stylish, they are also a cause of pain and long-term foot deformities. Conversely, women who choose flat shoes may be judged as less polished or less ambitious, even though their choice is practical and healthier. These contradictions reveal how professional standards are often built on arbitrary expectations rather than genuine measures of competence.

Respect, Makeup, and Social Expectations

Society often rewards women who appear “dolled up” with makeup and fashionable attire, while those who choose respectable but plain clothing may command less respect. This double standard places pressure on women to conform to beauty ideals, even when those ideals are costly, uncomfortable, or unhealthy. The expectation to wear makeup, style hair, and accessorise appropriately adds hours of unpaid labour to women’s daily routines. Men rarely face equivalent demands, underscoring the gendered nature of appearance-based respect.

Clothing and Client Relations

In business and community settings, how a woman dresses can determine whether she secures a client or not. Presentation is often judged more harshly for women than men, with attire seen as a reflection of competence, reliability, and even morality. A woman in a tailored suit may be taken seriously, while another in casual but neat clothing may be dismissed. These judgements ignore the substance of her skills and contributions, reducing professional success to surface-level impressions.

How Much to Reveal, How Much to Cover?

Across so many areas of life, women are told what they should reveal and what they should cover. From politics to workplaces, from weddings to courtrooms, clothing becomes a battleground where women’s autonomy is challenged. The question remains: why should women’s worth, safety, and credibility be tied to what they wear? The debate over modesty versus self-expression continues to shape women’s lives, with cultural, religious, and professional pressures colliding. Ultimately, the fixation on women’s clothing reflects deeper issues of control, power, and inequality. Until society shifts focus from appearance to ability, women will continue to face unfair scrutiny over their wardrobes.