By Isabel Roessler-Partridge

When the Daily Mail published an article describing Chancellor Rachel Reeves as looking like she was having "a hormonal collapse from another femme failure who can't cope when the going gets tough", and compared our Chancellor to "a woman who wilts like a stick of damp rhubarb at the first sign of trouble," it didn't just insult one woman – it exposed the toxic misogyny that infects British journalism.

‍The Double Standard That Shames Our Democracy

This attack on the Chancellor isn't an isolated incident. It's part of an escalating pattern of sexist coverage that treats women politicians as sexualised objects first, leaders second.

In June, the Daily Express ran yet another "sexiest politician" poll, proudly declaring Angela Rayner had "leapt [...] to claim the top spot". Not for her work as Deputy Prime Minister, not for her policy agenda, but for her ranking in a newspaper beauty contest, which would never be applied to male politicians in the same way.

MP Kim Leadbeater faces similar treatment, described as "mumsy" (The Telegraph 2025) in coverage that reduced her political contributions to domestic stereotypes. Analysis of media coverage of May’s leadership, especially during moments of visible emotion or political difficulty, often used gendered language to suggest weakness or ‘hysteria’, reinforcing sexist tropes about women in power.

The contrast with male politicians is stark. When Boris Johnson faced Parliament after unlawfully suspending it, he "brushed off cries of 'Resign!' and dared his foes to try to topple him... showing no sign of contrition during the more than three-hour question-and-answer session".

The parliamentary atmosphere during Brexit debates was described as "toxic" with "passions inflamed; angry words uttered" on all sides. When Attorney General Geoffrey Cox displayed "barrister's bluster" that left Labour MP Barry Sheerman "visibly shake and turn crimson as he raged", it was treated as normal parliamentary theatre.

But when Rachel Reeves shed a tear over a "personal matter," the response was immediate and gendered– one which called her competence into question, with former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng claiming she wasn't up to the job because "you've got to keep it together", and Nigel Farage declaring that Reeves looked "terrible" during the incident. This underscores how male politicians' angry outbursts are rarely treated as disqualifying in the same way.

This double standard is well-documented in research. In a 2025 U.S. News analysis, Amanda Hunter from the Barbara Lee Family Foundation noted that "an angry or forceful man might be seen as confident, while a woman expressing those same traits would be viewed as difficult. And in the modern era, with men like former House Speaker John Boehner and former President Barack Obama tearing up publicly at times of tragedy, men are often viewed positively for being vulnerable, while crying women are often seen as weak."

The Washington Post (2014) made this disparity explicit: "Women in politics, meanwhile, have never had the luxury of showing much emotion at all. They are expected to thread an impossible needle: Confident, forceful speech will be heard as "shrill" and hectoring; showing no emotion will brand them as robotic and inauthentic; succumbing to a single tearful moment will confirm that they just feel too much."

Ultimately, the pattern extends across parties, positions, and contexts – from Angela Rayner's "Basic Instinct" coverage to the treatment of Theresa May during Brexit negotiations.

As former transport secretary Louise Haigh revealed in May 2025, this goes beyond individual newspapers. She exposed a pattern of "misogynistic" and "sexist" briefings from Downing Street itself, targeting female cabinet ministers. When asked if she would describe the pattern as sexist and misogynistic, Haigh didn't hesitate: "All of the above."

The Parliamentary Response

Caroline Noakes, Chair of the cross-party Women and Equalities Committee, didn't mince words in their recent report 'Equality in the heart of democracy: A gender sensitive House of Commons', stating that  "The most glaring problem is the shocking abuse and misogyny which all women in politics, and especially minority ethnic women, suffer. This must not become an accepted part of the job."

The Committee has launched formal inquiries into how media coverage contributes to "sexist and misogynistic attitudes" – a direct acknowledgement that press treatment of women politicians has become a democratic crisis.

Why This Matters: The Research Evidence

This isn't just about hurt feelings or political correctness. Academic research demonstrates real harm:

A comprehensive 2023 review by Santoniccolo and colleagues found that exposure to stereotyping media representations:

●    Strengthens beliefs in gender stereotypes

●    Fosters sexism and harassment

●    Stifles women's career ambitions

●    Creates tolerance for abuse

Vander Pas and Aaldering's research (2020) analysed media coverage across Western democracies, finding systematic bias: women politicians receive less policy-focused coverage and more appearance-based commentary than male counterparts.

The University of Surrey (2023) specifically examined UK political reporting, concluding that "sexist and impossible standards are still entrenched" in British journalism.

From Headlines to Harassment: The Pipeline of Abuse

Research by Esposito and Breeze (2022)reveals how newspaper coverage directly fuels online abuse. They documented a cascade effect where gendered language in mainstream media triggers waves of online harassment against female MPs.

Phillips' 2025 study found clear links between appearance-focused media coverage and threats to women politicians' safety. When newspapers reduce women to stereotypes, they legitimise more extreme forms of abuse. When the Daily Mail calls the Chancellor a "femme failure" who "wilts like damp rhubarb," they're not just insulting her – they're signalling to every misogynist that she's a legitimate target.

A Decade of Regulatory Failure

Perhaps most shocking is the response –or lack thereof – from the sham press regulator. Until 2024, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) had never upheld a single complaint about sexist coverage, despite receiving thousands of such complaints over ten years.

Only after Jeremy Clarkson's column about Meghan Markle generated 25,000 complaints – one of the most complained-about articles in UK press history – was there concession. Even then, IPSO's first-ever ruling on sexism came grudgingly, after unprecedented public pressure and an article which compared Markle to serial killers, suggested she had used her sexuality to manipulate Prince Harry, and called for her to pelted with excrement.

Bizarrely the ruling emphasized the cumulative effect of all three of those comments; implying that had Clarkson’s article only said one of those things, it would have been perfectly legitimate.

This regulatory failure enables newspapers to continue discriminatory coverage with impunity. When complaints about Angela Rayner's sexualised coverage were dismissed, when concerns about misogynistic reporting went nowhere, the message to editors was clear: carry on.

The Price We All Pay

When accomplished women are reduced to "hormonal" stereotypes, democracy suffers:

●    Young women see these headlines and reconsider political careers

●    Voters receive biased information that shapes electoral decisions

●    Policy debates are overshadowed by appearance-focused coverage

●    Democratic representation suffers as talented women are driven away

As Weidhase's Brexit research (2023)demonstrates, gendered media framing undermines women's authority in ways their male colleagues never experience. This isn't just unfair – it impoverishes our political discourse and weakens our democracy.

The Systemic Nature of the Problem

When government sources feed misogynistic narratives to willing publications, we're dealing with institutional sexism that requires institutional solutions.

Louise Haigh's revelations about sexist briefings from Downing Street show this goes beyond rogue newspapers. The Women and Equalities Committee's current investigation recognises this, examining how media content shapes "attitudes towards women and girls" across society. Their work acknowledges what victims have long known: press misogyny doesn't exist in isolation – it both reflects and reinforces broader cultural problems.

What Needs to Change

The Clarkson ruling proves that public pressure works.

Whether you are an individual or part of a charity or campaign, you can help make a difference by:

●    Sharing examples of discriminatory coverage like the ‘hormonal collapse’ article with the charity The Press Justice Project (“PJP”), which investigates press wrongdoing, helps with IPSO complaints, and works with both individuals and organisations

●    Challenge sexist narratives by supporting regulated media which focuses on women’s policy achievements and not their appearance

●    Urge your local MP to take a stand on press reform, and to campaign for independent press regulation

●    If you aren’t already – become a Hacked Off supporter by filling in the form on our website, and keep up to date with our latest campaigns!

Time for Real Change

The evidence is clear: discriminatory coverage drives women from politics, shapes public opinion through bias rather than facts, and creates an environment where harassment thrives. After a decade of regulatory inaction, only coordinated public pressure has begun to create accountability. Commenting, Fawcett Chief Exec, Penny East said “This is a blatant example of the misogyny that too many women face every single day. When women in public life are targeted by reductive commentary like this it strengthens toxic tropes. This harms all of us.

We need more women in power and in politics and we need to be treated as equal to men once we're there, because we are. I look forward to the day when media misogyny is consigned to the history books and women and girls are equal and free to fulfil their potential creating a stronger, happier, better future for us all."

Every citizen who values democratic representation has a stake in this fight. Whether it's Rachel Reeves today oranother female politician tomorrow, we must demand better from our press. The crude stereotypes and biological reductionism belong in history, not on tomorrow's front pages.

Join us in demanding change. Monitor coverage, work with the PJP on complaints, and support organisations working for press accountability. Democracy depends on it.