Perhaps the ponytail can be seen as a 'Feminist Symbol', but we mustn't reduce top-level athletes to their hairstyles

Today, The Guardian published this article claiming the ponytail is a feminist symbol. I opened this expecting a piece on what it means to be both a woman and an athlete; identities that at one point did not exist together, but instead, I read a piece predicting a summer hair trend.

Shielding yourself with your hair, fringe, or bangs is common for both boys and girls alike and can portray a lack of confidence or self-assuredness. Exposing your whole face can feel naked and unnatural, so seeing women with hair slicked back striding forward with their heads upward is indeed a claim of power.

Although I do agree with Jacqueline Kilikita, acting beauty director of Refinery29, that showing all of your face“indicates power and confidence,” the focus on the hair of the women at the pinnacle of their career seems superficial. I hope it would go without saying that there are countless things about women in football, the Lionesses, and female athletes, that are more symbolically feminist and historically poignant than their hair, but if it must be seen as what Kilikita names a “feminist symbol”, it is not because it is a way of “getting things done in style.”

“In style” reads as patronising and gendered. Like Prince William sat with only his daughter (not his son) and told the global-level athletes to “go out there and enjoy” themselves in the final of a renowned sport competition, is ‘in style’ an appropriate way to refer to athletes at the pinnacle of their career? I never have commentary of sportsmen being told they practice their sport ‘in style’, and if I do, it refers to their skill level and technical abilities, not their hair.

This is reminiscent of the Daily Mail headline “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it!” that chose to focus on the legs of the two leaders, Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May, over what they were discussing in the pictured meeting: the future relationship between Britain and Europe. In Authority Gap, Mary Ann Seighart comments on how women's appearance is often analysed and scrutinized more than that of men in the same fields, and that this comes from a reductive lack of professional respect: “As Angela Merkel discovered, “For a man, it’s no problem at all to wear a dark blue suit a hundred days in a row, but if I wear the same blazer four times within two weeks, the letters start pouring in.” Seighart argues that men need only to shower, shave, and brush their hair for an audience’s respect, whereas women spend time, money, and effort to look appropriately groomed, and still face “consistent harping on their appearance.” Imagine the disdain if a female politician or Prime Minister appeared in public looking as dishevelled as Boris Johnson often does, she argues. As Hilary Clinton wrote in her account of the 2016 presidential campaign “I’ve never gotten used to how much effort it takes just to be a woman in the public eye. I once calculated how many hours I spent having my hair and makeup done…it came to about 600 hours.” 

Arguably, a public-facing role such as a politician will come with commentary on appearance and public perception. But the Lionesses, who must prioritise practically over appearance, and blindly readjust their headbands if their hair gets in their way, are still facing commentary on their looks. Even in a sphere where appearance and style are of minimal importance, they cannot escape the assumption that their hair is ‘in style’ - we can hardly comprehend a woman that doesn’t spend 600 hours in hair and makeup for their industry.

This preoccupation with a woman’s appearance both by other women and by wider society means that their actual achievements take a back seat whilst how they look whilst achieving them takes the fore. Of course, this article was in the Fashion section of the Guardian, and the Guardian has praised the sporting achievement of the team tenfold in more appropriate sections, but I hoped to read an article on the feminist symbolism of the hairstyle, its rejection of what the male-gaze sees as feminine, but instead, I was met with predictions of the next summer trend. 

Of course, there is nuance. Fashion (including hair trends) is one of the many things often seen as juvenile and unsophisticated because of its association with femininity – perhaps I am partaking in this by seeing insult in ‘reducing’ athletes to a hair trend.

I do believe that the central message of the article has a point – the sportswoman’s ponytail is poignant – but not because it looks stylish. 

Female athletes are often critiqued for their affiliation to the masculine, whether this be their appearance, mannerisms, hair, or conduct, whilst also being punished for not being men; being paid and respected less, taken less seriously, and critiqued as people and sports players more harshly. 

Sue Anstiss believes that “women’s sport doesn’t need to copy everything about men’s sport to grow”. In the same way, women athletes should not need to reduce their women-ness to be respected by their sport. The ponytail eliminates an argument against women athletes, just as tampons and sports bras also do: allowing woman to exist as both a woman and a successful athlete. Whether it be corsets and skirts, long hair, motherhood, weakness, or the need to be ladylike, boundaries to sport were created for women and each was associated with the innately feminine. One by one, women eliminated them. The Rational Dress Society of 1881 campaigned against restrictive clothing, women started wearing shorts, women wore tampons and sports bras and trained in the oversized men's kits where they weren't provided funding for their own. Femininity is often contrasted with strength, power, ability, and athleticism, but women continue to be feminine women and continue to excel in their sport.

Existing both as a typically feminine woman whilst playing a sport that respects them less for being so is a claiming of womanhood that is undoubtedly feminist. The ponytail tail to me says ‘Yes I have long hair when I want it, yes I style it when I want to, but now, playing, I need it out my face.' Seeing women as multifaceted, strong and feminine, for example, is the very essence of feminism. Seeing women play in nail polish or eyelash extensions to me is feminist not because they are playing in style, but because they are being typically feminine in an industry that both critiques them for looking masculine whilst punishing them for not being male. It says to me 'I am a sportswoman.'

At work during this speculation is the fact that women and women’s choices can exist without being either feminist or anti-feminist.

Perhaps writing 1,000 words about a woman’s hair in response to a different 1,000 words on a woman’s hair is the very issue – the female appearance is painstakingly scrutinised for the good and the bad.

Perhaps imposing a feminist meaning onto a single woman’s choice is politicising someone who just wishes to exist. But if we must make the ponytail a feminist symbol, I believe there is more to it than style.