I think the issue is that there is an unlying assumption that BECAUSE she is a model, she is not intelligent, has no understanding of politics, and therefore has nothing to add to the conversation. You do a great job of highlighting this in your post by saying that you would feel the same way about a male model.

I would argue that people from all walks of life can make valuable, thoughtful, and meaningful contributions to political discourse. A person’s profession does not neccesarily define their intelligence level or their interest in and knowledege of politics. I am a college professor who not only lacked the intelligence (and lets face it, body shape, facial features, and height) to pursue modelling — I put in about 70–80 hours a week and get paid a fraction of what a model does — but also lack the time to delve into all the nuances of electoral politics and political systems in my “free time” reading. However, I would imagine that given my profession, people would listen to and respect my opinion, while a politically well educated model, line cook, or housekeeper may have their opinions dismissed.

In addition to this assumption that people in some careers are better able to contribute to political discussions than others, there is also an assumption that women’s opinions are less valuable than men’s. In my experience as a young, short, female professor, I have found that I have to work twice as hard as men in my field to recieve respect and recogntion for my work and from my students.

I really liked your post and think that it offers a great starting point to think about the intersectionality of identity — a female model is likely to be treated as less credible than a male model, but a male model may be treated as less credible than a female professor, who is treated as less credible than a male professor.