"Why should we not expect people in the public eye in positions of influence to be better than the average common mortal?"
Um, we do. We expect them to be exceptionally educated and/or experienced, with superior strategic and diplomatic skills.
But those of us who take a minute to think things through do not expect them to look like the man in the Gillette ad, if male. Because that's a fantasy of what a 'powerful man' would look like, and anyone who really believes in it is deluded (and arguably should be disenfranchised.)
It follows therefore (for those of us who try to follow an equitable line) that we don't expect a woman of influence to look as though they were in the L'oreal ad. Because that would be deluded ...blah.. arguably disenfranchised.. blah etc.
If it were, on balance, looking as though said deluded person had differing standards for men, and women of influence, that would bespeak not shallowness, but an interesting (because counterintuitive) and self-loathing (because directed towards one's own) misogyny.
Hmm. An analysis of this group of women might notice that they share a terror of any form of loss of control.
All inequitable power systems delegate to 'enforcers' - trusted members of the oppressed group who, in return for small favours and very limited influence, ensure that social pressures favouring the dominant group are disseminated . This group is invested in the power system because, even though things are crap for them, they're not quite as crap as they are for the rest of their kind.
Ah... a mediaeval or Taliban hag, sucking all joy and pleasure from the lives of others, in return for being in charge of the cooking pot.