Nancy Pelosi does dress well. So did Bill Clinton — in fact, I’d argue that Clinton is one of the best-dressed men in the country, at least when it comes to professional wear. I don’t remember a lengthy New York Times article about how he shook things up with his perfectly-fitting designer suits and his beautiful ties. I wonder why there’s a different standard? What a mystery.
“I am so sick of the matronly box — the rest of America doesn’t dress like that,” said Ms. Bono, 45, who, with her Palm Springs address, affection for the martial arts and her marriage to the late Sonny Bono, is decidedly un-Washingtonian.
“We all want to be taken seriously and you certainly don’t want to be too sexy,” added Ms. Bono, a California Republican, “but you have to maintain your femininity. Pelosi is a beautiful dresser. I’m hoping she has great impact — fashion-speaking, not politically speaking.”
Well, the rest of America isn’t wearing Armani suits, either, but ok.
Women should be attractive, but not sexy. Feminine, but serious. Blah blah blah.
During her first week on the job, Mrs. Pelosi clinched votes in the House on the minimum wage, financing for stem cell research and Medicare drug prices, drawing two veto threats (for research and drugs) from a notoriously veto-averse president.
And she did it looking preternaturally fresh, with a wardrobe that, while still subdued and overreliant on suits, has seldom spruced the halls of Congress. On Jan. 9, a Tuesday, she wore an impeccable black and white tweed skirt suit, with strong shoulders and the jacket nipped at the waist; on Wednesday, she draped a red shawl insouciantly around a red suit outside the White House; and on Thursday, she appeared in a mod, deep-blue velvet, slimming pantsuit.
Pelosi made all kinds of major political contributions. More importantly, she looks great!
Just raising the issue of a powerful woman’s wardrobe choices strikes some people as sexist, an undermining of her talents and qualifications. And last week, when a reporter approached several of the female members of the House and Senate, or their staff, to talk fashion, some did not want to engage. Others cringed, at least initially. But when the conversation veered into the nitty-gritty — what do you wear, where do you buy it, what image do you want to project — the women in politics happily chatted away.
Silly women claim that they don’t want to talk about fashion. But of course they do! If you just keep asking them questions about their shoes, they’ll eventually answer — proof enough that Tom Ford is more important than taxes.
“You don’t have to grow up to look like a librarian,” said Lauren Solomon, founder and director of LS Image Associates, which has clients in the corporate and political fields. “But you don’t have to look like a hooker, either.”
Ah, the virgin/whore dichotomy, Washington-style. Gotta love the New York Times.
{ 29 comments }
*sigh*
that’s really depressing.
They were a little heavy on adjectives, weren’t they? In one week the new Speaker was insouciant, mod, slimming, impeccable, subdued, and overly reliant on suits. Oh, and she also passed a bunch of legislation, or something, but that’s a big Whatev. :o)
If I was giving the NYT the benefit of the doubt, I’d say it was trying to humanize the new congress, but in a very ham-handed way.
I used to have three men work for me, and they would have conversations about what they wore and where they bought it too. Oh, I’m sorry. Not “would have conversations”. They “chatted away” about it. Most people will if asked. I bet if a reporter went up to male politicians and asked them where they bought their suits, they’d probably get answers. Oddly, no one thinks to ask.
What’s wrong with looking like a librarian? Smart is sexy.
As a man who cares deeply about clothes and fashion, I do wish we commented more on how our male leaders dressed and coiffed themselves. The decisions we make about what looks good, the images we try and project, the sense of what colors “work” and don’t work in neckties and in casual wear — this is deeply interesting to me.
There’s a racist tinge to it too. When Willie Brown, former California Assembly Leader and Mayor of San Francisco, was endlessly analysed for his love of expensive, tailor-made suits, colorful ties, and hats. It was often asked whether a white politician would get the same scrutiny.
Not surprising, but this is the kind of thing that kills me. Has anyone else noticed that almost every bio of Pelosi includes her love for chocolate? I don’t remember seeing Bill Clinton’s love for Big Macs written all over the place.
I remember that red shawl. I remember thinking it was an awesomely bold choice. Then I wondered if I was a bad feminist for giving a shit. The struggle continues.
Also, a prize goes to whoever can dig out that early Doonesbury cartoon in which Nicole (I think that’s the character’s name) writes an article about a male politician and spends most of it describing his attire in gushing, fashion-mag type terms, prompting Mike to say, “You’re trying to make a point here, aren’t you?” Funny, but that strip was published about 30 years ago. Nice to see how much progress we’ve made!
I do, but it was always said sneeringly, as yet more proof of his inappropriate Bubba-ish tendencies that made him Not Worthy. They rarely commented on his suits.
I do remember a small shitstorm that erupted when someone dared interview W’s personal tailor, probably because it disturbed that redneck image that for some reason is proof that Bush is worthy of being president, but not Clinton.
I’ve also seen supposedly “political” reporters writing breathlessly about Hillary Clinton’s preference for cute pantsuits, always marveling that a fire-breathing, baby-devouring evil feminazi looks nice when she’s out in public. Fancy that.
No way I’m going to dredge up links now, but I do remember several newspaper articles about how Bill Clinton dressed during his presidency. In the context, that is, of his being overweight. I particularly remember a snarky comment next to a picture of him in jogging shorts, and a series of quotes from various men about how a business suit hides an expanding waistline, and why did Clinton allow himself to appear in something so unflattering as shorts and a t-shirt? There were also discussions of his signature “jacket but no tie” look which was unusual at that time.
There’s definitely a newspaper bias towards stories that can be framed as “Freaks: Who Knew They Could Be Attractive?” where freaks can include categories like fat people, people of color, and of course, smart women.
These articles are beyond sexist, it’s true.
But as a professional woman who had never had a lick of luck with or training in fashion, I have to admit, it is nice to have a classy-dressing role model.
Not that I can afford Armani or anything…
How exactly is a Congresswoman OVERreliant on suits?
I noticed that too. What, exactly, should she have been wearing?
I’m a tiny bit late, but…
Overreliant on SUITS?!!? So then just what the hell are the *men* on Capitol Hill wearing??! I seem to recall every last stinkin’ one of ‘em wearing suits day in and day out, with the only variation being choice of tie and (gasp!) color of shirt. Crimeny! I’d just say she was being professional!**
** This is not to say that I really, really like suits, mind you, although a properly tailored suit can make just about anyone look good. Just that they are what certain types of professions wears, and it’s considered professional to do so in those professions.
Gah……
Personally, she should just give the media the name of her personal shopper and have them ask him about her wardrobe. She is a busy woman and I can’t see her being overjoyed with that line of questioning.
It’s annoying…but alas NOT in any way shape or form limited to the NYT. I could only wish.
She has. It’s her husband, who buys her clothes because she hates to shop.
a prize goes to whoever can dig out that early Doonesbury cartoon in which Nicole (I think that’s the character’s name) writes an article about a male politician and spends most of it describing his attire in gushing, fashion-mag type terms, prompting Mike to say, “You’re trying to make a point here, aren’t you?”
Unfortunately, doonesbury.com’s online archive is behind a paywall. I happen to have that strip on dead-tree, however (in the collection The Doonesbury Chronicles). The “article” in goes like this:
I personally enjoy how the author gets all huffy about the fact that people might criticize the article as “sexist”. Is it not and we’ve somehow missed the point?
And is it wrong that one of my first thoughts was “Well, the clothes are a hell of a lot better than passing off shoulder pads and cravats as professional attire for women?”
On a side note, anyone else read the one about the article about four senators/representatives who share a house in DC? Apparently, Chuck Schumer doesn’t make his bed. I don’t think this was quite the type of equality I had in mind:
women=vacant fashion plates
men=even in middle age, frat boy-type slobs
I particularly remember a snarky comment next to a picture of him in jogging shorts, and a series of quotes from various men about how a business suit hides an expanding waistline, and why did Clinton allow himself to appear in something so unflattering as shorts and a t-shirt?
I guess that, like Richard Nixon, Clinton was supposed to wear a suit and tie for every occasion, including a walk on the beach.
I also noticed that Kerry came in for extreme mockery when he was photographed wearing bike shorts and a bike helmet while (guess what) riding a bike, but Bush never gets the same comments, even when he wears the same outfit.
Hm. Hmmmmm. I think I’m sensing a pattern here …. ;-p
Thanks, Thlayli!
Really? Guy has taste.
So, how long until Mr Pelosi’s fashion sense and enjoyment of shopping are brought up by some wingnut to imply that “San Francisco liberal” Nancy Pelosi is married to a gay man? Because we all know straight guys would rather die than pick out women’s suits and accessories. Right?
I’m betting on two hours.
If there was a Goddess, she would most certainly have ordered that the hands of New York Times writers curl and cringe everytime they touch them to the keyboard to type about mommy wars, fashion of politicians, women who love rapists or anything about spoiled rich white East End bitches and how that just goes to show what all women want/have/are/should be.
Burn! Burn! That’s all I can say.
I find it preferable to the article that was published in after Hillary became Senator in 2000. ( copy at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7a464b3e5b.htm ) It basicaly slammed her for “letting herself go” after being elected. My word, she went to work without (gasp) NAIL POLISH! Or LIPSTICK! Because, of course, how she looks is much more important than what she does.
hey! i’m a librarian. i like how they insult one profession (the majority of which is female) in order to attempt to dignify another. nice…
Raincitygirl, he’d have to be gay, wouldn’t he? What self-respecting heterosexual man would marry a powerful woman, much less a woman with a career and more authority than him and time in front of TV cameras? Gay as a picnic basket.
/snark
They (the media) did similar things to Al Gore in the 2000 election. Of course, they were saying that he was “trying” to be the “alpha male” and was also getting “in touch with his feminine side.” All implying that he was a woman or was dressing more like one within a male context and that he should have been more manly to earn any respect.
It seems that the media, in aggregate, likes to see men look like men and women look like women–or, at least, they’re preconceived stereotypes of those two roles… so, naturally, a woman who is “overreliant on suits” gets criticized. According to their views, she should be wearing dresses.
This is one of those little things that so nicely reinforces the notion that the media has embraced the conservative-reactionary alliance of the Republicans–and continues to do so, even as it falters. The article is just part of the dues they pay for membership in this power group.
To be sure, it *is* the fashion section of the paper. I’d be far more horrified if this sort of thing appeared in the politics section. Thank goodness we’ve come that far, at least.
God, it’s creepy that fashion is directly linked to every single article written about women ever – even when it’s about the most powerful woman in the country.
I don’t see the big deal in this article. I love it that Nancy Pelosi looks at her most feminine and feminist best when she stands out there in her red suit with the redshawl and the red lipstick and semi-high heels while discussing the issues of the day. Everything about her says “WOMAN” and I love it. I am willing to bet that the boys in Congress won’t mistake her femininity for weakness.
Comments on this entry are closed.