-
sponsorship
I agree with you, Meghan, that woman have never settled on a comfortable uniform for power. And that opens up all kinds of possibilities. But they are not all bad. Think about it this way. We don't talk about every powerful female politicians' clothing. Nobody analyzes what Barbara Boxer wears to a hearing, or Olympia Snowe, even though they are both perfectly attractive. I think the place we are at now is that, for women, people say attractive when they mean charismatic. In Jane Mayer's piece, you can see the men around Palin struggling to come up with the right words to describe this awestruck feeling they have. They settle on demeaning ones—"pretty," "knockout"—but what they are describing is some kind of force she has that they can't quite put into words. This same phenomenon happened to Segolene Royal, the French Socialist candidate. People talked about her bikinis, and her flirty little skirts, but they were really talking about something else.
-
sponsorship
To answer Meghan’s question, according to Brooks Brothers online, you can get a very nice suit for less than $1,000. And you can get its top-of-the-line suit for around $1,600. A nice shirt and tie might bring this to $2,000. I seriously doubt Joe Biden bought 70 such suits after becoming Obama’s running mate. And whatever happened to the fine political tradition of wearing jeans and a flannel shirt when courting Joe Sixpack? I’m not sure Chanel is (or should be) the female equivalent.
I also find the argument that Palin had nothing else to wear, prior to the RNC’s shopping spree, a little unbelievable. Palin is the governor of a major state. She campaigned for this office, appeared on TV countless times in that election (including in multiple debates), has surely attended governors’ conferences and other formal events in an official capacity. Are we to believe that prior to being tapped for VP, she never owned anything besides a seal-skin coat and 'coon cap?
As a native of Dallas, I’ve spent my fair share of money at Neiman-Marcus’ flagship store, but as Slate’s piece points out today—it’s pretty hard to blow $150,000, even at a store like Neiman’s. Moreover, I know a lot of high-society women in Dallas who brag about the fine fashion they’ve also found at Target, especially in these tough economic times. (They call the store “Tar-chez.”) Is it really the opinion of the women on XX Factor that a woman can’t look good on TV or at a rally in anything less than a $4,000 designer suit? Seems to me we’re buying into Carrie Bradshaw’s world view a little too much. The dress Michelle Obama wore when she went on The View famously cost $148 off the rack.
-
sponsorship
I swore off Sarah Palin for the week, but I can't resist a comment about her wardrobe—and a few questions for all you smart ladies. First, I find it telling that many outlets (including Slate and our blog) continue to refer to the shopping spree as "Sarah Palin's" shopping spree and talk about what "she's" done, when we know that Republican handlers bought the clothes and arranged for the wardrobe. But how active was she in this whole thing? Was she more or less outfitted than Biden was? Would we use the same kind of language of implication if we found out that Democrats had selected for Joe Biden a wardrobe costing $150,000? Or would we assume more distance between the candidate and his clothes? Would the party EVER spend that much money on a man?
These questions seem important because how we think about women and their clothes is different from how we think about a man and his clothes. Clothes are one of the many ways it's more complicated to be a woman politician than a man; women have to spend more time coming up with a look than men do. Historically, men have had a uniform that connotes authority, and women haven't. Most female uniforms have signified subservience: I'm a helper. Think nurses, stewardesses, etc. By contrast, many male uniforms have signaled power: I'm a protector/decider. Think doctors, cops, businessmen in power suits. (Of course there is also a subset of lower-status male uniforms.)
One imagines Palin isn't that active a participant in her makeover. But she is being dressed up and positioned to look her best. As someone pointed out to me today, in the VP debate moderated by Gwen Ifill there were several shots of Palin and Biden from behind, showing off Palin's shoes, her nice legs, and other, er, assets. And whether or not she chooses any of this, she's implicated in it—setting off these sorts of conversations. It's analogous to many of the problems Hillary faced, and it says to me, at least, that we still have a long way to go before we really get used to women in politics.
Finally, if we're gonna talk about these things: How much does Biden's wardrobe cost, do you think? All you men who read XXFactor: some of you must have a sense of how much this snazzy-looking suit (which he wore during one of the VP debates) cost. I'm at meghanor@gmail.com if anyone has an educated guess...
-
sponsorship
Noreen,
I'm with June. I don't think it's fair either to pick on Palin because of her wardrobe. (C'mon, isn't there so much more to pick on?) You dress up to go to a job interview. Campaigning for the vice presidency is a very long job interview on a much bigger playing field. There's no reason I couldn't do my job in pajamas or sweatpants, but we have a code about what we wear to the office and in public. And if you were interviewing applicants for a job, you would not pick the one in sweatpants. It's an unfortunate side effect of our visual, 24-hour celebrity culture that you have to look gorgeous all the time now if you are in the public eye. And I don't blame Palin. This is not her doing. She is only complicit in the big machine that this is all a part of. But if you are going to play the game, you have to wear the uniform.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?