Why Are We Still Talking About Hillary Clinton’s Clothes?

[niyad]

Why Are We Still Talking About Hillary Clinton’s Clothes?


When it was revealed this month that Hillary Clinton wore an Armani jacket that cost nearly $12,500 in April while giving a victory speech after the New York primary, mainstream media outlets and social media platforms alike lambasted her for it. Clinton’s clothing choice was presented across these medias as being a direct contradiction to her efforts in her speech to present herself as an “everywoman.” How can she possibly have empathy for the poor while making such a blatant display of conspicuous consumption, after all? (Conspicuously absent from all of this criticism was any mention of how much male politicians spend on their suits.) Her sartorial choice became a trending topic on Facebook and Twitter. Articles on sites from CNBC to the New York Post traced the development of her personal style from “frumpy” first lady to pant-suited Secretary of State to, most recently, lavishly adorned presidential candidate.



It was a debacle that exemplified how gender roles and expectations shape the lives of women in politics—and how the double-standards applied to them put their appearances, and not just their politics, in the national spotlight. Fashion choices undeniably play a role in political processes, as they do in many professional contexts. Research has shown that appearance plays a role in determining election outcomes, especially when combined with other factors such as race, gender and ethnicity. For women, the stakes are particularly high—and unsurprisingly so, it is often women who face scrutiny for their appearances when taking the public stage.
Michelle Obama has been simultaneously lauded as the “first lady of fashion” and widely scorned for choosing to bare her (impeccably toned) arms. Sarah Palin was denounced as elitist by fellow Republicans when it was revealed that the Republican Party spent close to $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. Hillary Clinton, after speaking in Bangladesh sans makeup and wearing glasses, was said by DailyMail to look “tired and withdrawn,” her lack of attention to appearance clearly evidencing her complete lack of desire to make another run at the presidency.

Meanwhile, it is hard to find entire posts dedicated to the fashion successes and faux-pas of men in the American political sphere. Perhaps the most controversial sartorial escapade of Obama’s presidency was his daring choice to wear a tan suit to a press conference in 2014, which sparked many a lighthearted joke on Twitter. Clothing-related controversy around Trump’s campaign has focused almost exclusively on whether or not his brand’s designer suits and ties are produced outside of the United States, rather than on the price of the suits he wears himself. Though significant Twitter debate arose over whether the suit Bernie Sanders wore at the March 9 Democratic debate was blue, brown, or black, his choice to make “perceived anti-fashion statements” by wearing ill-fitting clothing goes largely without criticism, seen as a sensible outcome of his choice to portray himself as a common man.

. . . .

Nearly 100 years after women won suffrage, we’re still waiting for those in the realm of politics to be judged not for the fabrics on their skin, but the content of their minds. In my opinion, a shift in this mindset would truly be the fairest of them all.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/06/13/the-one-battle-female-politicians-just-cant-win/

[LexVegas]

1. Sexism. Same reason we still talk about her voice. nt

[niyad]

3. exactly

[Orsino]

2. It might be instructive to learn what all the candidates spend or spent on their clothing...

...if we make allowances for the woman tax.

It's probably just an easy attack to make on the only woman running. That said, there's no way to make a seven-or-twelve-grand item of clothing palatable to me, even if we learn that the mean are spending similarly or analogously. By the same token, the idea a candidate advertising for a designer while on the trail is distasteful.

[renate]

4. clothes are just one more topic to comment about for women

Men's suits all look pretty much the same, except on the red carpet. And even then, it's about seventy-five times more interesting to look at the women's dresses at the Oscars.

I don't think it's so much a sexist thing to talk about women's clothes as, well, just a thing. There are so many more choices, so many more ways to get it right, and therefore also so many more ways to get it wrong.

I have to admit, there have been times I've thought that Hillary needed a new stylist--not because I think she needs to waste a single neuron or moment of time on making herself or her clothing more "attractive," whatever that would mean, but to make her outfits a little less noticeable, actually. I'd think a less structured, Eileen Fisher-type wardrobe would be extremely comfortable without making her clothes a topic of conversation.

[niyad]

5. whatever she does, however she does it, some people will criticize.

[JCMach1]

6. Sexism... Trump wears 50K bespoke Brioni Suits every day and from the media you hear

CRICKETS

[niyad]

7. exactly

[Reter]

10. True, but he's not a champion of the poor like Hillary claims to be

He'e for the rich and everyone knows it.

[gordianot]

8. To be fair remember the flap about Obama's tan suit?

This is from the same culture that judges women designer clothing on Oscar night. Running for President appears to get at least as much scrutiny as Oscar night. It might be better to judge high office with an eye other than fashion critics especially when your opponent likes to deflect with insults about personal appearance.

[Exilednight]

9. Why did Hillary say something about the price of John Edwards

Haircuts?

Glass houses, and all that.

[gollygee]

11. It's a no-win situation

The fact is that really amazing clothing is expensive. And she gets hit for that.

But if she wore less attractive clothing, she'd get hit for that too.

I see this as a big non-issue. No one ever wondered if she's rich. We all know she is. And rich people spend more on clothing. I don't care how much she spends. I'd rather she spend it than keep it hoarded.

[niyad]

12. exactly