Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has been all over the place talking about her pins. Albright is promoting a new book titled Read My Pins, where she discusses her diplomatic life through her famous costume jewelry brooches. Some may see Albright discussing her sartorial choices as a bit of an intellectual misstep when she could instead be discussing her political life without the use of her infamous glitzy accoutrements. However, being a woman in power doesn’t automatically erase fashion from her vocabulary–in fact, Albright notes in a recent interview with Time that clothes can be doubly symbolic and important on women of power. While successful men can always fall back on the safety net that is the well-tailored suit, women in professional and public settings have to be cognizant of how they appear and what their clothes say about them. Albright said she enjoyed adjusting to her political appointment because it was “a great excuse to shop” but that she “didn’t want to look like a man.” She also notes that women in high-profile situations have to dress comfortably and appropriately (no Alexander McQueen stilettos or Japanese high-concept fashions for them) but women also have to realize that “people are looking at you in terms of representing your country in a variety of different ways.” Seeing that clothes can often play a major role in a discussion about different political women, I wondered how successfully dressed some women in high-profile political positions. It can be a hard line to tread: you don’t want to look too formal or else people will label you as being masculine (and thus undesirable and unable to fit into pre-set gender roles) but you also don’t want to look like you care too much about how you dress or else you will be labeled too feminine (and thus shallow, scatter-brained and incapable of being a professional). How do people interpret the clothes of different high-profile women on the contemporary scene and what does this say about these women?

The most obvious and powerful woman to discuss is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s solid-colored pantsuits became a meme during the election year and she is rarely seen in public out of her signature outfit of choice. Clinton likes to play it safe and with good reason: when she was First Lady she quickly learned just how critically the public could be of a woman’s clothing choices and even when she let her neckline drop a few inches on the Senate floor in 2007 she got dissected by the media. Conservative critics have always made unfounded remarks about Hillary being mannish as a way to try to discredit her ambitions, intelligence and power and some use her pantsuits and short hair against her. Unfortunately, as much as there are people who distrust a woman in trousers there are people who distrust a powerful woman in skirts. Maybe that explains why Clinton sticks with her brightly-colored pantsuits, they exude power but also remain just feminine enough to stay in everyone’s good graces. Also, it is hard to constantly make fun of someone’s clothes when they essentially wear the same thing every day. Eventually the critics got tired of mocking her love of pantsuits and started focusing on the real issues (that is, the critics who had anything substantive to say in the first place) which is probably how Clinton prefers it.

Another high-profile woman whose clothes were a popular subject of her political life is Sarah Palin. When news broke that the RNC spent $150,000 on clothes and accessories for the Palin family it made headlines and created an overwhelming controversy for the politically un-savvy Palin. Aside from the cost of her clothes, Palin took a different approach to her clothing choices. Unlike other prominent political women at the time (Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to name a few) by staying away from pantsuits. The fact that Palin relied so heavily on skirts was probably a calculated move: make people see that Palin is softer, gentler and more feminine than Hillary Clinton and make use of the awesome preserving powers of living in a state that only gets sunlight for six months out of the year. Unfortunately for Palin and her advisors, the plan of painting Palin as feminine backfired in a big way. Remember, feminine means unintelligent, shallow and unprofessional and Palin got painted as all of these things, including by members of her own party. Now, if Palin had actually had the intellectual and political chops to back up the RNC’s desired “lady” image she might have been able to show up her critics, but sadly we all had to learn that she was just a fameball nut who was in over her head.

Another high-profile woman who had to deal with criticisms of her looks was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice often stuck to pantsuits but would sometimes mix it up with a conservative skirt now and then. Like Clinton, Rice often played it safe and with good reason, she didn’t want to come off as looking inappropriate in front of world leaders. However, Rice’s love for expensive shoes was another reason for critics to attack her, with one of her shopping trips in 2005 allegedly being broken up by a woman who was outraged that Rice wasn’t working 24-7. Here again, her shoe shopping is reported as being proof of her femininity and therefor inadequacy as a powerful woman. I’m not saying that I think Rice should have been dropping thousands on shoes while the country was going to shit (this was right around the time Katrina hit) but I think that expecting her to live as a hermit or using her shoe-buying as proof that she is a heartless, shallow wench is a little over-the-top. Another major aspect of Rice’s tenure as Secretary of State was her hair. Black women’s hair has always been a tricky and politically-charged subject and interest in Rice’s hair bordered on silly. Satire blogs were set up to “keep track” of her hairdos and her simply choice of hairstyle was mocked by other black celebrities. The fact that her hair was such a huge part of the national conversation shows how the media and the public expect black women to look and dress a certain way.

Male politicians can also feel the effect of their wives clothes reflecting on them. Michelle Obama has largely been labeled as a “style icon” by magazines read by middle-aged moms in orthodontists’ waiting rooms all over the United States, and her clothes are dissected by critics everywhere. Who Michelle Obama wears is almost as important as what she wears, and her love for (ugh) over-belting and J. Crew has been repeatedly discussed by the media, including us. One political wife who always seems to please is France’s First Lady, Carla Bruni. Of course, she also has the benefit of being gorgeous, a celebrity in her own right and married to the President of one of the most fashion-rich countries in the world. (Who wouldn’t look good with Stefano Pilati, John Galliano and Karl Lagerfeld all at your beck and call?) However, it is a lot easier to dress as a First Lady than it is as a woman with an actual political position. It is difficult to please everyone with your clothing, especially when everyone is dissecting it. In a fantasy feminist utopia it would be nice if a female Secretary of State could wear a beautiful, high-fashion suit without being labeled stupid (i.e., “feminine”) by the press or if a powerful female politician could wear masculine clothes without being labeled too butch, serious and unreliable to other women (i.e., “masculine) but we don’t live in that imaginary world and women will always be judged more harshly by what they wear than men. Always. So, while some feminists may brush off discussions of high-profile women’s sartorial choices as being too frivolous and not serious enough for discussion, I think it is worth looking at how successful, high-profile women are examined by the media. Not only does it reveal some of the more sexist roots of our society, but it also says a lot about the world of women, which includes clothing and fashion. It is silly to ignore how important clothes pay a role in our daily lives, so why not examine what is really there?

7 Responses to “The Politics Of Dress: Political Women In Power And Pantsuits”

1. JorgeMacD says:

   October 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm

   “Remember, feminine means unintelligent, shallow and unprofessional and Palin got painted as all of these things, including by members of her own party. Now, if Palin had actually had the intellectual and political chops to back up the RNC’s desired “lady” image she might have been able to show up her critics, but sadly we all had to learn that she was just a fameball nut who was in over her head.”

   Since she IS unintelligent, shallow, and unprofessional, how the Hell can you attribute people realizing those facts to misogyny?

   Reply
2. MaggieMom says:

   October 22, 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Based on what I can see, high-power women do now have a symbolic uniform that is equivalent to men’s dark power suit. Even the women playing “power roles” on television and movies now wear “the outfit” (but with higher heels than any real power-woman would wear). Even on “House” where the hospital administrator wears a low cut and too-tight version of “the outfit,” the characters make cracks about it, indicating that everyone realizes that the character is stepping outside the official power-woman look.

   Madeline Albright may have had to pioneer the look, but now it seems well established.

   Reply
3. Sydney says:

   October 22, 2009 at 5:11 pm

   Whether a person is in a position of power or not, dressing well is always beneficial.

   It makes me sad to see so many women in power constantly wearing dowdy pantsuits…..

   Reply
4. SentWest says:

   October 23, 2009 at 2:14 pm

   I wear jeans and a tool belt, so… *shrug*

   At my last job in banking though I wore my version of “the outfit,” with lots of pinstripes, wingtips, t-strap heels, and total lack of shoulder pads (ick).

   Reply
5. Syd says:

   October 23, 2009 at 3:36 pm

   I always found Condi and Hillary to be fairly decent dressers as far as professional women went, and I can’t see why ANYONE complains about these people, aside from Sarah Palin. No family needs 100,000 dollars worth of clothes, especially if that money is not their own, period. That’s not a jab at her fashion sense, that’s a jab at her greed and self-absorbtion while she’s running for VP of a party that’s trying to pass itself off as the party of the average blue collar worker.

   Reply
6. NeoCleo says:

   October 23, 2009 at 4:12 pm

   I agree with you in part, but on the whole have some issues. No enough time to explicate here however, following is a quote from your post:

   “Seeing that clothes can often play a major role in a discussion about different political women, I wondered how successfully dressed . . . some women . . . in high-profile political positions.” (Ellipsis for emphasis only.)

   You have omitted words in this sentence and it plays a critical part in expressing your idea. Further problems:

   “It can be a hard line to tread: you don’t want to look too formal or else people will label you as being masculine (and thus undesirable and unable to fit into pre-set gender roles) but you also don’t want to look like you care too much about how you dress or else you will be labeled too feminine (and thus shallow, scatter-brained and incapable of being a professional).”

   This makes no sense to me at all. How does “too formal” equate to masculine? One can appear too formal by showing up to a business meeting in a ball gown–far from masculine. Further, how does one dress in a manner that communicates “you care too much” and by so doing, how does this engender being labeled “too feminine (and thus shallow, . . . .) . . . and so on.

   What I’m trying to say is that you’ve got some very interesting ideas which you did not take time to develop with specific examples. I’d like to respond because I feel this issue is incredibly important, particularly in politics but all pervasive in business and personal life. Men are skewered by the public for their actions. So are women, BUT we have the added burden of criticism of personal appearance, mode of dress, as well as persona.

   I need more from you on this topic to respond. I hope you taket his in the spirit intended. I am not combative and I admire your guts for endeavoring to provide a forum for discussing potentially explosive issues of feminism. If you wish to email me, please feel free to do so even if you are angry.

   Thanks,

   NeoCleo

   Reply
7. Erin says:

   October 27, 2009 at 4:05 pm

   Whenever I ’suit up’ for work, it seems to terrify my (mostly male) workmates. Whenever I dress girly for work, I am asked ‘what are you all dressed up for’. So, I strike something in the middle. Business pants with a more casual top. Never low cut, or I never hear the end of it.

   Reply