Closet Sexists?

Upon reading this article in the New York Times today, I am once again struck by how our media enjoy defrocking women leaders by discussing their frocks.

So, this article is on how style is being ushered into the halls of Capitol Hill, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s entry serving as the news “peg” onto which this soggy raincoat of a story is hung. Ms. Pelosi (whom the article refers to as “Mrs. Pelosi,” in a marked regression toward 60s-style reporting), we are told, did some very important things in her first week as speaker, but, importantly, she did it while staying "playful" with jewelry. In fact, the article tells us, ever since she assumed office, orders of Tahitian pearls (her signature) have skyrocketed.

The author of the article, Lizette Alvarez, aware that she may raise unplucked feminist eyebrows for doing a piece such as this, addresses the dilemma within her story (“Just raising the issue of a powerful woman’s wardrobe choices strikes some people as sexist, an undermining of her talents and qualifications…”). Well done, Ms. Alvarez. But,
admiring Ms. Pelosi’s sartorial savvy is not the problem. I don’t believe that an article on her dress style, or her appearance with her grandchildren at her swearing in, detracts from her power image. But, one must take objection to the style and content of the article. First, where are the men? Bring on the suits! Certainly, one of the gentlemen in Washington could have been a peg for such an article, too? Second, and this is more subtle, read the article for its use of certain phrases. The women politicians “happily chatted away,” are “skittish” about their wardrobe choices and one of them wears “slimming” pantsuits. Am I alone in imagining that these are gendered terms?

The concluding line of the article takes the cake: “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.”
Senator Clinton’s “found her fashion center,” the article tells us. And her hair now compliments her age and standing.
What does this kind of statement imply? That America has only seen two types of professional women – the librarian and the hooker? That women politicians need “image consultants” to grow them up into appropriate attire? The article actually points out inadvertently but quite clearly – these women are still struggling with what not to wear. And, given our enthusiastic scrutiny of their every pantsuit alongside their policy agendas, most of us should probably admit to being closet sexists.