Is whether or not they wear pants to work one of the things you'd like to know about up-and-coming businesswomen?
If so, you're in luck when it comes to Ad Age's "Women To Watch 2013" feature, available online as of June 2nd. The site offers a handy key so you can see which of these accomplished women in the advertising world have kids, own pets, have traveled the world, have worked at an agency and ... wear pants at work.
Interest in what powerful women are wearing is nothing new -- public figures like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are constantly in the spotlight for their sartorial choices. Research has shown that, in the political arena at least, focusing on someone's looks or clothing choices can hurt their credibility later on. And yet a number of recent articles have focused on powerful women's fashion choices rather than their accomplishments and qualifications.
On May 27th, the Washington Post published a piece on White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler's high heels, describing Ruemmler as "known for her shoes." (Ruemmler also happens to be a Georgetown Law graduate who was Editor-In-Chief of the Georgetown Law Journal, and gave closing arguments while prosecuting the 2006 Enron case.) A post on the Flip The News Tumblr revealed just how absurd this article would seem if written about a male subject.
Similarly, a May 31st article in the New York Times explained the alleged important of female senators' handbag preferences. “What a woman senator slings over her shoulder is the next tangible and Technicolor proof of how the esteemed body has changed and is changing,” Democratic strategist Tracy Sefl commented.
Is what a woman wears really all that relevant to how she does her job? These articles might have us believe so, but we're pretty sure that a successful woman's ideas are far more fascinating than her choice of slacks.
Have an opinion to share? Comment below, or Tweet @HuffPostWomen.
Related
Before You Go
