The Great Pantsuit Problem (And What To Do About It)
In the August issue of Harper's Bazaar, the magazine asks:
Harper's Bazaar: How many pantsuits do you have?
Nancy Pelosi: I don't have any idea. Endless.
It didn't bother me at first. Just a typical question to ask a Washington woman. And then it began to haunt me, that word: "endless." Walking down the wide streets of Capitol Hill I became acutely aware of the troops of women in men's attire gone pastel. How would Hillary have responded to that question? "I rent an airplane hangar to hold all mine. Bill understands."
When did the pantsuit become political armor for powerful women? Worn like Teflon, there seems to be a wildly held belief among these movers and shakers that the jeers and sexist jabs slide right off when you match your blazer and trouser. Wear it in beige and it's as good as camouflage. The British have their hats, the South Americans their sex appeal, the French, their je ne sais quoi; there must be another way for the American woman to convey authority besides the seldom flattering pantsuit.
First ladies don't fall prey to the pantsuit pandemic, but they don't need to. They are walking, sometimes talking, billboards for their husband's campaigns, concerned with conveying elegance not leadership. Think Reagan power red and Nancy's crimson stain. Of Cindy McCain the media generally says, she may not be cutting edge, but she's got that Republican first lady look locked down. She sure does. On any given Sunday, Cindy is trying to dress as much like the American Flag as humanly possible. I bet Betsy Ross couldn't even stand to look at her.
As for Michelle "Puffy Sleeve" Obama, she has decided to make the swashbuckler look her trademark. First there was the Super Tuesday red suit with the sleeves large enough to hide pounds of contraband in.
Then there was the white button-down again with the voluminous sleeves. Tall and lithe enough to carry the clothes, Michelle can somehow make the Three Musketeers fashion sensibility work for her. She might also be able to spread her wings and fly if need be. But besides the puffy shirts, she plays it safe by chasing the Camelot closet.
Pelosi, Clinton, and the rest of the Hill's power women can't just come across as elegant hand-holders--they need clothes to convey an image that they can make the infamous 3am phone call without dressing like men. These power dames are clearly petrified that a sense of style will show frivolity, and seem to regard fashion as a strange viral disease spread by Manhattanites.
Condoleezza "Have Wardrobe, Will Travel" Rice is one of the only power-wielding Washington women immune from the highly contagious pantsuit mania. Sure, she wears them but they're in rotation with Akris separates and Oscar de la Renta mismatching pieces. Ever since she donned the infamous knee-high boots made for a lot more than walking at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield in 2005, she's been slyly showing Washington that a woman in power can dress to identify herself, not as a means to hide. It's a bold statement--more like Burlosconi in his expensive double-breasted suits or Don Corleone's pinstripes than the predictable safe pantaloon of Hillary Clinton.
Couture Condi did suffer a small wardrobe malfunction recently when her flesh-toned blouse and the flashbulbs at a school in Perth, Australia didn't quite agree with each other, but most fashionistas reactions were, hurrah! she wasn't buttoned-up like a Victorian or wearing a poly-cotton blazer with an eagle on her shoulder. And yes, we now know from photographic evidence that the Secretary of State wears a bra.
If you believe what you're clad in doesn't define you, just think of Cheney's gaffe at Auschwitz when he looked as though he were about to shoot up wild boar or man the snowplow rather than represent his country.
For a man or woman in power, clothes are not armor, but a reflection of the way they lead. Political men in their cowboy boots, barn jackets or tightly tailored suits have discovered that. It's time that women step ahead of them and embrace power dressing with a twist, turning the oh so predictable p---suit into a dirty word.
Follow Karin Tanabe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/snobbytanabe
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As some commenters have said, there is the comfort issue. Pant suits also make sense, since they minimize our legs (and circumvents the bare legs vs. stockings question in certain workplaces). As much as there have been progress professionally, I still see a difference in the types of attention I receive when I wear pant- vs. skirts; and I doubt that will ever go away, as long as our species retains animal nature. Pant suits definitely help focus attention on the work at hand.
Regarding political wives vs. women politicians, we may be considering women who have traditionally been cut from different cloth. For example, Nancy Pelosi and Laura Bush have chosen different career paths and roles, which may indicate their nature and priorities that necessitate (or allow) different clothing choices. I do look forward to the progress we're making regarding our roles, attire, and other options; and I look forward to Michelle Obama redefining again the role of the First Lady in functions and in fashion (from lawyer/healthcare executive to prospective First Lady, from sleeveless to puffy sleeves, she's her own woman).
BTW, before Rice, there was Albright, who pulled off power and skirt suits well....and with conscience and competence, which always looks good no matter what one's wearing. ;-)
"circumvents the bare legs vs. stockings question"
I totally believe this sums up the continued popularity of pants suits. Powerful women just don't have time for the maintenance that is required for bare legs in public. Waxing, tanning, that goop that makes them shiny, and if you're a certain age, laser surgery to remove the inevitable spider veins. Really, it's too much. Talk about being a slave to fashion.
I stick to pants because I have better things to do than obsessive grooming but I try to avoid the matchy look of the politico pant suit. I agree it's tired and I hate pastels.
It's the pastel colors that I find most unappealing.
This is really a seasonal issue - I rely on a variety of boots in winter to hide my "sins."
The wild debate continues. How fantastic!
Intelligent people are often annoyed with fashion opinion. It seems petty and irrelevant
to them.
I believe Dale Carnegie stated, "Even before you speak, you are condemned or approved."
Whether we like it or not, we are judged by our image. Women have so many more choices
than men, which creates a much bigger stage for mistakes. The evidence is stated here.
If political women are looking frumpy, we tend to think their ideas will be frumpy, too.
Updated dress = updated ideas. It's not about being a fashion victim; it's about self-awareness.
A great business look means power. If it didn't matter, political men wouldn't wear suits.
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society". ~Mark Twain
Clothes make the wo-man, too, Mr. Twain. Thank you for your timeless insight.
Very thoughtful. You know, you just made me realize, I liked Obama better when he looked a little Nader-esque rumpled with his uniform of a white button down, stovepipe black slacks, skinny tie and a plain slim black jacket coat--A little sixties Mod Mr Tibbs goes to Washington. Now that he has started wearing his big gansta suits with puffy shoulder pads and pleats he seems a bit to polished and slick to me!
You have whittled away to the core! It is about nuance - just the right heel, skirt length, color and fabric choice.
I love politics and I love fashion, so this is the ideal article on which to comment. Pant suits are perfect for busy women. They provide freedom of movement; there is no need for the agony of pantyhose; they look good with comfortable shoes; and because a jacket is part of the ensemble, they allow for flexibilty due to changing temperature conditions.
In addition, they do allow for some personal creativity in color, style, etc. So, what I can't understand is why the criticism.
They don't look good is the problem. It's the matching pant/jacket that fails. It's so easy to mix up the jacket or the pant with something else that I don't know why more women don't try it. Looks so much better.
Clothes can look good and be comfortable, even without the pantyhose. I choose long skirts with hems that sit just over the top of a boot and wear the boots with footies. One of my favorites is a full black and golden brown patterened skirt that I match with an open style monochrome brown jacket and black boots.
Bingo! That is exactly the criticism! When these women don one they seem to completely forget about personal creativity in color, style and etc.! Now dont tell me that Hill's monochrome beige polyester pant suit displayed any of these things!
Count me in as a lawyer who simply prefers pant suits to skirts. Skirts are uncomfortable and demand that you wear stylish high heels, also uncomfortable, especially when you have to walk a few blocks to your car, etc. Skirts and heels basically incapacitate a woman, especially an active woman. If I am in a courtroom against a man and am perched on my heels, I feel disadvantaged because I have to worry about how I sit, how badly my feet hurt, and I basically have to stay put behind counsel table. I also live in Texas and in Texas 104 degree summer heat, it is simply inhumane to make a woman wear hose.
No one complains about men wearing suits; I find it very backwards to complain about a woman wearing a suit. What a silly article. I refuse to step back in time, thanks.
Maybe you'd win more cases in a pair of stilettos. There's nothing more debilitating for a man's brain than being ambushed by high heels. They lose their train of thought completely.
Men politicians don't dress to reveal their style - why should women? Let it go.
Its a double standard.
What a silliness. I am so tired of reading media nonsense about female politicians and what they're wearing. Give them a break. They are up before dawn and don't go to bed until late. As long as their clothes fit, and they're professionally put together, who cares? My husband is a professional, and he takes about 20 minutes to get ready in the morning. With women, they have to take longer with hair, makeup, shoes....if their stylists do their jobs correctly, they shouldn't have to worry additionally about what to wear in the morning. You need a ton of pantsuits to do the whole day. They go from morning to evening. Give women a break!
Pant suits liberated women from panty hose. No one is going back there.
My problem isn't with the pantsuits per se, it's with the length of the jackets. With hippy women like Hillary (and me), a jacket that hits just below the waist is much more flattering. A patterned jacket and plain colored slacks are also more flattering.
You would certainly see a lot more spills if these women took to wearing heels and then, falling
down in a dress (unless you are Miss USA) isnt something we want to see from ladies of a certain age.
I HAPPEN TO THINK PANT SUITS ARE VERY SEXY AND POWERFUL LOOKING!!!
Oh please! Which ones? Give us some links!
I don't really like pantsuits myself, whether they are worn by men or the "three peice" version by men. They look stupid. What's more, the average Joe and Jill doesn't wear that crap. If they wanna look like they are representative of all Americans, they should start dressing like it. Some nice comfortable, flattering jeans would be a start. Nice shirt and shoes and whatever other accessories they wanna wear. Why get all dressed up in a pantsuit that looks like you are going to a funeral, just to show up for work? Course, I can see where showing up for work is akin to attending a funeral, but come on. At least dress in something nice.
Whoever came up with the "socially acceptable" standards of "formal" dress in the United States had to have been a complete dork. And should be brought up on charges of treason for making us all look so bad. There should be no dress code, period.
I expect conservative women to wear broing clothes. So I'm surprised the more liberal women haven't stepped up their game, and shocked at Ms. Rice's choices. They should follow, then surpass her lead.
The majority of business women I've dealt with seem to have gotten over the pants suit thing sometime in the early nineties. Is it a case of politicos playing to the least common (or most conservative) denominator?
I think you hit the nail on the head.
That certainly has not been my experience. I and most of the other women I've worked with find pant suits much more comfortable in our 14 hour days than skirts that require hose and heels.
Well that's nice, cause you've got a friend here, see monyae above. Maybe you could swap pant suits for more colour variety. Just kidding, but the pant suit is a bit of a misnomer. Those suits will do anything but make a man pant. They're most unflattering on big bottoms, gives 'em that "my girdle's too tight" look.
The traditional model for women of skirts and high heels is just degrading for women in politics. Skirts and high heels are all about being sexually appealing to men, and just makes women look stupid. The shoes are crippling and the skirt leaves women far too exposed. Women have a hard enough battle just getting respect at work. Wearing "feminine" garb, which arouses men, just makes it all the more difficult.
Absolutely. Pantsuits in a feminine cut and style is the best female equivalent of the business suit. I was very glad to see Hillary make it clear that there is no occasion important enough to have to wear a skirt, unless you want to. Hillary looked polished, professional and feminine in the outfits she wore. Both she and Pelosi wear outfits which are not wannabe male suits, but also not sexuality-enhancing. I laud them for it, and this article seems out to lunch to me.
Degrading? Surely you are kidding. If a woman does not want to look like a woman, she is a fraud. What's next, a corset affair for the upper body or false facial hair?
I do, however, appreciate the issue that a woman in power can not afford an embarrassing picture on a stage or going up a stair. That is a legitimate issue to someone in the public light. But degrading....give me a break.
Sorry zizyphus,
"...skirts leave women exposed"?
Tell that to the kilt wearing McClaren clan. Wearing skirts has more to do with the ease of relieving oneself than making yourself an object of arousal. Defining an object of clothing as "feminine garb" defines you and not the object.
Love kilts, but it's a look not many men can really pull off.
ziphus . . . Agree, especially with the comment regarding shoes. How many offices in the US have women working dressed conservatively in suits, hose and tennis shoes during their day? As you stated, "women have a hard enough battle just getting respect at work". . . AND other arenas as well.
I believe that the statements above fall into that same category as written by Karen Tanabe refering to Michelle "puffy sleeve" Obama. Ms. Tanabe--"just the facts, ma'am, just the facts".
I agree about the heels...they are just money makers for podiatrists. I myself prefer a comfortable skirt with flats. I think it is ridiculous to say that wearing a skirt is degrading...even women who choose to wear pants, still wear the ridiculous high heels...why do they drop the skirt but still hang on to the heels?
I'm thinking it is far more about comfort and mobility than how to show they are serious and powerful.
for women who are always busy, always on the go they need shoes that do not hurt and clothes that move well and they don't have to worry about how they sit to be sure nothing is showing.
Look at the insanity over Hillary wearing a blouse with a low neckline... she was practically accused of trying seduce the super delegates!
Can you imagine if her thigh showed when she sat down in a pencil skirt?
I suppose they could wear mismatched pieces- pants from one and jacket from another... would be considered a sports jacket I suppose. lol.
Slacks and sweater set anyone?
Sure, a nice dress and a pashimina shawl would be nice (are they still in fashion? LOL) but impractical for women who often have 12 - 14 - 16 hour days.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
