The New York Times has devoted two pages today to the age-old topic of the dress code for female political candidates. They discuss in detail the wardrobes of current candidates, comparing them to how women "should" be dressing. Unsurprisingly, the article is peppered with the usual disparaging jabs at Hillary Clinton's campaign attire.
I love clothes and grew up with a beautiful southern working class mother who was able to make even the most economical clothing purchase look chic and elegant. However, this is an important election year, women are running in higher numbers than ever before, but researchers are saying that we may be facing a decline in the number of women in congress for the first time in three decades. When the newspaper, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print", discusses how Palin's jacket fits instead of how few of her policies benefit women -- it's unfitting.
The year we first launched our research on "hair, hemlines and husbands" was the year Elizabeth Dole ran for president. We challenged a reporter for her tendency to cover Dole's wardrobe; she responded by saying that if we expected her not to lead with clothes when the candidate wore a "lime green suit" -- we were nuts. What's nuts about asking a journalist to report the news? In my opinion, the presence a lime green suit shouldn't trump the presence of intelligent ideas and opinions.
Only a critical mass of women in politics will change this focus on "hair, hemlines and husbands" -- unfortunately, these three words too often encapsulate the ways in which female politicians make it in the headlines. That is when the news with switch from gender to agenda.
This week we trained 150 women from across the United States to take leadership on issues of nuclear security. This training was planned conjunction with the release of Fair Game, a film about Valerie Plane's betrayal by the Bush administration. We heard from the women who negotiated the new START treaty with Russia -- a treaty that is languishing in Congress even though it deals with the very serious issue of nuclear proliferation. When women from around the country are taking this kind of initiative, I think that a giant like The New York Times owes them more than a "serious" discussion on skirt suits, windowpane shawls, and frameless eyeglasses.
Get with the times, old gray lady -- your slips are showing.
Too many of the candidates (and the female talking heads) all look as if they had better not bend over or they would suffer the same fate as Ms Teacher. It makes me wonder what would happen if men chose a similar sensual suggestion by having the plackets of their trousers cut into a deep V to suggest the location of similarly suggestive organs. Bet there would be a mighty outcry! The "dressers" have fallen victim to the Distract Police, suggesting that what the female says is not as important as the suggestions made by the wardrobe choices.
One thing I will say about this article is that it's the women themselves that play this hair, hemlines and husbands game. That NYTimes piece is written by a woman - Ruth La Ferla. Do men care what women wear? Only if they want to imagine her naked. So why do women care so much about what other women are wearing? And why do they focus on that instead of the candidates' positions? And why do the candidates themselves make catty comments? Remember Carly Fiorina's comment about Barbara Boxer's hair?
Women are biologically competitive for male attention. Our culture reinforces that instinct. And women who don't consciously counter that, only become victims of it, and themselves.
Now Claire McCaskill, we can talk about her views on stem cell research - because she has views.
These women set themselves up for it. They are playing the cute cheerleader card far too long in their careers and apparantly it's still working with some people.
By Jeremy P. Jacobs--Democrats are facing an electoral landscape more inhospitable than anyone could have imagined just months ago, according to new survey data from the Pew Research Center.
The Pew Research Center survey released Thursday found many troubling signs for Democrats. Among them, Republicans now hold significant advantages among both men and women, as well as in the 77 most competitive House districts.