In an era when “the people of Walmart” is still a thing, I take exception to the notion that we’re not allowed to comment on what female politicians wear. Or rather, we’re not allowed to comment on what female Democratic politicians wear. As we’ve seen before, Republican women are always fair game.
I believe everyone should be fair game.
While I thought the complaints over presidential candidate Marco Rubio’s Beatle boots were dumb, it was a fun way to spend an afternoon, and I don’t begrudge anyone for writing about them. The same should go for female candidates — women shouldn’t be held on some untouchable pedestal.
And that goes for both descriptive words and fashion.
In an interview with Variety, actress Lena Dunham claimed that media is “rabidly sexist” in its coverage of Hillary Clinton. She offered the magazine a list of words “you can’t use when describing a female candidate,” such as “shrill, inaccessible, difficult, frumpy [and] plastic.”
I understand not using words like shrill or frumpy, but the other words could just as easily be used with male candidates — and often they are. Perhaps Dunham never noticed similar words being used against former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He was consistently called “stiff,” “robotic” and any number of similar words, and Dunham didn’t say boo. It seems pretty sexist of her to suggest there are words one can’t call female candidates but not say the same for male candidates.
Romney wasn’t the only one. Al Gore received similar treatment.
And as for fashion, women’s clothing is a huge industry; entire magazines and articles are devoted to what celebrities are wearing. If a presidential candidate wears something awful, it should be fair game.
The problem is that male politicians wear boring clothes. Black suit, blue suit, red tie, blue tie; they really don’t stand out on that score unless they make a huge fashion faux pas. But remember when President Obama wore a tan suit? Of course you do, because no one would shut up about it (myself included). The fact of the matter is, fashion and style are interesting, and politicians are just as capable of inspiring such fascination as celebrities (see, Jackie Kennedy).
And both parties should be subjected to this. If it’s okay to make fun of the weird, shiny fringe on the jacket Sarah Palin wore when she endorsed Donald Trump, then it should be okay to make fun of Hillary Clinton’s North-Korean-dictator style of dress.
The fact of the matter is, we sometimes make style suggestions based on what we see other people wearing, and that includes politicians. When I was first starting out as a professional, I liked the way Lisa Edelstein’s character on “House, M.D.,” dressed. Sure, Dr. House made inappropriate comments about her clothes, but I always thought she looked well put together.
In today’s political milieu, I prefer the style of Carly Fiorina, and I’ve talked to numerous other women who would love to go shopping with her. (Obviously the first choice of celebrity shopping buddies is Tim Gunn, let’s be real).
As for Clinton, I don’t even see older Americans following her style. Politicians can be trendsetters, and sometimes they have fashion misses. That’s no different from celebrities on the red carpet.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
