This news article floated through my feed, the sort of thing I’d normally ignore had the accompanying photos not caught my eye.
Is it just me, or would Clinton have to go a long, long ways in distance and time to find an uglier and less flattering jacket? It looks like something knitted from an old couch throw to make a trailer-park BBQ cover. Color, texture, tailoring, everything is just R-O-N-G wrong.
I thought a while before posting this because I don’t think female politicians should be held to any different standard than male ones… but this is like Jeb Bush showing up at a rally in a loud plaid golf jacket with fuzzy dingleballs on the lapels and hem.
I don’t think I would have noticed it if you hadn’t pointed it out, so I guess no, it doesn’t look that bad to me. I did notice the Christ-like pose the camera caught her in, though, as if she’s calling her followers to gather round.
I don’t care what politicians wear. This outfit doesn’t ping my radar one bit. (and I’m not particularly a fan of Mrs. Clinton) Men can wear a gray suit every day. Women have to mix it up a bit. I wouldn’t be too hard on her. She looks fine as a potential president. We’re not evaluating her as a Saturday night date prospect.
The article title is “Hillary Clinton Urges UConn Crowd: Get Involved, Take A Stand”.
If she wore boring blend-in clothes or fashionably acceptable clothes or no-brainer dress in lock-step with everyone around you clothes, how would that be taking a stand?
How would that be taking a risk? How would that be standing out (which is what it takes to be outstanding by the way)?
Seems like misogynists never fail to fall for this trick. Over and over. She wears fugly outfit, thereby generating, yet again, the conversation about how male politicians are never publicly judged over such nonsense.
I mean, has the press ever speculated that a male presidential candidate might change his mind, upon hearing he’ll soon be a grandfather? I think not.
But it successfully puts women’s issues front and centre. When will they learn? Women from both sides of the political divide thinks it’s offencive to judge a female candidate’s hair, clothes, family obligations, arrival of grand children, etc.
Red or blue, this reinforces the message, this shit needs to change!
I’m not sure who you’re looking for change from. If you don’t think that jacket is eye-gouging ugly and would have provoked comments on a grandma walking down a city sidewalk, there must be very different sartorial standards in Canuckistan.
If any male politician wore the equivalent - let’s just say it’s an old favorite golf jacket from the 1970s - it would provoke comments as well. I don’t think it’s an exclusively m/f thing here. It’s a bizarre, ugly piece of clothing and it’s odd to see a “serious” speaker - politician, CEO, scientist, inventor, whatever - appear in such a thing.
But this is not like a golf jacket. It is a pastel blazer that is in line with normal professional dress. It just happens to be unflattering.
Women can’t win. When they do the “let’s just wear the same general thing,” like the old school Hilary pants suit, they get mocked. When they wear other things, they get mocked for being too sexy (Sarah Palin) or too frumpy.
