Women’s Dress in Politics: A Balance of Femininity and Force

In August of 2008 the United States geared up for arguably one of the most important presidential elections in history and also one of the most important primaries of the Democratic Party, with two unprecedented candidates: a woman, Hillary Clinton, and an African-American man, Barack Obama. While then current Democrats in office and constituents scrutinized both candidates’ views on health reform, the war in Iraq, and the nation’s economy, the media also analyzed a seemingly unimportant feature of the campaign—the different colors of Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits.

On the campaign trail, popular television shows, such as Saturday Night Live, took every opportunity to display their revulsion at Clinton’s style. However, after she was chosen as Secretary of State and became part of President Obama’s presidential cabinet, the media has noticed what they deem a “style evolution” towards a more fashionable female politician. As Secretary of State Clinton’s evolution reaches more stylish results, the media focuses less and less on what she is wearing and more on what she is saying.

Across the aisle, journalists also dissected Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin’s, style choices…right down to the supposedly $400 dollar glasses she wore. In October 2008, The Huffington Post even reported that the GOP had spent over $150,000 dollars accessorizing and dressing Sarah Palin and her family. Which leads to the question: why is there the need for extravagant expenses and unrelenting media focus on an aspect of a candidate that has in no way the ability to predict the effectiveness of her or his ability to lead?

Fashion magazines and the American public have long paid attention to women in political leadership roles for style trends. There has always been pressure on women to exude an air of confidence, elegance, and style in the form of clothing choice, hairstyle, make up and general appearance. More recently, the media pays attention to First Lady Michelle Obama and compares her trendsetting style and fashion to Jackie Kennedy. She has even inspired a book entitled Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style by Kate Betts of Time magazine.

Although the First Lady was not elected and has no official elected position or salary, she still stands in the limelight and often contributes to political activism. First Lady Obama has been criticized for her sometimes over-the-top outfits, but more often praised for her style transformation from a high-powered executive (before the election, Michelle Obama worked for the University of Chicago Hospitals as Vice President for Community and External Affairs) to the relaxed yet elegant wife of the President, often wearing labels such as J.Crew or H&M to appeal to a broader demographic of women across America.

This concentration on style is rarely given to male politicians, whose uniform mainly consists of a suit and tie; understandably, there is not much room for criticism. The suits often have designer labels with expensive price tags, such as Armani or Dolce & Gabbana but no media commentary. Granted, there was the occasional comment on President Obama’s purple tie during the 2011 State of the Union speech and its message for bipartisanship and the brief period before his presidency when he did not where an American flag pin, but even that was more of a political assertion than a fashion statement.

However, the media did notice one outfit they considered a fashion faux pas of President Obama that even made the front page of The New York Post—wearing flip-flops on his winter vacation to Hawaii this past January. The tagline, reading “Should the leader of the free world dress like this—even on vacation?” demonstrates focus on a moment when President Obama was not trying to pass a bill or keep the nation in order; he was simply spending time with his family. Coverage of such arbitrary details of a president’s personal life shows the press’ widespread obsession with politician’s dress.

Although the media’s attention to dress in politics is overwhelming, it should be noted that more than their male counterparts, women in politics and in the public spotlight have to carefully choose their clothing in order to portray a perfectly balanced appearance showing strong leadership with femininity. Women politicians and leaders realize that even before they can start a speech, make a point in a debate, or even give a press conference, they will be judged on their appearance.

To a certain extent, the way one dresses in the political arena is important. A politician would not be taken seriously if she or he looked as if they had not taken the time to dress neatly. Haphazard or messy clothing indicates apathy for the matter at hand and a lack of respect for the audience.

Even beyond the political arena, women’s dress for job interviews or in the workplace has a different standard. At Scripps College, an institution created for the equality of women’s education, the Career Planning and Resources Center suggests that, “Most interviewers surveyed preferred to see women in skirted suits. Pantsuits may be seen as too casual.” Although skirted suits are conservative, Scripps as well as other women recognizes that the politics of dress dictate what is socially acceptable in the workplace, even if it creates a double standard.

As of this writing, there are 17 women in the United States Senate, 78 women in the House of Representatives, and 6 female Governors in the United States. Although the number of women represented in public office is still not equal to that of men, perhaps cutting back the media focus on women’s politics of dress, and that of politicians in general, will create a more equal atmosphere.