Sartorial Sexism?

Washington Post Style fashion critic Robin Givhan can't help but beat on Hillary Clinton. Not because she's poorly dressed, but because she's a woman, and women's clothing dominates the fashion world. I like that Givhan's column exists, but if she's going to divide her attention between the male and female candidates in a way that reflects the proportionate interests of the industry, she's going to be writing about Clinton often. Recognizing also that this is the first time the United States has seen such a high-profile woman candidate, and she could be writing about Clinton twice weekly. And that's all fine—no amount of hand wringing will change the fact that Clinton's fashion sense is newsworthy.

But how newsworthy? A-section newsworthy? Feminist-commentary newsworthy? Steve Benen says no, and I agree. The problem with Givhan is that she can't decide whether she wants to lead or follow the conversation. "Voters are being asked to envision something this country has never had," writes Givhan, "a female commander in chief." That is one take that voters are being asked to swallow—namely by Clinton's critics, or at least, with a mind to the language put forth by the right.

"Voters are being asked to envision something this country has never had: a female leader." Put another way, Givhan's question doesn't sound so ominous, and the pressing connection to the pant suit falls away, too. Close reading of clothing is not necessarily a bad thing but at the end of the day there were probably more newsworthy items to run in the front of one of the nation's largest newspapers that day.

(Courtesy of Tyler Green)