Carol Platt Liebau

Friday, February 25, 2005

This article on Condoleezza Rice's clothes is a profoundly silly one. The whole breathless 'her clothes speak of sex and power' element to the story is ridiculous -- it sounds like something out of an overheated, pseudo-academic, trying-too-hard literary review of some sort.

Dr. Rice wears great clothes, as the story points out. End of story. If they look different than the usual boxy suit and pumps, well, it may be because Dr. Rice has the figure to be able to branch out a bit. Consider how much better suited she is to these clothes than, say, Madeline Albright would be. Boxy suit and pumps are designed to conceal -- and in some cases, that's a blessing.

In any case, Dr. Rice looks good, and as even the story concedes, she is dressed appropriately. So what's the problem? Why does the Post even run stories like this? It only provides fodder for left wing feminists who can argue -- with some justification here -- that women elected officials receive very different media coverage than men do. Do you recall reading anything about Colin Powell's clothes?

And could we please, please keep sex out of at least something? Dr. Rice isn't dressed "provocatively." So show a little respect.


Blogger jchess said...

It is a matter of relevant contextual perspective: Dr. Rice (a title she earned, unlike, say, Ward Churchill), is not only smart and beautiful but has good fashion sense and taste.

Name one female type person from The Washigton Post of whom the same can be said.

Besides, aren't all women supposed to aspire to looking like a cross between Hillary Clinton in her black dragon coat and Martha Stewart in her prison garbs?

James C. Hess

6:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home