Pantsuit Fever

Can I take a minute to talk about NOT THE ELECTION?
Cool...
So, I'm going to assume that if you're one of the three people who read this blog (hi mom!) you probably know what you're doing Tuesday. You have either read a lot of stuff and avoided as much hoopla as possible; or perhaps you ate up every last crumb of hoopla, watched all of the debates in a cloud of disbelief, and still have no idea.
The first and last serious thing I will say about it is,
Please vote. Just show up and do it. Please.

Anyhoo, so the important topic.

Pantsuits.
Specifically HRC's Pantsuits (capitalization required).

There's been a lot of commentary on the Pantsuits, a lot of joking, a lot of friendly ribbing about their many colors, styles, and shoulder pad presence.
There's been the use of the Pantsuit as parody, as symbol, as solidarity, and as goofy fashion choice.
What nobody seems to be acknowledging is this:

WHAT THE FUCK ELSE IS SHE SUPPOSED TO WEAR?

Think about it.
When you're a male politician, you wear a suit.
You pick your color. You pick your tie. If you're feeling dapper, you have a pocket square. Maybe you choose a tighter fit, or a skinnier tie, or a single breast or a double breast. Maybe you get a slim leg trouser or a wide leg. Perhaps you get daring and go for pinstripes. There's lapel width to consider, collar starch levels, cuff links versus buttons, etc.

The point is. When you are a male politician, you wear a suit. One might even call it the official uniform of the position.
So why is it so weird that this woman who is running for President would wear a suit?

 Why is it her Pantsuit, which has not changed much in the way of style but only in color, is the strange emblem of her candidacy?
Remember back in '08 when Obama was running for his historic role as the leader of the free world, and that amazing Shepard Fairey Hope Poster became his emblem? It represented hope and possibility. It became parodied, satirized, and ubiquitous in the same way as the Pantsuit, but it was a portrait of the man! It showed a serious contender for this role in the country's future. While not commissioned by the campaign the work of art obtained approval from Obama and became a symbol of the change this country was ready for. Wasn't there even a facebook app or something so you could change your profile picture to match the style of the poster?

Now, eight years later, we have another historic candidate running for the position. She has set her sights on becoming the first woman president, and I don't know...maybe it's because she's older than Obama, not as sexy (let's be honest sex sells everything), and has spent a considerable amount of time in the political limelight already for good or for worse, but the symbol chosen for her campaign is her OUTFIT. Her clothing, people. What the ever loving hell?

This is a wee opinion piece. It is not meant to convince anyone on whom to cast their ballot this Tuesday, but I believe the subject is a reflection of a serious discrepancy between two historic candidates.

But Jess! You might be yelling, the unofficial Trump emblem is his hair! The unofficial Bernie emblem was his receding hairline and glasses! These things are superficial too!

They are, yes, but there's been a long history of presidential candidates physicality being used both for or against them as suitable for the job. There's also this amazing thing that men are allowed to do in our society which is insist that their looks don't contribute to their ability to do a job, something women applying for employment anywhere are still somehow not allowed to do.
Sure, Trump's hair is parodied, but like Clinton, he's kind of embraced the the circus. Besides, it's been his look for decades.

HRC came to the Pantsuit game when she got serious about her public image as a politician. As FLOTUS she sort of put a nineties spin on the Jackie O wardrobe sporting matching jackets and skirts in many hues. She wore respectable hemlines and big sunglasses, pastels and boucle, but almost always a skirt. Funnily, if you compare HRC's wardrobe to anyone else's the closest political match is Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister. Hmmmm...

Yet, since pursuing her own political career became the Clintons' goal, she has shifted to the suit.
Yes, just suit.
Why not Pantsuit?
Because last time I checked all suits came with pants. All of them, and being, as previously established, a suit is the unofficial uniform of the serious politician, what else was she going to wear if she wanted to be taken seriously?

If you enter the words Hillary Clinton Pantsuit into Google, your top search results are how much they cost, followed immediately by commentary on their variety of colors, and in third place an article on PopSugar addressing their Glamour.

Tell me, in the history of any Presidential candidate, have we ever demanded to know how much the dude was paying for his Armani?
Don't tell me Trump is showing up to a debate in a $400 Brooks Brothers situation, and how much were Obama's suits? George W.'s?
Nope. Nobody gives a crap if Joe Biden's wardrobe cost more than the annual budget of Iceland, but the minute a woman takes the stage as a serious political contender, all roads go directly to her clothes.

Personally, I don't care if the President wears a foil hat and a pair of leather chaps if he or she can do a decent job running the country.

Women police officers, women in the military, women in uniforms are assuming a position with a certain image to uphold. They don the clothing to maintain the authority, respect, and dignity of the position they hold. When a woman runs for President, it makes perfect sense for her to wear the uniform of the position for all those same reasons. Color, style, fit, cut, none of it has any more impact on her platforms than the little U.S. Flag pin on her lapel.

All the discussion of the Pantsuits does is reduce another powerful, professional woman to her fashion choices, which has always served as a great way to undermine any real potential of her being taken seriously. We can't possibly have a woman President! I mean, look at her!
Imagine how much flack she would have received if she'd kept wearing skirts? Nobody would take her seriously. She's be lambasted for "using her sexuality to sway votes" as if Obama shooting hoops in a dress shirt with the cuffs rolled up didn't make excellent use of his figure...

Anyway, while I understand people like the Pantsuit as symbol (I'm With Her flashmob reference anyone?), it saddens me that with so many slogans, images, and emblems to choose from in this historic race, the woman candidate has been boiled down to her boiled wool.

Maybe we should be looking at her resume, rather than her jacket label?
Just a thought.