Thursday, October 23, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
In one of the many Palin conversations at school pick-up today, someone was humming this tune, the lyrics to which are:
"I came from the people/They need to adore me. So Christian Dior me."
Most apt.
-
sponsorship
Sara, I was intrigued by your post (Palin May Be Pretty, But Her Poll numbers Aren't) noting that Palin's "supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes." I'm no Palin fan (though I can't get too worked up about the $150,000 wardrobe expenditure)—but I can't help wondering if Palin's sex appeal isn't actually hurting her, at this point.
I've blogged here before about the benefits—social and financial—our society hands out to those fortunate enough to be attractive. Reasearchers call it the "beauty premium." But ... it turns out that there's also a "beauty penalty." One 2006 study found that:
People are more likely to trust a pretty face, but when that trust is betrayed, the backlash can be ugly. ... Numerous studies have shown that attractive people generally make more money, get higher reviews from their supervisors and are viewed as being more intelligent and trustworthy. What surprised researchers in this study was that subjects deemed attractive also were penalized more harshly for failing to live up to expectations.
I wonder if that's what's happening to Sarah Palin now. Quoth the Sage:
For if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.
Ahem.
-
sponsorship
I've been trying to formulate an opinion about Sarah Palin’s new wardrobe, and I confess that the whole subject bothers me more than it should. On the one hand, I agree with the pragmatist bloggers that one needs to dress the part, and that faced with about six minutes in which to get Palin ready for her close-up, the RNC opted to throw money at the problem. (Anyone who saw the "before" snap of Palin in this baffling folk-elf outfit will understand that the woman needed at least some help.) On the other hand, I also agree with the purist bloggers that spending $150,000 on incredibly high-end designer duds not only looks bad to Joe the Plumber, but also turns Palin from Joe Sixpack into Empress Josephine. Still, the whole subject continues to make me queasy for some of the reasons Meghan explored: It is really, really different to be a woman in the public eye. The standards for looking “good” are completely unfair, and the stakes are vastly higher for failing to do so. We obsessed about John Edwards' haircut because a bad haircut truly wouldn’t have mattered. We obsessed over Hillary Clinton’s cleavage, or her pantsuits, or her highlights because they matter so much.
We could certainly wish that two kindly mice name Gus and Jacques had sewn all of Palin’s outfits for free on the night of Aug. 29, 2008, but maybe that whole Cinderella story says more about the relationship between women and beautiful clothes than we care to admit.
So I am going to have to side with the women (anyone notice a generational division opening up here?) who think that when it comes to looking up to the job, a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do. Nevertheless, the whole Pygmalion subplot, wherein Palin is a life-sized "teachable" Barbie doll, continues to leave me cold.
-
sponsorship
I agree with you, Meghan, that woman have never settled on a comfortable uniform for power. And that opens up all kinds of possibilities. But they are not all bad. Think about it this way. We don't talk about every powerful female politicians' clothing. Nobody analyzes what Barbara Boxer wears to a hearing, or Olympia Snowe, even though they are both perfectly attractive. I think the place we are at now is that, for women, people say attractive when they mean charismatic. In Jane Mayer's piece, you can see the men around Palin struggling to come up with the right words to describe this awestruck feeling they have. They settle on demeaning ones—"pretty," "knockout"—but what they are describing is some kind of force she has that they can't quite put into words. This same phenomenon happened to Segolene Royal, the French Socialist candidate. People talked about her bikinis, and her flirty little skirts, but they were really talking about something else.
-
sponsorship
That's what she seems to be saying in this interview with People magazine. When asked whether her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy has changed how she talks about sex with her other kids, she says: "I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand—even in schools—they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered.'' Which does not sound like abstinence only—and does sound completely sensible. I was also kind of surprised by the New Age Sarah who comes through in the interview when she describes Bristol as "kind of an old soul.'' So many layers, and only 12 days. ...
-
sponsorship
To answer Meghan’s question, according to Brooks Brothers online, you can get a very nice suit for less than $1,000. And you can get its top-of-the-line suit for around $1,600. A nice shirt and tie might bring this to $2,000. I seriously doubt Joe Biden bought 70 such suits after becoming Obama’s running mate. And whatever happened to the fine political tradition of wearing jeans and a flannel shirt when courting Joe Sixpack? I’m not sure Chanel is (or should be) the female equivalent.
I also find the argument that Palin had nothing else to wear, prior to the RNC’s shopping spree, a little unbelievable. Palin is the governor of a major state. She campaigned for this office, appeared on TV countless times in that election (including in multiple debates), has surely attended governors’ conferences and other formal events in an official capacity. Are we to believe that prior to being tapped for VP, she never owned anything besides a seal-skin coat and 'coon cap?
As a native of Dallas, I’ve spent my fair share of money at Neiman-Marcus’ flagship store, but as Slate’s piece points out today—it’s pretty hard to blow $150,000, even at a store like Neiman’s. Moreover, I know a lot of high-society women in Dallas who brag about the fine fashion they’ve also found at Target, especially in these tough economic times. (They call the store “Tar-chez.”) Is it really the opinion of the women on XX Factor that a woman can’t look good on TV or at a rally in anything less than a $4,000 designer suit? Seems to me we’re buying into Carrie Bradshaw’s world view a little too much. The dress Michelle Obama wore when she went on The View famously cost $148 off the rack.
-
sponsorship
I swore off Sarah Palin for the week, but I can't resist a comment about her wardrobe—and a few questions for all you smart ladies. First, I find it telling that many outlets (including Slate and our blog) continue to refer to the shopping spree as "Sarah Palin's" shopping spree and talk about what "she's" done, when we know that Republican handlers bought the clothes and arranged for the wardrobe. But how active was she in this whole thing? Was she more or less outfitted than Biden was? Would we use the same kind of language of implication if we found out that Democrats had selected for Joe Biden a wardrobe costing $150,000? Or would we assume more distance between the candidate and his clothes? Would the party EVER spend that much money on a man?
These questions seem important because how we think about women and their clothes is different from how we think about a man and his clothes. Clothes are one of the many ways it's more complicated to be a woman politician than a man; women have to spend more time coming up with a look than men do. Historically, men have had a uniform that connotes authority, and women haven't. Most female uniforms have signified subservience: I'm a helper. Think nurses, stewardesses, etc. By contrast, many male uniforms have signaled power: I'm a protector/decider. Think doctors, cops, businessmen in power suits. (Of course there is also a subset of lower-status male uniforms.)
One imagines Palin isn't that active a participant in her makeover. But she is being dressed up and positioned to look her best. As someone pointed out to me today, in the VP debate moderated by Gwen Ifill there were several shots of Palin and Biden from behind, showing off Palin's shoes, her nice legs, and other, er, assets. And whether or not she chooses any of this, she's implicated in it—setting off these sorts of conversations. It's analogous to many of the problems Hillary faced, and it says to me, at least, that we still have a long way to go before we really get used to women in politics.
Finally, if we're gonna talk about these things: How much does Biden's wardrobe cost, do you think? All you men who read XXFactor: some of you must have a sense of how much this snazzy-looking suit (which he wore during one of the VP debates) cost. I'm at meghanor@gmail.com if anyone has an educated guess...
-
sponsorship
So, Barack Obama has raised $605 million (including money from sources whose "names" look as if they were plucked from ACORN's voter registrations lists), reneged on his pledge to take matching federal funds along with John McCain, and is spending almost $2 million on a half-hour ad to air on the networks next Sunday, and I'm supposed to think he's a man of the people because he gets his shoes resoled? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
-
sponsorship
Susannah, the hole in the shoe is a well-trod candidate cliché. Obama probably doesn't want to go the way of a previous presidential candidate from Illinois whose hole-filled soles became a campaign symbol: Adlai Stevenson (this Wikipedia entry even has a picture of a Stevenson statue that shows off the shoes). Both Barack and Michelle Obama are beautifully dressed and have great personal style, which is to be appreciated. I'm with the previous XXers who don't begrudge Palin her shopping spree. That she didn't have a wardrobe ready for a vice-presidential run was at least an easily fixable deficiency.
-
sponsorship
In regards to Sarah Palin's $150,000 shopping spree, it's not so much the clothes, but what the clothes say about the soul of the one who wears them. In stark contrast to Palin's high-end high heels and perfectly tailored lady suits, Barack Obama gets his hard-worn campaign trail shoes resoled. This telling photo says more about Obama's interior than any trip to Saks could ever reveal of Palin, who's little more than a prop for a political party that's flailing. The Obama photo is part of a terrific series of intimate shots taken by Time photographer Callie Shell, but for a full breakdown of Palin's shopping obscenity, this graphic really says it all.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?