Hillary Clinton Comes Under Fire for "Manly" Pantsuits But Are Women Power-Brokers Viewed in Terms of their Wardrobe & Not their Abilities?

Hillary Clinton criticized for her "manly" pantsuits and Condoleezza Rice called a "Dominatrix" for wearing black boots, is there a double standard in wardrobe choices for powerful women vs. powerful men?

Hillary Clinton & her "manly" pantsuits (Corporate Fashionista)

COMMENTARY:  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was lambasted by fashion expert Tim Gunn during his appearance on George Lopez television show Thursday night. He slammed Mrs. Clinton of favoring unflattering manly clothes and that she should use her position to send a more positive message about American fashion. He said she seems to be "confused about her gender." Gunn also said, "I have great respect for her intellect and her tenacity and for what she does for our country, her governmental role." But is it fair to hold women leaders to a higher standard based on their wardrobe? Some of our male leaders have been seen in frumpy, plain and god-awful suits, but we don't hear complaints coming from people like Tim Gunn. I could ask if Tim Gunn is also confused about his gender for obvious reasons.

So much attention is being paid to what women wear, particularly powerful women. Take former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example. In 2005, she arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black and some in the press went nuts. Here's how the Washington Post described her attire:

She was wearing a black skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine's dress uniform or the "save humanity" ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix."

As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the leg. In short, the boots are sexy.

Ms. Rice's boots oozed "sex and power," and, according to the writer, she was a "Dominatrix." Really? Are we so jaded that we can only pay attention and give respect to a powerful women dressed in a sexually-suggestive manner?

Let's turn to Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under Bill Clinton's administration. Does anyone even know about she was unanimously confirmed on December 5, 1996 by a 99-0 U.S. Senate vote? Or does anyone even care about the struggles she went through in her early life that shaped the tough secretary of state she became late in life? She got married at 22 while her husband was in the Army, she had dreams of becoming an international correspondent, had twin girls and at 24 started her Ph.D. but didn't finish until they were in high school. What we are programmed to remember about Mrs. Albright are her pins, nice clothes and yes, those bright red heels. Madeleine Albright was asked about the fact that powerful women and the issue of being scrutinized for their clothes:

"Well, it's pretty irritating actually because nobody ever describes what a man is wearing. But people did pay attention to what clothes I had. What was interesting was that, before I went up to New York as U.N. ambassador, I talked to Jeane Kirkpatrick who'd been ambassador before me, and she said, "You've got to get rid of your professor clothes. Go out and look like a diplomat." So that did give me a lot of opportunities to go shopping. But still, there were all kinds of questions about, did you wear a hat? How short was your skirt? And one of the things - if you remember Condoleezza Rice was at some event and she wore boots, and she got criticized over that. And no guy ever gets criticized. But that's the least of it." Source

Michelle Obama has come under fire too, for many of the outfits she has worn since her husband became president. The most stinging criticisms come from people who believe she should limit her choice of designers to American designers. Her choice to bare her arms caused an uproar in her first official picture as First Lady. Then during President Obama's first Congressional address, she wore a purple sleeveless dress, again baring her toned triceps and biceps. The press went nuts.

The obsession with how a woman is attired shouldn't be the focal point of any debate, particularly where our nation is concerned. Barring the Frederick of Hollywood look, shouldn't our female power-brokers be allowed to dress as they feel and are comfortable? Does a dark, well-tailored suit spell competence for our male political leaders and power-brokers, while women in similar positions of power have to contend with cultural demands and understand that success is tied to one's wardrobe? Are Hillary Clinton's "manly" pantsuits an attack on feminism, considering the U.S. and other countries are fighting for their economic lives at this juncture?