From Sister Toldjah, Any excuse to like to a story about cleavage!!

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell says that Post fashion writer Robin Givhan’s July 20 column on Hillary Clinton’s cleavage generated tons of outrage:

The Post got thousands of angry letters and calls last week — the vast majority from women — in response to a July 20 Style column by Fashion Editor Robin Givhan, commenting on Clinton showing a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor. A note from Ann Stingle of Fairfax echoed others’ complaints: “Robin Givhan’s story is sexist and demeaning of both women and the seriousness of issues needing to be addressed.’’

Ann Althouse had a little fun responding to some of the letters Howell reprinted, including this letter, which I’m going to address (emphasis added):

I can’t decide what horrifies me more: that The Post, which I have often touted for its intelligent reporting, would publish such a sexist, dated article, or even worse, that the author was echoing a common viewpoint still prevalent in society.

As a mother and a professional analyst for the government, I have always believed that my colleagues have respected my work, my mind and my opinions, not whether my cleavage was showing. I dress as I believe all women should: with the ability to choose clothes that represent who they are, be they feminine, nurturing, intelligent, sexy or fashionable. But I do so with the hope that clothes represent my style — not how much skin is exposed.

Althouse’s response:

So women should wear clothes that “represent who they are,” but it’s wrong to analyze this self expression? Your “clothes represent [your] style — not how much skin is exposed”? What does that mean? The style of your clothes obviously includes the way it covers some parts and not others. Once you concede that clothes express the inner self, it follows that we should try to understand the meaning of the clothing worn by a person who seeks political power. Why would you censor this valuable line of inquiry?

Exactly. As a woman, and knowing many women, I can tell you from first hand experience that when professional women dress, nine times out of ten they’re dressing to impress, I don’t care where they’re working. They also expect to get noticed for how ’sharp’ and/or ’stylish’ they’re dressed and, shocker of all shockers, they actually like to receive compliments for what they wear. Now I can guarantee you that if Givhan’s column had been more flattering about the way Hillary dresses, i.e., if she was wearing red, how the color and style she was wearing was a symbol for power, or if it was along the lines of “Hillary is showing some cleavage and leg in a Congress that traditionally shies away form overt displays of skin. You go girl! Break down those walls!” the reactions to that column would have been totally different - especially amongst the liberal woman responding to what was written.

Read the full entry here

Goodie, goodie we get to mix the raunchy talk of politics and boobies together.
I swear, if I had not read news articles about this “controversy” if I had been watching her speech on the floor live I would not have thought anything about it.
I frankly don’t see a problem with what she wore on the floor or in the pic I have above.
Now if she were falling out of the power suit with triple D’s then well…BUT I would not be here as a right wing blogger saying HOW DARE SHE!
I can hear some of you saying, “Sure, any excuse to post crude pictures on your blog,” I don’t NEED an excuse to post what some may consider crude photos, because as I have said numerous times I don’t give a shit what y’all think.

Now speaking from the male pig perspective, if a women is wearing a really well tailored “power suite” you don’t have to show any cleavage to look hot, c’mon! If you women don’t already know this then you need to get a clue.

Just like a couple of year ago as folks were shocked by Secretary of State Rice’s boots and her “Matrix” suit, I was like damm, I liked that. Some took issue but it quickly faded.
Remember what was written about back then.

Condoleezza Rice’s Commanding Clothes - By Robin Givhan - WaPost - February 25, 2005

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. 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.

Rice boldly eschewed the typical fare chosen by powerful American women on the world stage. She was not wearing a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps. She did not cloak her power in photogenic hues, a feminine brooch and a non-threatening aesthetic. Rice looked as though she was prepared to talk tough, knock heads and do a freeze-frame “Matrix” jump kick if necessary. Who wouldn’t give her ensemble a double take — all the while hoping not to rub her the wrong way?

This entry was posted on Monday, July 30th, 2007 at 10:32 am and is filed under Womens Issues, 2008, Fashion, Hillary Watch, Men are pigs, Fake Outrage.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.