It’s easy to scoff at an article focused on the fashion choices of female political figures. After all, we don’t usually spend time talking about what male politicians are wearing. However, this article by Vanessa Friedman raises some interesting points about the intentionally feminine wardrobe Michelle Obama chose for her recent five-day Asian tour to promote her “Let Girls Lean In” education campaign.
Without judging either choice, Friedman compares Mrs. Obama’s explicitly feminine silhouettes and patterns to the wardrobes of German chancellor Angela Merkel and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who generally prefer more neutral pantsuits. Friedman notes that Merkel and Clinton likely adopted these “uniforms” in order to remove the topic of fashion from the conversation (again, a privilege most men already have).
But Friedman argues—and I agree—that Mrs. Obama’s choice to embrace “girlie” femininity is a powerful one.
She writes:
In choosing to meet young women in clothes that, perhaps, make her look like them — or how they may want to look if they didn’t have to wear school uniforms — Mrs. Obama was implying: You can dress like a girl and dream about getting a Ph.D. (or a law degree, if we are being picayune), too.
…
How do you erase a stereotype? You confront it, and force others to confront their own preconceptions about it, and then you own it. And in doing so you denude it of its power.
Think of it as a twist on Gloria Steinem’s wake-up call to 40: That is what a successful, well-educated woman looks like. Carnations, acacia blossoms, full skirts and all. It’s probably about time we learned.
In essence, Friedman’s article reminds us that we should be careful not to associate femininity with weakness and/or to assume only women who adopt more masculine characteristics are fit to be leaders. Though it might seem counterintuitive at first, in this case discussing Mrs. Obama’s fashion choices isn’t taking away from her message of female empowerment, it’s adding to it.
The full article is available at The New York Times.