Washington Post Article

[quote]Condoleezza Rice's Commanding Clothes

By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 25, 2005; Page C01

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?

Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only `co-exist` in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual.

Refusing to Be in the Background or Simply a Wardrobe Mistake? :shock:

And another possibility - maybe she wanted to entertain the troops? You know, a USO Tour?

Actually, I have to admit that I rather like the look....I've always thought it unfortunate that so many women in power believe it necessary to dress so like the men that they claim to differ from....if we believe that women are as powerful as men then I believe that we should embrace our gender and celebrate it, not hide from it....

However, I do find it odd that the Washington Post still comments on the clothing of female politicians....they did this to Hilary, too...remember all the references to her "black pants suits"? Not to mention the fascination with her hair....having said that, I will add that now that Condi has shown a fashion streak she really should get herself to a hairdresser....

[quote=suswah]And another possibility - maybe she wanted to entertain the troops? You know, a USO Tour?

Or...maybe she's planning a meet up with Keanu Reeves????

[quote=Teresa22]Actually, I have to admit that I rather like the look....I've always thought it unfortunate that so many women in power believe it necessary to dress so like the men that they claim to differ from....if we believe that women are as powerful as men then I believe that we should embrace our gender and celebrate it, not hide from it....[/quote]

But Teresa, unless everyone is misreading her fashion statement, don't you think she WAS dressing like a man or rather a military man from the knees up, anyway - and for me, the spiked boots definitely made that outfit inappropriate for an official appearance with American troops. It might be like former Secretary of State Colin Powell exposing his chest by wearing a lovely silk shirt unbuttoned halfway to his waist - while rallying the troops. Or something like that. Maybe Condi just set a precedent for all future Secretary's of State. Woohoooo.

THe boots make the outfit inappropriate. Sensible pumps is what she should of worn. THen her clothes would not have gotten so much attention.

I also agree that I wish that they didi not comment on women's clothes as much as they do, however the media also has a habit of commenting on it when a male official or candidate looks younger than his age, which should not be done either. We need to stick to the important issues. Clothing and looks are not. Ms. Rice was not over there to make a fashion statement, but to engage in foriegn policy discussions. Her clothes became the news so we will most likely not here about the substance of her meetings.

I've read that Condi is actually quite a clothes and jewelry horse....which is fine, but gotta admit, I'm still somewhat amazed by that hair....

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I think it is ok for women to dress in a powerful way...even if it is perceived as sexy. Guess thats because I'm a woman who would not be caught dead in a pastel pink or blue suit, you know? Why must we totally "`de-sex`" women? Must they really look like someone's grandmother in order to be taken seriously? I dunno...maybe its just me....heck, I thought Hilary looked better before she came to Washington and was "`re-made`" several times over.

The real point is, why aren't we discussing what Colin Powell wore or what GW wears? As long as everything is zipped up ( which apparently for Georgie is a challenge) no one ever comments....and let me say, I've seen any number of male power brokers wear some pretty `God-awful` and `ill-fitting` clothes.

Maybe its just the women....maybe we are talking about what Condi wore and maybe the men never even noticed anything different....

Teresa

You bet the men noticed! A woman in stiletto heels, are you kidding? of they noticed.

All I was saying is that I would dress less "sexy" if I had her job and was not going to a party.

I don't think she was dressed particularly "sexy".....thats part of the point I guess I'm trying to make, too. Clothing that is "attractive" or "stylish" doesn't necessarily mean that it's "sexy". Why do we have to pretend that we aren't women? I think we're selling out when we do that.

I do agree, Judy, that much of the emphasis being placed on how Condi looked is nothing but a distraction to keep us from questioning why she had to go with George in the first place....she was just there a couple of weeks ago....I guess they figured it wasn't safe to let him out alone. She's the `babysitter-in`-chief, I guess.

Teresa, I must disagree. I don't think Ms. Rice was dressed appropriately - not badly, but inappropriately. If anything, maybe she was drawing attention to herself because she WAS being overlooked. And I think her outfit may be considered quite fashionable - but I believe it sends the wrong message to a world that is looking for some semblance of sanity from U.S. leaders.

Another excerpt from the Washington Post article:

[quote]But the sexual frisson in Rice's look also comes from the tension of a woman dressed in vaguely masculine attire -- that is, the long, `military-inspired` jacket. When the designer Yves Saint Laurent first encouraged women to wear trousers more than 30 years ago, his reasons were not simply because pants are comfortable or practical. He knew that the sight of a woman draped in the accouterments of a man is sexually provocative. A woman was embracing something forbidden.

There is no way that Condi could dress that would make Europeans veiw Bush as "sane".....maybe she was sent as a "back up" so that if George could not sufficiently charm them we would set out to do so....

I guess, deep down, I just really resent the way that Washington DC wants women to dress....absolutely hideous clothing that makes me want to applaud anyone that breaks away from the mold.

[quote=Teresa22][quote=suswah]And another possibility - maybe she wanted to entertain the troops? You know, a USO Tour?

Or...maybe she's planning a meet up with Keanu Reeves????[/quote]

So, really after her stint as Secretary of State could she be contemplating giving it all up for a film career? In that case, she should talk to Arnold, too - he's a good one for discussing action films - I think this could be Condi's niche.

The Terminatrix. :idea:

Hey...if we can have journalists that moon light as male escorts I guess we shouldn't be shocked at Secretaries' of State who have their own hidden lives....nothing this administration does is real, anyway.

[quote=Teresa22]There is no way that Condi could dress that would make Europeans veiw Bush as "sane".....maybe she was sent as a "back up" so that if George could not sufficiently charm them we would set out to do so....

I guess, deep down, I just really resent the way that Washington DC wants women to dress....absolutely hideous clothing that makes me want to applaud anyone that breaks away from the mold.[/quote]

Teresa, I think her outfit was just fine - until she added the boots. I also think they may be attempting to gain sympathy from the dirty liberals. By having Condi step out in a slightly provocative outfit - well, what better way to gain a little edge with the very people who hate Bush so much. Sounds like a very nice subliminal plan to me.

Frankly, who gives a rat's patoot? I suspect she had someone else pick her clothes that day since she normally demonstrates that Walmart style favored by Laura and Pat Nixon designed to hide their wealth. This is just the purchased media trying to get us to forget this is the same stupid woman whose defense before the 9/11 Commission was, "don't blame me, I'm incompetent!" And now that the withheld portion of the Commission report is public, demonstrating just how incompetent that was, the media right on cue comes up with this inane distraction.

The only reason it interests me is the fact that they are usually so precise with the "image" and the "message."

Maybe this IS making a mountain out of a molehill. OK. And I suppose it's possible she didn't think anyone would notice what she was wearing. I mean, is she really the Secretary of State or Bush's secretary? When they announced his trip, there was no mention that she would be travelling with him. Is that normal protocol for a Secretary of State? :?: