 |
|
Amuse
Blogs
Food
Life
Links
News
Pictures
Rants
Site
Tech
Words
Actual screen cap of an AP story about soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in which whoever wrote the caption felt obliged to mention her outfit. (via Jack at TPRS)
Excuse the hell out of me, but when was the last time it was considered necessary to mention who made George Bush's suit or what color shirt he wore? Are we really not over the need in our society to define women by their clothing? What single bit of difference does it make if Nancy Pelosi wears an aqua Armani pantsuit or a red polyester dress from K-Mart? Does it matter if Bush wears Hermes neckties or suits off the rack from Men's Wearhouse? Of course not.
When Katie Couric debuted on the CBS Evening News a couple of months ago, there was a lot of scrutiny given to her choice of wardrobe, too. On one hand, I can understand this to some degree because she's more celebrity than authority figure, even though she finds herself in a role we've traditionally granted "gravitas" to. What celebrities wear is part of the whole cult of celebrity in the first place. But even in Katie Couric's case, dishing about her outfit seems woefully out of place in the context of her role vis-a-vis Brian Williams or Charlie Gibson, and certainly in relation to the way we talked about news anchors like Cronkite or Jennings.
Part of the problem, I suppose, is that we've reduced politicians to celebrities (indeed, the line is so blurred that we're entirely willing to accept celebrities as politicians, so why not the other way around?), but the double standard is unnecessary.
Seriously. I don't ever recall being concerned about what Dennis Hastert was wearing, as long as it was something. Nothing like keeping our eye on the ball, huh?
Posted by Tony [URL] at 11/16/06
© BrianKaneOnline.com 2000-2007