Cleavagegate: Hillary Clinton Rocks the Internets (and her V-Neck).

posted by Damozel | The attractive Hillary Clinton---an acknowledged woman---recently appeared in the Senate in  a V-necked shirt, sending shock waves across America.  It turns out that Hillary, a candidate for the US presidency---some might say, based on her performance in the debates, the candidate----has breasts!

Once again, we get a glimpse of the atavistic fear Hillary Clinton so often seems to provoke.  People are grudgingly coming to terms with the fact that she is, by far, the most credible, intelligent, and formidable contender...and now: breasts.  Presidents, I take it, aren't meant to have them.   The whole ridiculous flap shows just how deeply Americans fear women who dare to step out of their place even though---in the words of her newly unveiled campaign ad---"Sometimes the best man for the job is a woman."

I had thought that breasts were fairly standard equipment for adult females, but apparently the future leader of the free world isn't really meant to let people see she's got the standard female equipment. 

Robin Givhan of  The Washington Post is wondrously discomfited by this unprecedented revelation.   "With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way."  (The Washington Post)

I personally would have assumed that showing cleavage in July in the sauna-like atmosphere of DC is a request not to be carried away on a stretcher as a result of heat stroke.  Though I am a woman of a certain age, I know that to bare the neck and shoulders is the surest way to stay cool during the Florida summer.  My glamorous mother, the Southern Lady (aged 79), doesn't scorn the scoop-neck or the V-neck when the mercury is set at 98. 

So you may have wondered, as I did, why all this fuss?  Well for one thing, Givhan seems to feel that Hillary is too "ambivalent" about her image to work the V-necked look:

It's startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative -- aesthetically speaking -- environment of Congress. After all, it wasn't until the early '90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both....

It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed. (The Washington Post)

I'd like to take Givhan aside to explain that for a woman of a certain age, a display of cleavage is very much not about "asking to be objectified."  Some of us feel that our stately years in and of themselves should bar that sort of unseemly speculation.  At a certain age, a woman earns the right to dress herself stylishly or edgily or in a discreetly daring fashion without being suspected of putting her sexuality up for negotiation or discussion, as it were.

But Givhan apparently thinks that cleavage is appropriate only when cocktails and appetizers are among those present.  In any other context it is a "provocation."  (The Washington Post)   To carry it off, a woman must have an "unflinching sense of style" whereas "in matters of style" Clinton is "noncommittal."(The Washington Post)  I have no idea what this means. Ruth Marcus, also of The Washington Post, comments, "[Givhan's] complaint seemed to be that Clinton was showing too little, too unassertively." (The Washington Post)  I must remember to wear my V-necks more assertively in future. And Hillary must, it seems, either provide "a more abundant display" or else not bother.

Even so, I can't help feeling that Givhan---who got the whole discussion started in the first place--overreacted a bit to Hillary's outfit.  Evidently she found Clinton's discreet display as disconcerting as the sight of a man ---and not just any man, but Rudy Giuliani---walking round with his shirt unbuttoned just that little bit too far.  Or---taking it to the next level---as a man (she doesn't particularize Giuliani) walking round with his fly unbuttoned.  It's that kind of uncomfortable for Givhan, the sort where you say to yourself---as she says, a bit hysterically if you ask me---"Just look away!" .(.The Washington Post) 

Should someone this sensitive be writing about contemporary fashion? First the spasm over the President's crocs, now over a very moderately revealing V-neck.

After reading this article, my astonished (English) husband remarked:  "Only in America."  Meanwhile, Ann Althouse found political significance in Hillary's decision to "flaunt" her cleavage. 

Or are you going to say that "flaunts" is  too active a verb? She has cleavage. Just happens to have it. Just happens to wear a top that happens to be low enough that you can see it if you happen to have eyes. Just happens to wear it to the Senate floor to give a speech about the cost of education. Are you going to say that we ought to be giving attention to the content of that speech and not to the presentation of the woman who would be President?(Althouse)

 You'd think that the attractive Ms. Althouse of all people would see this as a step in the right direction.  We ladies of a certain age ought to affirm our sisters' freedom to be (discreetly) female in the Senateor anywhere else.   But---for reasons best known to herself, which I'm positive don't include envy and competitiveness, as some of her detractors most unfairly suggest---Althouse seemed ambivalent about V-necked Hillary, implying....well, I'm not sure exactly what:  that Clinton was deliberately inserting her breasts into public discourse(?).   

Visible cleavage doesn't just happen....Every woman who is competent enough to play a significant political role knows how to change to a top with a higher neckline or put a jacket over a sweater. So how she has chosen to appear means something and it is a fair subject for political commentary. I will not be pushed back from this subject. (Althouse: comment)

"Visible cleavage doesn't just happen."  I beg to differ; it most definitely can.  As The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus notes, "As a person of cleavage, I'd guess that Clinton's low-cut shirt simply reflected a few centimeters of sartorial miscalculation, not a deliberate fashion statement."

When certain of her readers trollishly (some very rudely indeed) questioned whether Hillary's V-neck really warranted their attention. Althouse replied that it did--- "Breasts that are conspicuous in the political sphere warrant commentary." (Althouse: comment) Since "fashion and grooming" are part of a public figures' communication. "It's repressive nonsense to tell us to shut up. Hillary Clinton is a powerful person who is seeking to become the most powerful human being on earth. We are absolutely free -- and even obligated -- to put her through the wringer. We talk about how the men look too -- and we should (Althouse) .

Duly noted; and so---a bit late in the day, I admit---I am doing as "the divine Ms. Althouse" says I should and jumping right in to put Hillary "through the wringer. So here it is:  Hillary rocked the V-neck. I can't wait to see her inaugural gown.

To be fair to Ann Althouse, she doesn't argue that Cleavagegate disqualifies Hillary for the presidency.  In another posting she implies that Hillary is "renowned" for her  "capacity to be vengeful, aggressive, brutal, and ruthless...." and that she is "ten times as intimidating to any foreign despot as John Edwards could be even if he shaved his head and got some tattoos." (Althouse )   And according to some sources, the illustrious Ms. Althouse knows "intimidating."  For my part, I must admit that I've never heard any actual evidence that Hillary is (more than the rest of us) what I'd call "vengeful," "aggressive," "brutal," and "ruthless," so I can't help wondering how she got to be "renowned" for these qualities. Or perhaps I misunderstood Ms. Althouse.  Perhaps the title of the post--- "Look, I'm renowned not only in the U.S. but across the world for my capacity to be vengeful, aggressive, brutal, and ruthless..." - referred to someone else?  If only I were more gifted at the sort of close reading Ms. Althouse's subtly acerbic commentary sometimes requires!

As for further commentary on Hillary's V-neck, there's plenty of it all over the internets, but as per usual, Jon Swift has written the definitive piece:Hillary Clinton's Cleavage Emboldens Our Enemies.    

I really think that Ruth Marcus should have the last word here: "[S]ometimes a V-neck top is only a V-neck top..."(The Washington Post)

Related BN-POLITICS POSTS

• The President, Crocs, and Socks.

LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED

• Ruth Marcus, Pretty Formidable in Pink (The Washington Post)
• (Althouse) "Look, I'm renowned not only in the U.S. but across the world for my capacity to be vengeful, aggressive, brutal, and ruthless..." 
• (Althouse) Ms. Magazine protests against "sexist" coverage of women politicians... AKA Hillary.
• (Althouse) Clinton... 
• Robin Givhan, Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory (The Washington Post)
• Bloggingheads, Sex with Older Women (Ann Althouse and Annie Gottlieb)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072401853.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Comments

[moncler coats]

Thanks, I'm going to have nightmares tonight.