If I Were First Lady....

Perhaps it's a cultual proclivity for chronic under achievers with distorted valuations?

An interesting point.

Leah ~ You have a great discussion going on here!

This is NOW FEATURED in . . .

A Place For Opinions

Thank you so much!!!!!!

You're welcome Leah ~ I hope you share a lot more with us in here!

Interesting point.

Thank you.

Ah, purple - the colour of royalty. :)

;) true, but also the colour you get when you mix republican red with democrat blue.

Thats a good answer and fair...

Thank you. I think purple is an awesome political colour, and would work just as well for the Canadian Prime Minister's wife, since our liberals are red, and our conservatives are blue.

Yeah, I don't care...

Well said.

I loved the red dress. And I admire Mrs. Obama's taste in shoes. Instead of impossible-to-walk- on, high heels, she wears good sensible heels.

I've always loved sensible fashion of any kind. For me, a floor length dress, and hiking boots. lol I've got some major mobility issues, and they're the only doorways I can actually walk comfortably in.

For better or worse, society is focused on what women wear. Their position or occupation doesn't matter. I have seen articles about high profile trials. If there is a female attorney, there's always comments about her attire.
Maybe it's because women have a lot more clothing options than men. Men's suits are boring and predictable. Women's suits can be very attractive and unique. Also, women can wear dresses for any occasion that calls for a suit.

You have an excellent point, but it's still not fair. Another option for me in a high-powered position would be to dress as blandly as possible, simply to make the point that it's my position that's important, not what's stuck to my body.

Nice idea, but in a power position the press would still comment on your clothes whatever you wore. There is no winning this. Women are always complimented or criticized on their wardrobe regardless of their status or position.

Yes, but atleast I'll have a fair point! Remember when Hillary was running for President and she was either too feminine to be running for President, or not feminine enough to be a woman? if I'm going to "lose" in the eyes of the fashion world, I'd rather it be on the grounds of equality, than for me pushing my gender too hard. Whether a woman wears a suit, or a man wears a dress, we are HUMANS first and foremost.

Leah, we professional women tried that in the 1980s. John T. Molloy wrote _The Dress for Success Book_ in the late 1970s and we all bought it. Every single morning of the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, I wore either a grey suit or a navy suit with a simple starched shirt and a women's necktie. That was a length of silk you tucked under the collar of your shirt and tied into a floppy bow under your chin, plus pantyhose, even on the hottest days, and simple black pumps. I carried a briefcase but no purse; we all did. Women looked as starched and suited as the men. They still hit on us--perhaps not as often as they did on the women whose aims went no higher than the secretarial pool and who showed up at work with skirts too short and necklines too low and tons of make-up, but they still did. Once while visiting factories in a grubby neighborhood to demonstrate my then company's products, and looking as uninspiring as possible in the uniform of the day, the man I wanted to sell to noticed my wedding ring and asked if my husband actually allowed me to be in such "dangerous" neighborhoods. The problem lies squarely in the brains of men, but I think it is part of the natural order. Even male animals can be fixated on the females of their species. Have you read any of the _National Geographic_ articles about animals? Such as the male bird that focuses its entire life on building an attractive house to attract a mate, and how the females actually strut around inspecting them and choosing? Below, Sonia points out rightly that Jackie Kennedy was always dignified and tasteful, but you should have seen the clothes-horsing the press did around her in the day, even though she was making a real effort to contribute good to the nation. Note also that far less was made of either Bush wife's clothes, perhaps because they, too, were dignified and tasteful women albeit no match in elegance for Jackie Kennedy, and were working at worthy causes. The press paid a lot less attention to Hillary Clinton's clothes, too, once it got beyond the early joking about her eternal pantsuits. Michelle Obama isn't half the quality woman the Bush women are. OTOH, bear in mind that your thoughts were brought on by reporting of inaugural festivities, when all the women (and men) involved dress to the nines. You, too, would dress all out if you were to attend such an affair, I'm sure! And the people around you would notice you and all the other women's efforts, and you'd be miffed if they didn't! They don't notice what men wear precisely because, as you note, the clothes are a lot more predictable and less interesting! If men were as peacockish today as they were in the 16th century, people would have more to say!

"and you'd be miffed if they didn't!" Please don't tell me how I would or would not feel. Dorine, this jumped out at me. NEVER have I been miffed if someone didn't notice my clothes. I wear what I want for ME not for the world. I walk around every day with fingers full of rings, a big chunky gold bangle on my left hand, and a watch with a face the size of a Canadian $2 coin. My wedding ring's pretty big too. RARELY do I get comments on my jews, and I take no issue with the lack of comments. The watch is big because i want to be able to see it at a glance, and 90% of the other stuff on my hands including the giant wedding band are family heirlooms which I'd wear regardles of size or flashyness.

As for innaguration formalities, if in the morning I felt like wearing something plain, I would. However, if I felt like wearing something a bit more formal, I'd wear my wedding dress. Keep in mind it doesn't look like a typical wedding dress. It's a red gown I designed myself, and had a friend sew for me. You've seen plenty of pictures on line. I went untraditional because red is my favourite colour, I don't like the white bridal tradition, and who the heck wans to spend $250 on a dress they're only going to wear ONCE?

Would i be disappointed if no one noticed my dress? NO I WOULD NOT!!! The day is about the PRESIDENT getting innagurated, and not about me.

As for men hitting on women, I've heard of guys hitting on nuns! Women in Saudi Arabia and Afthanistan are covered from head to toe, and their faces too. You have a good point about the minds of men. However, why should I FEED those minds by playing into their hands with "attractive" dress?

Animals? I thought it was human intellegence that separated us from animals. If men want to act like what they see in the animal kingdon, I guess that's saying something about evolution.

That was a general you, not a personal you.

OTOH, bear in mind that your thoughts were brought on by reporting of inaugural festivities, when all the women (and men) involved dress to the nines. You, too, would dress all out if you were to attend such an affair, I'm sure! And the people around you would notice you and all the other women's efforts, and you'd be miffed if they didn't!

In that context? You (Dorine) were responding to me (Leah) and used the word "you" many times in that paragraph. Sounds pretty personal to me.

I don't give a fig what they wear...but I do have to say I feel a First Lady (of any land) should wear conservative and understated tasteful clothing. One of the best examples of what I mean was Jackie Kennedy. Her clothing was always elegant, although never boring, and definitely not flashy.

I will probably get a lot of flack for saying this, but...here goes. Michelle Obama might have beautiful arms and she likes to display them in sleeveless and strapless dresses and that is ok, but when she wears slacks, shorts or pants, she should wear longer tops to cover her hips and the tops of her thighs.

OK...now...bring it on...

Great points, and let me put an equal spin on it. If Michelle can wear shorts, Barack should also wear 'em! :) As for beong conservative in dress, this is how I see it. How many times do you see a male politician in something "sexy?" I don't think it's women dressing like men, I just call it "both genders dressing for politics." I mean, come on! Male or female, do you see lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, and defendants walking into court looking like skin models? I don't think so! It's not that being conservative in dress is masculine, it's what I consider "professional, political, and businesslike."

Amen...

As I said before, to me, the epitome of good taste in clothing as a first lady was Jackie Kennedy and although always conservatively dressed and understated she certainly never looked masculine! Her clothing style was always simple - good, clean lines - and very, very tasteful.

Conservative yes, but does the first lady really NEED to play up her femininity? it's one thing if that's the kind of person she is, and obviously Jackie O was exactly that way. However, there may come a time when the first lady may feel better in a pant suit, or something less traditional, but equally conservative/professional.

Not necessarily, unless as you say, that is her style....I have nothing against pant suits...they can be very feminine also if the wearer chooses it to be...I just think that if she is going to wear pants of any kind for any occasion, they should be tasteful - cut nicely, not tight - as long as the lady wearing them can carry the style off and the top or jacket is long enough to hide areas of the body that might not be the person's best feature...
Just saying... ;-)

Thanks for clarifying. My style of "female-plain." I tend to wear dresses because they feel more comfortable, but if I was in a situation where I was EXPECTED to wear a dress, I'd likely wear pants, just to let them know that I'd rather make my own choices, than succumb to society's expectations. Yes they would be tasteful, and conservative is my style. By plain I don't mean Amish. Take a look at any of my pics, and you'll know what I mean. Not a lot of pattern, not a lot of frills and accents. :)

You explain your point perfectly.

I tend to go for the clean cut and 'plain lines' but don't mean Amish either..

Thanks! Fun topic

LOL You're welcome. For me "plain" means "without a lot of pattern." If you look closely at an Amish or Mennonite woman's dress, you'll see that they often have a very TINY print pattern, so the dresses aren't as plain, literally. The dress I'm wearing today is a solid colour. Does that make me plainer than an Amishwoman? :)

;-)

I like pattern on some things, but even then, it depends on the pattern and colors. Here in Hawai'i we wear colorful patterns...As far as style, I prefer plain lines - no ruffles or lots of doo-dahs and definitely no glitter for me

I've seen some Hawaiian styles that almost look tye-dyed, and I love those. But then I've seen some big bold prints that are way too flashy for me.

For designs I tend towards geometric, and the smaller the pattern, the better. A red and white that's done so well it almost looks pink, or a black and white that's done so well it almost looks grey, or a blue, or something like that.

LOL

I wish I was in Hawai'i now! How's the weather? It's -20 Celcius here today. So c-c-cold!!!

A coolish and breezy 70 degrees F right now and going down to 61 - 64 at the coldest, in my area...some areas it gets down to upper 30's - in the higher elevations - and the wind blows harder so it feels colder...

That's 19 or 20 Canadian, and I'd give almost anything to be there right now. Wanna trade places? Feel like taking place in a Canadian exchange program?

"Playing up our femininity" is not the same thing as being crudely and overtly sexual. Vive la difference! We women are beautiful and enjoy the manliness of men, so *tastefully* emphasizing our femininity is appropriate, as well as an inevitable part or being a creature with a system running on estrogen rather than on testosterone! If we took those two hormones out of play, as huge and beautiful spark would go out of humanity. We'd just be blades of grass. I *like* seeing feminine women and masculine men, and to me, owing to cultural formation, wearing a suit and tie is an attractive and masculine thing. Why try to take away something that adds spark to life?

Well said, Dorine.

Dorine. If that's what certain women want, them let them have it! Just don't pour it all over the ones who are not interested, such as myself.

Remember how I met my husband. I met him o line before he even saw my face. I also had a ring on my left hand ring finger. It was my subtle way of telling the male world "don't call me, I'll call you," and it worked like a charm!!! When Walker came along, I told him he'd see a ring on that finger, but that I put it there. Then when we got married I put the ring on my right hand.

I am no prude when it comes to my opinions, or even my sense of humour. You've also seen me use some pretty salty language in contexts where it wouldn't be as offensive (I'm certainly not planning to use it here, even though this little piece of Gather is technically on MY page!!). However, when it comes to picking a mate, I can actually be quite prudish in my methods. Walker fell in love with my mind before he had any idea what kind of a body I had. By the time he knew my mind, he was in love, and would have loved me regardless of appearance. I was going to fall in love from the inside, and dangit, I did!

I could less if him and her both go join a nudist colony..

they couldn't make our country look any worse or hurt our economy.

LOL about the Nudist colony.

In all fairness my point is not about this particular president and first lady, but presents and first ladies in general. If Romney had won, we'd be having this same conversation about the way th media constantly talks about what Ann wears.

It's always been that way. Well, I can trace the fascination with the fashions of the First Lady back to Jackie O. That was really the start of it. And like Jackie O., Michelle Obama is a "young" first lady. And she gets to wear more "fun" things. But all the attention to fashion with the Obamas really pales in comparison to the fashion attention paid to Kate Middleton. Now there's a girl who better not have a bad hair day.

;-)

I love it when K.M. wears "off the rack" clothing, as she often does, and the media can't stand it that she is not wearing a several thousand dollar outfit! I say more power to her that she has the confidence to wear them!

While I don't really agree with it for ANYONE, royalty anymore is more ceremonial, so I imagine fashion goes with the territory, whereas American Presidents, be they female or male, actually have a real say in what goes on. Does that make sense? Kings and Queens don't "rule" the way they used to.

As for Jackie O, you're absolutely right. I am hearing that a lot.

Sonia M, Awesome!!! As I said above, if I was First Lady, or even a Princess, I'd shop at Macy's. Bloomingdales now and then, but nothing super expensive. I want to make it a point of NOT spending taxpayer's money in my fashion. I want taxpayers money to actually go to things that'll help the country, not things that'll make ME look good.

Agreed!

Thank you!!!

Michelle Obama wears some high fashion pieces. I kind of wonder if designers would give them their clothes for free. As their oldest daughter gets into her teen years I wonder how many designers will be after her. I bet they keep her pretty grounded.

Amber, please don't take this wrong and I am not saying the first lady does it, but "high fashion" and "style" are not necessarily the same thing. Some of the 'high fashion' clothing I've seen scream bad taste...whereas many times simple, clean cut lines can be the height of style...

I won't take it the wrong way. When I said high fashion the only thing I had in my head was her Jason Wu dress.

Amber and Sonia, I knew you what you both meant. :)

I don't think I've ever bought a designer label in my life, simply because I haven't seen anything that I either really liked, or that was worth the pricetag on it, even if it was a lovely piece. I've seen some beautiful pieces, but they cost more than a week at the Waldorf Astoria, and I just don't need to spend that kind of money on clothes.

I hear you!

Thank you. The most expensive piece of clothing I own is my red wedding dress, which I had custom made by a friend of mine, after I designed it myself. It cost $250 and another $50 for material. I still have it, and because it's red, I can easily wear it to someone else's wedding, if I want! :)

Read your history. Newspapers of their day were just as fixated on the fashions of Mary Lincoln! Have you never heard of _Godey's Lady's Book_? Through much of the 19th century, it was a magazine women throughout the US read assiduously read for commentary on the latest fashions and drooled over what "ladies of quality" wore to the Metropolitan Opera's opening nights in NY? As well as what first ladies wore on state occasions. Thus it has always been!

But were they as obsessed with Mr. Lincoln's fashion?

They treat it like it is the red carpet before a movie or music award. Anybody can dress up or down it doesn't change how they are inside.

You hit the nail right on the head!!! A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf, and a sheep in wolf's clothing is still a sheep.

I think its just hilarious the attention given to the smallest, most irreverent details. However i think it is mostly paid because she is sort of different than most First ladies. She has a more vibrant appeal to her and i guess it shows in her fashion choices as well.

still...it think its a waste of time to fuss about, but...a lot of the things i find interesting or important mean very little to others as well...so i guess as long as it isn't hurting anyone. live and let live eh?

I see what you mean that one person's interest is another person's boredom, and you're absolutely right. However, the constant atention given to women's fashion and not to men's, says that women are merely their powerful hubby's "hood ornaments." That's what annoys me the most about the whole thing. If they paid just as much attention to his fashion it would still be frivolous, but inequality would be a non-issue. Personally I'd prefer they forget about fashion altogether, and concentrate on politics!

however there are aspects of men that are just as frivolous that are weighted heavily. Cars are one example of this. and honestly...how much variation is there in men's fashion? a suit is basically a suit no matter how you dice it. If a man showed up in a suit with any sort of pattern on it, or in an unconventional color you can bet it would be discussed....now i am just picturing Obama showing up in a purple suit with a pimp hat with a feather and all....oh man...or better yet! one of those baby blue suits...that would make the news!

honestly, men have very few liberties when it comes to fashion, there is only a couple options that are considered "acceptable" in most settings.

end of the day any conversation about fashion is just a time kill or dodge of serious issues that could be discussed...but serious issues are just oh so awkward. why would be speak of them.

I think a purple suit would be great, or how about a black suit, with a light purple shirt, and a darker purple tie? That would be a nice blend of both parties. I wish men would be a bit more creative with fashion, so us women wouldn't be treated like their hood ornaments.

And if we're not going to have serious issues, why elect politicians? If we want something ceremonial, just get a royal family! haha

As for cars, we never really got into that in my family. A car is like a pair of hiking boots; a way to get from A to B.

1, i agree with you on cars, they are appliances not extensions of ourselves. But the point i was trying to make (and really just thought about) is that men arent given the option to dress differently. women are given many options of clothing styles and colors for events like this. If a man shows up in anything other than a run of the mill suit in a generic color he is doing something wrong. So yes it is bad that so much attention is paid to women's clothing when it is such a frivolous issue. But men don't even get that option to be paid attention to. Its either fit in with everyone else or get dismissed.

short answer version = men aren't allowed to be creative with clothing in our society (well at events like this) so we just pay attention to the women by default.

You've seen how women have demanded rights, and won them. Why don't men do the same? If it's such a shame, and if men don't have the friggen option, why don't they go out there and get that option? Live outside of the box. Be differnt! Be creative! I hear what you're saying, and I won't deny it's true NOW, but what's to stop men from going out there and claiming them? I'm a woman, and I'm still claiming my rights. I even reclaimed the word "bitch." It stands for Being In Total Control of Herself! :)

It's interesting, when Walker and I go to ethnic festivals, especially the Serbian festival, when a lot of the guys show up in traditional clothes from their homelands. Awesome! Lots of colours, awesome embroidery, yet not "girly." If American men are bored, they're more than welcome to get out of the box that society has put them in.

Interesting point. I have always wondered what a woman president would be like.

I'd absolutely love to know. Now, if America does get one, I hope it's because she's the best person for the job, and not simply because of her gender. Gender should not matter in politics. However, there have been so many men, that a woman would be nice.

That is true who knows what the future will hold.

Well said!

She would be just like Golda Meir, India Ghandi or Margaret Thatcher.

How can you say that without knowing the woman first?

I like fashion so I kinda like to see what they wear.