I found this article from an interview Donatella Versace did with a German newspaper back in February. Versace says she thinks Clinton should sport more skirts (only knee length, of course) instead of pants. Her opinion is not simply about fashion, but about the statement Clinton makes when she wears pants. Versace sees the pants choice as emulating males in power and believes skirts are an opportunity to show femininity in power. I could not agree more.

Why must a woman wear pants when running for a position of power? Yes, I know pencil skirts with a suit jacket are commonbut minus the straight-leg, no style skirt, these are similar to male pant suits as well. The professional, female options are another example of women adapting to the man-normative style. We see it in jeans and casual style gear, yet the similarities are more noticeable in these work outfits. I am not saying that Clinton should make her speeches in party gowns or sport cleavage, but it would be nice to see more than just pearls declaring she is in fact, a woman.

Freedom for a woman to dress the way she chooses in the workplace would not mean her having to wear pearls and lace, but when every female politician dresses exactly the same, and it is a close as possible to how their male counterparts dress, I wonder if some of them might like to show off more of their feminine side. Furthermore, I agree with Versace that this move should not be seen as a regression, but simply a comfortable equality for women that lets them dress the way they want. I am however, not the person to be talking. I would like to hear how all the female politicians feel about their work attire, or if they even think about it.