Words by: Lilly Berman
Graphic by: Zoe Papps
Hillary Clinton’s public image remains infamously tied to her attire of colored pantsuits. Though many have seen her pantsuits in all their glory, few know why she began wearing them in the first place. During a 1995 sit-down press interview in which Clinton donned a skirt, a Brazilian lingerie company shot photos of her bottom that would later be plastered in its advertisements. (Hillary Clinton Is ‘Star of Brazilian Lingerie Ad, 1995) In the public shaming aftermath, Clinton discovered the pantsuit – and never turned back.
Like Clinton, many women have adopted the pantsuit as a way to demand respect in male-dominated workspaces. “[Pantsuits] hid [a woman’s] femininity… because it is a serious liability,” a women's studies professor at Roosevelt University claims. (Euse, 2016) Female politicians, in particular, display the clothing piece quite often, as they must demand respect from their coworkers and the public sphere.
As women in business and politics portray themselves in such a way that demands people to take them seriously, the terms “girl boss” and “boss woman” are constructed. Such labels are based on the inherent premise that women must suppress their femininity to be treated with respect. “While ‘girl boss’ immediately draws attention to the feminine, it also infantilizes the role of a female as a boss,” Magdalena Zawisa, a Reader at Anglia Ruskin University, argues. “Have we ever heard about ‘boy bosses?’” (Anderson, 2020) Men can be characterized as “bosses,” while women are described in such a way that requires an extra clarification, “girl bosses.”
The only way for a woman to embody the “boss” factor, it might seem, is to conceal their womanhood and dress in ways some might deem “masculine.” In 2011, Tim Gunn complained that Clinton dressed as if “she’s confused about her gender.” (Euse, 2016) The Internet has crafted countless memes centering around Clinton’s apparent pantsuit obsession. Yet, the backlash elicited by her change in attire never outweighed her discomfort with being photographed in skirts. “I just couldn’t deal with it,” she asserted, “so I started wearing pants.” (Edwards, 2022)
Though the pantsuit can be seen as a way for working women to conform to the man’s world, they should nonetheless feel empowered in their fashion choices. A mere one hundred years ago, women exchanging their skirts for pants was still socially unacceptable and even grounds for arrest. It was not until 1993 that Barbara Mikulski became the first woman to sport pants on the Senate floor. (Euse, 2016)
I only recently began to understand the celebrity status of the pantsuit. Trying on my grandmother’s old blazers and matching pants, I felt incredibly professional – like a real adult, a working woman, dare I say, a boss woman. Parallely, my mother, having started running her own clinical practice, has felt like she needs to start “looking the part” – trading in her jeans and skirts for a more professional look.
Though in a different setting, I’ve seen my male professors donning their jeans shamelessly. Barack Obama went viral for his frequent display of dad jeans. And though he faced criticism for what the public called “disturbing” fashion choices, it never seemed to hurt his overall professionality or reputation. At the same time, Hillary Clinton, my mother, and I are all forced to constantly consider our fashion choices and how they will reflect on us.
Women continue to be chastised for any and all choices they make. While the glass ceiling remains unbroken, at least our pants exhibit the wears and tears of our journeys through society.