Suits
photographer Tatiana Mason
stylist Emily Stabile
journalist Ashley Chase
director Devin Newsom, Lakeisha Bunny Parks and Mariah Thompson
graphic designer Alara Kapton
models Raina Abbott, Jazlyn Coles, Alayna Jones, Kennedy Ray,
Emily Stabile and Mariah Thompson
photographer assist Madison Baldwin
stylist assist Devin Newsom
Think of the most powerful women in the world – what are they wearing? Looking at female political leaders and businesswomen, we see a major commonality. These women are often wearing suits or “pantsuits.” The association between women’s suits and power is a dangerous one, especially when it leads to the disregard of typical feminine clothing.
Female politicians are perhaps one of the best examples of this. Women running for president, such as Kamala Harris and, formerly, Hillary Clinton, can be seen wearing suits. Even following this standard of suiting up for the presidential run is not enough for women. Hillary Clinton especially received insane backlash for the outfits she wore. She was supposed to be feminine but not girly. As stated by Hadley Freeman, “She can’t wear dresses (too girly), but she also can’t wear trousers (too butch).” And there lies the anomaly of feminine dress: how is it decided what is feminine and what is not?
The definition of femininity is “qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of women or girls” (Oxford Languages). Anything that is socially constructed can be reconstructed. Thus, the definition of femininity can be reconstructed and expanded to include both suits and more “girly” styles. As suits become associated with women, as typically feminine dresses and skirts are, they become symbolistic of femininity. By definition, femininity is what we make it.
But this leads us to a profound question: why does femininity need to be defined and labeled? Why does it have to be one or the other? This binary thinking, which is increasingly rejected in modern society, has gotten us anywhere besides war, discrimination, segregation and oppression. Our constant need to label things, especially clothing, as masculine or feminine is still limiting. Yes, clothing is an expression of identity, but this identity does not need to be defined or constrained by societal beliefs and constructions.
Except it was never about the clothes– it was about the meaning behind them, the woman wearing them. Women wearing suits disrupted the gender binary. Suits were typically associated with men and thus seen as a symbol of power and competency. Women wearing suits can be seen as an extension of this. As stated by Pauline Rushton, “Such clothes signaled that they meant business in what was very much a man’s world.” The suits themselves were not revolutionary, but the refutation against typical feminine norms of dress was. Women at the time viewed suits as a way to gain power and be taken seriously in society. Perhaps needed at the time, but not anymore. Women are not small men, nor are they trying to be. They do not need to wear suits to be taken seriously or to be empowered. The more we associate certain types of clothing with respect and strength, the more we justify differential treatment of people based on their attire.
It is paradoxical in nature that feminine empowerment must come from a specific clothing style. True empowerment lies within women. The suits did not give women power– the women gave power to the suits. Just as women can give power to all types of dress.
To say that it is more empowering for women to wear suits because it rejects traditional notions of feminine dress is harmful and controlling to women– the very thing that we are desperately trying to destroy. Thus, wearing a suit, a dress or jeans and a t-shirt can be seen as contradictory to patriarchal values that seek to constrain women.
The meanings of femininity are constantly reconstructed by society, as seen in repeatedly changing beauty standards. Marilyn Monroe is an iconic example of changing the beauty standards for women. Her curvaceous figure was a stark contrast from the typical thin ideal, allowing for an embracement of different body shapes. Marilyn Monroe helped to expand what constitutes feminine qualities. Even so, Marilyn tended to wear form-fitting dresses that showed off these curves. Did this take away from her influence? Was she less empowering to women because she had a more traditional feminine style of dress? Of course not; her impact on beauty ideals is still commemorated by many women. Yet, the changed standard of beauty was still that– a standard. A cutoff that decides which women are to be praised by society and which are to be rejected. Something that is unattainable by the majority of women, and we destroy ourselves trying to achieve. Regardless, Marilyn Monroe, like the rest of us, is much more than the shape of her body and should be recognized as more than that. There is a woman behind the clothing; there is a woman behind the body. And she should not be solely defined based on outward appearances.
The New York Times article It’s 2018: You Can Run for Office and Not Wear a Pantsuit is something we should consider more heavily. In this article, Friedman discusses the five-day course at Yale Law School that helps prepare women for running for office, including a two-hour session called “Dress to Win.” The main lecturer, Sonya Gavankar, argued, "They are not playing it safe with their views. So why should they play it safe with their clothes? When we tell women to wear the same suit, that is doing a disservice to women. They are, and should be, different.” Perhaps the most important part of this statement is that all women are different. How can we expect each woman to dress the same and define femininity the same way? Individuality shines through, and that’s the beauty of fashion.