Women can rule, but it's a man’s world

It has become known as the Hillary Clinton Armani jacket. But before April this year, when the United States’ Democratic Party presumptive-nominee, Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 jacket to an event on income inequality, it was just another expensive tweed jacket from the high-end catalogue of Giorgio Armani.

And now this former Secretary of State and First Lady is catching the flak for that wardrobe choice. Many political pundits were of the opinion that the jacket was not “appropriate” for the event, and that it made her look elitist.

Others opined that, although she was preaching against income inequality, she was actually practising it right at the podium. That, through that jacket, she was rubbing her elitist salt on the wounds of blue-collar folk.

However, Hillary is not a Jane Doe. She is presidential material.

And she has to look and dress the part, although it will rub some people the wrong way. “Adjusting” her dress codes to fit in with every event and please everyone will cause her more headaches than this Armani moment.

If, in an effort to fit in with her message and crowd, Hillary Clinton had opted for a cheap outfit and dressed down, pundits would not have spared her either.

They would have said that she was playing the patronising card. Or they would have said that she was being insincere.

This was not a dress rehearsal for an off-Broadway musical. As such, the public would have seen right through her shabby stunt, and questioned her real intentions.

Dress code fits

Hillary is friends with designers Donna Karan and Tory Burch, and fashionista-in-chief and American Vogue editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour.

In fact, last year, these three were among a select list of celebs who held a fundraiser for Hillary. So, whatever the occasion, the presidential aspirant’s dress code fits perfectly with her peers.

The sixty-four-thousand dollar question is: what if some of Hillary’s designer friends, who dress A-listers, offer to dress her? Will a section of the public still be mortified at the price of, say, a Donna Karan gown?

Hillary’s designer friends have not spoken about the tweed. Which looks like a silent nod. And for someone who hangs out with fashion industry pros, it really is a stretch to expect her to dress like a pauper.

There are double standards that high profile women, especially those seeking political office, have to grapple with.

They must have a “watch list”. Watch what they wear. Watch who they hang out with. (And, here, who refers to men). Watch that they do not rub people the wrong way, by either speech or dressing.

Contrast Hillary Clinton’s Armani moment, with GOP presumptive nominee, Donald Trump’s Brioni suits, which nobody talks about. Whether he is talking down at immigrants, or whipping up the emotions of, mostly, dissatisfied blue-collar white folk.

Trump does not wear just any suit, or jacket, for that matter. His wardrobe is full of, among others, bespoke Brioni suits, and we have not even spoken about the shirts, ties and shoes ... and that distinct ducktail.

Because the richest and powerful men on earth are busy, Brioni’s tailors, who are some of the best in the world, go to these men, and take their measurements.

DISPLAY OF WEALTH

And, of course, Brioni suits do not come cheap. They cost between $5,000 and about $17,000. That is enough change to buy one or two Probox vehicles.

Trump is not averse to splashing his expensive taste, and, understandably, has not been roasted for his ostentatious display of wealth.

It could be because, for The Donald, living large is just another day in the office. Or it could be because the society is not as harsh at men who have expensive taste.

Besides, men in politics are accustomed to dressing expensively. That is the standard. Presumably, the more expensively a male politician dresses or smells, the more clout he has.

And so, when we hear that the Brioni brigade is in town, we excuse the spectacle and stick to our lane. It really is a man’s world.

A Brioni suit on a man, who is speaking to people about minimum wage in an informal settlement, will be seen as way of motivating the under-priviledged to pursue their dreams. Or, as we like saying, to make the listeners to fake it till they make it out of their blue-collar cells.

We will not see the pricey suit as an affront to our sensibilities or situation, but as what the motivational speaker ordered — a mental picture of where we want to be – to spur our aspirations.