Skip to content

Busted, Part 2: The Real Goal of Political Change

Is shopping! At least, that’s what Bust tells me today, in their think piece on the Great Obama Dress Scandal of ’08:

The modified version of the Narcisco Rodriguez’s dress was showing off her confidence in not being pigeonholed into wearing those lame-ass, boring suit-dresses. We still have ways to go, but I think it’s awesome that powerful women are getting closer to be being on the same playing field as men, but why do they have to dress like them too? We all know that Michelle is incredibly intelligent, successful and naturally gorgeous. She was also the breadwinner of her family! So, peeps needs to chill out on that one outfit and think more about what a bonus she is going to be to the White House. Does every first lady have to be compared to Jackie O’s immaculate style? Don’t forget that Jackie’s era was one of the best decades in fashion.

Oh, Bust: this is so totally not the same type of coverage that I could get from any commercial women’s rag on the market. No: pretty dresses are subversive! And so is speaking about a female political figure in a way that is almost entirely focused on her wardrobe, apparently! Wave your feminist flag high, sisters – and put a Louis Vuitton logo on there too, while you’re at it.

Seriously, though, why do we have to dress like men, whose clothing is usually well-made, comfortable, durable, and apt to stay in fashion for more than a few months at a time? Why can’t we just wear custom-made designer dresses all the time to signify our total fabulousness? Remember when Simone de Beauvoir analyzed women’s subjugation in terms of its economic cost, pointing out that a relatively enormous portion of the average female secretary’s salary went to clothes, makeup, accessories, and various cosmetic treatments such as hair styling, manicures, and pedicures, without which she would not be considered “fit” to be seen in an office, thereby diminishing her already tiny income and demonstrating that gender roles and capitalism were both involved in keeping women in a socially vulnerable and marginalized position? That was so totally lame. Simone de Beauvoir wasn’t even hot, so how could you take her seriously? To the ladies of Bust – I, with my dirty jeans, button-up shirt, and messy hair, salute you, for showing us how real gender equality can be achieved.

You know, for an actual analysis of why Dressgate was regressive, fucktarded, and lame, you could go to Womanist Musings. Of course, Womanist Musings has neither the market share nor the revenue of Bust, but you shouldn’t take that to mean that feminism and capitalism are at odds or anything. They are totally not, as Bust demonstrates every day. Now go buy yourself something pretty, cupcake.