The Huffington Post, of all places, has come out with a defense of Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe and $22,000 in makeup expenses. Their argument is, essentially, that women will be judged by sexist standards so the RNC totally had to spend almost $2K to get their veep to look okay.
What a load of malarkey. Yes, women face double standards, but that standard has less to do with wardrobe than people think. Those snide remarks about Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were not just about her pantsuits; they were also coded remarks about her thighs. This is not unusual. Criticisms of women’s clothes are often really criticisms of women’s bodies. Sarah Palin’s body is titillating enough to enough men that, as long as her clothes reveal that body sufficiently, it doesn’t much matter where the taffeta suit is from.
Second of all, has no one at the RNC heard of knock-offs? And could not Ms. Palin somehow make do with, say, four or five suits, rather than the plethora of outfits she has? And how does one spend $22,000 on makeup? Does she have a makeup professional traveling with her, applying makeup before she appears at rallies to her fan base with their chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” The fans are the ones who would judge her by a double standard so harsh that if she spent any less on her looks, they would spit on her and vote for Obama the Muslim? Puhhhhhhhhhh-leeeeeeeeeease. –Then again, maybe they would; and the fact that the RNC tacitly acknowledges that and plays into it, showcases exactly how “feminist” they are.
Nope – no excuses. All that happened here is that a wannabe richy who installed a $30,000 tanning bed in her offices got a free $175,000 wardrobe, given her by a bunch of people who don’t even understand what a lot of money that is, and don’t care, and just want the hot chick to look hot, because that’s all they picked her for.