Throwing Shade

Sexism lines the seams of Hillary Clinton's $12K Armani jacket

JUSTIN MITCHELL

jmitchell@sunherald.com

Follow my Facebook page|Follow me on Twitter

Clinton said she thought the country would be ready for a female president and vice president “at some point… maybe this time, maybe in the future.”
Clinton said she thought the country would be ready for a female president and vice president “at some point… maybe this time, maybe in the future.” AP

People are (shockingly) taking to Twittersphere/losing their minds because Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket during her New York primary victory speech while focusing on topics like income inequality.

The New York Post took Clinton to task in an article posted on June 5. Here are the first three sentences from the story:

Hillary Clinton’s New York primary victory speech in April focused on topics including income inequality, job creation and helping people secure their retirement. It was a clear attempt to position herself as an everywoman.

But an everywoman she is not — she gave the speech in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani tweed jacket.

Per usual, people took to their keyboards to bash Hillary for her expensive outfit choice.

The consensus was rather clear: How could Clinton possibly identify with everyday Americans if she was wearing a jacket whose price tag also happens to be a decent down payment for a home in Biloxi?

Then, there's always that one person who must post 160 characters or less about about the infamous blue dress that was highlighted during much of husband Bill Clinton's controversial time in the White House. Actually, there was probably many more than one, but here's an example:

 

I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton would rather talk about merits of a $12,000 Armani jacket than a sales rack Target blue dress... any day .

— BDOE (@BDOEROCKS) June 6, 2016

Spoiler alert: It was a Gap dress.

Jokes aside: There's a serious problem with society's fascination with degrading women for what they put or don't put on their bodies.

The New York Post's story dedicated dozens of inches of text to Clinton's new presidential wardrobe. Breaking news alert: She's giving up pantsuits for $12,000 suits. Stop the presses (and by presses, I mean keyboards and iPhone screens).  There was ONE line about Donald Trump's love for $7,000 suits. One line.

The Donald isn't making headlines for his custom menswear. But you can bet your last dollar somebody somewhere is blogging about his wife's "reformed" clothing choices now that her husband may be the next leader of the United States of America. And we already know that those petty folks are sharing photos from when she posed nude or in revealing swimsuits.

The punchline? If Hillary Clinton were a man, nobody would care if her jacket was couture. There would be little to no mention of the pricetag. Furthermore, she can afford to pay that for a jacket. She, along with her husband, have donated more than 10 percent of their incomes to charity over the past eight years, according to their tax returns, via The Atlantic.

I already know what you're probably going to say: a ton of that money went to her own foundation.

Before you assume, take a look at what the Clinton Foundation does and how it works.

Writing stories, posting memes and Tweeting hateful comments about the clothes women wear is not just petty and inconsiderate, it's extremely sexist and just proves that inequality towards women is still alive in our culture. Don't be that person.

This blog represents the opinions of Throwing Shade writer Justin Mitchell and is not a political endorsement.

  Comments