Robin Givhan, in the Washington Post:
The other men and women who have gone through this [Supreme Court nominating] process have not been daring in their wardrobe choices either. There hasn’t even been a pair of artful eyeglass frames in recent memory.
Justice Samuel Alito, for instance, looked utterly ordinary during his confirmation hearings — a forgettable blur of Washington’s standard dark suit, red tie, white shirt. And the most recent addition to the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appeared to have been given a fast tutorial on the importance of wearing strong colors, basic black and neutral nail polish. All hints of personality were deftly extracted from her wrists, her lapels, her earlobes.
Given all the assumptions about the frivolous nature of fashion, perhaps their unremarkable appearance was reassuring. After all, the position they aspired to is freighted with so much serious responsibility.
But Kagan took the anti-style offensive several steps further. She put on rouge and lipstick for the formal White House announcement of her nomination, but mostly she embraced dowdy as a mark of brainpower. She walked with authority and stood up straight during her visits to the Hill, but once seated and settled during audiences with senators, she didn’t bother maintaining an image of poised perfection. She sat hunched over. She sat with her legs ajar.
I can’t take it. I really can’t take it.
She sat with her legs ajar? Her legs were like open doors?
Wow. The New York Times. Wow.
Be fair. This is the Washington Post.
No, it’s the Kaplan Test Prep Post. That’s what subsidizes WaPo and Newsweek these days.
You stole my comment. 🙂
Oh. My. God.
Accompanying picture shows knees possibly 3″ apart, in quite decent position. Article neglects to mention that women reared in traditional households were taught that sitting with legs crossed is improper (proper is with legs crossed at the ankle, not the knee).
And additional picture where Kagan’s dress is called “frumpy” shows her in standard business attire, including shoes with pointed heels and toes.
Can you imagine what they’d say if she dressed to show personality?
Probably “harlot”.
Reporters yearn to get off pissant papers like the Detroit Free Press and get over to top drawer papers like the Post so they can write Pulitzer-winning articles like this. Journalism is dead. Let’s face it.
That’s repulsive.
legs ajar!
Well… what else can you expect from a big ol’ lesbian?!
Right?
Right?
I mean, that’s what they’re telegraphing here, amiright?
And, whether it’s true or not, it’s just so dang fun to make fun of somebody based on their appearance and manner. All part of the hazing! You know Ms. Givhan is just thinking, “Oh, you’re gonna get in — we just get to haze you first! It’s our due.”
Oh, Washington, D.C. Our buildings and government were modeled on the Greeks and our ruling class the Greeks.
Obviously she perfected the “legs ajar” posture while sitting in the dugout.
Realized you’d think I was mocking Kagan. But this crap coupled with the pic of her playing softball is obviously supposed to mean something.
Hmmmmm, sounds like she’s getting the Al Gore treatment.
Bet she’s BFF with Naomi Wolf, too.
How long before this becomes the daily subject on Hardball?
I’m no fashion guru but Scalia and Thomas don’t strike me as the male model types.
I’m guess my only other question is …
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAFTO DO WITH ANYTHING?!?!?!?
Sigh.
Wondering where you got that it’s Robin Givhan. It says “WP staff writer”.
I noticed that.
It is attributed to Robin on the Post’s home page.
The Washington Post shows once again why it’s basically a fishwrapper.
Robin has written some idiotic crap but this one leaves me speechless. I mean seriously. I’m speechless. But I’m sure she makes much more than I do. Maybe I should write a crap article and get a job at wapo.
Well Victorian ladies were taught to sit bolt upright with their knees tight together. They wore corsets and bustles to emphasise the process. If we’re talking about getting back to the Constitution as written centuries ago, we might as well insist that Supreme Court Justices dress as if they had just walked in off the history pages as well.
However, if she were a Victorian lady, Kagan wouldn’t get to be a Judicial Clerk never mind a Justice. So her real crime is just being a women who doesn’t posture in a “ladylike” way, isn’t safely married like a lady should be, and has perhaps shown a disturbing independence of thought.
Being a Justice is supposed to be about the Law and due process. Your fate before the Court shouldn’t depend on the “personality” or mood of the Judge you happen to come up before. So their may be some logic in the tradition of Judges dressing in a very boring and conventional way – to emphasise that fashion or personal idiosyncrasies or whimsy have no place in the process. Uniforms are general worn to emphasise the role and not the person. Kagan, by her dress is emphasising scholarship and adherence to precedent and convention. It’s the Law that’s important and not her taste in décolletage. Overall, that’s not a very bad symbolic message to send.
But perhaps such weighty considerations are above Robin Givhan’s pay grade. Does she normally write about fashion or politics?
Literal panty-sniffing is the only thing left.
Oh. Dear. Gods… I am speechless.