Mentions of politicians’ clothes are often irrelevant. I’m fed up of Michelle Obama’s dresses being discussed more feverishly than her husband’s speeches, and there’s no place for plunging necklines in an article about Angela Merkel, unless she wanted to legislate them. Luckily, she doesn’t.
Whenever you see the words fashion and feminism together, you’re also likely to find the prefix anti- between them. In spite of great books like Linda Scott’s Fresh Lipstick, or articles such as this one, the belief persists that it’s somehow degrading for a woman to care about clothes. What if it’s the other way round? What if it’s men who are deprived of something when, under the threat of being ridiculed, they’re banned from dressing up?
Give a girl the right shoes, and she can conquer the world – goes one of fashion’s favourite clichés. I have no proof that it is false. We never know. Perhaps Angela Merkel’s hidden secret is her magical footwear. Maybe Margaret Thatcher did what she did thanks to wearing the perfect pumps. However, the opposite is definitely true: give a girl the wrong shoes, and she cannot conquer the world.
I used to be a Lanalegric. Now I’m Lana-tolerant, even Lana-positive. And here’s why.