Robin Givhan
By now you’ve probably heard that Washington Post fashion columnist Robin Givhan took on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her wardrobe in Givhan’s column this past weekend. She wrote about Kagan, “mostly she embraced dowdy as a mark of brainpower.”
Why is it the media always assumes women who don’t relish fashion are making some kind of statement? Last month Kate Betts at The Daily Beast tackled Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe and “distinctly dowdy pumps.” Betts wrote about Clinton’s Oscar de la Renta suits, “She wears them to fit in, not to stand out, and that’s what bugs me.”
How does Betts know that? And how does Givhan know Kagan dresses to send a message about her brains? They don’t. Yes fashion can make a statement – a powerful one at that – but only for the people who care about that stuff.
Remember that episode of “Sex and the City” when Berger says to Miranda about a guy who never called after the first date, “he’s just not that into you“? Well guess what Givhan and Betts, some people just aren’t that into fashion. Some people, believe it or not, wear clothes because they have to – clothes keep them warm and prevent sunburns in uncomfortable places. Just like some people eat to live, not because food is a passion or a comfort. It’s surprising these fashion writers don’t grasp that.
More surprising however, is Givhan’s critique of Kagan’s posture. Writes Givhan, “In the photographs of Kagan sitting and chatting in various Capitol Hill offices, she doesn’t appear to ever cross her legs. Her posture stands out because for so many women, when they sit, they cross.”
Givhan claims she wasn’t being sexist when she wrote that. I don’t buy it. First of all, this appeared in the Washington Post. Second, we’re talking about the same woman who once covered Hillary Clinton’s cleavage. And third, how many powerful men have poor posture, bad wardrobes, or worse, boorish behavior that the media never covers? I have been in meetings on three different occasions when three different men clipped their nails. Were those men sending a message or just being gross?
The way I see it, if Givhan won’t admit she was being sexist, then she should at least admit she doesn’t know much about fashion. So which is it?
Givhan is a hateful, jealous, racist, nasty piece of works. I have said just that in 2005 already: http://editrixblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/nappy-heads.html
Robin Givhan ,I have been ignoring Robin Givans ,angry ,concocted , self grandzing ,always, with an easily spotted , undertone of jealousy ,stories for years. This, since, she Was a 20,000 a year, staff writer at the Detroit Free Press. You see I worked with her and she was every bit a envious of any woman then..Not hard to understand, if you look at her picture
She was a real trouble maker there. The real question is , how on Earth did The Washington Post come to hire her as a fashion editor .It is beyond cavil, I know the Editor wanted rid of her at the Freep, but, prior to being hired at the Post style section, her biggest fashion piece was ,on hunting attire that could be found at Wal-Mart