The far-from-aesthetic sisterhood of pantsuits

When pantsuits first became a craze in the late 1960s and early 1970s, most women shied away from them.

They knew that pantsuits require a certain figure. Marlene Dietrich was the first to wear one in 1930 in the film Morocco. Katharine Hepburn also wore elegant trouser co-ordinates from that decade onward.

What characterised those women was a slim, stately figure.

The late Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) came up with le smoking paired with trousers in the 1960s. Clearly, this ensemble was made for those with models’ physiques, women such as Melania Trump, rather than her husband’s opponent:

Look how happy Melania Trump is with her femininity. She treasures it.

Today, generations of women think that pantsuits hide their less attractive physical attributes. What they do not realise is that it would be preferable for them to show heavy ankles and calves in a skirt rather than cover them up and reveal more even more with trousers: large thighs and matronly hips. Even the jackets do not fit properly.

YSL’s creation, much imitated by many other top designers and mainstream design houses, was meant for a statuesque figure. The jacket and trousers were intended to create an elegant unity, a straight line from shoulder to ankle.

Instead, this is what we have today, best exemplified by Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel:

Women cannot hide their less attractive physical attributes in pantsuits. It would be preferable for these ladies to wear a flattering skirt paired with a chic Chanel-style jacket or a boxy sweater instead.

In 2008 Clinton’s supporters were referred to as the ‘sisterhood of travelling pantsuits’. They were paying a certain homage to her.

However, as one of my female readers — the author of Beauty Beyond Bones — says (emphases in bold mine):

Instead of trying to conform to what makes a man a man, why not celebrate the fact that, yes, I am a woman, and because of that, I bring unique qualities and talents and perspectives to the job, that make me equally and uniquely qualified to do it.

Leading a country means serving a country. It is a gift of self. Of inspiring and empowering the people.

A position that should be held by the most capable person for the job – man or woman.

Am I endorsing Hillary. No. There’s a lot more that goes into choosing a President that goes much deeper than a person’s gender. There’s … well … politics. The parties’ views on the US and our future are very different. And that is up to you to decide which issues top the list and sway your vote.

I would love to see a woman President. And think it is amazing that a woman is holding the nomination for a major party.

And I hope that the first woman president, whenever she’s elected, can confidently be sworn in wearing something other than a pantsuit. Because she’s not hiding her femininity, but celebrating her feminine genius, and embracing all the unique talents and qualities that she possesses in her very nature that make her equally qualified and able to do the job.

Just so. It would be great if all women, not just those in politics, could bear that in mind.

Even our statuesque Prime Minister, Theresa May, looks better in skirts or dresses than in trousers.