"If the bare-chested, muscled mixed martial arts fighters of the U.F.C. match that President Trump hosted on Flag Day were the poster guys for MAGA’s image of masculinity..."

"... then the pregnant women of Trump world are one half of their feminine counterparts. Along with the sheath-clad, lip-filled, pageant-haired Mar-a-Lago set, they offer an image of idealized womanhood that gives literal shape to the pronatalist movement. 'It almost feels like a memo went out,' said Jill Filipovic, the host of the 'Week in Women' podcast. 'They have quite intentionally opted to present themselves as, "I am really pregnant, and this is what women were chosen to do," and they are happy to say that both with their looks and their mouths.' If in doubt, simply consider posts on X and Instagram last month from [Katie] Miller, who was then some nine months pregnant. 'In honor of Mother’s Day,' she wrote, 'a reminder that peak feminism is having babies. The most radical thing a woman can do is embrace her biological destiny.' Along with her words came a portrait taken from the side, in which Miller is shown wearing low-slung, unbuttoned jeans and a black sports bra, her dark hair cascading in waves down her back. Like the stretchy and black knit Milly dress with a tulip on the front worn by Usha Vance for a military mothers celebration at the White House, and the form-fitting gowns worn by Leavitt and Miller to the White House Correspondents’ dinner in April, the photograph placed Miller’s rounded stomach front and center, enshrining her pregnancy for all to see...."

The NYT fashion writer Vanessa Friedman inspects the fecund right-wing bodies in "The Politics and Power of the Pregnancy Image/Usha Vance, along with Katie Miller and Karoline Leavitt, shows how much is said by an expectant silhouette, without anyone saying a word" (NYT).

Here's how Katie induced Vanessa to propagate adjectives:

"[S]ocks and sandals were fully associated with nerd-dom, meaning that soon it was time for fashion... to embrace the twosome again."

"And so it did, with multiple brands, including Fendi, Miu Miu and Dior Men all showing sandals and socks on recent runways.... That this has happened at the same time that Gen Z has become increasingly vocal about its general discomfort with visible toes — the subject of multiple 'who let the dogs out' memes and Reddit threads — is probably not a coincidence. (Gen Z, after all, is the consumer group most brands are most eager to attract.) Whether that reaction is due, as some have posited, to a fear of fetishization — there are accounts on OnlyFans devoted solely to feet — or some other generational quirk, it’s a real thing."

From "Are We All Supposed to Wear Socks With Sandals Now? A teacher wonders about the etiquette rules of contemporary footwear" (NYT).

Complicated! I'd like to say wear socks and sandals in whatever combination expresses the youness of you, but as between the people who have publicly overembraced a supposed rule against socks with sandals and the people who are squicked out by the sight of toes, I'd like to skew toward the toe-haters. But make a good sock choice. Wear socks that say: I know what I'm doing.

And for you Roman Empire buffs: "ROMAN SOCKS AND SANDALS: FASHION OR FAUX PAS? In this article Mark Griffin explores the history of this unlikely pairing." ("'Udones' were made either of pieced together cloth or woollen yarn using a type of knitting called 'nalbinding' or something that looks similar to netting called 'sprang.'")

"There’s always two poles in any movement. There’s this pull toward being post-human, shinier, newer, cloned, etc., the sense that people have elevated the lacquered surface of the machine over the body."

"[And there's this pull toward] I’m real. I think we’re like old stone houses. We have the value of antiquity. If you haven’t tweaked yourself, it’s like you have a working fireplace that’s been going since 1680. We’re authentic.... For all women, there’s that line between choosing to be malleable and pleasing and to conform with the collective norms or refusing it.... No, I’m not playing that game."

Said the 77-year-old French Vogue editor Joan Juliet Buck, quoted in "Why Fashion Suddenly Loves Older Women/Representation of women of a certain age has never been higher. What’s going on?" (NYT).

The article is by Vanessa Friedman, who continues: "Authenticity is, of course, one of the current buzzwords not just in fashion, but in culture generally. It’s a reflection of the fear that individual style has been lost to the algorithm.... It’s not just influencers and celebrities who have become the vehicles for this version of ageless sameness. It’s political figures, too.... As many MAGA women have embraced the plumped and smoothed 'Mar-a-Lago face,' it has become an expression of a larger social swing toward exaggerated norms and old-fashioned patriarchal gender roles rather than simply a cosmetic fad."

"Men in power do not carry briefcases. Why should women?"

"Forgoing a bag simply telegraphs the impression that you have someone else to do the lifting for you. As Karla Welch, a stylist who worked with Ms. Harris at the beginning of her term, said: 'They all have bags. It’s just an aide carrying it.'"

Writes Vanessa Friedman, in "The Most Impactful Political Handbag Since Mrs. Thatcher’s/Sanae Takaichi, the new prime minister of Japan, makes a statement about work — with style" (NYT).

I jump to the middle of articles when I skim, and when I got to "a stylist who worked with Ms. Harris," I thought Who is Harris? 

Anyway, the new Japanese Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, a woman carries her own handbag, toting it at her side in the manner of Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret Thatcher. We're told: 

For Mrs. Thatcher, the handbag was a way of aligning herself with a respectable Everywoman accouterment.... Her bag was the kind of bag, British Vogue declared, carried by “a sensible, well-put-together person, reflective of an organized mind.”

The linked article sends us over to the OED to see this entry:

The face covering I was about to bemoan... and then wanted to buy for myself.

I'm reading "Why Can’t Fashion See What It Does to Women? A season that included off-putting, sometimes cruel designs left us wondering about what it all means." That's by the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman, and I'm giving you a free-access link so you can read the whole argument and see all the pictures. But I just want to concentrate on one thing.

At Courrèges, Nicolas Di Felice covered the faces of many models, in an otherwise elegant show inspired by the idea of the sun and rising temperatures, and shielded them from view. But even if the shades were meant as protection, the suggestion that a woman would need to hide was problematic....

Hide from the sun?! Is the sun sexist? I spend my life hiding from the sun — going for walks before sunrise or in the shadiest woods. I had a childhood full of sunburns, and the calendar of my old age is studded with dermatology appointments. I'm averse to the ritual of slathering sunblock goo all over. I prefer protective clothing when I can get it. And to me this Courrèges thing is fantastic.

It's not like the other things pictured at the link, e.g. "Arm-trapping 'cocoon' bodysuits at Alaïa, and mouth guards that stretched the face into rictus grins at Margiela."

Here's the Vogue article about the Courrèges show: 

"After all, if your employer allowed you to wear open-toe shoes, it would have to allow everyone to wear open-toe shoes, and when it comes to toes, our ideas of what is acceptable tend to vary according to gender."

"'Culturally we’re more accepting of women showing a bit of skin, whether cleavage on top or at the toes,' [said Susan Scafidi, the founder of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University]. 'And "mandals" have never read as business attire in the U.S.' Put another way: Your peep-toe pumps may be a casualty of his fisherman sandal."

I'm reading "What Is a ‘Work-Appropriate’ Shoe? Workplace dress codes can be frustratingly vague. Our critic has some guidance on navigating different interpretations and on picking your footwear" (NYT).

Is that really the law? Can't you require men to wear jackets and ties without requiring women to wear jackets and ties? 

I am reminded of my post from August 2010, "Can lady lawyers wear peep-toe shoes?" 

"Now, however, the new facial hair renaissance seems intrinsically connected to the current discourse around masculinity and the manosphere."

"There is little, after all, more redolent of manliness than facial hair, the visual expression of testosterone. It’s no accident that JD Vance is not the only member of Team Trump to have a beard. So do Donald Trump Jr., Commerce Secretary (and tariff warrior) Howard Lutnick and Senator Ted Cruz. In other words, beards are once again mainstream, which suggests their meaning is changing once again. Or even dissipating. As my colleague Jacob Gallagher... said, the scruffy look 'loses that masculine oomph when every guy seems to be doing the same thing.'"

Writes the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman, in "What’s With All the Beards? More and more men seem to be putting down the razor and letting their whiskers grow. Our critic examines the history of the trend and what it might mean."

Is there anything less masculine than the phrase "masculine oomph"? Looking for "masculine oomph"? You can't get there from here.

As for "the current discourse around masculinity and the manosphere," what is most current is the idea of emulating Charlie Kirk. He was quite clean-shaven, so you may want to rethink your effort to right-wing-ize beards.

"The uniformed body crystallizes all these associations we have. It makes your chest look broader, your posture straighter, your shoulders stronger. It becomes shorthand for words like manly, strong, brave, dominant."

Said Paul Achter, "an associate professor of rhetoric at the University of Richmond, who has written on 'military chic,'" quoted in "Why Trump Loves a Man in Uniform/As thousands of soldiers prepare to march in President Trump’s military parade, what exactly will we see?" (NYT).

The article is by Vanessa Friedman, who writes that, in a military parade, "the uniformed body is part of a mass — denatured and subsumed into a whole — and particularly when the parade in question does not signify the end of an actual conflict." "Instead of honoring the sacrifice of individuals... it becomes a moment of sheer pageantry dedicated to the glory of the state or the head of state...."

Quoting Achter again: "It’s difficult to see this and not see Leni Riefenstahl" (that is, Hitler, as presented in "Triumph of the Will").

When it comes to expression about the military, is there some reason to prefer the rhetoric of "sacrifice" over that of "glory"? A parade is a form of expression. It's visual speech, visual propaganda. Can you tell whether the theme is sacrifice or glory? Is it inherent in the nature of a military parade that it will say: glory?

"If... your dress is for internal satisfaction — if it is an expression of your own sense of gender and what it means to you..."

"... simply wearing what makes you feel most like yourself and reminds you of your own belief system is the answer. If the point you want to make is about old gender norms, simply failing to buy into them, literally, may be enough. Maybe that means wearing chunky boots with a big tread rather than stilettos. Maybe it means a concert tee underneath a suit jacket.... If you want it to go further... there is a simple way to turn a fashion choice into a form of protest. Create a uniform for yourself that stands out simply because it is different from the uniform of the majority.... Wear any garment consistently, and at some point everyone else should get the message... "

The NYT style writer Vanessa Friedman writes in "What Should I Wear to Protest an Unspoken Dress Code? A reader asks how to push back against the resurgence of traditional dressing. Our critic discusses the history of rebellion through clothing and how to make a true 'fashion statement.'"

Speaking of a concert tee underneath a suit jacket and creating a uniform for yourself, I'm remembering that NYT article that's been getting a lot of attention —"Inside Musk’s Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government" (blogged here by me yesterday). It says:

Some of the young workers on Mr. Musk’s team share a similar uniform: blazers worn over T-shirts. At the G.S.A., some staff members began calling the team “the Bobs,” a reference to management consultant characters from the dark comedy movie “Office Space” who are responsible for layoffs.

I have a feeling Musk's guys look much cooler than the Bobs in "Office Space"... 

... and I bet they cause more anxiety.

What would you say you do here?

A funny answer would be: I protest gender norms.

Pete Hegseth wore "an Old Glory print pocket square" and "star-spangled socks and a flag belt buckle. His only jewelry was a wedding ring..."

"... a lapel pin representing the crest of the 187th Infantry Regiment, and a Killed in Action bracelet worn in honor of a soldier, Jorge M. Oliveira, who lost his life in Afghanistan — a series of accessories that served as a form of value signaling. His hair was gelled back without a strand out of place. During the occasional interruptions from the crowd, his jaw was heroically clenched. Hidden were almost all of his tattoos: a large Jerusalem Cross, a 'Join or Die' snake, and an American flag with a stripe replaced by an AR-15.... Just a hint of ink reaching from his right forearm to his wrist peeked out from a carefully buttoned shirtsleeve. (It seemed to be the tail end of his 'We the People' script.) Left behind was the stars ‘n’ stripes cowboy hat. Unseen was the Uncle Sam jacket linings that Mr. Hegseth [has] occasionally flashed.... Certainly he did not look like the hard-drinking, adulterous, budget-mismanaging person that critics of his nomination had described. He looked clean-cut, not politically correct but patriotically correct.... Amid all the theatrics and speechifying by the many committee members and Mr. Hegseth himself, his uniform offered an argument of its own...."

Writes the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman, in "Pete Hegseth Dresses for Defense/The nominee for Secretary of Defense wore his patriotism on his sleeve during his confirmation hearing — and his belt, his socks, and his pocket square."

I like the topic of politics and fashion. And this is fine. Good to see it aimed at a man, as it should be maybe half the time (or a bit less, men's clothing lacking much variation). I like the reference to the "theatrics and speechifying" by committee members, but it should specify Democrats on the committee. Good lord, they were rude! I rarely watch Senate hearings because I can't tolerate the nastiness. But for some reason I sat in front of the TV for over an hour. I'll just offer Tim Kaine as one example of the undignified badgering:

I guess that yelling and pointing and smirking would have paid off if Hegseth had snapped and responded in kind. But he didn't. And why would he? He knows he only needs to put up with this, even as Kaine knows he needs to make something happen.

ADDED: Instapundit mocks the NYT for printing "Unseen was the... jacket linings." 

"She looked like someone who had other things on her mind than dress... and wasn’t all that interested in devoting a big chunk of time to catering to the male gaze."

"You could imagine her before the event, looking at her closet and exercising her own judgment about what seemed right.... ... Ms. Vance’s first appearance at the convention on Monday, in a taupe dress that practically disappeared into the background and flat shoes, was so counter to the prevailing Trump aesthetic that it was startling.... The rare photos of her until now suggest someone who isn’t particularly interested in using her clothes to attract attention, but rather to effectively get her through the day.... As she stepped into her role as a potential second lady... [s]he arrived as herself. That may seem minor, but in a campaign that prizes the visual message and is trying to position itself as a broader tent, one in which her husband’s political consistency is under scrutiny, it is a statement in itself...."

Writes Vanessa Friedman, in "Usha Vance and the Iconography of the Trump Women/The potential second lady models a new kind of Republican image-making" (NYT).

When I started reading this essay, I thought Friedman would go negative, but I don't think she did... other than in a part I didn't include above, about how "Trump women" all have "a certain kind of look... a defining gender trope" with "a lot of hair, often left to cascade in glossy, carefully controlled Breck girl waves" and a ton of makeup. I've never liked that look and wish it would go away, so I liked Friedman's appreciation of Usha Vance's relatively natural look.

Here's video of Usha Vance introducing her husband at the convention last night. The hair over the eye in the beginning was a huge distraction, and I was quite relieved when, after a cut to the audience, it had moved behind her ear.

"Why Does the First Lady of a Country at War Need a Stylist?"

Asks a NYT headline. The first lady in question is Olena Zelenska. Volodymyr Zelensky's wife. The couple is visiting Washington for the NATO summit.

The NYT writer Vanessa Friedman interviews the stylist, who says:

For us, fashion is one more tool to speak about Ukrainians, designers and talent. It’s a light way to speak about much more serious things on big public occasions, when the first lady needs to use every detail to support her cause. During the normal week, she can’t leave her compound. She can’t go shopping. She can’t go from her house to her office. Even if she is on some business trip, it is just airport, hotel, meeting. Otherwise, it’s too dangerous....

Friedman opines that "The black and white dress Ms. Zelenska wore for the social dinner was pretty severe." The stylist argued that it was a "combination of refinement and femininity with strength all the women in Ukraine possess." There's a preference for "really calm clothes — nothing too colorful or playful or feminine." The stylist likes suits on the theory that "suits make us stronger. They are like a shield, and Ukrainian women are in a fight every day."

"If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach blond, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?"

Said Representative Jasmine Crockett, during a meeting of the House Oversight Committee, referring to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had just said to her "I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading."

I've seen the video, and now I'm reading the NYT article, "The Ugly Effect of Physical Insults/A recent congressional meeting devolved into a back-and-forth that reflects a changing norm in politics — one that rarely makes anybody look good."

I don't approve of the unprofessionalism, but if we're just comparing insults and taking into account that Crockett didn't start it, I want to say "bleach blond, bad-built butch body" is impressive — with 6 B's in a row and the unforgettable "butch body." And can we analyze the extent to which "bad-built butch body" violates the norms of progressive speech. It's not just body shaming, it's expressing contempt for a woman's failure to have a body in the stereotypical female form. That's transphobic (in the broad sense).

Non-accidents.

"It is not an accident that on the first day of the Japanese state visit, Dr. Biden greeted Mr. and Mrs. Kishida in a black Armani dress with a keyhole neckline that she had worn several times before. Re-wearing clothes has been one of Dr. Biden’s signatures, part of the conversation around sustainability, which nods to her husband’s climate policies (not to mention the economic realities of the country). She has done so consistently over the course of the administration. To do so again at such a moment of ritual display was to double down on the point. Nor it is an accident that, in the last month, Mrs. Trump has been... stepping out at strategic moments in the luxury brands that are shorthand for the financial success her husband has made part of his selling point, as if to shrug in the face of the civil penalties that have been levied against him...."

Writes Vanessa Friedman, in "At the Japan State Dinner, Jill Biden Makes an Entrance/The first lady was glittering in crystals — four days after Melania Trump stepped out in pink at a Palm Beach fund-raiser. Together, the pictures offer a harbinger of what is to come" (NYT).

For some people, the re-wearing of clothes can be counted as a "signature." And I love this idea that the political wife is a walking symbol of her husband's achievements.

The promotional panopticon is forcing you to confront your preconceptions about exactly what empowerment means.

I encountered this sentence written by Vanessa Friedman, in "Kristen Stewart Uses Naked Dressing to Make a Point/Her press tour for 'Love Lies Bleeding' was something to see" (NYT):

"Ms. Stewart and her stylist, Tara Swennen, have taken the film’s carnality and covert politics and translated them for the promotional panopticon, forcing anybody watching to confront their own preconceptions about women’s bodies, their sexuality and exactly what empowerment means, while at the same time undermining the whole circus of branded celebrity dressing."

"The collection kicked off with reinterpreted naked dresses... before quickly taking a turn into extreme shapes that hinted at body modifications and prosthetics..."

"Fabrics were tattered and gray, part-Dickens and part-surrealist fantasy. Next came translucent dresses in sheer washes of blurred, rainbow colors revealing corsets underneath, the models’ forms obscured by layers of intensely light fabric.... What does it mean to go from a naked dress to a tattered broken creature—and back again to a youthful, doll-like figure?... [T]hose heavy, tattered pieces were actually featherlight, constructed through milletrage—'a filtrage of a mille-feuille of organza and felt under a wool crêpe printed with a trompe l’oeil of the texture of a classic gentleman’s cloth'....  'Seamlace'... refers to garments constructed entirely from encrusted fragments of lace, while 'emotional cutting' is 'a new form of cutting which imbues a garment with the unconscious gestures that shape our expressions.'"

From "Maison Margiela Closes Couture Week With a Transcendent Artisanal Collection/John Galliano put on a runway show filled with fantasy" (W).

Many striking photographs at the link. Super arty!

You can compliment Ivanka Trump as "the picture of gentle, pulled-together professionalism and good will" — but only after saying she "emerg[ed]" from "bowels."

I'm reading an article by the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman, "Trump Family Trial Style/Ivanka Trump and her siblings dress for court — and the cameras" (dated November 9th):

She was the focus of this week’s final scene, flying up from her home in Florida, emerging from the bowels of a black town car to make her entrance in a navy wool coat and navy pantsuit, a black leather tote clutched in one hand, tiny pearl studs in her ears and with her blond hair falling in soft waves around her face, the picture of gentle, pulled-together professionalism and good will.

I've boldfaced the metaphor in which Ivanka Trump is likened to shit. 

It's not as though the car's resemblance to bowels was so precise and striking that the intestinal metaphor was simply irresistible. Ivanka Trump was apparently perfectly dressed for the occasion, and the fashion critic wanted to say so, but she couldn't just say that. She entertained us NYT readers with the giddy comfort of the absurd visualization of automotive defecation. 

They're hungry.

That was my instant answer to the question in the headline of a NYT fashion article, "Why Do Runway Models Always Look So Grumpy?"

But the NYT fashion writer, Vanessa Friedman, says it's because runway models are under so much pressure that they can't smile convincingly. It's been tried, but they just look weird. If, as sometimes happens, the designer instructs the models to look happy, "it turns, very quickly, into a frozen rictus that doesn’t reach the eyes — a facial disjunction that can be very disturbing to watch."

"There are literally no rules, which is to say laws, that govern women’s underwear...."

"New York City was... the first jurisdiction to insist on 'full gender neutrality,' meaning an employer can 'require an individual identifying as female to wear a bra or hide her nipples, but only if the same rule applies to a male employee.'... When it comes to federal law... 'it only requires that dress codes have gender parity with regard to burdens such as cost.'...  As to the notion that bras are necessary for women’s health... there is no particular medical reason to wear a bra (and... bras don’t prevent sagging).... To be faced with freed breasts, whether or not nipples are visible, is to be forced to confront deep-seated prejudices about all of this, and that is both upsetting and distracting to a lot of people. Especially at this particular moment in time, when control of women’s bodies and their reproductive purpose has become once again a hot-button political issue.... It is not, of course, your job to make other people comfortable or to help them sort through their own feelings about all of the above...."

Writes Vanessa Friedman in "Are There Any Rules About Going Braless? A reader wonders when it’s OK to abandon the undergarment" (NYT)

The wondering reader is from Madison, Wisconsin, I note. It wasn't me, I should add, though I have the same question. And I believe Friedman did not answer the question asked. 

"As with the book itself, which mixes homey anecdotes with advice on how to handle anxiety, pressure and self-doubt, the clothes seem personal..."

"... the wardrobe of someone who has shrugged off the filters and decided to dress for herself as opposed to dressing to please (or maybe just not to upset) the largest possible constituency. Like the fits or not, there’s no denying that Mrs. Obama seemed to be having fun with what she was wearing.... Yet given how strategic Mrs. Obama was about her wardrobe choices during her husband’s administration... given how aware she has been that her every look is followed... it’s impossible not to think that the current shift is about more than just physical comfort. It’s also about the comfort of being at ease with your own self. And in that, it is a deliberate statement of intent. Of freedom. Mrs. Obama is setting her own rules, defining herself according to her own expectations, as opposed to the expectations of the role she has to fill. Who wears the pants? At this point, she does."

Writes Vanessa Friedman in "Michelle Obama’s Fashion Declaration of Independence/The former first lady dressed with a new sense of freedom on her book tour" (NYT).

It's fine for Michelle Obama to wear pants, and I like some of these new looks, notably the "Versace zebra stripes," but, good Lord, can we stop saying "Who wears the pants?" This is a retrograde sexist slur. I'm sure Friedman didn't mean it that way, but why does anyone ever feel the call to use a cliché? It's supposed to be funny and lighthearted because — what? — she actually is literally wearing pants?

That's been a stale twist for decades — flipping a well-worn metaphor back to its original meaning.

So why do it — especially where it necessarily entails sideswipe at Barack Obama's masculinity? It puts Friedman in a set with some of the lowest political humor on the internet, which portrays Michelle as the man and Barack as the woman.