Skip to footer

Hillary Clinton "au naturale" is no Kate Middleton. Is that OK?

Hillary Clinton has gone "au naturale," wags Drudge. And she doesn't deny it. But her eyeglasses and lack of makeup bear a lot less on her job as a superpower broker than, say, the glamor of Kate Middleton bears on her job as ... what?

|
AP
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking here during a press conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh, May 5, 2012, has gone au naturale. And she doesn't deny it. But her eyeglasses and lack of makeup bear a lot less on her job as a superpower broker than, say, the glamor of Kate Middleton bears on her job as ... what?

This just in from the hard hitting journalism department:  Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State – you know, the person fourth in line to the presidency, responsible for the foreign policy of our country, who over the past month has visited China, Bangladesh, India, Columbia, Brazil, Belgium, and France – sometimes doesn’t wear makeup!

The horror.

Are you a Helicopter Parent? Take our quiz!

Forget “smart power,” little girls. This is the real lesson about women in the public sphere.

Sigh.

Another big sigh.

C’mon people.

The latest How-Does-Hilary-Look flap began heating up this week with a photo posted by the Drudge Report Monday showing the Secretary of State wearing glasses and just a little bit of lipstick, with the headline “Hillary au Naturale.” (sic)  This, on top of an aide’s worries – quoted in a women’s magazine – about Ms. Clinton’s penchant for pulling her hair back in a ponytail and securing it with a scrunchy, got the media’s tongues a-wagging.

Not that there’s ever a makeup-free day over here, mind you. Oh no.  And hair in a ponytail?  Never. We’re all Kate Middleton on this side of the computer. Cross my heart.

And we’re even fancy when we travel.  I call it vagabond chic.

Really, I feel lucky when I brush my teeth on international flights. And Clinton has traveled 778,157 miles as Secretary of State, visiting 96 countries and logging 1,691.25 hours of travel time, according to the State Department website. I’m impressed the woman can even find her lipstick.

But that’s not the point, of course.

To her credit, Clinton laughed off the issue in a CNN interview earlier this week.

“If I want to wear my glasses, I’m wearing my glasses,” she said. “If I want to wear my hair back I’m pulling my hair back. You know at some point it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention.”

She’s right of course, but...  if only.  The continued focus on women’s appearance is just depressing for parents trying to teach their little ones that smarts and kindness and achievement matter more than an outfit or hairdo.

Because it’s not just that we focus more on makeup than, say, delicate negotiations with India or China. We blatantly equate appearance to substance.  Take this comment, for instance, from the UK’s Daily Mail:

“The Democrat has appeared stylish and demure at recent events, toning down her once-gaudy coloured trouser suits and scrunchie combinations – also perhaps signalling that she is winding down.”

Huh?

Turns out you can pick friends based on appearance, as well.

Ms. Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, shows through her outfits (and she decidedly does wear makeup) that she is a “girl you want to go sit down with and talk to and hang out with,” celebrity stylist Rachel Zoe said on “Good Morning America.” 

Even with that high-slit dress that also got the internet community buzzing this week.

Again, a sigh.

Secretary of State versus princess.

We certainly show our girls which one we think they should emulate.
 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Hillary Clinton
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/Modern-Parenthood/2012/0510/Hillary-Clinton-au-naturale-is-no-Kate-Middleton.-Is-that-OK
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe