TRENDING: Clinton addresses 'au naturale' moment
"I feel so relieved to be at the stage I'm at in my life right now," the secretary of state told CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty in an interview. "Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I'm wearing my glasses. 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."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/clinton-addresses-au-naturale-moment/
= new reply since forum marked as read
You always have me on such a roller coaster.
you are welcome.
Yeah, for sure. It shouldn't be only when we become invisible that we use the invisibility to do what we want. We should do it while we're visible. 
I don't think one could expect that her decision to appear makeup-less with glasses would pass unnoticed in the media. It's noticeable, and in fact is noteworthy. It was a deviation from her own consistent past practice and general practice among women in the public eye. Could one name another prominent woman in US politics who appears in public in her natural state? If Pelosi were to trash the hairspray and lipstick and eyeliner, who wouldn't notice?
If Barack Obama wore contacts and kept his hair tinted to its original colour, and one day showed up in hornrims with grey hair grown out, people would comment on that too.
If Clinton had never had trademark hairstyles and worn a makeup mask and eschewed spectacles, that photo wouldn't have been noteworthy.
My perspective is that women who play to the stereotype -- the extreme hairstyling, the makeup mask, the porny shoes -- put their own appearance in issue. They are the ones who choose to do that, by significantly altering their appearance to achieve an advantage in public life --or to avoid the disadvantage that would likely come with not doing that, granted. Because yes, unfortunately, any choice a woman makes in this regard is a statement of sorts. A woman can't just "be herself" without it being a statement that she is rejecting what women are expected to be and do, appearance-wise.
That's the world we live in. I would comment on a woman's hyper-unnatural appearance: bleached blonde, heavy make-up, stilletto heels, whatever. Women in the public eye who do that, obviously do it for a reason. They don't expect it to pass unnoticed. What's actually unfortunate is that it would also not pass unnoticed if a woman did not do it from the outset: if a woman entered public life with ungelled hair, unpainted face and flat shoes and just stayed that way. It would be seen as worthy of comment that she chose not to conform to stereotype.
Clinton conformed when she chose not to wear trousers while she was acting the role of helpmeet to the president. She did it every time she had her hair coloured and styled, and painted the makeup on. Her appearance when she chose not to do that was noteworthy because it was a clear and very particular choice that deviated from long practice, and it was newsworthy because she is a prominent personage.
I will still say that it is analogous to a prominent man who had always appeared with significant changes to his natural appearance and then one day didn't -- put on specs, grew out the grey and maybe stopped shaving.
It's just that few men start out in such an altered state. They start out in their natural state and stay that way, as it changes. If women did that too, there wouldn't be anything to note or put in the news.
