People of Cleavage

Much attention has been paid to Senator Hillary Clinton's cleavage since its July 18th debut during a speech about education televised on C-SPAN.

The Washington Post's fashion critic, Robin Givhan, touched off a firestorm when she compared Hillary's rather modest decolletage to a male politician appearing in public with his fly unzipped. Since then, several incisive writers including The Post's Ruth Marcus and Howard Kurtz and Judith Warner from The New York Times (The Cleavage Conundrum, subscription or fee required), as well as the Clinton campaign spokespeople, have weighed in. What does it mean to be a "person of cleavage" these days? Is too much attention paid to Hillary's appearance because she's female?

It once was political suicide for a woman to show cleavage in a business or political setting; A V-neck shirt suggested that you wanted to be remembered for your physique. (The assumption being you'd never be remembered for your brain or achievements if anyone saw an inch of your breasts). When I joined the working world in the 1980s, savvy women with a scintilla of ambition would never dress provocatively at work ("provocative" dress included bare legs in summer, shirts that showed skin below your collarbone or above your elbow, a skirt cut above your thigh, heels more than an inch.) Even in social settings, if a woman dressed daringly she was "asking for it" in other ways; a scantily clad woman who was hit on or sexually assaulted often unfairly and unfortunately received blame instead of justice.

I thought those days were gone.

I'm proudly pro-cleavage now. I'd love to see a national Cleavage Pride movement. Kind of like Gay Pride or Puerto Rican Day. Women in positions of authority across the country would display our God-given cleavage proudly to show how stupid this whole thing is and how wonderful having breasts can be. Imagine the parade we could have.

So what do you think? Do you hide or show cleavage when you dress for work? Has your own dress code changed over time, either because office standards have changed or you have changed? Do you think it is acceptable for Clinton and other prominent women to wear clothing that shows they have bodies as well as brains?

By Leslie Morgan Steiner |  July 30, 2007; 7:00 AM ET  | Category:  Moms in the News
Previous: Cartoons! | Next: Calling For Balance On 'On Balance'


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Boring

Posted by: First | July 30, 2007 7:31 AM

You've gotta be kidding me. You're wondering whether a woman "letting her breasts hang out" will hinder her ability to be seen as a professional? To lessen the confusion for you, the answer is, "Yes."

No woman letting it all hang out will ever, EVER be taken seriously. They make good money in Vegas, but in the boardroom, they're a laughingstock.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 7:42 AM

I'm pro-cleavage.

I say, if you have it, flaunt it, of course you should do it as tastefully as possible. LOL!

Posted by: Lil Husky | July 30, 2007 7:44 AM

So what's wrong with showing cleavage? Are we as a society still so uptight? If ya got it flaunt it! It'll always be a male focal point no matter if you show a little, alot or not at all.

Posted by: showit | July 30, 2007 7:44 AM

Leave it to cleavage.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 7:45 AM

It's a bust!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 7:51 AM

Lil Husky, you are such a boob.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 7:52 AM

For anyone who didn't read the original article, part of her point was that this was a major departure from Senator Clinton's previous style, thus, somewhat newsworthy. She's (the original author) got some very interesting commentary on what it might mean. A good read if you are at all interested, and framed as a discussion quite differently than what's here.

Posted by: VAMom | July 30, 2007 7:55 AM

perhaps she should worry more about those thunder thighs

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:07 AM

A. how wonderful having breasts is? I don't know what's so wonderful about it.

B. old lady cleavage - yuck.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:07 AM

"A good read if you are at all interested, and framed as a discussion quite differently than what's here."

No, it's a boring read. Old women should keep their breasts covered. Please!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:09 AM

"Is too much attention paid to Hillary's appearance because she's female?"

The answer is an overwhelming "yes." To talk about a politician's clothing choice is utterly ridiculous. Who on earth cares what she's wearing? Remember the jokes about her haircuts, and then her weight? I would understand if she were a TV personality or actor--they get paid to look good so clothing choice is important. But Hilary is paid to introduce and vote on legislation. Her clothes or hair cut ot weight do not matter at all.

If I were a female politician, I would probably wear conservative suits everyday so people aren't distracted from my work. But I always say that I don't come to work to get looks from my co-workers. I wear pants and flats and no make-up every day. I don't like to fit into the hypersexualized image of women that society has created.

Posted by: Meesh | July 30, 2007 8:22 AM

I'm a woman and I don't want to see old women's breasts or behinds for that matter, unless they are at the pool. Cleavage isn't appropriate at work. I didn't show cleavage when I was 25 and wouldn't now that I'm 37. How would you feel if a man wore a sleeveless shirt to work to show off his guns?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:25 AM

"How would you feel if a man wore a sleeveless shirt to work to show off his guns?"

Horny!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:29 AM

If I'm out, I have no problem flaunting the girls. My husband loves when I dress to show my assets. At work, I won't even wear anything sleeveless. I still dress like a woman, but this is an office, not a club. Mrs. Clinton still looks very tasteful. She's hardly started dressing like a teenager. Actually, I rather like seeing her in something that makes her look more like a woman. It softens her up a bit.

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 8:29 AM

Please, let's not attempt to turn this into a "Hillary is being treated differently because she's a woman" debate. The appearance of presidential candidates has been an issue ever since the first televised presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. You may view the fascination with appearance as irrelevant and a little annoying - I do - but it's not specific to Hillary, and it has nothing to do with her gender.

Posted by: BLE | July 30, 2007 8:31 AM

"My husband loves when I dress to show my assets."

Eew!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:42 AM

VAMom is absolutely correct. The original piece has been taken to mean something it didn't. As for showing cleavage on the job, it's completely inappropriate, akin to men wearing skin-tight pants to show off their packages. Time and place matters. Cleavage and packages should not be flaunted at work.

Posted by: Jayne | July 30, 2007 8:42 AM

Leslie, I'm so on board with you. I'm still imagining the cleavage parade. That is so hot. Show us more!

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 8:43 AM

Let's keep in mind that Robin Givhan is a FASHION reporter. I don't see how she was out of line. She's not supposed to report on politics, she's supposed to report on what people are wearing. Did the Post run her article on the front page or in the Style section?

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 8:46 AM

I think it's time for men to be liberated from formal dress constraints. With the heat and humidity closing in, I'm wedged into three layers of fabric with lined wool covering vitually every part of me and sweat pouring out everywhere. I must say that I'm jealous when I see all of these women dressing quite acceptibly while wearing a small fraction of the fabric that I'm wearing.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:47 AM

"Time and place matters. Cleavage and packages should not be flaunted at work."

Sigh, agree.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 8:48 AM

Geeze, the Sunday Times magazine had a wonderful article about family balance and people being unfairly fired for caring for their families - would have been a great topic today.

Posted by: Moxiemom | July 30, 2007 8:51 AM

My guess is that Hillary's campaign is busting so rapidly that they decided to pull out the stops, and have her try cleavage.
Cleavage: not appropriate.

Posted by: CTMan | July 30, 2007 8:51 AM

My guess is that Hillary's campaign is busting so rapidly that they decided to pull out the stops, and have her try cleavage.
Cleavage: not appropriate.

Posted by: CTMan | July 30, 2007 8:52 AM

BLE, show me an article written about what a male presidential candidate was wearing where it is stated that the manner of dress is unprofessional and you'll have a point. Keep in mind that comments about her appearance came long before she was a presidential candidate.

Posted by: Meesh | July 30, 2007 8:57 AM

I see someone is running out of ideas to blog/write about.

Posted by: KraziJoe | July 30, 2007 9:03 AM

"show me an article written about what a male presidential candidate was wearing where it is stated that the manner of dress is unprofessional and you'll have a point"

what about the hoopla over John Edwards's beautiful hair?

anyone remember John Kerry's "I'm a regular guy" barn jacket?

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 9:06 AM

Truly a double standard. When Nancy Pelosi took over the gavel, many news outlets were commenting on the business suit she wore.

The only time anyone writes/reports on what the GUYS on the hill are wearing is on seersucker day!

Posted by: Keith | July 30, 2007 9:07 AM

If they aren't up for grabs, keep the old funbags hidden. It amazes me that women who dress like tramps are usually the ones whining about sexual harrassment.

If you want to be taken seriously in any profession -- politics, law, office environments, school, whatever -- keep them covered. If you dress like a tramp, you'll be treated like a tramp.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:10 AM

"I see someone is running out of ideas to blog/write about."

And she's showing he true colors by choosing nothing but feminist drivel to write about. They will try anything to get their way.

Posted by: balance anyone??? | July 30, 2007 9:11 AM

My problem with the Post article on Hillary was not just the topic. It's true -- The appearance of all politicians has always been a popular topic (see the endless amounts of ink devoted to John Edwards's hair).

What bothered me about the Hillary article was the TONE. The first two lines of the article were something along the lines of "There was cleavage on display on C-SPAN last night. And it belonged to Hillary Clinton." Are you kidding me? It ruined my morning to read that article over coffee that morning, and it till riles me up thinking about it now.

Posted by: CDell | July 30, 2007 9:20 AM

Please excuse my usual cluelessness, but did Hillary sport a dime, nichel, quarter, or Susan B. slot?

Also, we here at the office are discussing exactly what constitutes cleavage. Some say it is the area of skin between the breasts, which I think introduces a subjective result when it comes to the measurement thereof; however it is more professional to define cleavage in this manner since the area "between" denies that there is any breast tissue actually exposed in the first place.

I say that cleavage is the seam that forms between the breasts and is measured in terms of length as opposed to square inches.

Maybe I'm over analyzing this, but at least I have something interesting to think about today.

Posted by: Lil Husky | July 30, 2007 9:20 AM

what about the hoopla over John Edwards's beautiful hair?

anyone remember John Kerry's "I'm a regular guy" barn jacket?

And Kerry's botox.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:25 AM

I agree with Leslie to some degree, in that I think people (especially women in this discussion) should not be ashamed of their bodies.

On the other hand, as much as I *know* that the way a person dresses has nothing to do with how well they do their job, I also know much of the world doesn't agree. I understand that in order to be viewed as a capable professional by all those people I have to dress conservatively enough to appease them too. As Robin Givhan pointed out in her article, Hillary is notoriously un-feminine and unfashionable, both facts that have little to do with her political ability. I think her decision (throughout her career) to de-emphasize her feminine figure has been wise.

I work for a fairly conservative, male-dominated government contractor. I am 25 and thin, but not busty by any means. My rules for myself are:
-No tank tops, though sleeveless blouses are okay if they cover my shoulders
-Skirts come to my knees or below
-Tight shirts are okay only if covered by a jacket
-Absolutely NO VISIBLE BRA STRAPS. No one should ever see your underwear in the workplace.

Posted by: Regan | July 30, 2007 9:26 AM

OK, there is a difference between showing "tasteful" cleavage and showing "inappropriate" cleavage. Now, Hillary's crossed the line a little, showed a little more than she should have, in my opinion. That said, though, as a businesswoman working in a male-dominated industry, I have found that there are benefits to dressing in a way that men find attractive. If you wear a wrap dress instead of a blouse and skirt, or a v-neck top instead of a crew neck top, men treat you differently. While that sometimes drives me crazy, its truly a fact of modern life.

Posted by: jen | July 30, 2007 9:28 AM

I started as software engineer and now run a resonable large IT services company. Never had second thought about dressing up as edgy (provocatively?) as I wanted. Fortunately, it used to be a field with not many women, so I received more (virtual) whistles than physical hisses. Of course, women hated it. When I was wearing thigh-length sweater dresses they were politely inquiring if "my sweater was too short". Well, my answer was that it's pretty long... for a sweater. Don't remember males ever complaining. Wait, once: a man asked to borrow an iron (we were on site), and was greatly surprised I did not own one. "Bur how do you iron your jeans? " I did not; his wife did for him. Later I learned there there were a lot of insinuations, and those old harpies warned the new hires that they should now mess with me, I'm the "boss' mistress". I asked later how could they believe it, since me storming into his office for shouting matches was pretty regular occurence, but in their twisted logic it was just another proof. I certainly enjoyed playing up my assets, and only once had to throw a stack of printouts into a face of a man who made a wrong comment. Alas, those time are gone, now we all classy, not trashy. Clinton was supposed to remember she is over 50.

Posted by: Showgirl | July 30, 2007 9:30 AM

"If you wear a wrap dress instead of a blouse and skirt, or a v-neck top instead of a crew neck top, men treat you differently. While that sometimes drives me crazy, its truly a fact of modern life."

Way to pimp yourself out, Jen.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:32 AM

"For anyone who didn't read the original article, part of her point was that this was a major departure from Senator Clinton's previous style, thus, somewhat newsworthy. She's (the original author) got some very interesting commentary on what it might mean. A good read if you are at all interested, and framed as a discussion quite differently than what's here.

Posted by: VAMom | July 30, 2007 07:55 AM "

Very true. Apparently very few actually *read* the article before blogging or commenting on it. Honestly...

Posted by: owl | July 30, 2007 9:32 AM

"Please excuse my usual cluelessness, but did Hillary sport a dime, nichel, quarter, or Susan B. slot?

Also, we here at the office are discussing exactly what constitutes cleavage."

Your tax dollars at work!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:32 AM

Showgirl, you iron your jeans? I have never heard of that! When mine get wrinkley I just wash and dry them again.

Posted by: Regan | July 30, 2007 9:34 AM

And this has to do with balance how?

Maybe the right one is a little bigger than the left, so they are out of balance?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:34 AM

"I'm proudly pro-cleavage now. I'd love to see a national Cleavage Pride movement. Kind of like Gay Pride or Puerto Rican Day. Women in positions of authority across the country would display our God-given cleavage proudly to show how stupid this whole thing is and how wonderful having breasts can be. Imagine the parade we could have.

So what do you think? "


What do I think??? You are ridiculous! Cleavage pride parade? Equating it with Gay Pride? Are you serious? Nice way to devalue gays and Puerto Ricans.

This is just utterly ridiculous.

Next we'll have Penis Pride and Vagina Pride days!

yes, I'm proud to be a woman, but I don't need to have my boobs bouncing all over the place to show it!

It's inappropriate and crude to even think about this.

And I'm young! I would never dream of wearing panthose, but I only wear knee-length and longer skirts. I wear short sleeves and v-necks, but my boobs are nicely tucked in.

Leslie, I'm shocked at your comments today.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:35 AM

Here is the original article about Hillary's cleavage if you are interested in reading it. It has a picture of the "offending" outfit, too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html

Posted by: Regan | July 30, 2007 9:36 AM

The most interesting statement of Givhan's article, anyway, is that she saw that particular shirt as a half-way measure, as if Hillary or her advisors are uncertain. She compared this seemingly tentative foray into admitting to being a woman to British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's far stronger display. Essentially, her conclusion was that Hillary hasn't yet had the guts to do it properly, and until she does, she should refrain. It's the half measure, the sense that Hillary is trying to have it both ways, that gave Givhan the sense that it was somehow indecent. She thoroughly approves of Jacqui Smith's cleavage - it's Hillary's half measure that made her feel as if she'd just seen a guy with his fly down. As if it was unintentional. I can see her point - that wasn't accessorised well.

And yes, there is analysis over what male presidential candidates wear. Remember the guy in the flannel shirts a few years back? Lamar Alexander, I think it was? How is this really any different if you read the article itself rather than pull one line out of context?

Posted by: MB | July 30, 2007 9:37 AM

Showgirl, you iron your jeans? I have never heard of that! When mine get wrinkley I just wash and dry them again.

Posted by: Regan | July 30, 2007 09:34 AM

That's exactly my point! He thought everybody did it because his wife did.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:38 AM

Showgirl, you iron your jeans? I have never heard of that! When mine get wrinkley I just wash and dry them again.

Posted by: Regan | July 30, 2007 09:34 AM

That's exactly my point! He thought everybody did it because his wife did.

Posted by: Showgirl | July 30, 2007 9:38 AM

BLE, show me an article written about what a male presidential candidate was wearing where it is stated that the manner of dress is unprofessional and you'll have a point. Keep in mind that comments about her appearance came long before she was a presidential candidate.

Posted by: Meesh | July 30, 2007 08:57 AM

Meesh,

While Cheney's not a candidate, Robin Givhan wrote a similarly entertaining, spot-on piece last year about Cheney's wearing a fur-trimmed parka to a ceremony at Auschwitz. If she did not use the term, "unprofessional", per se, she suggested that his choice was inappropriate and insulting to the occasion.

To respond to your point, though, while not labeled "unprofessional", many commentators have commented on the implications of various male candidates' fashion choices:

John Edwards' hair
Lamar Alexander's plaid "regular guy" shirts
Ross Perot's suits (does he ever loosen up?)
Barak Obama's more fashion conscious attire

Ms. Clinton brought this attention on and presentation, not because of the style or presentation she chose. If Nancy Pelosi suddenly ditched her extensive scarf-collection immediately after public comments identifying the scarves as a negative, it might be equally worthy of note.

I agree with you that, in the workplace, women's choices shouldn't be scrutinized in any more detail then mens'. It's the fault of our little-to-no-boundaries workplaces, particularly the ill-defined, "business casual" standard if people exercise different judgments in compliance.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | July 30, 2007 9:39 AM

The bulk of these comments illustrate the problem lucidly- and accurately. When cleavage- or packages- enter the picture, rational thought goes out the window.

I'm a trained behavioral biologist, 59 years old, married- to a woman with cleavage to spare, so I'm not deprived, and have plent of personal experience. I'm constantly observing myself; as well as the rest of the world.

Ladies- it's biology, not culture or society. Human breasts are a signal regarding reproductive status- you can argue exactly what they're saying until the cows come home, but that fact at least is clear.

When they are "presented" in any fashion; made obvious, whether covered or uncovered- 100% of all males in the vicinity will focus on them. Forever.

Our brains turn off. We stay focused on this reproductive comment in front of us- because reproduction is the greatest biological motivation.

If you want to TALK to a human male; this is not the way to do it. It's just biology- and it's true, true, true.

Now, I'd love to see the cleavage parade- but in fact we already have gallons of them- Mardi Gras, etc.

Women tend to be a little delusional about the effect they are having on men. They LIKE attention; showing cleavage will get it; all very human and normal. The problem is what happens next. Women think "now that I have your attention, let's talk about the Middle East..." Men think... "boobs. she's got boobs. Middle East, yeah, interesting, boobs."

This is one you CAN NOT HAVE BOTH WAYS. :-)

Posted by: Philip | July 30, 2007 9:41 AM

A United States Senator, not an actress or mud wrestler. I am not surprised her husband lets her go to work dressed inappropriately. She used to wear trousers, not feminine, he did not take her aside and counsel her.. Modesty, cover up from neck, sleeves below elbows, dress below calves, earn respect of good hearted Christian people. Once she is president, she will dress right, no problems with gossip writers. But, she will raise your taxes.

Posted by: abu ibrahim | July 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Leslie, you are a total goof. What women in their right mind would like to leered at by unattractive dirty old men, or horny young men in their respective work place? I women showing her cleavage at work is not only showing inappropriate taste, but aslo indicating a subtle desperation on her part for attention. Sexual harrassment on the job is a serious problem for many women, any intellegent women would not encourage it by showing her cleavage.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:42 AM

Leslie, you are a total goof. What women in their right mind would like to leered at by unattractive dirty old men, or horny young men in their respective work place? I women showing her cleavage at work is not only showing inappropriate taste, but aslo indicating a subtle desperation on her part for attention. Sexual harrassment on the job is a serious problem for many women, any intellegent women would not encourage it by showing her cleavage.

Posted by: Janet | July 30, 2007 9:42 AM

"Very true. Apparently very few actually *read* the article before blogging or commenting on it. Honestly..."

What else is new?


Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:42 AM

This blog has 'jumped the shark'.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:45 AM

>Sexual harrassment on the job is a >serious problem for many women, any >intellegent women would not encourage it >by showing her cleavage.

I don't. I show my legs, it keeps them motivated. On the other hand, I don't work in a car repair shop or fire station...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:47 AM

Two points:
First, discussing Hillary's clothing as news is perfectly fine -- we've certainly done it for plenty of men. Discussing that Hillary has embraced her sexuality is completely wrong -- and that's what Robin Givhan did. When Givhan writes about male politicians' fashion, does she say how so-and-so has embraced or rejected his sexuality? No, it's limited to the fashion aspect. So, let's be honest about Givhan's column -- it was far more than just fashion, even though Givhan claims it was just fashion. We should be able to discuss men's and women's fashion without getting into their "sexuality".

Second, Leslie, you're wrong about women showing cleavage. It's just a double standard for women -- try to get them to show something that makes them more sexual (even Givhan believes this). How can you possibly be taken more seriously if you're trying to show how your comfortable with your sexuality? No one encourages men to wear clothes the reveal the size and shape of their penis/testicles. It's too bad you've fallen for the modern feminism that is anything but feminism.

Posted by: Ryan | July 30, 2007 9:52 AM

anyman asked, "Did the Post run her article on the front page or in the Style section?"

In the print edition, it was on page C01, which I believe is the Style secion on weekdays. Online, it's in the Arts & Living section--I think that's the online counterpart of Style. Robin Givhan normally writes for the Style section, so I agree with you that she wasn't out of line in her work as a fashion reporter. VAMom is right that the article in its original context had a very different perspective from the way it's often interpreted.

Posted by: cheriesc | July 30, 2007 9:57 AM

The NY Times had an article in its Sunday edition about family and medical leave, discrimination of families, and how lawsuits are redefining how workplaces handle this issue since no good legislation is out there, other than FMLA. It is worth a read, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/magazine/29discrimination-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&adxnnl=0&emc=th&adxnnlx=1185801498-NzXMbk7gGQSBnj2d79tTeQ.

Posted by: Nutty Mama | July 30, 2007 9:57 AM

Hey, nice anonymous poster at 9:32 (never did understand why people chose to be anonymous on something that doesn't verify names...) - how is wearing a tasteful v-neck top pimping myself out?

Posted by: jen | July 30, 2007 10:01 AM

Spelling Police!

"intellegent women would not encourage it by showing her cleavage."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:07 AM

Scrutiny of candidates' clothing choices is an equal-gender sport, and voters are thick in the midst of it.

This is an excerpt from a recent aol.news article:

"Political blogs like the Stump and the Swamp, and gossipier ones like Radar, had a field day with Mr. McCain's so-called "gay sweater," a V-neck worn over a T-shirt. Fashion insiders, for their part, shrugged off the look as more appropriate to the buffet line at an assisted living center than the pages of Out.

But Mr. McCain's so-called gay sweater brought up a perennial political bugbear. How much attention should politicians pay to their clothes?

"There's too much emphasis and scrutiny on this," said Bill Carrick, a Democratic political strategist who managed Richard A. Gephardt's 1988 campaign and was a consultant for the candidate in 2004. "There's a fine line," Mr. Carrick added, between candidates staying on top of the message their clothes project and their "turning this all into some sort of Hollywood, television, Garry Trudeau, Bob Forehead kind of thing."

There is a fine line, that is, between ignoring Dale Carnegie-era notions of dressing for success (a particularly weird concept in an age of iMoguls in cargo shorts), and the truth instinctively acknowledged by canny public figures and generations of Miss Popularity: people judge us by our clothes.

"That is a tremendous suit you have on," David Letterman told Senator Barack Obama last April when he made an appearance on the "Late Show." "That is a very electable suit."

Mr. Obama's outfit that night was in some ways standard-issue Capitol Hill: a single-breasted two-button suit whose only nod to fashion was in the choice of color -- black in place of the regulation dark blue. His shirt was white and starched. His tie was a reassuring blue and of a width (2.5 inches) that locates him squarely in the middle of the sartorial road.

Throughout his campaign, fashion experts say, Mr. Obama has managed to score hits with wardrobe choices -- jackets nonchalantly slung over a shoulder, short sleeves in the heartland, neatly tailored suits on television -- that somehow telegraph personal comfort without sacrificing authority.

"Voters are looking for a new language and new thinking," said Dori Molitor, the chief executive of WomanWise, a consulting company specializing in marketing to women. "Obama helps bring in that new language visually by breaking the dress code of blue suit, starched shirt and red tie."

Unlike some candidates, Mr. Obama "comes across more like a common person and has an aura of authenticity," she said. . . ."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:07 AM

>Sexual harrassment on the job is a >serious problem for many women, any >intellegent women would not encourage it >by showing her cleavage.

My fashion choices don't encourage violations of the law any more than a child skipping down the street encourages pedophiles to harm her. Didn't the excuse that the victim is asking for it become laughable sometime in the mid '80s?

Posted by: OR mom | July 30, 2007 10:10 AM

Has anybody seen the new AMC series "Mad Men", set in the early '60s? One young ad guy actually tells another guy's secretary -- yes, they were "secretaries" then -- that her skirt is too long. Then he says that he's not finished yet, as he is "working [my] way up" in commenting on her appearance.

Women who want to "flaunt their assets" at parties or social affairs -- I've got
'em and I enjoy flaunting 'em myself -- should realize that the same attention generated at a social funtion will be generated in the workplace. I keep myself covered at work, but because I'm large, I still get a few looks now and then, but most men have learned that it is unprofessional to leer at women in the office, just as professional women have learned not to give men something to leer at.

Posted by: Constance | July 30, 2007 10:18 AM

Has anybody seen the new AMC series "Mad Men", set in the early '60s? One young ad guy actually tells another guy's secretary -- yes, they were "secretaries" then -- that her skirt is too long. Then he says that he's not finished yet, as he is "working [my] way up" in commenting on her appearance.

Women who want to "flaunt their assets" at parties or social affairs -- I've got
'em and I enjoy flaunting 'em myself -- should realize that the same attention generated at a social funtion will be generated in the workplace. I keep myself covered at work, but because I'm large, I still get a few looks now and then, but most men have learned that it is unprofessional to leer at women in the office, just as professional women have learned not to give men something to leer at.

Posted by: Constance | July 30, 2007 10:18 AM

In general, whenever a vexing question such as this comes up, we need only ask our true national hero, Bill Kristol, what he thinks. After all, he is NEVER wrong. Well, except maybe about that little Iraq war thing. So come on Bill Kristol. Cleavage or no cleavage?!?!?

Posted by: Baba Booey | July 30, 2007 10:19 AM

What I find ridiculous about this whole thing is that the Clinton campaign took the article and are now using their defense against it as a reason for fudnraising - hey people who should give us money, you should give us money beucase a fashion writer at the Washington Post wrote about, gasp!, fashion! It just happened to be about our candidate and discussiing something we don't want to discuss. Why we didn't dissuade our candidate from dressing in something that led to discussions of things we don't want to discuss is our business, not yours, but please, give us money anyway!

Posted by: wondering | July 30, 2007 10:19 AM

May I suggest that it wasn't a political move on Hillary's part at all. The weather was in the 90's with killer humidity. She wore a short sleeved v-neck, and she put on a jacket when she was on the Senate floor. It was more about comfort than showing off assets.

And as far as cleavage goes, it all depends. Some of us have too much chest to put it all under wraps without looking like a frump. If you dress classy, and there happens to be cleavage, oh well.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:20 AM

Exposing breasts in the workplace is inappropriate, no matter how old you are. It is unprofessional and I do not understand how women expect to be taken seriously when they are dressed in a manner more suitable for nights out at a bar than for working in an office. I work in a large law firm and unfortunately, there are a lot of women working here who do not seem to understand this.

Posted by: carrot | July 30, 2007 10:21 AM

This blog has 'jumped the shark'.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 09:45 AM
---------
And I was about to post "Is that a shark I see below this blog? It must be since it just jumped over it."

But hey, this is Shark Week on The Discovery Channel.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:23 AM

Whilst we await Bill Kristol's response, let's get to the real issue. It's not about cleavage, it's about FEET! Let's see Hillary attend her campaign events in flip-flops. Then we can start talkin'!!!

Posted by: Baba Booey | July 30, 2007 10:23 AM

Phillip- your comments about biology are ridiculous. Suppressing on some of our biological urges are the mark of a civilized society. Sure, you may occasionally have the impulse to pick a particularly attractive woman up and throw her over your shoulder and take her back to your cave, but you resist that, right? Why can't you keep your eyes where they should be during a conversation? I have plenty of male friends that are capable of this feat. Perhaps the problem is not biology but YOU.

Posted by: Alyssa | July 30, 2007 10:24 AM

"May I suggest that it wasn't a political move on Hillary's part at all. The weather was in the 90's with killer humidity. She wore a short sleeved v-neck, and she put on a jacket when she was on the Senate floor. It was more about comfort than showing off assets."

You can suggest it, but considering that she lived in Arkansas for some time and then moved to DC for another 8 years - where 90s and killer humidity is a way of life in the summer, and NEVER WORE A TOP THAT SHOWED CLEAVAGE BEFORE, it's not a credible explanation for her change in attire mid-campaign 2007.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:25 AM

It seems to depend a lot on geography. What is considered appropriate in Miami or L.A. is not well received in DC. Are we too uptight in DC. Absolutely, but no one should expect it to change any time soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:27 AM

Anon @ 8:42:


"My husband loves when I dress to show my assets."

Eew!

______________________

Okay, I'm posting this anonymously because I'm going to get killed for it, but what exactly about this posting deserved an "Eew"?

An attractive married woman goes out for a social occasion. She dresses in an attractive manner appropriate to that occasion. This happens to "show off" in some manner her physical assets. Her husband likes it when she does this; he's proud to be seen with his wife.

And for that you "Eew"? I think it's great.

Both my wife and I are physically fit, even though we're in our 40's. We work out a lot. When we go out socially, she sometimes likes dressing in a way that shows that she's in great shape. I like that. I dress to show that I'm in great shape; she likes that. I see nothing wrong or deserving of an "Eew".

Even professionally - my wife works in the school system; while she'd never show off any inappropriate skin, she does wear clothes that subtly indicate that she's still in great shape - no frumpy "grandma looks" for her. Similarly, I wear custom-tailored suits to work - and the tailoring does subtly highlight the physique. Again, nothing inappropriate about that.

(One of my wife's favorite shows is "What Not to Wear"; there are times we've been out when she's pointed to someone and whispered "where are Stacy and Clinton when you need them?")

Posted by: Gutless coward | July 30, 2007 10:32 AM

Al Gore's switch to earth tones was heavily discussed during his campaign, often as to whether the new duds were intended to make him look more manly.

As for Givhan, as has been pointed out, she has previously dumped on Cheney's choice of coat, and she has also criticized John Roberts for the way his kids were dressed.

Posted by: Tom T. | July 30, 2007 10:32 AM

If a man showed up to a debate without his tie, and enough buttons undone to display a little chest hair, we'd call him slovenly and be mad as heck that he didn't dress for the occasion. Same for a woman. Dressing for a political debate means no cleavage.

Also, when it comes to my political candidates (or any professional, for that matters) it's not the assets in her blouse that I'm interested in.

Posted by: WDC | July 30, 2007 10:35 AM

"We should be able to discuss men's and women's fashion without getting into their "sexuality"."

Ryan, that's the point I was getting at but failed to articulate. I totally agree.

10:07, Mr. McCain's "gay sweater" is a great example of what I was asking for from BLE. You have a good point.

Posted by: Meesh | July 30, 2007 10:36 AM

"I do not understand how women expect to be taken seriously when they are dressed in a manner more suitable for nights out at a bar than for working in an office."

Women expect to be taken seriously just as men expect to be taken seriously - oddly enough - because their work performance supports such treatment. Those who focus on making the organization more successful expect to be rewarded for their contributions. This isn't rocket science.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:37 AM


"When we go out socially, she sometimes likes dressing in a way that shows that she's in great shape. I like that. I dress to show that I'm in great shape; she likes that"

Two vain, shallow people in love, who spend a lot of time looking in the mirrow. Wait 'till the looks go!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:42 AM

Gutless Coward,

Come on! After a description like that, you just have to point us to your MySpace page!

;-)

Posted by: Tom T. | July 30, 2007 10:42 AM

Gutless coward - spot on. If you and your spouse agree on what's appropriate when you are out together, I can't imagine why it would provoke an "ewww" from anyone else. There are plenty of other spouses who take the attitude that, once they marry a girl, she should cover it all up. I wouldn't want to married to a man with this attitude, but if the couple agrees, it's not my battle to fight.

Posted by: MN | July 30, 2007 10:43 AM

"Two vain, shallow people in love, who spend a lot of time looking in the mirrow. Wait 'till the looks go!"

Let me guess. You weigh 350 lbs and are on your second bag of Cheetos this morning. Don't worry. Your soap operas start soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:46 AM

"When we go out socially, she sometimes likes dressing in a way that shows that she's in great shape. I like that. I dress to show that I'm in great shape; she likes that"

Where the heck are you going? To a key party?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:47 AM

The worst is when women try to dress and act like little me. We know you are women, wearing ugly clothes and cutting your hair short doesn't do anything, except make you look a robot

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:48 AM

The worst is when women try to dress and act like little men. We know you are women, wearing ugly clothes and cutting your hair short doesn't do anything, except make you look a robot

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:48 AM

The worst is when women try to dress and act like little men. We know you are women, wearing ugly clothes and cutting your hair short doesn't do anything, except make you look a robot

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 10:48 AM

More than a few of us resist looking like aging cheerleaders singing Bruce Springsteen's Glory Days under our breath. Better to be a woman with a current hairstyle, then one keeping the long hair as a memory of being 17. Fashion may be in the eye of the beholder, but "dated" is obvious to anyone.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 10:54 AM

Okay, I just saw the picture (you can tell how big a blip this has been on my radar screen). Is this a joke? She's wearing a blazer for crying out loud. This is such a non-issue. It's laughable that Gihvan can see this outfit as "noncommital." I think she takes the term "fashion statement" way too seriously. It's odd that she refered to Clinton's clothes as "discomforting" and "unnerving." Janet Jackson's display was uncomfortable to see. I wouldn't have even blinked at Clinton's picture had it been printed without the article. I think Gihvan is just getting herself some good press by blowing this totally out of proportion.

Posted by: Meesh | July 30, 2007 10:56 AM

Boy, lots of comments - not as nasty as I thought, but still:

"Two vain, shallow people in love, who spend a lot of time looking in the mirrow. Wait 'till the looks go!"

Then we'll still be two people in love!

"Come on! After a description like that, you just have to point us to your MySpace page!"

Umm, no! But thanks for asking. (And as our teenaged daughters would say, MySpace is so 20 minutes ago. Only weirdos hang out on MySpace - Facebook and a couple of others are "in" now.)

MN - thanks for the comments. I agree - I don't want her to wear a burqa just because she's married; she doesn't want me in flannel shirts and gray sweatpants, either.

Anon @ 10:46 - Love it! So true.

"Where the heck are you going? To a key party?"

Phantom of the Opera at the Kennedy Center, followed by a late dinner in Georgetown

Posted by: Gutless coward | July 30, 2007 10:57 AM

"More than a few of us resist looking like aging cheerleaders singing Bruce Springsteen's Glory Days under our breath"

Guess you still wear those dresses with the little bows at the top huh? kind of like a corporate burqua?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:01 AM

No cleavage in the workplace, unless you are a stripper, hooker or a showgirl. I think that it is really that simple. I don't understand why some women don't understand that. Boobs do not need to be displayed in the office. Boobs should not be displayed in a Presidential debate. It's unprofessional and tacky. No one needs to see that.

Posted by: Poster | July 30, 2007 11:02 AM

Displaying cleavage in the workplace is grossly insensitive to women who have had mastectomies.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:02 AM

Leslie, did you show any cleavage when you were on TV?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:04 AM

Nancy Pelosi doesn't show chest, does she? And she always looks great.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:07 AM

women still like to pretend that men won't notice 36-dd rack if they "hide" it. We notice and we like it

Posted by: rack um up | July 30, 2007 11:07 AM

"Boy, lots of comments - not as nasty as I thought, but still:"

Wasn't the intent of your post to justify why you and DW dress to attrack SEXUAL attention?!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:10 AM

The unfortunate thing is that the article used the word cleavage. Clinton's decision to wear a lower cut v-neck shirt was clearly a departure from her usual choices and therefore newsworthy for a fashion writer to address. It's also absolutely typical of what you see under suits for many women in Washington, including reporters on theevening news. So to suggest that it was somehow inappropriate is ridiculous.

Posted by: reality check | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM

what an important question. yes, sometimes i do wear v-neck jackets on tv. i SAID i was pro-cleavage. next?

Posted by: Leslie | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM

It's a simple v-neck, not a bustier for crying out loud. Most of us look better in v-necks, according to What Not To Wear (BBC and TLC versions). She had a jacket over it as well, so it's not like you could even see their shape. Oh no, I see sternum! I

It's not the same as an unzipped zipper - that's a mistaken peek at undergarments (or worse), while a v-neck is perfectly appropriate and intended.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:16 AM

BOOB! Stick to the real issues!

Posted by: Suzanne | July 30, 2007 11:16 AM

"women still like to pretend that men won't notice 36-dd rack if they "hide" it. We notice and we like it"

And we notice men with large packages and we like it!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:17 AM

Alyssa writes:

"Suppressing on some of our biological urges are the mark of a civilized society."

Alyssa, I hope you stay civilized for the rest of your life with regard to your biological urges to have children.

Now HERE'S a question:

Which is more provocative: cleavage or headlights?

Posted by: Mister Methane | July 30, 2007 11:18 AM

headlights?


headlights, the gift that keeps on giving

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:20 AM

"More than a few of us resist looking like aging cheerleaders singing Bruce Springsteen's Glory Days under our breath"

Guess you still wear those dresses with the little bows at the top huh? kind of like a corporate burqua?

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:01 AM

No - that's the point. Don't dress for what might have been fashionable when you were 20, or in 1985. Wear your hair at whatever length is most attractive. Some men have a fixation on long hair that is unhealthy and shows they are stuck in the past and want their woman stuck there along with them. Many of them are still sporting mullets as if looking like Billy Ray is still on the Billboard charts will make them seem younger. They are a joke.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:20 AM

Would Robin Ghivan critique Hillary if Hillary displayed Visible Panty Lines? Well, we know she would have Gene Weingarten's full attention.....

Posted by: Mister Methane | July 30, 2007 11:23 AM

Would Robin Ghivan critique Hillary if Hillary displayed Visible Panty Lines? Well, we know she would have Gene Weingarten's full attention....."

More than one news article has mentioned Laura Bush's VPLs.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:27 AM

Some men have a fixation on long hair that is unhealthy and shows they are stuck in the past and want their woman stuck there along with them

keep listening to your "friends" who tell you your nearly shaved head is oh so attractive. We men will continue to ignore you.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:27 AM

"Suppressing on some of our biological urges are the mark of a civilized society."

Yeah, the problem is, I don't see much suppression. More people who are ill-equipped to handle the rigors of parenthood are churning kids out like there's no tomorrow.

Really, after the fourth kid in as many years, you just want to hand them a box of condoms instead of another baby gift.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:28 AM

"More than one news article has mentioned Laura Bush's VPLs."

Notice how no articles have focused on George W. Bush's package.....probably because he doesn't have one.

In the immortal words of Ghostbuster Bill Murray, "Yes, it's true: this man has no dick."

Posted by: Mister Methane | July 30, 2007 11:31 AM

DH's 3 brothers each have very large packages. No way to miss 'em. Alas, DH does not. ...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:36 AM

No cleavage in the workplace, unless you are a stripper, hooker or a showgirl. I think that it is really that simple. I don't understand why some women don't understand that. Boobs do not need to be displayed in the office. Boobs should not be displayed in a Presidential debate. It's unprofessional and tacky. No one needs to see that.

Posted by: Poster | July 30, 2007 11:02 AM

News flash, Poster: boobs are displayed whether they are fully covered with fabric, or not so much. Your comment makes me wonder whether you have actually worked with any men, LOL. I've worn oversized turtlenecks to work and silk blouses buttoned up to my clavicle. The men who have conversations with my boobs have conversations with my boobs regardless of the garments under which they reside. I'd say those men are the very embodiment of unprofessional, and, other than having a double-mastectomy, I have no power or interest in reforming the behavior of such men. That's their problem.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:36 AM

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:36 AM

just be glad you have cleavage. Nothing sadder than a woamn who looks like a flat chested,ten year old boy.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:39 AM

Some men have a fixation on long hair that is unhealthy and shows they are stuck in the past and want their woman stuck there along with them

keep listening to your "friends" who tell you your nearly shaved head is oh so attractive. We men will continue to ignore you.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:27 AM

Hey - bub - I'm getting laid significantly more often than you. On average, secure men and women are more fun in bed.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:40 AM

That being said, I'd like to show some cleavage, but my tie precludes it.

Posted by: Inappropriate | July 30, 2007 11:42 AM

"Hey - bub - I'm getting laid significantly more often than you. On average, secure men and women are more fun in bed."

I agree.

Posted by: Alfred Hinkle | July 30, 2007 11:42 AM

Show it! No need to go in a bikini, but a little cleavage is fine. We are women! We need to show what we have. You must be feminine, not a cow with balls!

Posted by: Cleavage | July 30, 2007 11:43 AM

«More people who are ill-equipped to handle the rigors of parenthood are churning kids out like there's no tomorrow.»

«Really, after the fourth kid in as many years, you just want to hand them a box of condoms instead of another baby gift.»

«Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:28 AM »

Evil terrorists, bombers, flyers of planes into buildings, they stir up crusaders to make war on Islam, kill many Muslims. This is no way to bring the whole world into the Dar al-Islam. Better to tell crusader parents not to be «churning kids out like there's no tomorrow». Meanwhile, Muslim couples, they will have eight, ten, thirteen babies, the babies will grow up, «one man one vote», the world, it will become Dar al-Islam without firing a shot. «no tomorrow» you say? Crusaders stop having lots of kids, then tomorrow belongs to us, Hillary's great-granddaughter, she will not have to worry about immodesty, nothing will show through her burkah.

Posted by: abu ibrahim | July 30, 2007 11:48 AM

This is way overblown. Let's review the facts:

Hillary Clinton is a woman.

Women have breasts.

Hillary wore a full sized bra, v-neck blouse, and business jacket.

The only reason one would never wear a v-neck blouse would be if one were trying to minimize one's femininity.

The only crime here was Robin Givhan's (who shows a LOT more in her public apperances).

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:53 AM

Nothing sadder than a woamn who looks like a flat chested,ten year old boy.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:39 AM

We have what we have - if you find that sad, I hope your girlfriend doesn't have any problems with those silicone grapefruits she planted on her chest for your amusement.

Unlike some women, I don't have to worry about the ugly effects of gravity or struggle to hoist two shapeless watermelons above my beltline.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 11:54 AM

Awww. Thanks for backing me up, gutless coward. I actually think it's sad if a woman isn't bothered to look good for her husband, and vice versa. I believe that's the beginning of the downhill slide to cliche. Of course you don't stay young forever, but taking care of yourself and dressing age-appropriately but fashionably and flatteringly is nothing to be dismissive of. It doesn't make you shallow, and it doesn't mean you spend ridiculous amounts of time and money on clothes or primping. Flame away.

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 11:54 AM

"DH's 3 brothers each have very large packages. No way to miss 'em. Alas, DH does not. ..."

Ok. I'm a female and I have to say, that in regards to statements like this one, what does it mean> You are obviously dissatisfied with something. But people are so quick to judge by looks alone.

It's funny that no one ever considers, just with penis size, that the length of a woman's vagina can vary also. So you are most likely basing this on only side of the equation.

Also, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. A lot more pain, rather than pleasure, can be attributed to this.

Posted by: well... | July 30, 2007 11:57 AM

The only crime here was Robin Givhan's (who shows a LOT more in her public apperances).

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:53 AM

didn't read the article, didya, LOL?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:01 PM

"i SAID i was pro-cleavage. next?"

OK, Leslie, do you wear your thong out in public?

Posted by: LIL Husky | July 30, 2007 12:01 PM

Nothing sadder than a woamn who looks like a flat chested,ten year old boy.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:39 AM

We have what we have - if you find that sad, I hope your girlfriend doesn't have any problems with those silicone grapefruits she planted on her chest for your amusement.

Unlike some women, I don't have to worry about the ugly effects of gravity or struggle to hoist two shapeless watermelons above my beltline.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 11:54 AM


Right on. And it was my husband who said that very same thing to me early in our relationship -- the part about the gravity and having to hoist them. He wanted no part of that scene!

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 12:02 PM

So you are most likely basing this on only side of the equation.

Posted by: well... | July 30, 2007 11:57 AM

That would be the only side of the equation that matters, well . . .. She has the equipment she has and likes what she likes. Keep the pencil-dicks for yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:02 PM

And how is insulting women with large breasts any better than insulting women with small breasts? Pot, Kettle.

----------------------------------------
Unlike some women, I don't have to worry about the ugly effects of gravity or struggle to hoist two shapeless watermelons above my beltline.

Right on. And it was my husband who said that very same thing to me early in our relationship -- the part about the gravity and having to hoist them. He wanted no part of that scene!

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 12:08 PM

atb, it's not an insult to anyone to say there's one problem in life I don't have to worry about. Defensive much?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:11 PM

As far as George Bush's package, or lack ther of, remember when he "dressed up" in the flight suit?

Posted by: rileys red | July 30, 2007 12:12 PM

Presumably you are basing your presumption that this is newsworthy for the benefit of the same people who watch Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and read Krauthammer and Kristol... instead of focusing on what is really happening as did the New York Times article today pointing out HC's grave hypocrisy regarding outsourcing...

How 'bout some news, Post? Oops, sorry, I forgot it's all about "entertainment" (sic) now....

Posted by: Lamb Cannon | July 30, 2007 12:16 PM

And how is insulting women with large breasts any better than insulting women with small breasts? Pot, Kettle.


It's not better, it's not worse, it's all part of an absurd topic going in lots of silly directions none of which can or should be taken seriously. Par for the course for this blog and very nicely summed up at 9:34 a.m. (below).

And this has to do with balance how?

Maybe the right one is a little bigger than the left, so they are out of balance?

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 09:34 AM

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 12:17 PM

Do people keep missing the fact that the outfit that she had on (that pink jacket) was only unbuttoned because it was 2:30AM????

Remember that this was the night of that overnight debate on The War. Can she not have her jacket unbuttoned at 2:30am?

It is a double-breasted jacket. For Robin Givhan to think that Hillary left home that morning with a double-breasted jacket unbuttoned is silly. I think that Robin Givhan portrayed this dishonestly.

Several other Senators who took the floor in the wee hours during that debate also had their jackets open. If Robin Givhan gave a damn about honesty she would go look at footage of the others. Hillary is trying to take these lemons and make lemonade but the truth is that criticizing her on this particular outfit at this particular time of day is intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Post Should be Ashamed | July 30, 2007 12:22 PM

Leslie's poor poor husband. Has to listen to her shreiking maniacal drivel ALL the time. Ugh.

Posted by: dctony | July 30, 2007 12:26 PM

Hillary is trying to take these lemons and make lemonade but the truth is that criticizing her on this particular outfit at this particular time of day is intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Post Should be Ashamed | July 30, 2007 12:22 PM

it was very, very cold and blustery when Dick Cheney wore the parka at Auschwitz as well. I don't see anything intellectually dishonest about calling a spade a spade. Perhaps fashion isn't an area in which you have an interest, but insulting Givhan's integrity is ridiculous.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:28 PM

10:37 a.m. wrote:

"Women expect to be taken seriously just as men expect to be taken seriously - oddly enough - because their work performance supports such treatment. Those who focus on making the organization more successful expect to be rewarded for their contributions. This isn't rocket science."

I am a woman and I wouldn't take a man seriously either if he was exposing his bare chest, or portions thereof, at the office. Work performance can be negated if the image you present is not professional. There is nothing wrong with a V neck per se. It depends how low it is. If it is low enough to expose portions of the breasts, it is not appropriate for the office. Period.

Posted by: carrot | July 30, 2007 12:28 PM

"Leslie's poor poor husband. Has to listen to her shreiking maniacal drivel ALL the time. Ugh."

That's one reason why he rarely is home for dinner with the family.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:28 PM

I think Hillary has often times been criticized for being to stiff, too intelligent, and unrelatable. Her outfit softened her appearance. Unfortunately in our society people judge how others look and those judgements usually have an effect on whether or not a person gets a job or a promotion and stufies have proved it time and time again. Was it a mistake? Maybe but maybe not. The country as a whole voted twice based on relatability vs intelligence. Maybe Hillary is just trying to combine the two. Either way she has our attention now.

Posted by: Silver Spring | July 30, 2007 12:29 PM

"it was very, very cold and blustery when Dick Cheney wore the parka at Auschwitz as well."

Oh, the irony....................

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:31 PM

No wonder Leslie's first husband beat her.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:31 PM

Has to listen to her shreiking maniacal drivel ALL the time. Ugh.

Posted by: dctony | July 30, 2007 12:26 PM

maybe, or maybe he understands that a job is a job and her job is to get a conversation going. You sure picked the wrong day, though, to criticize her as either "shrieking" or "maniacal". Do you even know what these words mean? How do they apply to today's column?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:31 PM

Leslie's hysterical. I know what the word means.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:33 PM

I really like this topic, b/c I think what women wear to work is all about balance. Personally, I always look for clothes that were flattering, but appropriate. When I was working, a fitted suit was perfectly appropriate, as was a bit of cleavage. My skirts tended to be slightly above the knee. (FWIW, I always wear hose...personal preference.) When I traveled, I wore pants b/c they were more comfortable on a plane.

Now I stay home with my sons. My regular uniform is jeans/shorts or sweaters/t-shirts. When I dress up I wear ankle-length skirts b/c they are easier to maneuver if I am down on the floor with the kids. A bit of cleavage or a form-fitting top is still 100% OK.

But I think this whole topic comes back to BALANCE. I knew/know with what I am comfortable; others' comfort levels are going to be different. I never felt "objectified" in the workplace; I felt then and feel now that it is wise to dress attractively. Partly b/c people of both genders respond better to those who care about their appearance (again...balance! I'm talking about nice clothes, good hygiene, etc, not everyone looking like a supermodel). But also b/c if I look good, as a result I have more confidence, better work, stronger results.

Oh, and to those who say male presidential candidates are never judged by their appearance, remember Al Gore and his neutral colors? Remember all the candidates who appear without a jacket and with sleeves rolled up at Union events?

Posted by: JB's mom | July 30, 2007 12:34 PM

"Perhaps fashion isn't an area in which you have an interest, but insulting Givhan's integrity is ridiculous."

What integrity?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:34 PM

"And how is insulting women with large breasts any better than insulting women with small breasts? Pot, Kettle."

Ma Kettle


Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:36 PM

If it is low enough to expose portions of the breasts, it is not appropriate for the office. Period.

Posted by: carrot | July 30, 2007 12:28 PM

What's it like to be Queen Bee, carrot?


Now that carrot has spoken, the rest of us might as well toddle on along home.

Oh, and as to that fist on the desk, "period", it's not like there's a clear line of what is "breast" and what is "chest", so nice try with the definitive pronouncement.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:41 PM

Hillary is trying to take these lemons and make lemonade but the truth is that criticizing her on this particular outfit at this particular time of day is intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Post Should be Ashamed | July 30, 2007 12:22 PM

it was very, very cold and blustery when Dick Cheney wore the parka at Auschwitz as well. I don't see anything intellectually dishonest about calling a spade a spade. Perhaps fashion isn't an area in which you have an interest, but insulting Givhan's integrity is ridiculous.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 12:28 PM

When Dick Cheney wore that Parka, he also wore hiking boots and a hat. NONE of the other attendees to that event (which I believe was a funeral) dressed this way. My point is that Hillary was dressed JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE at 2:30am during a floor debate. Cheney, in his normal pompous way, put himself "above" the dress code everyone else followed.

I reiterate that Givhan is intellectually dishonest. She should comment on what the speakers immediately before and immediately after Hillary wore at that time of morning. Unless they were impeccably groomed with ties synched all the way up, cuffs and jackets buttoned, then Robin Givhan IS intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Post Should be Ashamed | July 30, 2007 12:42 PM

Anyone care to opine on the appropriateness of camel toe at the office?

Posted by: Mister Methane | July 30, 2007 12:43 PM

WP, please remove the text of the very sick poster at 12:31.

Posted by: LIL Husky | July 30, 2007 12:47 PM

maybe, or maybe he understands that a job is a job and her job is to get a conversation going. You sure picked the wrong day, though, to criticize her as either "shrieking" or "maniacal". Do you even know what these words mean? How do they apply to today's column?

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 12:31 PM

meh. It's Leslie as a whole, really. But still, you could see her running to hubbie screaming "honey, i'm gonna organize a cleavage parade, squack squack...". I mean, can't you just hear it? The answer is yes.

Posted by: dctony | July 30, 2007 12:48 PM

I would hardly say that Hillary Clinton was showing cleavage in any way except--she has breasts and she didn't hide that.

There is a huge difference (ha ha) between showing cleavage in a low-cut/sexy shirt and a shirt that merely is open on the neck area so that you can actually see that a woman has breasts.

Her outfit was completely appropriate. We've got to have better things to talk about.

Posted by: wdc | July 30, 2007 12:49 PM

"Boobs should not be displayed in a Presidential debate"

Hah! This happens all the time - they are called candidates.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:50 PM

Here is the picture of Cheney:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/210033_cheney29.html

And here is the first line of the article, (emphasis mine):


"Vice President Dick Cheney's utilitarian hooded parka and boots STOOD OUT AMIND THE SOLEMN FORMALITY of a ceremony commemorating the liberation of Nazi death camps, raising eyebrows among the fashion-conscious.

Posted by: Post Should be Ashamed | July 30, 2007 12:53 PM

I wish Dick Cheney wouldn't show his cleavage. That goes for Karl Rove too.

Posted by: Tom3 | July 30, 2007 12:54 PM

LIL Husky

"WP, please remove the text of the very sick poster at 12:31."

Suck-up!

LIL Husky calling someone a "very sick" poster. Oh, the irony...............

You can't make this stuff up!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 12:57 PM

Dick Cheney was fascinated with Auschwitz.

He wants to start a Halliburton detention center and soap factory in the US.

First they came for the illegals, but I was not an illegal...

Posted by: Tom3 | July 30, 2007 12:58 PM

Why would anyone expect Dick Cheney to dress appropriately for a ceremony at Auschwitz? Cheney was dressing as he acts: like a Nazi.

Arbeit macht frei, Mister Vice-President.

Posted by: Mister Methane | July 30, 2007 12:59 PM

meh. It's Leslie as a whole, really. But still, you could see her running to hubbie screaming "honey, i'm gonna organize a cleavage parade, squack squack...". I mean, can't you just hear it? The answer is yes.

Posted by: dctony | July 30, 2007 12:48 PM

Yes, the answer is yes. LOL.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:00 PM

Wow, this is ridiculous. It was a v-neck top under a blazer. That's perfectly normal business attire. I wear stuff like that every day -- today, in fact, I'm wearing a button-down that doesn't even have a button until right about that point. I've got other scoop-necks and v-necks that show just about as much -- unless you wear turtlenecks or shirts buttoned up to your neck, it's hard to even find something that DOESN'T show that much. Oh: and I'm easily the most boring, least sexy dresser at my firm.

I agree with "Post Should Be Ashamed." Yes, it may be legit for a fashion reporter to note that HC's broken away from the black pantsuit. But the outfit was completely appropriate (honestly, I would have thought the pink blazer was a much bigger fashion statement than the v-neck). Dang. After all these years of HC being criticized for not being feminine enough, suddenly a regular women's v-neck under a blazer is inappropriately sexy? Give me a break.

Posted by: Laura | July 30, 2007 1:00 PM

I think women today can look professional and feminine without having to sacrifice style when choosing office attire. Women nowadays are wearing suits and dresses that are classic and way more flattering to the figure (think era 80's with the big-shouldered power suits). I think there is a big difference wearing a v-neck waist belted dress with a nice pump versus say a halter top with stretch capris and a platform heel. One had a nice cut, is a little sexy and elegant, the other is just plain sexy.

I do think it was acceptable what Senator Clinton wore...didn't seem to be provocative to me at all. I think it's funny that people think she was flaunting them. That seems to be nitpicking. They wouldn't say this about a man. Looks, dress, appearance, sexiness is not an issue we focus on for male politicians. It is just like the comments on about her hair and "thunder thighs." It is a way to trivialize and refocus the discussion from her merits to her appearance. This happens to ALOT of women.

Posted by: maya | July 30, 2007 1:10 PM

"Presumably you are basing your presumption that this is newsworthy for the benefit of the same people who watch Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and read Krauthammer and Kristol... instead of focusing on what is really happening . . ."

Posted by: Lamb Cannon | July 30, 2007 12:16 PM

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Kristol '73, Ph.D. '79 in the same line! Wait 'til Mr. Kristol's biggest fan, Baba Booey '02 MPP, reads this.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | July 30, 2007 1:13 PM

maya

"I think there is a big difference wearing a v-neck waist belted dress with a nice pump versus say a halter top with stretch capris and a platform heel. One had a nice cut, is a little sexy and elegant, the other is just plain sexy."

"halter top with stretch capris and a platform heel" is a Ho! Pay attention!


Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:17 PM

Alyssa - Your response to Phillip is naive. Yes, we suppress our biological urges, nevertheless they are still there and always will be. Every hetero man will take a look at a woman's cleavage, no matter how small or old. I daresay, even your male colleagues and friends have hazarded a furtive, imperceptible glance at your chest. It might be only a nanosecond as their gaze shifts to yours eyes, but it still happens. We have been conditioned that outright staring is boorish and unacceptable. But we will cling to our inalienable right to sneak a peek until they put us in the grave. There is no shame in that. We're human. Get used to it.

Posted by: Man-in-MD | July 30, 2007 1:26 PM

Evil terrorists, bombers, flyers of planes into buildings, they stir up crusaders to make war on Islam, kill many Muslims. This is no way to bring the whole world into the Dar al-Islam. Better to tell crusader parents not to be «churning kids out like there's no tomorrow». Meanwhile, Muslim couples, they will have eight, ten, thirteen babies, the babies will grow up, «one man one vote», the world, it will become Dar al-Islam without firing a shot. «no tomorrow» you say? Crusaders stop having lots of kids, then tomorrow belongs to us, Hillary's great-granddaughter, she will not have to worry about immodesty, nothing will show through her burkah.

Posted by: abu ibrahim | July 30, 2007 11:48 AM

Umm, this is a discussion between men and women about breasts. Doesn't that men you have to go kill yourself or something since you participated?

Posted by: take a hike osama | July 30, 2007 1:29 PM

ONLY AN ITALIAN MAN CAN MAKE A WOMAN FEEL LIKE A WOMAN

On a recent transatlantic flight, a plane passes through a severe storm.

The turbulence is awful, and things go from bad to worse when one wing is struck by lightning. One woman in particular loses it.
Screaming, she stands up in the front of the plane. "I'm too young to die," she wails. Then she yells, "Well, if I'm going to die, I want my last minutes on earth to be memorable! Is there ANYONE on this plane
who can make me feel like a WOMAN?" For a moment there is silence. Everyone has forgotten their own peril. They all stare, riveted, at the desperate woman in the front of the plane.

Then an Italian man stands up in the rear of the plane.

He is gorgeous, tall, well built, with dark brown hair and blue eyes.

He starts to walk slowly up the aisle, unbuttoning his
shirt...one button at a time.

No one moves.
.......He removes his shirt.
.......Muscles ripple across his chest.
.......She gasps...
.......and He says......

"Iron this, and get me something to eat ..."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:30 PM

"I think it's funny that people think she was flaunting them. That seems to be nitpicking. "

another one who didn't read the article. sheesh. Neither Givhan or anyone else has suggested Hillary was flaunting anything. She clearly was changing a style established over several decades, though. That's what makes news.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:30 PM

"But we will cling to our inalienable right to sneak a peek until they put us in the grave."

It's called rubber-necking, baby!!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:31 PM

I love the way bitter women over 35 keep saying that only short hair is attractive on "older" (over age 35) women. Sorry, hon, I'm keeping my long hair as long as I can keep it healthy and well-styled. If yours isn't healthy then chop it off, but don't tell other women they have to do the same.

Posted by: Sarah | July 30, 2007 1:35 PM

Right on. And it was my husband who said that very same thing to me early in our relationship -- the part about the gravity and having to hoist them. He wanted no part of that scene!

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 12:02 PM

Just like you told him you didn't like that big penis "scene" and his 4" tallywacker was just fine. wink wink

Posted by: sure | July 30, 2007 1:41 PM

Honest question: I have "headlights" a lot. In the workplace is it unprofessional that they show or just natural? I don't want to wear a padded bra, since I've got large breasts to begin with. I accept that guys will "notice". And I don't show cleavage at work.

Posted by: Mel B. | July 30, 2007 1:42 PM

Honest question: I have "headlights" a lot. In the workplace is it unprofessional that they show or just natural? I don't want to wear a padded bra, since I've got large breasts to begin with. I accept that guys will "notice". And I don't show cleavage at work.

Posted by: Mel B. | July 30, 2007 1:42 PM

David Letterman calling Obama's suit "electabale" is vastly different from discussing Clinton's cleavage. Not the same.

Posted by: Leslie | July 30, 2007 1:42 PM

To each his own. Some guys like legs, some breasts, some go for long hair. Some women like a large "package", some like buzz cuts, some like thin over muscular. Find your type and be happy. Stop comparing.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:43 PM

To each his own. Some guys like legs, some breasts, some go for long hair. Some women like a large "package", some like buzz cuts, some like thin over muscular. Find your type and be happy. Stop comparing.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:44 PM

I love the way some people imply that only long hair can be attractive, feminine, healthy and well-styled. Different lengths look best on different women. Some people look better and more sophisticated with a great short cut. Some people look better with long hair. It depends on the shape of the face and the quality of the cut. Nothing bitter about it--hon.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:45 PM

Just like you told him you didn't like that big penis "scene" and his 4" tallywacker was just fine. wink wink

Posted by: sure | July 30, 2007 01:41 PM


You know it. And so now we have 4 lovely children, I love to cook, I iron his shirts, we vacation 3 times a year, I feel like a woman ... life is good.

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 1:46 PM

I am looking for a samrt woman in a short skirt, a smart woman who knows how to flirt. Remember the effect Satan I am sorry Ann Coulter had on poor Chris Matthews when she wore her little black dress. Chris ahs been sleeping on the coach ever since. Ann had poor Chris jsut where she wanted him since her dress had a very vvisible effect on him and he ahd trouble concentrating. Kathleen wasnt pleased with wrinkles disappearing from his pants. On women who get jealous are the heifers who no man would ever look at even they wore a micro mini and had no bra under their button down shirt along with their FMP's.
If you have it use it. But no one ever wants to see Hillary in a short skirt.

Maybe if she played up her femine side Bill would have been so open in flaunting his indiscretions! Any man coming home to Hill would either cheat or go gay and cheat. Yuch!

Posted by: Jimmy Buffet fan | July 30, 2007 1:47 PM

You know it. And so now we have 4 lovely children, I love to cook, I iron his shirts, we vacation 3 times a year, I feel like a woman ... life is good.

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 01:46 PM

probably keeps a large vibrator at the ready, in the nightstand....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:47 PM

Of course that's not insulting. Just like saying someone who's flat chested looks like a 12 year old boy isn't insulting. I'm not defensive because I don't have the issue you so kindly described. I was just calling you out on your hypocracy. Accept it and move on.

-------------------------------------

hoisting "two shapeless watermelons above my beltline."

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 1:52 PM

"You know it. And so now we have 4 lovely children, I love to cook, I iron his shirts, we vacation 3 times a year, I feel like a woman ... life is good."

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 01:46 PM

"probably keeps a large vibrator at the ready, in the nightstand...."

Next to the porn stash - 34A ??????

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:53 PM

«Crusaders stop having lots of kids, then tomorrow belongs to us, Hillary's great-granddaughter, she will not have to worry about immodesty, nothing will show through her burkah.»

«Posted by: abu ibrahim | July 30, 2007 11:48 AM»

«Umm, this is a discussion between men and women about breasts. Doesn't that men you have to go kill yourself or something since you participated?»

«Posted by: take a hike osama | July 30, 2007 01:29 PM »

Lady named Regan, at 9:26 AM she wrote about BRA STRAPS. Man named Mister Methane, at 11:23 AM he wrote about Visible Panty Lines. Burkah, wear it and no one can make out straps, and Panty Lines, they are always invisible. Only bad guys kill themselves, evil terrorists, suicide is contrary to Islam. Cannot we all just get along?

Posted by: abu ibrahim | July 30, 2007 1:53 PM

I love the way bitter women over 35 keep saying that only short hair is attractive on "older" (over age 35) women. Sorry, hon, I'm keeping my long hair as long as I can keep it healthy and well-styled. If yours isn't healthy then chop it off, but don't tell other women they have to do the same.

Posted by: Sarah | July 30, 2007 01:35 PM

It's that healthy and well-styled part that's the trick. That, and characterizing your hair as "long" because maybe it touches your collar. Jacqueline Bisset does NOT have long hair no matter how many times she stomps up and done and screams that she does. Jane Seymour does and it looks dated.

Sarah-trapped-in-your-college-hair, look around and listen. If you look like the before picture in every makeover photo online, or if your friends and family have joked about sending your photo in to Stacey and Clinton for consideration, yes, we really are all laughing at you, LOL.

Do you still look good in your hairstyle, or are you clinging to some dated do from earlier days? Only you know the truth, but you'd have to skip the defensive "everyone who disagrees is bitter" schtick in order to figure it out.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:55 PM

I see the junior-high lunchroom crowd is having a field day with this one.

I think the bottom line here is that Congress is a stodgy institution. Senators and representatives have to dress for their stodgiest, most judgmental constituents. I had no problem at all with Senator Clinton's v-neck, and I think in most industries it would be just fine. I'm a little sad to see that it's even an issue. But a particularly conservative (not necessarily politically, just sartorially conservative) older person, not to mention the junior-high lunchroom bullies who seem to love this comments section, would have a problem with it. That's a fact of life.

Posted by: csdiego | July 30, 2007 1:56 PM

Next to the porn stash - 34A ??????

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 01:53 PM

Yes, a yearly subscription to "JUGGS"

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:58 PM

Of course that's not insulting. Just like saying someone who's flat chested looks like a 12 year old boy isn't insulting. I'm not defensive because I don't have the issue you so kindly described. I was just calling you out on your hypocracy. Accept it and move on.

-------------------------------------

hoisting "two shapeless watermelons above my beltline."

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 01:52 PM

Geez. Because you say so? I'll accept that you are a defensive be-yotch, but I'll not move on because of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 1:58 PM

David Letterman calling Obama's suit "electabale" is vastly different from discussing Clinton's cleavage. Not the same.

Posted by: Leslie | July 30, 2007 01:42 PM

Talk about cherry-picking - you are ignoring referring to McCain's garb as metrosexual, and commenting on Edwards' hair in a way that suggests he's vain an obsessed with his appearance. You can't expect to have an honest conversation about a topic without showing some leadership.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:00 PM

To the lady with the pencil-dick husband:

34A after 4 kids?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:01 PM

34A after 4 kids?

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 02:01 PM

They don't get any bigger unless you gain weight. They merely sag more.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:03 PM

Leslie, I'm disappointed in you today for continuing to spread the lie that Robin Givhan argued when she started taking heat for her article. Specifically, Givhan argued that she was commenting about fashion for Hillary in the same way she comments about fashion for men.

HOWEVER, it was not the same AT ALL. Her comments about Hillary were about fashion and her "sexuality". It was entirely unnecessary.

Moreover, cleavage in the workplace is only acceptable if you don't mind people staring at it. I mean, if my elbows are showing, someone is welcome to stare at them. It might be kind of strange if they do, but I wouldn't be offended (certainly, no sexual harassment involved). The same goes for cleavage. On a related note, is it cool if men's testicles are slightly showing?

Posted by: Ryan | July 30, 2007 2:11 PM

David Letterman calling Obama's suit "electabale" is vastly different from discussing Clinton's cleavage. Not the same.

Posted by: Leslie | July 30, 2007 01:42 PM

"Vastly different" and "not the same" how? You're pronouncing rather than making a point.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:12 PM

No wonder Leslie's first husband beat her.

Hey, you remove stuff about blow jobs as a women, this is much more insulting. Please remove this post.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:16 PM

"On a related note, is it cool if men's testicles are slightly showing?"

Gunther on Friends said it best: "Hey Buddy, keep the mouse in the house!"

Ah, I miss that show...

Posted by: Friends! | July 30, 2007 2:17 PM

see below to the right of the red "Post a Comment" heading. The Post asks that you send an email to report offensive comments. I'll send one if the 12:31 comment still is there.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:19 PM

Had no one brought it up, I never would have noticed. Anyone bothered by Hillary's cleavage is not going to vote for her anyway, so who cares? It's just one more thing for the whinging fringe to complain about.

As for cleavage in general, being male and, though old, not yet dead, I'm for it.

Posted by: szwheelock | July 30, 2007 2:21 PM

"Hey, you remove stuff about blow jobs as a women, this is much more insulting. Please remove this post."

Blow jobs? What did I miss?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:22 PM

Not much, gross post by some singal gal about a "load" on her face. It was removed.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:26 PM

"Anyone bothered by Hillary's cleavage is not going to vote for her anyway, so who cares?"

Have you always had this unsophisticated a view of politics? Lots of us vote for the lesser of two evils. Many of us are ambivalent about HC and will yet vote for her if she's the Dem nominee. That doesn't mean we don't see her flaws and they have nothing to do with cleavage. Her flaws are revealed by this incident as much as her comments about the War. She is an opportunist with no charisma, no principal, no moral values and she will do anything it takes to get, first, nominated and, then, elected.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:28 PM

"Hey, you remove stuff about blow jobs as a women, this is much more insulting. Please remove this post."

"Blow jobs? What did I miss? "

What you will be missing most of your adult life...


Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:28 PM

Not much, gross post by some singal gal about a "load" on her face. It was removed.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 02:26 PM

Just that pesky Paris Hilton again...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:28 PM

You take the time to go back and determine which posts are removed? Seriously, get a hobby or 5.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:30 PM

She is an opportunist with no charisma, no principal, no moral values and she will do anything it takes to get, first, nominated and, then, elected.


In other words, a typical Democrat.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:30 PM

I stand by my point about Obama's suit. Commenting on men's hair, clothing, general appearance is VERY different than zoning in on a sexual body part.

Separately, many of the posts are disgusting today. You anonymous, crude posters are ruining a great blog. You need to go somewhere else.

Posted by: Leslie | July 30, 2007 2:31 PM

34 A?

Ugg, get a boob job!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:31 PM

"Many of us are ambivalent about HC and will yet vote for her if she's the Dem nominee... She is an opportunist with no charisma, no principal, no moral values and she will do anything it takes to get, first, nominated and, then, elected."

Obvioulsy, you have a low opinion of HC. Is being a Democrat really enough reason to vote for someone for whom you have such a low opinoin?

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 2:32 PM

"probably keeps a large vibrator at the ready, in the nightstand...."

Next to the porn stash - 34A ??????

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 01:53 PM

Yes, a yearly subscription to "JUGGS"

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 01:58 PM

Wow!? Is that what you need to be sexually satisfied - a woman with large breasts and the assurance that you measure up in size and girth? The (only) other alternative being a large vibrator and a porno stash?

Posted by: 34A | July 30, 2007 2:38 PM

Obvioulsy, you have a low opinion of HC. Is being a Democrat really enough reason to vote for someone for whom you have such a low opinoin?

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 02:32 PM

any man, I don't agree with your conclusion that I have a "low opinion of HC". I believe I've made an honest assessment. Voting for a candidate requires us to think beyond the statements in their respective press kits. Many opportunists have done a good job in office. She has a long public record for us to examine and consider.

Being a Democrat is not a reason to vote for someone. Neither is being a Republican. I will vote for the best candidate who runs, and will be heavily influenced by party platforms if neither candidate is particularly well qualified or honorable. What I won't do is not vote. If you are waiting to vote for a Presidential candidate you respect and whom you find inspirational, I hope you aren't holding your breath.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:38 PM

Wow!? Is that what you need to be sexually satisfied - a woman with large breasts and the assurance that you measure up in size and girth? The (only) other alternative being a large vibrator and a porno stash?

you tell me.............

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:40 PM

34 A?

Ugg, get a boob job!

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 02:31 PM

Getting rid of the boob who expects it is a better move.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:41 PM

34a?

hope you don't fall for the "if it's more than a mouthful, it's a waste" line. Guys will say anything to get laid.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:43 PM

Separately, many of the posts are disgusting today. You anonymous, crude posters are ruining a great blog. You need to go somewhere else.

Perhaps if YOU did your job for a change and monitored the posts for vulgarity and inappropriateness, this wouldn't happen.

Posted by: that's a good one. | July 30, 2007 2:46 PM

". . . many of the posts are disgusting today. You anonymous, crude posters are ruining a great blog."

Posted by: Leslie Morgan Steiner '87 | July 30, 2007 02:31 PM

I agree with Leslie about the disgusting posts today. Nevertheless, I could have predicted the tenor of posting from this morning's topic. Use a word ("cleavage") that is sure to attract leering voyeurs, and don't be surprised that leering voyeurs ruin the day's blogging with disgusting "dreck" (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em).

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | July 30, 2007 2:46 PM

34a?

"hope you don't fall for the "if it's more than a mouthful, it's a waste" line. Guys will say anything to get laid."

NOW you tell me!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:46 PM

"She is an opportunist with no charisma, no principal, no moral values and she will do anything it takes to get, first, nominated and, then, elected."

That sounds like a low opinion.

I agree with just about everything else you said. And "not holding your breath" seems so sad but true.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 2:52 PM

34a?

hope you don't fall for the "if it's more than a mouthful, it's a waste" line. Guys will say anything to get laid.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 02:43 PM

Actually, some men are more turned on by a fabulous face or tuchus. To each his own. Rather odd that you think all men are like you, though, considering the evidence to the contrary all around you in the form of flat-chested models getting the top of the male-market. Funny thing, I guess beauty is more important to some men than the ability of their girlfriends to attract the attention of construction workers while jogging.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:54 PM

Separately, many of the posts are disgusting today. You anonymous, crude posters are ruining a great blog. You need to go somewhere else.

Perhaps if YOU did your job for a change and monitored the posts for vulgarity and inappropriateness, this wouldn't happen.

Posted by: that's a good one. | July 30, 2007 02:46 PM

True that. It's absurd for Leslie to complain about the vulgarity of the posts when, for at least the last week, it's hit a new low and WaPO does nothing to clean it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 2:59 PM

It's only a low opinion if you require kidding yourself in order to be in support of a politician. I appreciate a more warts and all assessment.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:04 PM

Those are some significant "warts" you point out on Hillary. Republicans have said nicer things about her.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 3:06 PM

What a sad, banal, and shallow culture we live in that this is even a topic of discussion. The only part of Hillary Clinton's anatomy that should matter to anyone is her gray matter. That anyone would consider the incredibly tiny bit of cleavage she had on display as worthy of comment or derision is ridiculously puritanical, sexist, and just plain absurd.

Posted by: Chip_M | July 30, 2007 3:07 PM

"hope you don't fall for the "if it's more than a mouthful, it's a waste" line. Guys will say anything to get laid."

Some will, but they get laid less often after they lose their hair.

On the other hand, guys who keep saying it after 15 years of marriage have built up a long history of credibilitiy you lack.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:08 PM

On a different note: CNN has an interesting story on its web site today about flexibility and balance. It's at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/28/money.worklife.balance/index.html

My favorite line is "Intel makes its money on innovation, and burn-out rarely produces innovative ideas."

Having worked all of my career (even as a Fed) on the "bleeding edge" of technology, that's something I've noticed. The companies that do the best at innovating - think Google - tend to be the most flexible in terms of hours worked, working from home, dress code, etc. Yes, they want you to be dedicated to the job and that sometimes means a lot of hours in a crunch time, but they also understanding that they're going to make money from your brain, and that will only work if your brain is in its right mind (so to speak).

Posted by: Army Brat | July 30, 2007 3:09 PM

Those are some significant "warts" you point out on Hillary. Republicans have said nicer things about her.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 03:06 PM

and you don't consider that Fred Thompson, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain have the same flaws? I do. Each could produce quite a list of less than stellar characteristics. I don't think "nice" has any place in a conversation about who should be our next commander in chief.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:11 PM

Army Brat

"Having worked all of my career (even as a Fed) on the "bleeding edge" of technology,"

Te "bleeding edge" of echnology!

You can't make this stuff up!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:14 PM

"no principal, no moral values" -- is there something worse you could say about a candidate? "warts" really downplays the disdain you express for your candidate.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 3:16 PM

"You can't make this stuff up!!!!!"

And, you can't spell!

It should be "bleeding edge of technology."

BTW, what does that phrase mean?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:17 PM

Those are some significant "warts" you point out on Hillary. Republicans have said nicer things about her.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 03:06 PM

Is the theory that we're not supposed to say any truth about our favored party's candidates unless it's positive and wonderful? Do you find that a helpful way to approach an election because I don't. It seems to me the most credible approach is to indicate awareness of your preferred candidate's weaknesses and still be able to show that she is head and shoulders above the competition.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:18 PM

"'no principal, no moral values' -- is there something worse you could say about a candidate?"

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 03:16 PM

Actually, Hillary has raised a lot more principal than Obama.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | July 30, 2007 3:19 PM

I think it's the tackiest thing in the planet. Sure, comfortable clothes mean that occasionally some flesh will be shown...is that necessary at work? And it's not even a question of showing flesh. Why not wear a Lycra bodysuit?

How do you feel with half your chest hanging out while guys are walking around you in stiff shirts, jackets and ties? Shouldn't they be allowed to let some of their chest hair, nipple rings and gold chains show, too? Why not form-fitting shirts to show off their firm pecs and abs?

I have to admit that I side with the guys on this. Women are taking the inch *and* the mile on this one. They want to show their breasts and still be respected. Showing your breasts (any part of your breasts, just not showing the nipple or the bottom) at work or in a respectable social environment is not respectable! What next, a little bit of tush? A high-cut blouse, showing your flat, rippled belly? That is not businesslike, it's not even a question of that...it's mixing sexuality and business and demanding to be treated with professional courtesy while flaunting if not exploiting your sexuality.

When guys can wear wifebeaters under a casual jacket and be respected at work, women will be ok wearing low-cut shells and jackets at work. I see we are far away from one and already past the other. This isn't even an issue for serious consideration.

Posted by: cc | July 30, 2007 3:21 PM

"I'm proudly pro-cleavage now. I'd love to see a national Cleavage Pride movement. Kind of like Gay Pride or Puerto Rican Day."

Is this really meant to be taken seriously? With the comparisons thrown in there, it comes across awfully facetious. And it greatly diminishes and offends those who may be homosexual or Puerto Rican, or any other group you can think of to compare this to.

Moreover, what would be the point of this? Surely not the true feminists of the 1960's, who advocated equality and burned their bras as symbols of stomping down the oppression. They did not do this in hopes that future generations would wnat to celebrate and say "Hey, I've got a nice rack! Let me flaunt it."

While it's one thing to be proud of being a woman, it's taking it quite far, and really doing more damage when statements such as this are made. It just perpetuates the idea that women, despite intellgience, power, or stature, are merely decorative, and the only thing that matters is the way they look.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:21 PM

I like turtles.

Posted by: zombie | July 30, 2007 3:28 PM

What a sad, banal, and shallow culture we live in that this is even a topic of discussion. The only part of Hillary Clinton's anatomy that should matter to anyone is her gray matter. That anyone would consider the incredibly tiny bit of cleavage she had on display as worthy of comment or derision is ridiculously puritanical, sexist, and just plain absurd.

Posted by: Chip_M | July 30, 2007 03:07 PM

Add to that Leslie's angle, "I'd love to see a national Cleavage Pride movement" - to morph it from just plain absurd to spectacularly absurd.

No sympathy here, Leslie. You need to do a better of job of picking and presenting your topics.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:28 PM

I've had really amazing great breasts for my whole life, and at 48, after two kids, I still turn heads at construction sites.

I'll also admit (not exactly proud of this, just doing what I needed to do to compete successfully), that I've used my body - hiding or displaying it - when I wanted to distract the men around me. I once totally blew away the curve in a college midterm by wearing a very sexy little sundress. It was an Air Force on-base degree program, and I had a 15-minute headstart on the test because I was the only woman in the class, and all the men wasted their time staring at me while I was working for my next "A".

Anyone uses whatever they have to get ahead. My body is a much less effective method of disadvantaging others all these years later, and my tactics are different now than they were in college. Now, it's much more important what I can get done and how I help and support my team members. I'm more like a big-sister or mother-surogate.

If Hillary's clothing choices are going to get her elected, or keep her from being elected, she'll figure it out. Or more likely, she'll have campaign staff on it.

Posted by: Sue | July 30, 2007 3:29 PM

"no principal, no moral values" -- is there something worse you could say about a candidate? "warts" really downplays the disdain you express for your candidate.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 03:16 PM

You're still applying your own language and are not speaking for me. I do not have disdain for Hillary. Perhaps you do. Things you could say about a candidate that are worse:

She has no honor and doesn't keep her word;

She told her first spouse she was divorcing him while he was in a hospital bed;

She couldn't find Uzbekistan on a map if you spotted her two guesses;

She does not understand economic theory or the financial markets;

She has no understanding of the role of the Department of State in formulating policy;

She doesn't respect Veterans or the sacrifices of their families;

She tore a photo of the Pope in half on national television to sell a few CDs;

She considers trial lawyers to be some of her closest friends;

On more than one occasion, she has said to staff members, "Constitution, Schmonstitution".

I'm sure there are more, but these come to mind as worse than my comments about Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:29 PM

It just perpetuates the idea that women, despite intellgience, power, or stature, are merely decorative, and the only thing that matters is the way they look.

Still bitter about your small boobs aren't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:31 PM

I got ya -- intelligence is more important than principal and moral values.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 3:35 PM

"I've had really amazing great breasts for my whole life, and at 48, after two kids, I still turn heads at construction sites."

Uhhh. Sure you do. I'm 26, blonde, built like Barbie and have a Ph.D. in economic theory. Another day of Internet honesty.

btw, it doesn't take much to turn heads among construction workers. If that's your baseline standard for sexual attractiveness, you're setting the bar awfully low.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:36 PM

"And it greatly diminishes and offends those who may be homosexual or Puerto Rican, or any other group you can think of to compare this to."

Agreed. I am a bisexual female who is a strong advocate for gay rights. With healthcare costs and limitations set forth by those who claim to be non-discriminatory, in addition to other workplace issues relating to sexual orientation, I find this to be preposterous.

But, I suppose when you're a WASP and have had everything handed to you, advocating a good set of breasts is just as important.

Priority check?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:39 PM

Separately, many of the posts are disgusting today. You anonymous, crude posters are ruining a great blog. You need to go somewhere else.

Posted by: Leslie | July 30, 2007 02:31 PM

"User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site."

Sorry, Leslie, until you and the WP actually start living up to this policy, I will not consider this "a great blog".

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:41 PM

"I've had really amazing great breasts for my whole life, and at 48, after two kids, I still turn heads at construction sites."

Only a white woman would be stupid enough to say this.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:41 PM

Does anyone know Kim Flannagan? Talk to her about how she has always used her "assets" in business situations. It was/is disgusting.

Posted by: Marcia | July 30, 2007 3:43 PM

I got ya -- intelligence is more important than principal and moral values.

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 03:35 PM

you're still looking to summarize instead of appreciate nuance. I disagree that intelligence is more important than principal or moral values, but you have the right to conclude that for yourself if you choose to do so. Honor, true patriotism (not flag pins), sense of duty, fidelity, facility with a variety of issues, respect for others' faith, good judgment: these are not the same as intelligence.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:43 PM


Only a white woman would be stupid enough to say this.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 03:41 PM

Only an insecure idiot would be stupid enough to say this.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:45 PM

The "bleeding edge of technology" is a slang term used to refer to technology so far out that it may or may not ever work; it's something that you're trying because there's at least some realistic chance it'll work and the payoff if it does is signficant.

"Bleeding edge" is a parody of the term "leading edge"; the "leading edge" of technology is generally considered to be the most advanced stuff that actually works today. When you're on the "bleeding edge" you're farther out and there's the potential for a lot of pain; e.g. a lot of startups are on the "bleeding edge" and if they can't make the technology work there will be a lot of figurative blood on the floor (it's really money down the drain, but blood on the floor gives a better impression).

Posted by: Army Brat | July 30, 2007 3:46 PM

Agreed. I am a bisexual female who is a strong advocate for gay rights. With healthcare costs and limitations set forth by those who claim to be non-discriminatory, in addition to other workplace issues relating to sexual orientation, I find this to be preposterous.

yep, that AIDS is real expensive out of pocket isn't it? Stop playing both sides of the fence and you won't waste away.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:47 PM

I'm not being defensive. I'm challenging you. Calling me a name is your best argument? You were insulted, you insulted back, all the while claiming it's rude to insult someone. This is a no-brainer. To not see that as hypocritical is dense.
----------------------------------
Geez. Because you say so? I'll accept that you are a defensive be-yotch, but I'll not move on because of it.

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 3:47 PM

"Honor, true patriotism (not flag pins), sense of duty, fidelity, facility with a variety of issues, respect for others' faith, good judgment: these are not the same as intelligence."

but they are pretty darn close to "principal and moral values"

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 3:48 PM

«Only a white woman would be stupid enough to say this.»
«Posted by: | July 30, 2007 03:41 PM »

First, Mr. Michael Moore, he insults by writing a book called Stupid White Men. Today this writer at 3:41 PM insults by calling, «only a white woman would be stupid enough». Cannot we all get along without calling bad names? Do white people not have feelings? Do white people not have senses, affections, passions?

Posted by: abu ibrahim | July 30, 2007 3:50 PM

Women hate women with large beautiful breasts becuase of the innate jealousy of females. That is all this is.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:52 PM

better topics:

Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling.- I'm sure Leslie plans this for this week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html

From Slate:

Companies are making employees pay for being fat. Methods: 1) "Incentives" that lower your health premiums or deductibles if you stay "fit." 2) Paycheck deductions if you exceed a specified weight-to-height ratio. 3) Cash or goods if you lose weight. In two years, the percentage of executives who think obese employees should pay more for benefits has risen from 48 to 62. Rationales: 1) Fat workers cost companies more in health expenses. 2) Incentives improve fitness. 3) Whether you lose weight or pay more is up to you. Objections: 1) My weight is none of my employer's business. 2) It's wrong to punish people whose weight is biologically beyond their control. 3) It's illegal to discriminate based on health status.

Posted by: atb | July 30, 2007 3:52 PM

I haven't read this blog in months, and so today I decided to check it out. Hilarious how nothing has changed, it's only gotten WORSE, more juvenile and petty. Why is the Post supporting this bull?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:53 PM

Cannot we all get along without calling bad names? Do white people not have feelings? Do white people not have senses, affections, passions?

Yes but the PC police like to pretend that white people didn't build this country into the greatest ever seen on the planet. They prefer liberal guilt and PC posturing

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:54 PM

Why is the Post supporting this bull?

see all those online ads here? that's why

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:55 PM

So 1 woman (Robin G) comments on another woman's cleavage and it is now getting twisted that somehow males are to blame. I could care less about Hillary's cleavage (its her choice what she wears). Please tell Robin G to write something meaningful next time and stop sniping.

Perhaps Robin is jealous??

Posted by: David | July 30, 2007 3:56 PM

Yeah, most women don't have the "blessings" I have, so it's not surprising that some would need to denegrate or doubt my honesty ...

The funny thing about construction workers - at least the ones at the building site next door to my office - is that when I stopped and talked (only slightly embarassed a couple of them by subtly pointing out that I was about the same age as their mothers), we found a comfortable, friendly mutual respect. Now there are mutual hello's every morning as I pass by. I'm sure they're still looking, but the inappropriate/harassing behavior is gone.

Still trying to figure out that race-comment though. I guess that means I'm as stupid as the anonymous poster believes I am, regardless of his/her lame-@$$ guess at my racial origins.

Posted by: Sue | July 30, 2007 3:56 PM

Women hate women with large beautiful breasts becuase of the innate jealousy of females. That is all this is.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 03:52 PM
WTF???

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:56 PM

"I haven't read this blog in months, and so today I decided to check it out. Hilarious how nothing has changed, it's only gotten WORSE, more juvenile and petty. Why is the Post supporting this bull?"

It's the best the rich white chicks can come up with.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:57 PM

Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling.- I'm sure Leslie plans this for this week.

Actually it is toss up between- " Do high heels in the bedroom really contribute to balance?" Or "two headed monkey runs wild, what's your take?"

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:58 PM

Sue -- after reading your posts, especially how you handled the construction workers, I think you are pretty hot too. And I have not even seen your "amazing great breasts."

Posted by: any man | July 30, 2007 4:00 PM

Sue -- after reading your posts, especially how you handled the construction workers, I think you are pretty hot too. And I have not even seen your "amazing great breasts."


She sounds like a hot MILF

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:01 PM

"Yeah, most women don't have the "blessings" I have, so it's not surprising that some would need to denegrate or doubt my honesty ..."

That's some opinion of yourself you have. I have many blessings that are not attached to my ribcage, and many that are. Noting that comments posted on the Internet about one's appearance deserve a healthy amount of disbelief isn't something to get all worked up about. You do seem inordinately pleased with your physical assets. I hope nothing ever happens to them or your self-esteem could take a severe blow.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:06 PM

re: "Women in positions of authority across the country would display our God-given cleavage proudly to show how stupid this whole thing is and how wonderful having breasts can be."

Perhaps they'd also like to forfeit the right to claim sexual harassment when we "leer" at their "God given cleavage." But if I know the feminist type they will insist on having it both ways.

Posted by: Joe | July 30, 2007 4:09 PM

It always cracked me up when some woman with a nice rack would wear the most revealing clothes and then say 'what are you looking at?". I always loved that.

Posted by: LARGE rack lover | July 30, 2007 4:13 PM

It always cracked me up when some woman with a nice rack would wear the most revealing clothes and then say 'what are you looking at?". I always loved that.

Posted by: LARGE rack lover | July 30, 2007 04:13 PM

You'd leer if she was wearing a turteneck.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:15 PM

>Bleeding edge" is a parody of the >term "leading edge"; the

it's also a parody of the "cutting edge", but they will never get it

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:15 PM

There are women at work here who bare some skin. Some are complete airheads, others are sharp, articulate and extremely talented. The former are eye candy in which some men look (creepily I would say). However, the latter are colleagues on par with the best and brightest; there is nothing but respect for them.

By the way, the male airheads are disrespected behind their backs just as much as the female airheads.

Posted by: junkdalejreyes | July 30, 2007 4:19 PM

You'd leer if she was wearing a turteneck.


HA! She wants people to leer that is why she's dressed that way! Women with large breast LOVE to show them off.

Posted by: LARGE racks ock | July 30, 2007 4:21 PM

You'd leer if she was wearing a turteneck.


HA! She wants people to leer that is why she's dressed that way! Women with large breast LOVE to show them off.

Posted by: LARGE racks ock | July 30, 2007 04:21 PM

Of course, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter to you whether she wants to show them off or not, or what she wears, you're going to leer. She's not going to remove them to accommodate your jerkishness, so she might as well be comfortable. I am so glad that guys like you are few and far between.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:25 PM

You missed the point, she dresses like that to show them off. Then gets indignant when men notice, typical female neuroticism. I am glad large breasted women are NOT few and far between.

Posted by: LARGE rack? YUMMY | July 30, 2007 4:28 PM

Perhaps they'd also like to forfeit the right to claim sexual harassment when we "leer" at their "God given cleavage." But if I know the feminist type they will insist on having it both ways.

Posted by: Joe | July 30, 2007 04:09 PM

Joe - take a short course in sexual harassment law so you can speak intelligently, if that's possible. It's not a violation of any law to leer. If you want to institute a dress-code policy at your place of work in order to limit your employers' risk of baseless claims, have at it.

It's a violation of federal law to create a hostile environment or to condition job retention or promotion on the provision of sexual favors (quid pro quo harassment). Someone as dull as a rock like you needs to develop a better understanding of the law in order to stay out of jail. I hope your sister doesn't get harrassed by someone who thinks as you do.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:30 PM

Large Racks Rock meet Sue. You are meant for each other.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:35 PM

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 04:30 PM

you failed to mention that a hosstile work environment only needs to be "perceived", which can mean anything

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:38 PM

I thought putting "blessings" in quotes would be enough of a clue, but I'll spell it out for those who seemed to miss it.

I consider physical appearance a mixed blessing. Sometimes, having these has been an advantage, and sometimes it's a nuisance, or even an obstacle to be overcome.

We all have our individual strengths (or assets if you prefer), and our weaknesses. We all use whatever-it-is-we-have to compensate for whatever-it-is-we-lack.

I haven't discussed my weaknesses/lacks today, because the subject was a candidate's dress and decoletege, and that area isn't one where I'm lacking.

Posted by: Sue | July 30, 2007 4:38 PM

you failed to mention that a hosstile work environment only needs to be "perceived", which can mean anything

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 04:38 PM

It can't mean "anything". There's a large body of published decisions out there at this point that are applied to the facts to determine whether an environment is hostile. If you're going to comment on a topic, you might want to learn about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:40 PM

It can't mean "anything". There's a large body of published decisions out there at this point that are applied to the facts to determine whether an environment is hostile. If you're going to comment on a topic, you might want to learn about it.

Actually it can in our spin the wheel for a million dollar lawsuit society. Going to to defend yourself acan be very expensive and lead to being fired , whether you are guilty or not

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:45 PM

In a nutshell, a hostile work environment is determined by looking at all of the circumstances, including the frequency of the allegedly harassing conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Not only must the recipient consider the behavior hostile, but a reasonable person in the shoes of the recipient must view the behavior as hostile. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment is severe and pervasive.

One Joe Jerk roaming around the office or posting non-sensical idiocy online does not a hostile environment make.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:48 PM

It can't mean "anything". There's a large body of published decisions out there at this point that are applied to the facts to determine whether an environment is hostile. If you're going to comment on a topic, you might want to learn about it.

Actually it can in our spin the wheel for a million dollar lawsuit society. Going to to defend yourself acan be very expensive and lead to being fired , whether you are guilty or not

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 04:45 PM

The cost doesn't change what "hostile work environment" means. You are co-mingling several points. Pick one.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:53 PM

"I've had really amazing great breasts for my whole life, and at 48, after two kids, I still turn heads at construction sites."

Only a white woman would be stupid enough to say this.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 03:41 PM

THIS POST NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. IF IT SAID STUPID BLACK WOMAN, IT WOULD HAVE ALEADY BEEN GONE.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:56 PM

The HR folks in our midst must cringe at some of this stuff. Do these numbskulls never attend mandatory training sessions or are they so entrenched in their Cro-Magnon views that conversations about risk-avoidance are simply ignored? I'm curious. If you work in HR, what do you do when you know you have a man on the payroll who is generally good at his job, but considers and treats female colleagues like eye candy? Cross your fingers and toes?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:58 PM

4:56 - WaPO personnel are not clairvoyant. If you think a post deserves to be removed, use the link to report offensive comments at the bottom of the page. Unless what you really want is to rant in ALL-CAPS rather than get an offensive post removed.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:01 PM

I clicked the link for the email and it is not working.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:03 PM

It's working now. Use it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:03 PM

Leslie:

We know you read the comments. You haven't weighed in with your thoughts on why this blog is not regulated to require login like the comment function on the "serious" areas of the WaPo website.

Nobody is asking you to bash your employers if this decision is out of your hands. But until you make a comment it will seem like you don't care a whit about this community that you help build, and you are willing to let this place go to the snipers and rabble that post here now. If you don't care about the community that you started, why should your regulars care?

Posted by: Random Guy | July 30, 2007 5:04 PM

4:56 - WaPO personnel are not clairvoyant

OR awake, or on the job or even care

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:04 PM

Posted by: Random Guy | July 30, 2007 05:04 PM

c'mon we know it's you DC'er

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:05 PM

I agree with MN to some degree -- Clinton's wardrobe choices are surely heavily influenced by polls and handlers who want to project a certain image, and her change was almost certainly influenced by recent comments that she's not feminine enough. Male candidates are just a guilty and while some have been called on it, I do think women get more scrutiny regarding their wardrobe choices.

BUT, she was wearing a very modest V-neck. I'm not sure this particular wardrobe choice is worth all the brouhaha that has erupted.

And speaking of brouhaha, I'm sure there was a way Leslie could have presented this topic for discussion in a more adult way than calling for a cleavage pride parade and calling on women to basically let it all hang out and be proud. The blog has become far too rude and crude recently, which makes her choice all the more puzzling. It might have been a good topic for discussion if presented in a more professional and adult manner. She could have used this issue to discuss appropriate work attire, sexual harrassment in the workplace, are female and male candidates treated differently by the media, etc.

I second the calls for the WaPo, or Leslie, or both to more closely monitor the blog and get rid of offensive comments. The level of discourse has sunk so low, the interesting and smart people who used to have important discussions seem to have abandoned it. Too bad.

Posted by: Vegas Mom | July 30, 2007 5:10 PM

Leslie just wants volume to appease her WAPO masters and bring in ad revenue

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:18 PM

It's working now. Use it.

f-you

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:20 PM

f-you

Well that pretty much sums up this blog these days as far as discourse goes.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:23 PM

It's working now. Use it.

f-you

Well, maybe the above poster shouldn't have been rude first!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:25 PM

Wow, we are still a bunch of uptight Americans. Look at all the personal attacks, assumptions, and faulty stereotypes that have emanated from this discussion.

As an ample-sized woman, I used to be extremely self-conscious about my body. I now embrace who I am and how I look. I try to take good care of myself, and I dress to flatter my shape. At work, I dress attractively, yet tastefully. If guys are gonna look, they are gonna look whether you are completely covered or showing a little skin. I am not about to don a burqua because it's my fault if a male chooses to look. Yet I am a female, a woman, and I embrace that. There is nothing wrong with working with your fundamental essence in a positive manner. I do my job and I am taken seriously at work. And I also wear tank tops, v-necks, and sleeveless shirts. Big deal. I feel comfortable and I do my job. I don't deny who I am. I am not on display. I am not a showgirl or asking for anything. I am comfortable with who I am. As for all the judgmental people up there who are offended by boobs, not my problem.

And on this comnment:
Displaying cleavage in the workplace is grossly insensitive to women who have had mastectomies.

This is just crazy. There is breast cancer all over my family tree. Mom, aunts, cousins--double mastectomy. Grandmother--breast cancer. My mom has had two reconstructive surgeries and is proud of what she has. My showing what I have is not intended or received as disrepect to her. Besides, if that's me someday, I'm going to enjoy what I've got while I've got it.

Posted by: Springfield, VA | July 30, 2007 5:37 PM

It's working now. Use it.

f-you

Well, maybe the above poster shouldn't have been rude first!

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 05:25 PM

Well, 5:25, you have all the maturity of little Timmy saying, He hit me first.

Dropping the f-bomb is never an appropriate response to a blog disagreement.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:43 PM

And on this comnment:
Displaying cleavage in the workplace is grossly insensitive to women who have had mastectomies.

This is just crazy. There is breast cancer all over my family tree. Mom, aunts, cousins--double mastectomy. Grandmother--breast cancer. My mom has had two reconstructive surgeries and is proud of what she has. My showing what I have is not intended or received as disrepect to her. Besides, if that's me someday, I'm going to enjoy what I've got while I've got it.

Posted by: Springfield, VA | July 30, 2007 05:37 PM

Springfield, relax. It was a joke.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:44 PM

Don't go whining about sexual harassment to the EEOC if you run around flaunting yourself at work.

Posted by: To Springfield | July 30, 2007 5:45 PM

Springfield, relax. It was a joke.

Posted by: | July 30, 2007 05:44 PM

No it wasn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:46 PM

Don't go whining about sexual harassment to the EEOC if you run around flaunting yourself at work.

Posted by: To Springfield | July 30, 2007 05:45 PM

If Springfield has a legal claim, she has a legal claim whether or not you approve. If she dresses in accordance with company policy and guidelines and someone else violates federal law, she's within her rights to pursue damages or other legal remedies.

Posted by: mn.188 | July 30, 2007 8:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company