It has been commonplace for a good while now to characterize modern liberals as cultural elitists, a stereotype that academics, intellectuals, rich suburbanites, etc., confirm all too often. Still, one does not usually see this cultural snootiness displayed with unselfconscious elan as in this article on the first page of the Style section (how appropriate!) of today’s Washington Post.
In it, WaPo writer Robin Givhan condescendingly looks down her (or conceivably his) nose at Martha-Ann Alito’s clothes. Yes, her clothes. Examples:
- They both have short-cropped brown hair. And they often looked as though they had coordinated their ensembles in the manner of a family heading off to the Sears photo studio.
- She liked to accessorize with pearls, gold chains, earrings, bracelets and rings. Sometimes she’d wear this treasure trove of jewelry all at once. She was particularly fond of a brooch that resembled nothing more closely than a half-peeled banana. (It could have been a fleur-de-lis, but only as it might be drawn by a 5-year-old.)
- …. Her clothes were more Redbook than Vogue. More main floor than designer salon. In her red suit with its black trim — so Kasper, so Albert Nipon — she looked average.
- There was something charmingly awkward about her blue cardigan. A cable-knit cardigan! At a Senate hearing! he sweater has all those connotations of Dan Rather informality, softness, ease and grandmotherly coziness. It is the antithesis of power and strength. The sweater was also baby blue. That isn’t clothing as armor, but clothing as security blanket. Remember Linus?
It was as though the nominee’s wife had quietly brought her own binky into the room. But then, who couldn’t use a little comfort during such a public ordeal?
- Her gold tweed suit might have passed without much commentary — save for the fabric’s similarity to the upholstery that once covered La-Z-Boys. But then some committee members pressed her husband on his relationship with Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an organization notable for its displeasure over the admittance of women and minorities to the university. Martha-Ann Alito’s face crumpled into a pained frown and she began to cry. She was swaddled in gold tweed.
As a satire of elitist liberalism, this would have been in bad or at least questionable taste. As an example of it, highlighted on the front page of the online edition of WaPo when I looked, it is appalling.
But perhaps no more appalling that a companion piece by Libby Copeland on the first page of the Style section, “Debating The Tissues: What Makes A Good Cry,” also highlighted on the front page of the online WaPo at least through this afternoon, that attempted, without success, to make light of perhaps the most dramatic moment of the Alito hearings.
… Martha-Ann Alito sniffles and steps out of the hearing room after her husband … has been interrogated by Democrats, and the next thing you know, the “Today” show is asking: “DEMOCRATS GONE TOO FAR?”
….
The power of tears prompted lefty bloggers and Internet commentators to speculate that Martha-Ann might have faked them, that the tears were a “Rovian cue.” Translation: She who cries, wins.
Ms. Copeland is too sophisticated, however, to accept such a crass political explanation of Mrs. Alito’s tears. No, she knows better. With the help of an expert observer, she can directly into Mrs. Alito’s heart. Her article concludes:
Those who watched Wednesday’s session point out that the immediate trigger for Martha-Ann’s tears was not Democrats questioning Alito, but Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) coming to his defense.
“Are you really a closet bigot?” Graham asked.
“I’m not any kind of bigot,” Alito said. “I’m not.”
“Of course you’re not,” Graham said.
This is a crucial point, says Savannah Guthrie, a Court TV correspondent who’s been covering the hearings, because it goes to the origin of tears. It’s not perceived cruelty that got to Alito’s wife. It’s the opposite.
“She’s crying because Lindsey Graham showed her some kindness,” Guthrie said.
To guard against such outbursts in future nomination hearings I’m sure the Senators will want to make sure that none of them commits even any small acts of kindness.
You have to understand, this is Robin Givhan. She looks at everything through fashion.
She complained because one nominee a while back brought his kids to the White House for installation with the girl wearing a formal sort of child’s dress and the boy in a little suit. This isn’t current style for kids and she thought it was restrictive and stifling to make them do it.
She used to write for the Detroit Free Press. One story I especially recall responded to claims that certain cities were better places to live than Detroit by pointing out that in each case yeah, the other city may have had safe streets, good schools, efficient government, and lots of parks, but in each case the latest fashions could be secured much more easily in Detroit.
She wasn’t kidding, either. She’s something of a…the charitable term would be “lightweight.”
“In it, WaPo writer Robin Givhan condescendingly looks down her (or conceivably his) nose at Martha-Ann Alito’s clothes. ”
Talking about clothes in the Style section. Who would have thought!
Talking about clothes belongs in a Style section. Snooty, snobbish, belittling the wife of a nominee to the Supreme Court — or anyone else — for being hopelessly Sears, Redbook, you know, middle class — not one of us — is a feature of the Washington Post style section. It fits.
“Snooty, snobbish, belittling the wife of a nominee to the Supreme Court — or anyone else — for being hopelessly Sears, Redbook, you know, middle class — not one of us — is a feature of the Washington Post style section.”
Do you read the post style section? Of course it fits! the other day they were talking about abramoff’s all sushi diet!
I do read the WaPo Style section, and you still don’t get it. Noting that Abramoff eats sushi may be silly or irrelevant but it isn’t snobbishly condescending. Making fun of Mrs. Alito’s clothes because she was so average, so middle class, was.
actus,
What’s the wife of a prospective Supreme Court Justice even doing in the Style Section? I mean, are they all socialites by definition? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Michelle, it’s a hit piece. They can’t get to the nominee so they go after his family. It’s called liberal compassion.
Actus,
Since Ms. Givhan is African-American, I wonder if she ever insults the fashion since of African-American celebrities. I doubt if Ms. Givhan would ever make fun of someone’s hair extensions or the hats that the wives of black politicans wear.
“Making fun of Mrs. Alito’s clothes because she was so average, so middle class, was.”
Sears is middle class? That I’ll make fun of.
“What’s the wife of a prospective Supreme Court Justice even doing in the Style Section? I mean, are they all socialites by definition?”
The style section isn’t limited to socialites is it? Today it talks about a physics professor with a ‘physics is phun’ show.
“Since Ms. Givhan is African-American, I wonder if she ever insults the fashion since of African-American celebrities.”
I’m not a regular reader of her column. I didn’t even know her ethnicity. But i’d say its a fair topic for the discriminations blog.
actus,
The style section isn’t limited to socialites is it? Today it talks about a physics professor with a ‘physics is phun’ show.
Yes, but a casual reference to his “navy blazer and khakis” is not really on the order of John’s list of “Mrs. Alito’s attire” references, is it?
If I knew I was going to face that level of sartorial scrutiny just for being married to someone up for an important job, I’d probably wear a T-shirt and sweat pants just to see what would ensue.
actus, I can’t imagine why you don’t think spending all that ink on how Alito’s wife dresses is inappropriate. If we must talk fashion, can we save it for people whose “job” it is to be conspicuously noticed for their fashion sense? Would you approve a description in this detail of the clothes of a female juror in a prominent murder trial, for example?
Count me disgusted.
“Yes, but a casual reference to his “navy blazer and khakis” is not really on the order of John’s list of “Mrs. Alito’s attire” references, is it? ”
Well it wasn’t an article about how he appears on TV.
“If I knew I was going to face that level of sartorial scrutiny just for being married to someone up for an important job, I’d probably wear a T-shirt and sweat pants just to see what would ensue.”
Hey, how you dress up in your most important TV appearance is up to you.
“actus, I can’t imagine why you don’t think spending all that ink on how Alito’s wife dresses is inappropriate. ”
Its really not that big of a deal.
“If we must talk fashion, can we save it for people whose “job” it is to be conspicuously noticed for their fashion sense? ”
And how are the rest of us supposed to relate to that? How are the rest of us supposed to figure out how our
“Would you approve a description in this detail of the clothes of a female juror in a prominent murder trial, for example?”
“approve” ? as in be interested in? as in think it shouldn’t happen? As in stop reading the paper that has it? as in not read the article? as in skip to the comics and movie reviews?
It would depend. Is it just something salacious “that tart” or is a bit more interesting, a bit more well written, a bit more analytical?
actus,
My apologies — my response got lost in a computer glitch, and I had to run out and only just returned.
Well it wasn’t an article about how he appears on TV.
And why does anyone want to know how Samuel Alito’s wife “appears on TV,” please? For that matter, did anyone bother detailing Alito’s own attire in such detail over the course of the hearings, or speculating on what caused him to choose one color over another? I have yet to read the stunning revelations doubtless to come about his cufflinks and what they signify.
It would depend. Is it just something salacious “that tart” or is a bit more interesting, a bit more well written, a bit more analytical?
You mean a detailed, analytical description of a tart’s attire? I suppose that might be interesting. But if this current excerpt is your idea of “well-written” . . . let’s just say that if any piece comparing someone’s suit to La-Z-Boy upholstery had crossed my desk, the piece would have been stricken off the publication roster and the writer off the critics’ roster. People who write that shouldn’t be sentenced to death, but they don’t belong writing in major newspapers.
“And why does anyone want to know how Samuel Alito’s wife “appears on TV,” please?”
Its just commentary. If you tell me it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter.
“People who write that shouldn’t be sentenced to death, but they don’t belong writing in major newspapers.”
I thought it was an ejoyable description to a character that had assumed some central part of the show that is the hearings.
actus:
I thought it was an ejoyable description to a character that had assumed some central part of the show that is the hearings.
I find it really odd (but no longer surprising) that liberals can accuse people who believe in colorbind non-discrimination of being “insensitive” to minorities, but liberals like actus can regard the snide, snobbish, malicious, obviously hurtful insulting of a woman whose only “part” in a newsworthy event is being married to the nominee as “enjoyable.”
“obviously hurtful insulting of a woman whose only “part” in a newsworthy event is being married to the nominee as “enjoyable.”
People made a big deal out of the fact that she cried. Played quite a bigger part than just being the wife. She at least played the part of being seen. In those outfits.
She’s a grown woman enough to be able to decide to dress like she does, and not be hurt by it.
But of course, we have to conclude as ‘obviously hurtful’ an article headlining tha Alitos as ‘well suited’ and which includes of them this description: “Visually, the Alitos seem perfectly suited to each other, and one appreciates that visual loyalty. It is comforting to see that neither dashes ahead of the other with trendy flourishes or daring silhouettes”
“There was nothing particularly fashionable about her clothes — not in the sense that they reflected some contemporary trend. But they were familiar and reassuring because they are the sort of clothes that populate office complexes, PTA meetings and the closets of many a working mother.”
The redbook line? our blogger left out the begginging: “And that’s okay.”
And it all ended with:
“And one suspected that all the security blankets in the world would not have made a difference to an average woman in such extraordinary circumstances.”
So malicious!
actus, if you don’t think that article was hurtful, and intentionally so, then you don’t think.
“actus, if you don’t think that article was hurtful, and intentionally so, then you don’t think.”
Oh. I’m sure there was criticism. And I’m sure that it was meant to be critical. I just don’t think its meant to be hurtful, since a grown woman like that is likely to be unhurt by her choice of clothes, if she had, she would have either changed her clothes or grown out of that.
But like I said, when it calls the alitos “well suited”? hurtful!
actus,
[me, earlier]: For that matter, did anyone bother detailing Alito’s own attire in such detail over the course of the hearings, or speculating on what caused him to choose one color over another? I have yet to read the stunning revelations doubtless to come about his cufflinks and what they signify.
Did anyone?
“For that matter, did anyone bother detailing Alito’s own attire in such detail over the course of the hearings, or speculating on what caused him to choose one color over another? I have yet to read the stunning revelations doubtless to come about his cufflinks and what they signify.”
Did you get to the part of the article where Mr. and Mrs. Alito are compared?
actus:
I just don’t think its meant to be hurtful, since a grown woman like that is likely to be unhurt by her choice of clothes, if she had, she would have either changed her clothes or grown out of that.
actus, if anyone should ever want an example of “insensitivity,” I’ll point them to your mind-boggling comments here (even to someone used to your comments).
“actus, if anyone should ever want an example of “insensitivity,” I’ll point them to your mind-boggling comments here (even to someone used to your comments).”
Is there a difference to you between critical and hurtful?
Is there a difference to you between critical and hurtful?
Yes. The WaPo Style article was hurtful (and snide, snobbish, condescending, insulting. It was a bit less subtle than calling someone a fat slob.
You seem to assume that it is not possible to wound or insult women who choose to associate sympathetically with conservatives (we have no idea what Mrs. Alito’s own politics are), as though if you prick them they don’t bleed.
I am now calling an end to this thread. No more on this. (In part this is residual kindness because you’ve embarrassed yourself enough, but mainly because we’ve beat this dead horse enough.)
ACTUALLY, I FOUND MRS. ALITO TO BE QUITE ATTRACTIVE; SHE REMINDS ME OF LAURA BUSH WHO IS ALMOST A TRUE BEAUTY. IF MRS. ALITO WOULD LENGHTEN AND SOFTEN HER HAIRSTYLE AND GET RID OF THE GLASSES, SHE COULD MORPH INTO QUITE A BEAUTY HERSELF. HER CLOTHES REFLECT THE CONCERNS OF A WOMAN WHO IS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE LIVES AND THE COMINGS AND GOINGS OF HER CHILDREN,HER HUSBAND AND, PROBABLY, HER COMMUNITY RATHER THAN SOME FASHION MAVEN WHO DOTES MOST OF HER ENERGY ON HERSELF.
THE ALITOS ARE PROBABLY REALLY REALLY REALLY N*I*C*E (AS IN REAL “NICE”) PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ACCUSTOMED TO THE TYPE OF SHABBY TREATMENT THAT JABBA THE HUT, OOPS, I MEAN TED KENNEDY AND ‘BARBIE DOLL HEAD’ JOE BIDEN AND THE REST OF THAT CABAL WERE INFLICTING UPON THEM. THE ENIGMA HERE IS HOW AND WHY THE REPOS CONTINUE TREATING THE DEMS’ NOMINEES WITH RESPECT AND CIVILITY. IF THE DEMOCRATS EVER AGAIN, GOD FORBID! GET THE CHANCE TO MAKE A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION, WE SHOULD LET ANN COULTER WRITE THE SCRIPT FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
Robin Ghivan is never condescending. One can`t condescend from below. As a German born and based, I love America and defend you from the anti-American bile that surrounds me on a daily basis, but a piece of trash like Ghivan would never get a chance in hell to spread her poison in any newspaper here that aspires to be taken seriously. I sometimes don’t understand you (Americans, I mean) and why you buy (literally and metaphorically) such filth.
I have commented on one of her pieces in my own blog http://editrixblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/nappy-heads.html and I can only repeat: I have never seen more racism, jealousy, hatred and bigotry in one person. That woman is eaten up by envy and drowning in her own vitriol.
Shorter actus: She’s white and conservative. Fair game.