"I don't care": What is the problem with the first lady's uniform

ON THE DAYS OF CHARACTER TRUMP AGAIN VISITED the migrant center for children in Texas, its first visit on June 21 ended in a scandal. Then the Internet flew around the jacket of the first lady with the inscription "I really don't care. Do u?" ("I really do not care. And you?"), Which angered the public. The media and Web users suggested that in this way Melania was trying to demonstrate a real attitude to the problem. But the director of Melania Trump, public relations, refuted this version, making it clear that the first lady and her stylists got into a puddle by accident, because the image of the White House had suffered significant damage.

The question of the wardrobe of the first ladies and women politicians has long gone beyond style. Any detail of the attire can be familiar or even a full-fledged political statement, and with an ambiguous reading - to play against the authorities. It is noteworthy that the more restrained image that Melania showed in the new trip - black long sleeve and white pants - was also vigorously discussed in the press.

Melania Trump's trendy choice is not the first time the public is angry. The aim of criticism in general is the safari style, which she adheres to from time to time when visiting disaster sites. Last fall, Melania put on Manolo Blahnik pumps in high heels, tight black pants, a green bomber jacket and large aviators in hurricane-affected Houston. The media immediately accused the first lady of insensitivity: this image is easy to imagine on the heroine of an adventure film, she cares more about her image than about the victims of the disaster.

The next entry in Texas turned out to be more stringent, however, Trump appeared in public in a cap with the inscription "FLOTUS" ("First Lady of the United States" - "First Lady of the United States"). Network users were indignant: Is the city that suffered from the elements really a suitable place for the White House merchandising and promoting its own status? Thank God, it did not come down to the red inscription "Make American Great Again", the journalists sneered.

The speech with a speech about protecting children in a lush pink dress for several thousand dollars was also considered inadmissible on the Web. And although many first ladies choose expensive outfits for luxury brands, and Melania was the wife of a millionaire before the White House, the media regularly draws attention to the fact that Melania’s love for European fashion houses makes Trump’s concern for the working population of the United States populism.

Network users were indignant: Is the city affected by the disaster a suitable place for the White House merchandising and promoting its own status?

At first Melania could be seen mainly in the outfits of Delpozo, Dolce & Gabbana, Emilio Pucci, Dior and Altuzarra. True, in many respects it was a necessary measure. Many American designers - among them Marc Jacobs, Derek Lam, Tom Ford and Phillip Lim - simply refused to wear the first lady of the United States. And the former creative director of Carolina Herrera, and now the stylist of Mrs. Trump Hervé Pierre, admits that she buys clothes for her at Bergdorf Goodman and Saks department stores secretly, not to mention which client she intends.

It is curious that the combination of "conservatism" and "elegance", which is attributed to Melania Trump, has always prevailed in the style of the first lady, albeit with nuances. For example, Hillary Clinton, emphasizing her important role in the political life of the country, preferred pantsuits. Decorations and styles changed, but the deuce of trousers and jacket remained in her wardrobe until her own presidential campaign.

In a patriarchal society, winning respect and gaining a foothold in the political arena is much easier for women in business suits than in dresses that are inevitably associated in the public consciousness with “femininity”, which means with a supporting role, inability to politics and management. After the election defeat, Hillary appeared in a white-white Ralph Lauren suit - a color that is commonly associated with the struggle of suffragistic women and all those who support the destruction of the “glass ceiling”. The media interpreted Clinton’s exit as a statement: no matter what, she chooses democracy. And yet it was pants.

Michelle Obama never had a goal to declare herself as a politician, she consistently secured the role of an associate, an assistant and at the same time a typical American. At the inauguration of her husband, she put on the dress of the then young American designer Jason Wu - her future career, according to the media, is due to this particular occasion. Michelle replaced the office suit in her wardrobe with dresses with puffy skirts and bare shoulders, casual cardigans and colorful pants - and she did not lose. The wife of the president, who does not compete with anyone in the strictness of the outfits, is as close as possible to the real life of her voters, is similar to them. Looks confident, but still the wife of a brilliant husband.

In a patriarchal society, it is easier for women to establish themselves in the political arena in business suits than in dresses that are associated with "femininity"

Perhaps more than others, the liberal press favors the first lady of France, Brigitte Macron, because of her love for short skirts and tight-fitting trousers. Her public appearances would have been noted in fashion chronicles, but the age of the French still plays a significant role. A few years ago, before the big discussions about ageism, the appearance of the first lady in skirts above the knee, without tights, in leather pants with rough shoes could be regarded as something “wrong”. But today Brigitte seems to be telling us that he leaves the choice of length, style, and anything else. Her strength lies in the fact that she goes contrary to the established rules - both in society and in marriage.

Critics of Melania Trump can always be objected: accusations against her traditional image are as illiberal as prohibitions on wearing a mini. In the status of the first lady, she began to definitely look more strictly than before, except that very high heels remain unchanged. She often chooses plain dresses or pencil skirts, closed coats without prints, wide-brimmed hats, and long discreet sundresses.

Melania has repeatedly confessed her love for fashion. And back in 1999, when she was asked what her style would be, if she were the first lady of the United States, she answered: as traditional as Jackie Kennedy. Her words were almost prophetic: Mrs. Trump's outfits are often sent back to the 60s. Ralph Lauren's dusty blue coat, which Melania put on for her husband's inauguration, looks like a Jacqueline outfit, chosen for a similar occasion in 1961. And black long sleeve and straight white trousers from Melania’s last visit to Texas also reminded many of the relaxed image of Jackie Kennedy.

The stereotypes and conventions associated with the highest "female status" are generally incredibly tenacious. From the first lady, on the one hand, they are waiting for the manifestations of the personality, and on the other, they demand that she not overshadow her husband, but provide him with all possible support. Regular jeans, bicycles or even sweatpants can play against the wife of the president. And while it is unclear when the world will be ready to cancel the uniform of the first lady, turning it into archaism.

Mrs. Trump's accuracy, by the way, has already spawned a conspiracy theory that even her mistakes are a cunning plan: as if no one wants to please her. Perhaps she was completely tired or never needed the imposed role of the first lady? And yet the scandals around her outfits are not accidental. It seems that whatever Melania’s choice as regards style, he will almost always be criticized. And it's not just things with inscriptions that can be read as a provocation or an insult. And the fact that the views of the Trump family (Melania never declared any differences with her husband) for many voters around the world continue to be too serious an irritant.

Cover: Getty images