It’s not often I’m offended by the Wall Street Journal. (Note to Rupert Murdoch, is this a sign of things to come?) But there was an article in Thursday’s Personal Journal section that was so repulsive, and such a nod to sexist stereotypes, I couldn’t let it pass without comment.The WSJ helpfully wrote an article called “Want to be CEO? You Have to Dress the Part”. I guess the paper wanted to throwdown with all of the reality makeover shows on tv. In it, “Business-etiquette consultant Ann Marie Sabbath” offers advice for executive job seekers including this little nugget:
“The higher a woman climbs on the corporate ladder, the more light-colored suits she can and should wear (to be less intimidating).”
That little paranthetical gem was hers.
The article also reviewed Hillary Clinton’s outfit in New Hampshire. “In the ultimate job interview, for U.S. President, Hillary Clinton wore a looped red scarf in New Hampshire earlier this week that looked decisive and framed her face, while her dark suit hit that nice-not-loud note that signals we’re supposed to be paying attention to her brain, not her designer."
Phew, I was afraid her dark suit would intimidate.
Funny, I didn’t get the memo that we’ve regressed back to the 1950’s.
The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed. Its readers deserve better.
The Dozen is an eclectic take on innovation, branding, media, strategy and research, brought to you by the creative minds at Egg Strategy.
Comments
I think the press has joined Hollywood's desperate search for content... but you'd think a respected journal could do better than that. By the way, I'm in Moscow right now and have enjoyed returning to both the BBC and CNN's international news (broadcast out of Hong Kong). While there's still plenty of news about the US, it's refreshing to once again see global coverage that, frankly, doesn't give a rat's ass about what Hillary is wearing.
Let's not overreact to the Personal Journal's fluff piece. You were reading the "Personal Journal" after all, not exactly the most hard-hitting content in the WSJ.
A few counterpoints:
* Read the full article and it's about an 80/20 slant towards male fashion in the workplace, not female.
* The tip you're so outraged about was a bullet in a graphic outside of the article. It wasn't even part of the story.
* Another one of those bullets, "Men should wear no more than three accessories." Oh, the repression! The emasculation!
* The paragraph below the Hillary piece you quoted is a similar dissection of John McCain's fashion choices.
This isn't sexist, I didn't read one stereotype. And I'm not sure how this leads to repression., unless the WSJ is trying to repress the majority of people that work in corporate America who wear leather braided belts in their unpressed, pleated khaki pants (For those who work in a hip agency? See your IT person).
For those who want to draw their own conclusions, you can read the full article here - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992386358079373.html.
This is just another example of news and entertainment becoming indistinguishable in this country. It is a slippery slope that dawned with the first televised political debate – where JFK looked positively dreamy and suddenly women became an important voting block - and is not likely to stop any time soon.
And Toph, I hear you, CNN International presents a much more interesting world. No fortnight coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith for the international consumer. Unfortunately for us, ‘real news’ doesn’t sell adds like ODing Playmates with a weight problem. That stuff is gold.
Add new comment