Last Wednesday, Elena Kagan made her debut in front of the Supreme Court as the first woman Solicitor General in history. Leaving aside the implications of systematic bias against women in positions of power inherent in that statement, let's talk about something else: her clothes. Or, rather, the fuss everyone else made about her potential oral argument clothing choices, her actual oral argument clothes clothes, and the clothes of every woman in the political arena.

I'll admit, Kagan's clothing choice when appearing in front of the Supreme Court does have some historical significance. During oral arguments, Justice Department attorneys have traditionally been required to wear "morning clothes", which, from the pictures I've seen, can be more accurately described as a weird coat with tails, striped pants, vest, and huge amounts of ugly. These clothes were designed and chosen with men in mind, but women who've argued in front of the Court have also worn similar attire. Instead, Kagan wore a black pantsuit (or blue, depending on what source you consult). Great. That should be the end of the story, right? Not so! Traditionalists are, to put it bluntly, freaking out, arguing that a lack of a "morning coat" shows a lack of respect to the traditions of the Court. But then, are people ever really happy with what female public servants wear in public?

Of course, these are public figures, and I'm not surprised to see every little move they make documented in the press. The problem comes, however, when we see a disparity between the discussions about male and female politicians. It's extremely rare for a male politician's physical appearance to be commented on in the media, and even more noteworthy for his clothing choices to be noted. I know, I know, there was a huge fuss about Obama's abs - but can we really equate that to the long-standing tradition of, say, commenting on Hillary Clinton's sartorial selections? An opinion article in the Oklahoman (A newspaper from Oklahoma! Surprise!) hypothesized that Clinton's choice of dark pantsuits was an effort to "conceal her bottom-heavy figure", yet with 535 members of Congress, we hear nothing about the male members' efforts to camouflage their aging, no-longer-taut bodies. Color me surprised.

The phenomenon is not just confined to Clinton - we know that she is a woman that people love to hate (I, however, just love her), nor is it confined to one side of the aisle. Condoleezza Rice's decision to wear a black coat, skirt, and boots to meet troops at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield was labeled in the Washington Post as "striking" and "distracting", as it suggested a "dominatrix" look. Eight months later, refusing to disappoint its readers by focusing only on actual issues, the Post ran an article, entitled "A Troubling Decision by Harriet Miers, "about the thwarted Supreme Court nominee's eyeliner. You read that right. Eyeliner was her "troubling decision". Not content with just detailing the ins and outs of Miers' makeup choices, the article offered up a bit of fashion advice, suggesting that Miers needed an "aesthetic fairy godmother" to explain that dark eyeliner can look harsh. While I don't agree with Miers' politics, I can safely say that those politics are all the media should have cared about. When I decide how happy I am with a potential SCOTUS justice nominee, I look at their record, not their makeup technique. I won't even get into all the press focused on Michelle Obama's clothing, not because I don't find it relevant, but because I have a word limit to take into account.

Obviously, these stories get published because they get read, which speaks to a larger issue within our culture. Male politicians tend to be judged exclusively on their record and personal behavior, especially when it conflicts with their political persona (shoutout to Mike Duvall! Since this "California Assemblyman" thing didn't work out for you, might I suggest a career in erotic fiction?). Women politicians are, of course, rightly judged on their records, but the efficacy of their actions, speeches, and policies are viewed through a superficial lens that focuses on their physical appearance far more often than men. Hillary Clinton's 2007 speech to Senate about the increasing cost of higher education was overshadowed by the tiniest little bit of cleavage. An article about a House Judiciary Committee meeting couldn't resist as describing Representative Loretta Sanchez as "resplendent in a black outfit with silver sparkles". A quick overview of the rest of the article discerned no mention of the male members' outfits.

Seriously? Although those of you who know me know I love sparkles, and one day I hope to be resplendent in them, I find the constant attention paid on powerful women's clothing to be demeaning, distracting, and irrelevant. This country has been through so much in recent years - one has to hope that the focus remains on important political issues: health care, the war, education - not the clothing worn by women involved in the resolution of those issues.