Manolo the Columnist
Manolo says, here is the Manolo’s latest column for the Express of the Washington Post.
Dear Manolo,
I’m a woman of a “certain age” who works in a predominantly male field. After many years, I’ve finally managed to break through the glass ceiling. In fact, I’ve just been told that I’m getting a big, big, BIG promotion in January, one which will require that I spend lots of time in the public eye. I tend to dress very conservatively, mostly in pantsuits and jackets with lots of structure. What would you suggest to jazz things up a bit?
Nancy P.
Manolo says, the mere century ago, only the most utopianist of the writers could have imagined the world in which the women would attain such positions of great power, although usually these writers also imagined the steam-powered robot butlers and the silvery, unisex jumpsuits for everybody.
Sadly we do not yet have the robots, but happily, do not yet have to wear the jumpsuits.
Although this lack of uniform jumpsuiting, it still leaves the powerful woman with the same old dilemma: what to wear.
All the Manolo can say is, thank heavens for the shoes!
Even the dullest outfit of powerful conformity can be enlivened by the beautiful shoes, like the Atelier from the Bettye Muller, which combines the most restrained and classic shape with the luxurious and handsome brocade upper.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Gorgeous!
November 10th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Yes, those shoes. I drool. I slaver!
Also, may I suggest, Manolo, that she begins to purchase a few pieces of outstanding quality jewelry? Not much, mind you, not gaudy. But necklaces, pins, and bracelets that can be worn over and over and that accentuate the fine quality of her clothes.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I wonder if the questioner might be Nancy Pelosi?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Idiot me, that I did not read the signature before commenting. Good guess though!
November 10th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Oh, I WANT those shoes! Snazzy!
November 10th, 2006 at 11:53 am
I LOOOOOOOVE those shoes!
November 10th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
YAY for Nancy Pelosi!!!! And double YAY for those beautiful shoes!
November 10th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
In the “big” Washington Post, fashion critic Robin Givhan also addressed Speaker-Elect Pelosi’s appearance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901521.html .
However, she did not discuss the all-important shoes. So many thanks to the Manolo for filling this breach.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I wondered about Nancy Pelosi as well. That’s pretty funny — “big, big, BIG promotion!”
Those are some very hot shoes.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I wonder, did the Post critique Sen. Hastert’s sartorial style when he became speaker of the House?
November 10th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I meant, Rep. Haster. D’oh!
November 10th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
The Robin Givhan article quoted in my previous post addresses the gender issue quite well, actually. She disses Hastert briefly, discusses power-dressing options for men, and notes that because men have less breadth and more history in dressing for authority it is less of a question for them as it is for women. She does have a good history of critiquing male fashion, and since Washington is a city of politicians, she does indeed write about male politicians with some frequency.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
It will be hilarious if we all see her in those FABULOUS shoes. Those would would superfantastic! with a conservative suit.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The shoes are great.
But will they animate her face?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
The shoes, they are indeed superfantastic!
November 11th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Eh, I think Pelosi is a joke, but those shoes! They are gorgeous!
November 11th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Did the distinquished questioner ever consider a skirt with matching blazer? I can see it now: structured blazer, conservative but flirty skirt—ie, one with a tulip hem? Of course the shoes Manolo suggests, too.
Something like:
http://www.smartbargains.com/images/product/105831/1058315360_MD.jpg
or (and I wasn’t gonna suggest this one because of the pink but I just LOVE it and I knew I had to put it out there):
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000FN3HFC.01-A3A8UX4Z9R2EJG._SCMZZZZZZZ_V51522509_.jpg
November 11th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
No flirty skirts! No conservative blazers! This is Nancy Pelosi we’re talking about, ladies, not Nancy Reagan. She’s strong, she’s smart, she’s sophisticated, she wears chic Armani pantsuits, and she doesn’t need any little American flag lapel pins to prove her patriotism.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Ma chere petite chou-chou, s’il vous plait, dites moi:
How do I find that black suit you linked to the picture of? The product number doesn’t come up in a search and I lurve that suit. For me, not for Pelosi. I am a boring statistician and only frilly skirts will do in my line of business. They distinguish me from all the middle-aged pregnant men.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Hello! I love your site and would love your feedback on mine, that is newly re-launched!
Amanda
http://hautetalk.blogspot.com
November 13th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
I second that request for the black suit - after an afternoon at Macy’s (and ann taylors, and even, gasp, jc penny’s) I too crave the black suit.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Ay Me! You know, all I did was google “skirt suits”
And by the way, Bon Mot, I’m not afraid to admit that I dont know who Pelosi is. I was just trying to put out an alternative to a boring, stupid pant suit, which she herself said she tends to stick to. I personally don’t see anything wrong with the suits I suggested, and nothing about the pink one says American Flag pin to me.
Anyway.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I’m down with how my homegirl Nancy dresses, and am even on board with her “San Francisco values.”
I would never,ever, put her in a cheap two-years-ago suit like those linked.
I’d put myself in those sweet Bettye Muellers in a heartbeat.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
OOH, so sorry roz.
Read between the lines. I was suggesting a cute skirt. Not necessarily the one I linked. I just thought a picture would describe it better.
For pete’s sake…