I’ve been asked for my opinion, darlings.
Here’s that article to which I think Jane referred: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/mitt-romney-michele-bachmann-s-casual-friday-fashion.html
I’d love to hear reflections on this, and whether politicians’ move toward a more casual aesthetic means that clergy should as well, or if we are to remain more conservative. Are they undermining the professionalism of the office by dressing casually, or simply going with the times?
Clergy should ignore this article. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann are unusually gorgeous, fit individuals who are always impeccably groomed no matter how casual their dress. Clergy are generally not unusually gorgeous and well-groomed, nor to we tend to be fit enough to wear sleeveless sheath dresses.
We’re still overwhelmingly sloppy and have horrifyingly bad hair, unflattering clothes (whether formal or informal) and can’t hold a candle to Mitt or Michele in the “with-it and eminently presentable” department.
As you were, pigeons. God forbid we should use Mitt “Ken Doll” Romney’s tie-lessness as a an excuse to cling to our frumpy uber-casual wear. Clergy ARE going “with the times.” Unfortunately, the times they’re going with are generally the 1970’s or 80’s.
Polished is not synonymous with “conservative” — get that idea out of your little heads right this instant. Nor is “respectful and well-groomed” just about clergy professionalism. It is about the church’s public image.
It is best to also remember that these days, almost all professional politicians have stylists, whether it’s domestic (spouse) or professional. So even “casual” is just not that casual. We clergy gals are just not that lucky….or rich! I think we should ask for a fashion allowance in church annual budgets…..in my dreams!