Earlier this month we asked readers of The Frisky, “Do you dress for men or women?” Most of you said you dress for yourself, period, which is why we thought you’d be interested in hearing about a controversial little article that ran in the New York Post this weekend. Writer Kyle Smith is very upset about women wearing maxi-dresses (a la the type Angie has helped make extra popular), and wants the ladies of NYC to know that these “urban burqas” aren’t doing them any favors. But wait, it gets better, or um, worse…
Just when we thought Smith couldn’t possibly get any more offensive, he goes there:
It is said that women dress for other women, but where is it written that women must dress for the Taliban? If there is one abiding message we have been trying to send by making things go boom in Afghanistan for the last eight years, it is this: America has a profound moral obligation to advance a society in which women have the right to vote, get an education and be smoking hot babes.
Wow. To their (semi-) credit, the Post also ran a brief “she said”-type of rebuttal by Raakhee Mirchandani, who managed to call Smith an “ignorant slut.” Seems fitting. But we’re still a little incredulous that the Post would give voice to a columnist with such insanely archaic ideas such as women have a duty to dress sexily for men (provided they’re young and “comely,” as he puts it), that the maxi-dress is somehow un-American and fit for terrorists (!?), and that women are falling back on the look so they can reach for “another slice of pie.” Oh right, we forgot, it’s the Post, the same tabloid newspaper that ran the headline, “Ike Beats Tina To Death.” Still, it’s a new low, even for them. [New York Post]