With women like this there is no hope of dismantling the patriarchy

Sour-pusses = people who think that wives of PMs shouldn't be decorative support vessels. On a feminism board.

Victoria Starmer DOES have an important career of her own. Perhaps she wanted to show her pride and support her husband in his first major world visit. Pretty sure he is as supportive of her as she appears to be of him.

There seem to be a number of sour pusses in this thread. Perhaps the heat is getting to them!

I so agree with this. The spouse of a prime minister may and should, even, have their own careers.

I very much dislike the idea of a wife being expected to trot along with her husband because, premier job. What if she has a premier job of her own or, heaven forbid, just doesn't want to be an appendage?

If her husband needed support on a overseas visit aka doing his job, there's a whole army of civil servants to support him.

There is absolutely no reason for the spouse of a head of state to accompany them to work.

I followed down the twitter feed you linked to, it's a good read. Loved the anecdote about Ellen Terry.

I'm interested in clothing & fashion for many reasons, (you wouldn't think so to look at me), I'm interested to see how people express themselves with their clothing choices, male and female. I've had opinions on Boris Johnson's rumpled appearance, Michael Foot, Harold Wilson, Lord Bath, Sam Smith (🙄)etc..

The difference is (perhaps) that men aren't expected to give a damn and women are, we shouldn't be so eager to please everybody but ourselves.

I loved the picture of the author as an 18yr old, we were all young once.

You seriously believe that it was a holiday? All the LOLs. She was supporting her husband, our Prime Minister.

The dehumanisation of the female royals is the worst. I remember what happened to poor Diana. The worst for me was seeing Kate, hair and make up done, having to explain that she was having cancer treatment after all the rumours and speculation and people still dissected how she looked.

I agree with you @badgeronthedrums . It is embarrassing the way the British press dissect the way female public persons dress

To those of you who argue that it is normal with that kind of interest: if it was then the press in all countries would be doing it and they don't.

The way the British press comment on paparazzi photos and even press photos is not cute harmless gossip. It is very often mean and I have a low opinion of both the people who write it and those who are interested in reading it.

The press very often pull the same stunt they did on Princess Diana. " Oh we love her so! Isn't it a shame that the paparazzi are bullying her? By the way: here are thirty photos we bought from those paparazzi. Isn't that dress inappropriate? OMG she really doesn't look good. She looks haunted. We are so sad for her. IS THAT A WRINKLE? YES IT IS!!! We do like her so very much. A bit disappointed she is wearing the same dress again on the photo in the middle. She has used it TWICE before. and and and."

One of the many reasons I don't buy British magazines and won't buy any magazines very interested in the royals of any country.

Well a lot of people moaned about Rishi's clothing, short trousers, Adidas Sambas etc.

Grayson Perry has a lot of interesting stuff to say about "Default Man" (although I don't think Rishi fits it due to his racial background), but it's essentially about men just trying to blend in, remove any colour from their clothing etc.

Yes women's dress gets talked about a lot more, but most of the time it is for other women to copy the look. Me+Em is selling incredibly well this week due to Mrs Starmer.

Did we talk about lot about Denis Thatcher’s clothes? Philip May’s? Hugh O’Leary’s? Prince Philip’s? Nicholas Robinson’s? Peter Murrell’s? Brian Foster’s? Paddy O’Neill’s? Joachim Sauer’s? Oleksandr Tymoshenko’s? Asif Ali Zardari’s? Markus Räikkönen’s? Paul Pelosi’s? Doug Emhoff’s?

I think for men it's generally sufficient to be presentable and follow the rules. For women, everything's subjective and the rules, if they even exist, are unclear and mutable. Your basic Redditbro thinks this is an advantage that women have over men, though: women have more scope to wear - in the office, for example, or I guess IN office, or adjacent to it - things that men cannot. As if this freedom exists in an ahistorical, free-floating vacuum. A lot of the misogyny is in the WAY these things are talked about, not just in the frequency with which they're talked about for women far more than for men.

Screeching harpies? Are you taking the piss?

I believe that Teresa May and Liz Truss have husbands. Anybody got any idea what they look like or how they dress?

Thought not.

Im fairness I think the interior design choices were scrutinised because of who might be paying...

I would just like to point this out.....
Style, Beauty & Fashion Forum | Mumsnet | Mumsnet

Just sayin'

Generally speaking from my perspective men don't wear "fashion" to work.

They just wear business suits. Cheap to expensive they are quite ubiquitous and therefore serve as a neutral enough background for what they are doing and saying to be at the front, not their bodies and how they are draped.

Women don't follow this business convention, they wear all sorts of stuff which this thread has called fashion.

Definition
a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour.

So women and men are doing two different things, fashion being about "popular" clothing, and therefore likely to be discussed.

Men's suits are not "fashion" in the same way and unlikely to be discussed as a result.

It's two different behaviours not double standards.

Carrie Johnson's taste in interior design and fashion seems to have been fair game for media - not sure why this is any different?

Who defines what 'dressing well' is? Talking about the clothes isn't an issue - talking about how the person is wearing them, is.

Your 'old washer women' and 'screaming harpies' is misogynistic and a bit misplaced on this board I would have thought?

I don't see a problem. Should women in the public eye dress like old washer women?
Can't they dress well without the screeching harpies coming out ....screeching?

I agree with you OP and read your post as exasperation not snark. I think you've been mauled a bit unduly here.

I don't disagree with you OP and I really don't care who the journo is. If they want to talk about the clothes that somebody is wearing then fine - the minute that they talk about how the person looks in those clothes then they are being dicks. As are the sycophants who follow it.

Agreed, and that's how I interpreted your OP @badgeronthedrums with a side of exasperation. Not sneery or whatever. It's like: 'and here you go Victoria,enjoy your new role as window dressing!' I'd respect her so much for opting out in the same normal clothes every day. And before pps jump down my throat, I wouldn't respect her less if she's into fashion- nothing wrong with that. But it takes guts not to play the game

"And VS went to a tax payer funded trip to the US as PM's spouse. She has chosen to be in the public eye."

Yes- bet she loved her freebie holiday!

And I love fashion!

Nothing wrong with being interested in fashion. Plenty wrong with focussing on Victoria Starmer's clothes. She is not a celebrity.

The Times fashion section on a Wednesday is second to none, and Harriet Walker is a top notch journalist. I never miss it.