Leggings

Amanda Hess at Slate has written a rebuttal to a post about why leggings suck.  Her defense of leggings make me really want to wear leggings.

Leggings are practical. BuzzFeed would have you believe that a legging should be hidden from public view. But the greatest barriers to lower-body freedom are those we have erected in our own minds. Once we accept that leggings are ideal for lounging at home alone, it becomes more and more difficult to justify hiding this feeling from the wider world. You can wear leggings on a train. On a plane. In a house. With a mouse. At the gym, or in front of the 7-Eleven novelty ice cream freezer. Wear them while pregnant with a human baby, or stuffed with a food baby. Just wear them outdoors in the hope that one day, our daughters, and our daughters’ daughters, will be free to live in comfort without shame.

If/when I'm in a position in life where I can safely and comfortably present as non-male, I'm buying a bunch of leggings.

I'm conflicted about whether this is important

The Washington Post has published a 700 word analysis of the wrinklyness of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan's suit.  In it, they explore the possibilities that he's trying to evoke a religious feel, that he's reaching for "Look at me, I'm totally unkempt and messy like normal people, not some plastic corporate executive," that his suit was chosen carefully to balance against Romney's image, and that he just didn't happen to wear a very good suit. I honestly don't know whether this is frivolous reporting.  I mean, it's nice that the media are taking the dramatic implications of subtle narrative choices when it comes to the presidential race, which is very important.  On the other hand, these subtle narrative implications disappear when it comes around to the actual issues these politicians will be governing about.

Is there any way we can pull this kind of pedantic nitpicking into public analysis of policy decisions?