More D.C. style: Bring uncomfortable back?

This was posted a week or so ago on Who am I? Why am I here?, but I found it an interesting insight and quite well written, so I don't mind being late. Here is commentary about commentary about commentary:

I agree with D.C. sidewalk blogger that flip flops precipitate a dragging gait, but neither “sexy” nor “classy fashion of women in old Hollywood” has been a hallmark of D.C. style. If anything, D.C. style is the best it has ever been. Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent female politician, has eschewed the primary-colored-power-suit-matching-pumps for a more refined, chic look. Even Hillary Clinton, no foe of the power suit during her husband’s presidency, has at least settled on a softer yellow that does not quite jump out the way the hideous '90s ensembles did. (I disagree, but everyone has their own opinion.)

Still, D.C.’s dress code remains counter-intuitive to its weather, particularly in the hot, humid summer. ... The conservative formality of this city instates a dress code of suits and closed-toed dress shoes that quickly precipitate the sweat storm that is a thing of daily existence for area residents. (I will grudgingly admit that in this environment, seersucker suits make sense). I am a firm believer that style and comfort need not be mutually exclusive, but the D.C. fashion scene seems to miss both by remaining wedded to impratical dress codes. ...

... Why shouldn’t D.C.’s women be able to freely adapt to their city’s climate, which happens to be incredibly uncomfortable in the summer? In this vein, sandals of any kind make the most sense, and the style is not uniformly unglamorous. That this author is willing to give men a pass for looking “slovenly” but wills that women squeeze into pumps or stillettos or other signifiers of glamor makes his rant even more patently and ridiculously archaic.

To read the entire posting, click here...