First Lady Melania Trump has been photographed wearing a US$39 Zara coat while boarding a plane taking her to visit children of asylum seekers locked up by her husband, President Trump.
The coat is emblazoned with the words “I really don’t care, do u?”, which some people have quite reasonably interpreted as a message from Melania on how she feels about the issue of the children who have been taken from their parents.
There’s a significant lede being buried here: Melania Trump does not wear a $39 anything. This is a woman most usually clad in Dolce & Gabbana, Christian Dior, Emilio Pucci, Givenchy and Valentino, paired with Christian Louboutin heels.
Her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham has protested any wider interpretations and said: “It’s a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today’s important visit to Texas, I hope the media isn’t going to choose to focus on her wardrobe”.
Except we can’t ignore Melania climbing the stairs to a plane in a cheap jacket with a message in huge letters, can we?
And more important is the question of what Melania is truly trying to say. If she isn’t sending a giant Fuck You to the outraged citizens of the world then where is her fast-fashion middle finger pointing at?
Home, and more specifically her husband.
Melania Trump isn’t talking to us, the people already heart broken and frothing at the mouth with outrage at her husband’s inhumane proclivities. This is Melania Trump talking to Donald Trump.
I believe that the jacket is a mangled reference to someone she truly despises at this point in her life. Melania wearing a cheap Zara jacket is like a teen acting out with a slogan t-shirt. It’s like the evangelical minister’s daughter wearing a “Pussy Riot” tee to Sunday service.
She won’t have considered the press and public would think she “doesn’t care” about the immigrant kids she is visiting — she actually got off her arse and went to a centre where these children are being imprisoned.
And I don’t think it was to try and convince the world that Trump gives a shit. Remember this is a woman who, when the world was watching, swatted Donald Trump’s paw away like it was nothing more than a bloated mosquito with cognitive delays.
While Trump surrounds himself with sycophants who will stoop to unimaginable depths to do his bidding, he has married a woman who doesn’t particularly care that the optics of her disdain for him are now the stuff of memes.
I am not saying Melania is a platinum grade humanitarian, but I would argue that she isn’t talking to the public or the press through her highly unusual fashion choice, she’s talking to the President of the US not us.
Rebekah Holt is a journalist and psychotherapist who writes the Media Advisor column for Crikey.
15 thoughts on “Is Melania Trump really wearing her disdain for immigrant children?”
Itsarort
June 22, 2018 at 12:58 pmThis is the disdain of the ultra rich American v the average American. The top 0.5% v the rest. Of the people, by the people, fuck the people.
graybul
June 22, 2018 at 1:50 pmIf that is the case Rebekah, and Melania’s public/private stance is to oppose Trump/President . . . ???
Marcus Hicks
June 22, 2018 at 1:50 pmThe Trumps are the US version of the Ceaușescu family. Arrogant & disdainful of everyone they consider “beneath” them.
Decorum
June 22, 2018 at 1:51 pmRebekah: what do you think was the original intent by Zara in making this jacket? To whom was it pitched and what was it thought that they would be trying to say with it? Was it originally meant just as a statement about fashion (a pretty redundant one, in my view, as I think there are fewer, if any, more truly trivial industries than fashion) or was it supposed to be addressed to the wearer’s “haters”? It’s all a bit of a mystery to me and I would value your thoughts!
Decorum
June 22, 2018 at 1:53 pmOops – “few” not “fewer”.
AR
June 22, 2018 at 2:02 pmI hope that the author is correct “This is Melania Trump talking to Donald Trump…she’s talking to the President of the US not us.” but it seems to be a stretch of a very long bow.
Is she also wearing el-cheepo plimsolls and jeans to complement the unkempt hair?
I think we should be told.
Tom Jones
June 22, 2018 at 2:54 pmThis is really the only argument that makes sense. If she didn’t care she wouldn’t have gone to the camps to see for herself. It is the first time she has taken her role seriously and she had changed by the time she got to the camps. Advisors would have tried to talk her out of it. She has always worn high fashion and not clothes with a message. No doubt POTUS tried to talk her out of going. There was far more to the recent hospital trip than we will ever know but I think this is the beginning of a new Melania which will make the swatting away incident look benign.
Zeno Elea
June 22, 2018 at 3:39 pmReally is it the only argument that makes sense? I would say it’s a stretch and definitely not an article worthy of publishment. It’s not like it’s even a new development of yellow journalists trying to uncover signs of dissent from the First Lady through her apparent passive aggressive actions.
old greybearded one
June 22, 2018 at 3:00 pmIf your approach to Melania is that she despises Trump, does that make the First Lady a very well known escort?
Vasco
June 22, 2018 at 3:02 pmInteresting to see what Samantha Bee makes of it in Full Frontal.
Keith1
June 22, 2018 at 5:01 pmGarbled, yes. My 2 bob? It’s aimed at “virtue-signalling” critics of Melania Trump not doing enough (i.e. anything much) to combat her husband. There are plenty of those. Put “apparently” in front and it works that way. But there is no “apparently”, so WTF are you trying to say Melania?
Despite the heroic wishful thinking of interpreters such as RH, the only clear result of MT’s jacket is a massive own-goal: that such a person would think she could get away with appropriating a $39 anti-fashion message. Yeah right.
kyle Hargraves
June 23, 2018 at 1:34 pmI have had a letter penned to the Assistant Editor for some weeks. The purpose of the letter is to illustrate the idiocy of (1) the headline and (2) the associated commentary over an interval of some months. I’ve acquired quite a data bank. I’m not particularly concerned about the author. However it is interesting to observe that the comments, above, (combined) and one or two in particular serve a greater purpose than the article itself.
“Except we can’t ignore Melania climbing the stairs to a plane in a cheap jacket with a message in huge letters, can we?”
Indeed : most certainly “we” can!. By corollary, such exemplifies the idiocy of the article which would be best suited to a Woman’s magazine such as (I guess) New Idea or whatever. The author of the article has (at best) indulged in juvenile speculation of a non-event. Who gives a rats as to how Milinia is attired or, as AR infers : “do we really need to know — if she brushed her
hair or her teeth or had someone (black?) to do the task for her?
Putting the matter the other way about : does this article provide the least insight to world events or domestic events that have an arguable effect upon world events?
It just could be the case (in the absence of alternative – verifiable – evidence) that Milinia’s spokeswoman said it all!
Zeno Elea
June 25, 2018 at 10:48 amI have noted the trend, I will also be asking the question of the direction of Crikey.