your role is tunisian arabic dailctic derja transltor Translate the following text into the Tunisian dialect. Ensure the output is structured as 'Question: ... Answer: ...'. Please capture the nuances of the Tunisian dialectic Arabic. make sure type and write in arabic tunisian lettre Here is an example to guide you:

Question: شنو اسمك؟
Answer: اسمي جون.

Now, translate the following:

Question: Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Power of Style
By VANESSA FRIEDMANJUNE 10, 2014

THIS WEEK’S PUBLICATION of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “Hard Choices” has proved a predictably exciting opportunity for Clintonologists, 2016 election obsessives and pundits everywhere to revisit all sorts of issues that otherwise may have been considered, if not resolved, at least over — from the questions surrounding the couple’s marriage to Mrs. Clinton’s relationship with President Obama to the whole hair brouhaha.

As it happens, the latter was brought up by the author herself, who got a fair amount of prepublication mileage from joking about an alternative title that had been suggested by a Washington Post reader: “The Scrunchie Chronicles: 112 Countries and It’s Still All About My Hair.” The subtext being, of course, the shared joke about how absurd it is for anyone to be talking about her hair instead of serious stuff, like, say, Benghazi, and how they wouldn’t do it if she were a man, and yada yada yada.

This “ain’t it ridiculous we care about what power women wear, not what they do” attitude is, as it happens, also being parodied in a new blog called ladypockets.com that uses the tropes of women’s mags to mock both the forms themselves and the idea that anyone should pay attention to such things. It features, for example, a section called “Color Guide: Charcoal + Lavender” as seen on Maria Shriver, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Tammy Baldwin; “Get the Look!” featuring Julia Gillard, the former Australian prime minister; and “Who Wore It Best?” comparing blue jackets on Senator Dianne Feinstein and former Senator Olympia Snowe. And it is, to be fair, very funny.

Indeed, it’s easy, both while reading the blog and listening to Mrs. Clinton, to want to join in with the laughter and eye-rolling, and cry: “Yes! It is ridiculous. Why don’t we stop all this nonsense?”

Because we shouldn’t. Because when you think about it, it isn’t nonsense at all.

When you think about it, who better, really, to use as role models than women like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Julia Gillard and Kirsten Gillibrand? And while their lessons are primarily professional, there is no reason they should not be extended to appearance, too — especially when it comes to appearance in the workplace, or the public space. After all, whether or not we like it or want to admit it, appearance matters. (Simply consider the no-bald-president-except-Eisenhower rule, and the recent research about C.E.O.s being taller than 90 percent of the population.) And it matters increasingly in the world of Instagram and Pinterest, where pictures are beamed round the Internet, and judgments made, long before position papers are read. We are all, to varying degrees, public people now.

So, where better to look for examples of how to function in that context than women who have presumably had to think through how their image affects perception and relationships in traditionally all-male environments; who have been widely photographed and have had almost every wardrobe choice recorded; who lead busy lives and need clothes that are functional and comfortable? Who have, to a certain extent, made the decisions for us?

It certainly makes more sense, when you think about it, than, say, using Jennifer Lawrence or Nicole Kidman or Rihanna as a model — especially if the “you” looking at them is over 25 and not involved in pop culture. It really makes no sense at all, when you think about it, that we are supposed to take our dressing cues from 20-something celebrities (or celebrities who may be closer to 30-something or even 40-something but who have been made to look 20-something thanks to airbrushing and other sorts of photo magic), most of whom are, in fact, not even dressing themselves and certainly are not dressing themselves for pitching a new client or negotiating a deal or teaching or — well, anything other than stalking the red carpet or making charity trips to India.

Even the women who have become fashion icons because of a noncelebrity public role — Michelle Obama, the Duchess of Cambridge — are largely women in symbolic positions for whom dressing is a mode of diplomatic expression. Do the same rules apply to those who have a more palpable professional voice? Arguably not.

By contrast, much could be learned from the wardrobe strategy of, say, Christine Lagarde, of the International Monetary Fund; or Sheryl Sandberg, of Facebook; or Indra Nooyi, of PepsiCo; or Mary Barra, of General Motors. But though they all dress very well, they barely utter a sartorial word — most probably because of the fear of not being taken seriously. And in doing so, they perpetuate the problem. The way to neuter the issue is not to pretend it doesn’t exist, but to embrace it and move on.

The irony is that, when it comes to men, this is exactly what occurs. Bill Clinton, as you may remember, famously answered the boxers-versus-briefs question on MTV without blinking; President Obama discussed his suit choices with Michael Lewis in a profile in Vanity Fair. It doesn’t detract from the big issues surrounding what said world leaders do. It simply acknowledges a basic human reality: everyone gets dressed, and there is reason behind the reality we see.

Much is made of the clothing double standard, and how it is unfair to women in power because they are constantly critiqued while men are allowed to get away with wrinkles and gray hair and the same suit (or what looks like the same suit) for days in a row. But the real double standard in the dressing issue is why world leaders and captains of industry are expected to set, and feel the responsibility for setting, the sartorial standards for only one sex.

Deciding what to wear in the morning can be, depending on the agenda of the day, if not a hard choice, at least a complicated one. I can’t be the only woman who thinks it would be nice to have some help in making it.
What is a short summary of the above article?
Answer: The article discusses the attention given to the appearance and clothing choices of powerful women such as Hillary Clinton, Julia Gillard, and Kirsten Gillibrand. The author argues that it's not ridiculous to care about what these women wear, as appearance matters in the world of social media and public perception. These women could serve as role models for other working professionals, especially when considering wardrobe choices for functioning in traditionally male-dominated environments. The author suggests that powerful women should embrace the importance of their appearance and use it to their advantage, rather than avoid discussing it out of fear of not being taken seriously.