Maureen Dowd Weighs In
Sunday, March 8, 2009 at 1:04 PM Maureen Dowd's Op-Ed column in today's New York Times, "Should Michelle Cover Up?", is a must read (thanks Allegra for the link). The title may suggest another "right to bare arms" defense. In fact, the position Ms. Dowd puts forth comments more so on the role Mrs. O is playing as First Lady, and a higher order message her enviably toned arms send. A short excerpt follows below, but we recommend a read of the full piece.
During the campaign, there was talk in the Obama ranks that Michelle should stop wearing sleeveless dresses, because her muscles, combined with her potent personality, made her daunting.
She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flare is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.
Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it. .... Michelle has soared every day, expanding the job to show us what can be accomplished by a generous spirit, a confident nature and a well-disciplined body. I also have no doubt she can talk cap-and-trade with ease and panache.
And the answer to Ms. Dowd's title? We gather that would be a definitive "no".
Media
Reader Comments (37)
Does anyone know if there was such a flap over Jackie Kennedy's sleeveless shifts?
The notion that sleevelss makes MrsO look "too daunting" is ridiculous sounding. There may be times when covering up is more appropriate but are we as a society still afraid of strong women?? Yikes.
Honestly I think this topic has been done to death
It has, but here, Maureen Dowd is really just using the "arms" business as entry point to comment on the influence Mrs. O is having as First Lady. That, I don't think has been done to death.
Maureen is not my favorite columnist by any stretch but I appreciate her spirited defense of Michelle. It's interesting because Maureen is known for how feminine she dresses in a male dominated profession. Maybe she sees a little of herself in Michelle, i.e. the willingness to embrace femininity with strength. With the modern woman, one doesn't have to be sacrificed to the other.
Mrs.T,
I agree. Her arms are a nice entry point to get us talking about all the good she is doing. I don't ever remember any first lady being this involved in the community and it is wonderful to hear that she is not sending aides or others to represent her but that she is doing it herself. How wonderful!
As fa ras the arms, I don't think it is a bad thing at all if it encourages people to get fit, after all, our nation could stand to lose a few pounds so why not start with shapely arms? Nice post, as usual.
No one can deny that Mrs. O has made herself available to us with a sincere commitment to public service in her role as a first lady. Although we on this blog are attentive to what she wears on a daily basis, I think that we also recognize with our many comments that the clothes, in the long run, merely provide the "wrapping", so to speak, of what is the essence of Mrs. O - a kind, intelligent soul who is relishing this opportunity to spread her goodwill and educate the country on what we can all do to help each other in a time of national turmoil.
Mrs. O tries her best to display poise and polish in her daily life, and I feel she succeeds. But the underlying message she conveys in her actions is what counts.
Maureen Dowd is right to assert that Mrs. O should neither stop baring her arms nor stop baring her feelings. Good for Maureen - she is widely read and I am glad she has put herself in Mrs. O's corner.
Bleh.
I agree strongly with Maureen Dowd's sentiment regarding Mrs. O, but the column itself is all over the place. It starts with Gordon Brown and a carping British press, then halfway through makes a jarring shift to Mrs. O and her arms. I don't know where she was going; it gave me the feeling she was just trying to wrap up a lot of notes that were in her notebook. And David Brooks needs a good smack. Who is he to say what Michelle Obama "should" or "should not" be known for? MO's dress at the president's address was "ostentatious?" Please. He should stick to politics and ask for his fashion commentary to be left out of columns.
But anyway, I agree with Dowd's main points.
I hope this is taken the right way, I am not be critical, but I hope Mrs. Obama does not end up with this look being the one thing that defines her. It seems to me she is almost in danger of being swallowed alive by the attention placed upon her arms. For that reason alone she may need to change it up a bit more when choosing her wardrobe.
She has taken some great steps forward, opening the WH to children, allowing them to know they too can strive to such a life, allowing those who hold the WH together; the loyal and talented workers in the kitchen, the head usher to be seen and heard from, etc. I hope in years to come we will be reflecting upon that more than her well toned arms. Her most amazing feat yet is her inclusiveness IMO.
As far as Mrs. Kennedy. I remember well the spotlight placed upon her wardrobe. It leaned more toward the fact she was the first of our FL's that brought designer clothing (haute couture) to the White House. Oleg Cassini was a personal friend and was often a guest in the WH. That alone was news. She was able to shine a spotlight on the arts in many, many forms.
I do think our 24 hour new cycle and the internet has changed chatter and changed the huge light that can be placed upon on subject. It can be beaten do death on Drudge, blogs, hate sites, etc.
The internet has become open season her arms. Like it or not.
Christina - I agree that Maureen is all over the map in this Op Ed. She usually is in her columns. Some of her writing has not been that flattering to POTUS in the past. I am just grateful that she has chosen not to be vitriolic, as she often can be, in the case of our FLOTUS.
By the way, here is The Daily Beast article by Sandra McElwaine that Dowd referred to.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-04/mary-todd-lincoln-was-a-shopaholic
One wonders about the professional protocol of quoting a colleague in an off the record setting. As I said earlier, Maureen is not my favorite columnist, she famously employs petty snark at the expense of any real substance.
My hunch is Michelle will continue to be Michelle, mixing it up sylistically and not allowing the pea brains in the media to define who she is.
Christina - completely agree. I really had trouble following the article. It was messy and lacked cohesion. And clearly, David Brooks feels weird having the hots for the First Lady.
ihavetosayit - I would agree in part...she will be known for her fashion and that will incorporate her bare arms. But I have a feeling that history will celebrate her bare arms. Generations will see her official portrait and see a pretty woman with a great figure. People will look at the picture of her hugging that young girl from S. Carolina, or clapping proudly for her husband and see a strong, loving woman. The simple beauty of her figure will endure well past the petty criticisms which honestly have more to do with other people's issues, than anything about Mrs. O.
Excellent point IVA.
I have been thinking about the inevitable comparisons to Mrs. Kennedy.
Mrs. Obama is very different in her approach to fashion in one outstanding way. Mrs. Obama maximizes her wardrobe by mixing many different looks using pieces we have seen before (often a few years before).
In my recollection, you rarely saw Mrs. Kennedy wear the same thing twice. She did repeat the same "look" but rarely the same item.
Mrs. Obama is almost a lesson in how to "use" your existing pieces in many, many different looks for many different occasions. That is what I enjoy, you view her pieces differently every time.
There wasnt a fuss over Jackie's bare arms because that was the style for non-working women; they showed more skin. Ive always worked and always have a jacket on--its just more professional. Mrs. O's role now is someone's wife, not a lawyer, and she is fine with her sleeveless dresses, I think.
I enjoy her realistic approach to fashion too, ihavetosayit! The Obamas are clearly living within their means.
Some smarter woman than I will have to write this story, and she'll have to do it in a sensitive way, but I wonder if at its root, if the hoopla about Mrs. O and her arms just has to do with, well, sex. And I'm saying this as big fan. We just have interesting notions about sex in this country, and on top of all the things Mrs. O is -- smart, successful, well-spoken, a daughter, a great mom -- she is also a person who is desirable, and desired by her husband. You can tell by the way he looks at her, you can tell by the way she carries herself. This is something different than what we're used to seeing. And I mean no criticism to any other politician's wife, but aside from Carla Bruni, how many of them are also seen as sexual beings? I *like* Laura Bush, and heck, I like Cindy McCain too. But their public images are a bit more tame. Part of Sarah Palin's appeal to her fans (her male fans, at least!) was that she seemed to also embrace her sex appeal.
Add that ingredient to a country that already has some, let's just say, "unsettled" feelings about black women and sexuality, and certainly some unsettled feelings about women who define success in ways other than motherhood, and you've got quite a potent combination. I mean, I've seen everything from people wanting to defend MO to the death, to people making the most nasty monkey-oriented insults of her that you could think of. Could you imagine Mrs. Bush inspiring this kind of passion, either pro or con?
Like I said, someone smarter than me will have to try to knit all these threads together and maybe explain what it all means. I'm happy just to be an admirer.
Christina, you offer some wonderful insights. I've been thinking this for a few weeks, myself, but didn't want to mention anything for fear of the type of reprisals one gets on this site for suggesting something of the sort.
You see it mentioned carefully in some of the media pieces about Mrs. O's arms, yet no one appears to be brave enough to call it raw 'sex appeal.' Frankly, there's a BIG difference between Mrs. O's and Jackie O's bare arms. No one looked at Jackie and saw raw sexual power, mostly because she had an ethereal quality about her -- almost as if she might break if you touched her.
Not so with Mrs. O. People *want* to touch her, and she's constantly reaching out to touch others. That's not sexual in its own right, but it makes her SEXY in a way that few women are. It's her intelligence, her strength, her approachability that sends her skyrocketing up the charts of "sexiness" and I think that is what many are responding to when it comes to the bare arms discussion.
It's also why people want her to cover up for certain events but have no problem with her baring her arms at others. It's about overt sexuality -- and Lord knows we all have different ideas about that in this country!
Christina, if this were a game show, when you hit "Submit" for your post, there would be bells and whistles going on all over the place. Yeah, it's about sex. A tall black woman with a powerful body that seems in perpetual motion is turning some heads...and people cannot deal with it. They'll get over it eventually, but for now they'll hide behind discussions of appropriateness of bare arms.
And I am sorry but MO has some nice arms, but come on. We've seen bare arms with ropey muscle before . It's just that these bare brown arms attached to a woman like this, well, that's what has every up in, okay, arms.
Christina and Chicagoan, I'm SO glad you wrote about this. I actually made reference to Mrs. O's inherent sexiness a long time ago on this blog. No one wants to say it, but I believe that her sex appeal is at the root of much of the bare arm debate. In fact, her sex appeal is why I believe many people find her clothing so impactful...she looks appealing in a suit, sheath, or gown not only because the clothes are nice, but also because of her essence (which is sexy) that translates through the clothes.
One part of the Dowd piece that furthers this is when she wrote:
- "Washington is a place where people have always been suspect of style and overt sexuality. Too much preening signals that you’re not up late studying cap-and-trade agreements.
David was not smitten by the V-neck, sleeveless eggplant dress Michelle wore at her husband’s address to Congress — the one that caused one Republican congressman to whisper to another, “Babe.”
He said the policy crowd here would consider the dress ostentatious. “Washington is sensually avoidant. The wonks here like brains. She should not be known for her physical presence, for one body part.” David brought up the Obamas’ obsession with their workouts. “Sometimes I think half the reason Obama ran for president is so Michelle would have a platform to show off her biceps." -
I doubt anyone notable will go there and write about Mrs. O's sex appeal - it would be taken as disrespectful, and I don't think it's necessary. People will adjust and get used to having a hot First Lady soon enough.
I don't see what's so positive about the article at all. If anything it is insulting, starting with the gift giving comment, you don't give a certain kind of gift in order to receive a certan kind of gift. I hate the way people feel like they can control other people for whatever reason, the Obama's can wear what they want, give what they want, or anything else concerning their personal business, as long as they are fulfilling the job they (he)were elected to do.
Chicagoan, Oxfarm, Iva, thank you for your kindness! I had some misgivings when I was writing, but I was hoping that people would understand where I'm coming from. I do think that some, not all! but *some* of the more intense critiques are coming from people who just don't know what to make of Michelle as a woman "in full."
So, you know, heavy thoughts for a site about clothing, I know! But I think this is why some conversations can get a little overheated. There are some people who are so amazed and frankly entranced at seeing someone like Michelle in the public eye, that they start to see her as more of a symbol and less as a person. And then there are people who don't have that symbolic attachment to her, and thus, conflict. I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to be in the middle. I look at her and see an extremely positive example of what my life could be. But then also I look at her and think "flats again?" (smile)
I hope that someone will write about her sex appeal because I do think that our reactions to Michelle says something about us. There's been no shortage of stories about the racial implications of Barack's election, so why not a story exploring, in a sensitive way, the impact that Michelle has on women, up to and including her sexiness? But you're probably right that it would be seen as disrespectful, and it very well could be, in the wrong hands. It's not as if the media have a great track record of covering black women and sexuality in a thoughtful way.
Christina hit the hammer on the nail!
Michelle is beautiful and sexy on her own, but what is driving people crazy and their displaced anger is directed at her arms. Its not about her arms at all. Its about the way her husband openly desires her and obviously still smitten and in love with her. This makes her even MORE desirable and sexy. And then to top it off Michelle is not scared to embrace her feminine side. Thats the issue. So they take it out on her arms!!! But the truth is that they can't understand wht they have that is still going so strong after all this years of marriage.
Watch any commercial or sitcom, this country portrays marriage at a "trap" or "miserable" existence for men. For them to see a happy man genuinely inlove with his beautiful wife, that is not a trophy but a complete woman. they cannot compute.
She has been wearing sleeveless since before the election. it just became a big issue at the "address to congress". I personally think its was because the president acknowledged her in a beautiful way. she glowed when everyone was clapping for her. Christina is right, it has to do with the way the president is unable to hide his attraction and affection for his wife. and how do some people react. attack the woman. accuse her of flaunting it.
Christina, Chicagoan, Oxfarm, Iva and Dani, I thoroughly agree with all of you. Michelle Obama not only is our first black FLOTUS, she is a Princeton and Harvard educated professional who can hold her own anywhere. She must be intimidating the daylights out of a lot of people who don't know what to make of her. She isn't going to shrink literally or symbolically, this is clear. About the arms debate: as we all know, at nearly 6 ft. tall and in great shape, MO has a powerful physical presence as well as a powerful mind. In my opinion, she is a living Rorschach test for people's conscious and unconscious attitudes towards strong, sexual women, particularly black women. I, personally, think she is a great role model for all of us, male and female. Let the wonks in Washington and the people who prefer their first ladies to be demure and petite deal with a new paradigm!
This article is so dichotomous, its hard to understand the point. WAs this article about Michelle or the British PM?
And using quotes from David Brooks to be snarky was very transparent.
I agree with Christina, there is definetly something deeper going on than just the FLOTUS wearing sleeveless dresses.
I agree with Sandra above--I could see no point at all in this article except a sideways attack on David Brooks. I didn't read it as a defense of Michelle AT ALL. A quip by a fellow reporter in a cab is no basis for an article. Oh, that's right, Ms Dowd leads with that comment and then proves it definitively.
Love Michelle's arms--or hate 'em--Mrs. O's style is about being comfortable in your own skin and having some fun while you are at it. She is setting an example for her lovely daughters first and foremost, but is conscious that the world is watching. Somehow she manages that without being self-conscious.
And be honest--do you actually care what gifts the Pres and PM exchanged? I sure don't.
sorry Sandra (not that I don't agree with YOU too!) but I should have said I agree with "micaro9" that the article had no point
momonamission: Succintly and well put!
@ Christina, Chicagoan, Oxfarm, Iva, Dani, Sandra, etal. I agree.
It may be a while before we can see thoughtful discussion of this part of the "sleeveless" debate. As a culture, we are a long way from acknowledging let alone analyzing the issues involved.
A few days ago though, on the Michelle Obama Watch blog feed, there was post from Wonkette that was pretty direct in its treatment of Mrs. O's sexy arms. And I have to admit, I found the comment section a hoot. It was totally disrespectful of course. . . but in a "loving," not a hating way. And you just KNOW that's what's going on.
See: http://wonkette.com/406663/sexy-new-portrait-of-first-lady-michelle-obama#comments
Those of a more "theoretical" bent may enjoy this now-canonical article by a black female intellectual that analyzes issues which underlie the intellectual and emotional placement of the black female body in western culture. From the page below which contains an excerpt, you can download the full PDF.
See: http://lorraineogrady.com/writing_primary2.html
I also agree with those who said the Dowd article was confused. It started negatively, ended positively, and went to several other places in between!
This conversation is really a part of the dummification of America. This is a non-story. The only reason why the showing of Michelle's Os arms is even a topic of conversation is because of the woman's race. Otherwise we'd be talking about how lovely her arms are. Period. End of Story.
Michelle is unapologetically black and beautiful and I wish the media would stop trying to "categorically" classify her. It's all too much.
The elephant in the room is MO's race. Until it's dealt with all of this "discussions" on soft racsim will take everyone on a horrific joy ride.
she looks great! modern and classy. she is wearing sleeveless, which i thought was most often seen in dressy/cocktail attire in the winter months.She looks fabulous in everything she puts on. On the new O mag she looks positively svelte!
Oh my god. Those Wonkette comments are so wrong and yet, hilarious!
Toot, I wouldn't argue with you that race is a part of the mix. And interesting you use the word "unapologetic" - I agree. She doesn't exactly hide her light under a bushel. Condi Rice wore nice black boots and a black coat on one occasion and the boys in Washington were about to lose their minds calling her a "dominatrix.". And now here Michelle Obama is, and folks are losing their minds again.
Eventually we'll get over it. I hope.
"Toot," her skin color has nothing to do with it!
Whether black, white or green, she's a beautiful, intelligent, accomplished, sexy woman. To suggest that people only talk about her because she's black is the worst form of racism.
Never mind - you're probably a troll and I'm going to stop now to go back and report your comments as I should have done first.
Michelle's great arms remind me of another iconic figure: Rosie the Riveter.
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2009/03/right-to-bare-arms.html
I'd almost rather listen to Rush Limbaugh, than read anything by Maureen Dowd. At least Rush has a point (as odious as it may be) and sticks to it.
I just got back from the gym and thought of our first lady a couple of times during my work-out, especially on those shoulder machines. Michelle Obama is inspirational in so many ways!