Gee, girlie. What's your problem? What's so sexist about this New York Times article that it gets one's panties in a twist?
"Michele Obama Goes Sleeveless -- AGAIN!!"
(Replies gratefully received below.)
3.08.09 Update from Americablog:
"NOTE FROM JOHN: Let me first say, David Brooks is an idiot. Not always. But certainly today. Having said that, I have to admit, I too saw the First Lady on TV that night and thought "woah, a sleeveless dress?" The issue isn't her biceps (her biceps?) The issue is sensuality. That was a sexy dress, and she looked gorgeous in it. I'm just not sure Americans want their First Lady looking too sexy. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm talking about my perceptions of what the public wants. I think being President and First Lady is a bit like running a big company. While the employees, and the public, want you to look your best, want you to look classy, want you to look put-together all the time, they don't want to see you looking sexy, unless it's understated. As I said, I'm sure some of our readers will go ballistic over this analysis, but as I always try to point out, it's not always relevant what "you" think - what's relevant is what the American people think. Obama needs the support of the public, and every little thing counts, whether you or I like it or not. The dress, while stunning, gave me pause. Brooks, in his heavy-handed (and somewhat sexist) Republican way, took an interesting observation and perverted it to his own political purposes." Female = sex object, much, John?