Thursday, February 26, 2009

Department of Continuing Sexist Stupidity From the New York Times

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?


Anonymous said...

No Blood For Hubris:

I'm not thinking sexist, but racist, for sure. Talking about her arms as if they are accessories? Gee, at that I guess she's better off than a lot of those young folks that Mr. Bush tossed into harm's way. Their arms and legs ARE accessories.

Jodi, darling; you don't know much about Michelle Obama? Pick up the fucking phone and ask her people for an interview. I've heard her speak, she uses complete sentences just like white folks.

SeattleTammy said...

I saw those articles today! They are just bitter cause they know they will inherit their mama's turkey-wattle arms in a couple years.

Teh whole "Fashion" scene cracks me up!

"We are teh avant! OMG! White shoes after Labor Day! Oh noes!"

*azzliga*? Is that a secret message?

No Blood for Hubris said...

Well, I am thinking that in a blog supposedly about government and politics, they are discussing naught but the superficial appearance of women who are the spouses of politicians. As if that mattered.

the rev. paperboy said...

when Obama finally opens the reeducation labor camps, everyone mentioned in that column, other than Michelle Obama, will be first in line to spend the day making big rocks into little rocks.

“Oh my god,” Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour magazine, exclaimed while watching the address, she said via email. “The First Lady has bare arms in Congress, in February, at night!”

ZOMG!!!1!! the New York Times is quoting fashionista airheads, in a political context, and taking their crapola seriously!!!

And people in the business wonder why newspapers are collapsing left and right.

And while I'm ranting, would someone go and punch "Cindi's" parents in the mouth for inflicting such a stupid cutesy-poo name on their daughter, and thus insuring she would grow up to be a vapid dingbat who actually think that things like whether the president's wife's arms are covered or not is meaningful in any way.

No Blood for Hubris said...

Yes, Rev, that was some bigtime waste of column-inches.

Snarla said...

It's remotely possible that if Hillary Clinton had been elected we'd be hearing about the amount of mousse Bill Clinton uses in his hair and whether or not he wears American designers' fashions.
It's possible. Right?

No Blood for Hubris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
No Blood for Hubris said...

Snarla, what's your point?

Snarla said...

I was trying to be sarcastic, but really, Michelle's role as first lady is mainly symbolic. It's no wonder that a useless and flailing fashion industry is trying to keep itself relevant with pointless and offensive commentary on the first wardrobe.
I do hope we have a first gentleman in my lifetime. I'd love to see him get handed a bouquet of flowers at ceremonial occasions.

No Blood for Hubris said...

True enough. On the other hand, why should it be mainly symbolic?