The XX Factor: What women really think.

• « Prev | Main | Next »

  
  

  Guns and Roses, and David Brooks

  Posted Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:40 PM | By Dayo Olopade
  What to make of Maureen Dowd’s column on the first lady in the New York Times today, which—-from its fem-apologetic opening sentence to its “give ‘em hell, Michelle” conclusion—seems be of two minds about the role of women in public life. The narrative revolves around the series of sleeveless dresses that Michelle Obama has been sporting in the dead of winter. I have my thoughts on that, but here’s the key quote:
  

  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.
  

  I think that’s pretty accurate, despite Dowd’s typically scattershot treatment. But later, from the mouth of Dowd’s Times bedfellow David Brooks:
  

  She should put away Thunder and Lightning. ... Washington is sensually avoidant. The wonks here like brains. She should not be known for her physical presence, for one body part.
  

  Part of why I like Washington so much is its nonrunway atmosphere, the slightly schlubby khaki culture that puts a premium on policy rather than couture aesthetics. Yet its conservatism does translate to gender roles, especially in fields as dominated by men as politics and journalism, or—where I sit—political journalism. Brooks, et al., provide the anti-peer pressure, the incentive to flatten hipness or personality, or treat each as the opposite of smarts. In D.C., just wearing a colored blazer makes one feel a bit flamboyant. (A group of motivated, high-octane girlfriends and I just finished debating my recent moratorium on purchasing clothing that is “not appropriate for work”—more on that later.)
  
  In the end, Dowd counseled Obama to be herself, assuming that her fluency on the intricacies of climate legislation (a facile proxy for things wonkish) will make its own impression, and noting, “the only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps." This was comforting news to one who feared that the hardnosed lawyer and hospital executive was being forgotten in all of the risotto-scooping and playhouse constructing (by choice!) that has peppered her schedule of late.
  
  But it still irks me that Brooks seems more cowed by the FLOTUS’ guns than he has any right to be. Who’s dividing whom into constituent parts? Oh, right—"Washington."... Obama’s toned arms look great, but are probably the most androgynous, least sexual part of a woman’s anatomy. So his complaint is not really about inappropriate sexuality; there’s nothing shameful (in America’s puritan sense) about being known for that “one body part.” His beef is in fact about power, of the incredibly banal corporeal variety. So Obama's "physical presence" threatens him. Yawn—we covered this with the Williams sisters. As euphemistic as he attempts to come across, I think Brooks is just being sexist. He should be more afraid of her pillow talk on Medicaid. Thoughts?

  Filed under: maureen dowd, new york times, David Brooks, NYT, Michelle Obama arms

About Dayo Olopade

• Dayo Olopade is the Washington Reporter for the Root.

PRINT DISCUSS