Kindly Póg Mo Thóin

Let’s ignore for the moment all the other dreck in this typically specious MoDo column. Let’s focus on the glimpse she gives us into the psyche of David Brooks:

Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps. Her husband urges bold action, but it is Michelle who looks as though she could easily wind up and punch out Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Madoff and all the corporate creeps who ripped off America.

In the taxi, when I asked David Brooks about her amazing arms, he indicated it was time for her to cover up. “She’s made her point,” he said. “Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning.”

I’d seen the plaint echoed elsewhere. “Someone should tell Michelle to mix up her wardrobe and cover up from time to time,” Sandra McElwaine wrote last week on The Daily Beast.

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.”

Oh. My.

Seems Our Mr. Brooks has a wee bit of a problem with Michelle’s biceps. I suppose it’s not a big surprise, what with his belief that married women shouldn’t have their own money, that natalism (for white women) is virtuous, and his disregard for that fleshy thing surrounding the all-important fetus. Meaning that he’s rather invested in traditional notions of femininity. This is a man, after all, who actually said that “power is in the kitchen,” in a column responding to Linda Hirshman’s call for women to not get tied down with domestic responsibilities and to seize power in the work world.

And a First Lady is supposed to be some kind of ur-traditional woman who doesn’t get Ideas about having power of her own or challenging traditional gender roles. We’ve seen what happens when a First Lady gets such Ideas: the Villagers, David Brooks among them, rip her apart (as does MoDo in this very column, since she never misses an opportunity to bash the nearest available Clinton). No accusation, no matter how baseless, is out of bounds.

Michelle Obama has taken a very traditionally-feminine, almost retro tack as First Lady. A lot of this is understandable; I mean, who would want to go through what Hillary Clinton did? And Michelle would get it even worse than Hillary because she’s black. She’s already been referred to as “Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress” by someone who really ought to know better. She’s also got much younger children than Chelsea was when Bill was elected, and she no doubt wants to spare them the kind of shit that Chelsea was dragged through (which, again, would probably be even worse for them because they’ll be teenaged black girls, with all the baggage that comes with that).

But the thing about the patriarchy is that women can never, ever win. And even though Michelle wears dresses rather than pantsuits, and is winning accolades for her sense of style, she’s getting a bizarre amount of negative attention (as well as positive) for her choice to go sleeveless much of the time. Even though Jackie Kennedy wore sleeveless sheaths frequently, critics are quick to remind us that Michelle is no Jackie.

Why not? Why was the sleeveless sheath A-OK in 1961 but not 2009? Honestly, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Michelle *isn’t* a lot of the things that Jackie was: namely, soft, feminine, retiring. Michelle’s blackness is part of the issue, but so is her (mental) sharpness and her physique. Instead of merely being slender, she’s got strong, toned arms, and she doesn’t mind letting people know that she spends time and effort to get them that way. Women in Jackie’s day might have put a lot of work into staying thin, but they didn’t talk about it. It was supposed to be effortless.

What’s so funny is that it’s so very, very obvious that Brooks is discomfited by Michelle Obama’s guns and the amount of work she puts into getting them that way. I mean, “Thunder and Lightning”? Seriously? The comments about the physical presence of Michelle Obama are also amusing, since he’s a traditionalist kind of a guy, and women are supposed to have a physical presence that is merely decorative, not one that speaks of physical power — this is so ingrained that even workout books which are designed to get women to increase their physical power still contain reassurances that we won’t get “bulky” if we lift weights.

But, hey, Brooks’ pants-wetting over Michelle’s guns is consistent with his expressed view that women shouldn’t have economic, social, financial, reproductive or political power (outside of the kitchen, at any rate). Why not add physical power to the list?

Then there’s the claim from Brooks that the Obamas have an “obsession” with their workouts. Funny, I don’t recall him saying a critical word about Bush’s obsession with his own workouts, whether it be jogging or bike-riding or brush-clearing. The wingnutosphere is engaging in a little projection on the issue, though, and since Brooks is nothing if not reflective of the wingnutosphere, in his “moderate” way, it’s no surprise that this came up.

But really. Would you take fashion advice from this man?