THE WORLD is a fashion show. If the Obamas’ recent trip to Europe this past week is any indication, the only thing that matters at major international policy conferences is what Michelle is wearing. Coverage of the First Lady’s dresses and her mid-flight wardrobe changes saturated the news networks throughout the couple’s trip overseas. Pictures of the “WAGs” (wives and girlfriends), as a number of news sources have referred to them, were placed in stark contrast to pictures of the world leaders — almost all male — doing the ‘serious’ business of strengthening alliances and rescuing the economy.
Mrs-O.org, a Web site devoted to covering the fashion and wardrobe choices of the First Lady, covered the entire international tour solely in terms of what Obama wore. “Though already described as a style icon, which she undoubtedly is, we imagine Mrs. O’s fashion sense will be known for many things, rather than one iconic image that perfectly encapsulates her style,” read the blog. “She is a multi-dimensional woman, with a multi-dimensional wardrobe to suit.”
Even self-described feminists like New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd can’t stop obsessing over Obama’s amazingly toned arms. In a column published in late March, Dowd referred to the First Lady’s “sinewy arms,” and earlier in March, the columnist posed the question, “Should Michelle cover up?” My question to Dowd, and to all members of the media, is, Does it really matter?
It is time that columnists, pundits, and even male politicians allow women the dignity to be praised not for sticking to a demanding workout regimen or for wearing a particularly well-fitted pantsuit, but instead for their personal and career accomplishments. In addition to having toned biceps and a fashionable wardrobe, Obama has managed to graduate from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, is raising two children, and worked tirelessly to help her husband get elected President of the United States. Now that she has become First Lady, it is time to allow her to pursue her own goals — whether they be working as an advocate for military families, supporting working mothers, or raising her own two daughters — and to stop treating her like Presidential Barbie.
The coverage of Obama brings back memories of news coverage of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. The last question asked of the seasoned Democrat at one of the early debates illuminated the sexism so deeply ingrained in American politics: “Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?” Clinton, at her diplomatic best, answered the question with dignity, showing no indication that she was insulted by such a blatant stereotype of women.
It is not enough to expect women alone to stem the discriminatory tide, to argue that Clinton should have voiced opposition to such a question or that Obama shouldn’t have posed for the cover of Vogue Magazine. The point is not that she should or shouldn’t have posed. The point is that there is a very narrowly defined role that women are allowed to play in public. The structure of society makes it easier for women to pose for Vogue than to pose for Newsweek or Time. Politics is still considered a man’s world, and women in this arena are still discussed in terms of the visual, the superficial.
Obama is an amazingly accomplished woman, and neither she, nor any other woman, deserves to be treated as a mute fashion model, defined only by her clothes and never by her personality. Moreover, such coverage threatens to transform consequential and controversial political summits and decisions into red-carpet galas and international runways. As Lisa Armstrong, a writer with the London Times, wrote, “The [G20] Summit is meant to be about saving the world and the wives are meant to be stodgy, taken very seriously for their achievements, rather than their ability to accessorize a stonkingly fabulous Azzedine Alaia belt with a beautiful lemongrass dress.”
Zoe Williams, a reporter for the UK’s Guardian, tried to summarize what was so problematic about coverage of the “G20 WAGs” in the context of the larger picture. She argued that reporters’ response to the attendance of politicians’ wives at major political events leaves them with few options but “to talk about their clothes, and their upper arms, and their nice smiles; to accept that in a world of bread and circuses, the men are the bread and the women are the circuses.”
It is time that women are allowed to be accomplished for more than being well-dressed, that they are written about for their ideas and not their accessories. It is time to appreciate the substance much more than the style.
Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 11 hours agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 2 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 5 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
