What do (black American) women want?
Obama—now regarded as the iconic black American female—continue to bare her disconcertingly muscular shoulders and arms at every opportunity because she’s under the deluded impression that they are feminine and attractive, or because she knows that they’re disconcertingly muscular?
(The First Weight Lifter of the United States)
Paul K. writes:
Our Peace Prize president might remind his wife that arms reduction begins at home.
Philips writes from England:
She has broad shoulders. It’s not her fault. I think there are plenty of things you could attack her for without this. It seems a little ungentlemanly. In the picture you show she does not even seem to be trying to show herself off.
I have a few times pointed to Michelle’s mannish, body builder’s physique. In some photos it is more noticeable than others. Further, she chooses to wear clothing that brings out her mannish physique. And she often going bare armed, inappropriately.
The view that it is not proper to criticize the physical appearance and dress of public figures is routinely expressed at this site when I make such criticisms, and I (and others) disagree. The appearance and dress of public figures is a legitimate topic of discussion.
I also reject the notion that any particular deference or gentlemanliness is owed to Michelle Obama, who vocally dislikes this country, who spent 15 years in a hate-America, hate-whitey church, and who has called America “just plain mean.” If I happened to encounter her, I would turn away from her, as I would her husband.
The virtues of deference and gentlemanly behavior can be overstated. Did the Catholics win back Spain by being deferential to the Moors?
Philip M. writes:
I agree that clothing is an acceptable subject for debate if it concerns social or cultural issues. But if the only issue at stake is “doesn’t she look butch in that?” then I think you risk trivialising the very real problems that the Obamas pose, and create a negative image of what conservatives are like.
“And she often goes bare armed, inappropriately”
Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to bare arms? ;)
I don’t blame you for wanting to turn away the Obamas. Just don’t be surprised if Michelle gets you in a headlock.
“Did the Catholics win back Spain by being deferential to the Moors?”
No. Did they win it back by telling them how butch their wives were?
Touche. However, my point was not that commenting on Michelle’s butch appearance would win any important battles. My point was that there is no requirement to be deferential to the Obamas, and nothing to be gained by it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 14, 2009 12:53 PM | Send
Further, while the issue is not decisive, it is not nothing. Michelle’s vulgarity, her inappropriate dress, her “full of herself” quality (e.g., attending her husband’s speech before a joint session of Congress wearing a sleeveless dress), are all part and parcel of her disrespect and dislike for our country, which in turn are inseparable from the larger leftist and black dislike for our country.
VFR takes a continuing interest in aspects of the culture that virtually all conservatives ignore or regard as trivial, but which in fact express the unspoken liberal attitudes and assumptions that everyone today, including conservatives, unconsciously accept as normal. As long as conservatives take liberal attitudes and tastes as normal, they can never effectively fight against liberalism.
Finally, I simply write about that things in the passing scene that are striking and interesting to me, including things that are relatively unimportant.