Thanks to alert reader Katy for sending me this Salon.com article on the SCANDAL involving First Lady Michelle Obama’s decision to go sleeveless so often. I found this article with plenty of images, written by a lesbian who greatly admires Michelle’s gorgeous arms.
Katy asks me what I think, so I’ll tells ya what I think.
I think that the First Lady has a gorgeous set of arms, first of all, and given that I have blobby Old Country Baba arms — short and stubby and rippled with cellulite on top, I’m living in sheer horror that all the styles will now be SLEEVELESS. So there’s some personal fear there for me.
Second, yes, I don’t think bare shoulders are appropriate for all occasions.
I stopped dead in my tracks recently at the grocery store when I beheld the hideous bright pink lace dress Michelle wore on the cover of PEOPLE and thought, “Not only does that dress look like a cheap, tacky parody of femininity, she really needs some sleeves. It’s FEBRUARY, for God’s sake.”
That’s the pure style angle.
The political angle is about respect. Even if you have spectacularly long, beautiful arms and lovely shoulders, they should not be on display during serious moments, like when your husband is giving a speech to a joint session of Congress. During a ball, a dinner, a social event — sure. At an interview, if you like, sure. Showing people around the White House, sure. But not during important political events. Also, if the Obama presidency is about restoring good relations in the international community, Michelle’s bare arms can be a real gaffe: in many nations, a mature woman does not bare her shoulders anywhere but in the comforts of home or at the beach. Now, you might say that perhaps Michelle’s appendages on display could change all that, but I doubt it. Some conventions are far too old and imbued with a long history of religious decorum to be changed by one hot trend-setter.
Let’s hope that our Secretary of State doesn’t start rocking sleeveless dresses. That would be TOTALLY inappropriate for her role.
It also goes without saying that you, Rev. Clergypersons, should also not be following Mrs. Obama’s example. Like I sez, totally inappropriate for your role.
She just looks kind of chilly here.
I think they look very Jacqueline Kennedy-esqe. Very good for formal wear year round. My guess is, she is often in overheated rooms, under lights, and this keeps her comfortable. I also think her arms and shoulders can handle just about any level of exposure, they are so beautiful. I love it, being long beyond bare arms and sleeveless myself. And one more thought, I love that her bare arms also highlight her dark skin, or v.v. Needless to say, she will dress differently in other countries as necessary.
I think younger generations don’t really buy into the sleeves-for-formal-occasions thing. It seems like nothing in formal-wear with long sleeves is ever as pretty as the sleeveless stuff anyway. And she always looks classy. always.
I have to agree with the other commenters–Michelle Obama’s sleeveless ensembles, to date, look perfectly appropriate to me. The vast majority of these outfits have been for social events or media appearances. And as far as the sleeveless look she wore for Obama’s recent major speech, what about this sleeveless dress worn by Jackie Kennedy at an actual State of the Union address? Did her outfit also mar the seriousness of that moment because her shoulders were visible?
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.aspx?CID=isg&mediauid={25A7E78E-D7BC-4C30-970C-A5812B7C0601}
I think of myself as someone who’s fairly concerned about proper dress, but this is just not something that I see a problem with. While there might indeed by hypothetical occasions for which sleeveless looks would be inappropriate, I don’t think a single one of Michelle’s appearances in them have come even close to that.
It goes without saying that what works on a young, toned, First Lady is not necessarily a good choice for an older, less-toned Secretary of State.
I also think it goes without saying that while traveling in foreign countries Michelle would dress appropriately.
Drat, here’s the picture of Jackie Kennedy.
I think that sleevelessness must be encoded for you in a way I haven’t heard of in general circulation. (I never wear anyhthing sleeveless but a swimsuit, myself, as I have vast and muscular arms and almost always unshaved armpits, and it would be pleasant to have an impersonal why-not. 😀 )
I’ll be the oddball. I like Michelle and I think she looks FANTASTIC! I just don’t feel right about the sleevelessness for her as first lady as frequently as she seems to do it. I do think it’s too informal, distracting (because nobody else does it), and not conveying the respect for the gravity of her position and that of her husband. Because her arms are so nice, that’s almost more the reason not to go showing them in every photo or event. It’s not classy. Let her come out with the arms and look fab at the galas or whatever, in the strapless or sleeveless dresses. I really do like her style otherwise. And right or wrong, I think this lowers her and her position in people’s eyes (more people than some might guess). In this world women simply seem to receive less respect than they deserve, the more skin they show. If she has some kind of health condition where she passes out if she overheats, then I give her a pass. Otherwise this is tacky. Attractive, but tacky in particular application.
Peacebang, I’m usually in full agreement with you on issues of appropriate dress, but not this time. The Newsweek article shown above was called “The Real Michelle Obama” so for her to be wearing some Laura Bush-esque cardigan or a Hillary Clinton-style pantsuit on the cover would not have been in keeping with the spirit of the article. To me, the First Lady always looks bold, fresh, sharp, and appropriate…not chilly. I think her style embodies the modern, professional American woman. Maybe bare arms haven’t always been acceptable on the Senate Floor. But there’s this thing called change. Nothing about the dress she wore that night was tacky. When she shows up to a State Dinner in Crocs, then I’ll concede. But somehow I don’t think that will happen. I say let Michelle be Michelle.
Michelle can do what she wants: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/03/04/fashion-police-question-whether-michelle-obamas-bare-arms-are-appropriate/
Also, I would never wear the dress Michelle is wearing on the cover of People because I don’t do pink. But! It’s really important to remember that she’s repping a wonderful black woman designer with that dress: Tracy Reese. And it’s really important to have cover-of-People representation for women of color who are designers because the mainstream fashion coverage of them ridiculously tiny. And to be like, I’m strong, I’m hot, and I’m wearing lace/pink/flowers, the femininity trifecta which is supposed to destroy authority, on the cover of People is pretty damn awesome.
I agree with you, PB, and with “k”–it is winter…and she looks chilly. Sleeveless is not appropriate for any and every occasion. Call me old. Don’t care. Her arms are beautiful, and it is fine that we know that. But must we note it every single time we see her? What is she gonna do when summer comes? And Black designer or no, that pink PEOPLE number is awful.
P.S. Not saying that she should not showcase the work of black designers. But just not in hot pink lace. Except in bed, maybe. I guess I’m feeling a bit snarky today.
I find the differences of opinion on this issue really fascinating. It seems like maybe there are a couple of different kinds of objections getting lumped together here: 1) Sleeveless isn’t appropriate for the particular setting where she wore it; and 2) Sleeveless isn’t appropriate to wear as often as she’s wearing it. The first one seems like a question of modesty/propriety, and the second seems more like a fashion critique.
I disagree with both, but I think it’s worth noting the distinction between the two.