Arma Feminamque Cano
The arma in question being our present First Lady's. Apparently the voice of the flabby is being heard in the land, as to whether Michelle Obama should cover up those gloriously well-toned biceps.
Of course, we're only hearing this voice from the flabby-minded as well as the flabby-armed. One David Brooks, Republican apologist and renowned bottom-feeder, actually told NYTimes columnist Maureen Dowd that Mrs. Obama should "put away Thunder and Lightning."
He ACTUALLY NAMED HER BICEPS!!! What a howling dork is this. I bet his own biceps are pencil-thin and can barely manage to raise themselves to comb his thinning hair. He's lucky Thunder and Lightning don't punch his lights out for saying that.
He's not the only one yammering for the First Lady to cover her limbs, though. When she wore that super eggplant-colored sleeveless dress at the session of Congress the other week, all sorts of idiots were baying like junkyard dogs about how "inappropriate" the dress was. Oh please! She looked fantastic. They're just jealous that Laura Bush was never so toned in her life. Hell, GEORGE was never that toned...or his mum and dad either.
I totally envy Mrs. O those upper arms. Nobody sees mine, of course, at my age, but though they're certainly not as fine as hers, they're pretty darn strong, and I use free weights on a regular basis, not to mention pull-down bars (60-75 pounds depending on how buff I feel that day, which is not Laird Hamilton class but pretty good for a chick) and rowing pulls and other instruments of torture at the gym, to make and keep them so. Even the bodybuilder gay guys approve.
But the public (in certain quarters) hostility to Michelle's display of armature fascinates me. Did these sexist cretins think Jackie Kennedy's far more extensive display was equally unseemly? As a young teenager, I remember noticing how many lovely sleeveless evening gowns and elegant sleeveless daytime dresses Mrs. Kennedy wore in her White House time, and how gorgeous she looked in them. Not toned like Michelle, of course. Nancy Reagan, ditto; and even Mamie freakin' Eisenhower!
(For a primer on First Lady style down the ages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-sferrazza-anthony/michelle-obama-the-first_b_171246.html )
(And for rational comment on Michelle's sleevelessness: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-fuller/michelle-obamas-sleevegat_b_171172.html )
So perhaps THAT'S the rub. It's fine for a First Lady to show her guns if they're not POWERFUL guns. Well, you know what you can do with that...
Michelle Obama could probably knock David Brooks out with one swing. The fact that Barack Obama is perfectly happy living with and loving a woman of strength (in ALL ways strength) just makes him look even better.
So, Michelle sister, you just go right on wearing those dresses and showing off those splendid appendages. Maybe a call to arms...such arms...is just what we need.
Of course, we're only hearing this voice from the flabby-minded as well as the flabby-armed. One David Brooks, Republican apologist and renowned bottom-feeder, actually told NYTimes columnist Maureen Dowd that Mrs. Obama should "put away Thunder and Lightning."
He ACTUALLY NAMED HER BICEPS!!! What a howling dork is this. I bet his own biceps are pencil-thin and can barely manage to raise themselves to comb his thinning hair. He's lucky Thunder and Lightning don't punch his lights out for saying that.
He's not the only one yammering for the First Lady to cover her limbs, though. When she wore that super eggplant-colored sleeveless dress at the session of Congress the other week, all sorts of idiots were baying like junkyard dogs about how "inappropriate" the dress was. Oh please! She looked fantastic. They're just jealous that Laura Bush was never so toned in her life. Hell, GEORGE was never that toned...or his mum and dad either.
I totally envy Mrs. O those upper arms. Nobody sees mine, of course, at my age, but though they're certainly not as fine as hers, they're pretty darn strong, and I use free weights on a regular basis, not to mention pull-down bars (60-75 pounds depending on how buff I feel that day, which is not Laird Hamilton class but pretty good for a chick) and rowing pulls and other instruments of torture at the gym, to make and keep them so. Even the bodybuilder gay guys approve.
But the public (in certain quarters) hostility to Michelle's display of armature fascinates me. Did these sexist cretins think Jackie Kennedy's far more extensive display was equally unseemly? As a young teenager, I remember noticing how many lovely sleeveless evening gowns and elegant sleeveless daytime dresses Mrs. Kennedy wore in her White House time, and how gorgeous she looked in them. Not toned like Michelle, of course. Nancy Reagan, ditto; and even Mamie freakin' Eisenhower!
(For a primer on First Lady style down the ages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-sferrazza-anthony/michelle-obama-the-first_b_171246.html )
(And for rational comment on Michelle's sleevelessness: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-fuller/michelle-obamas-sleevegat_b_171172.html )
So perhaps THAT'S the rub. It's fine for a First Lady to show her guns if they're not POWERFUL guns. Well, you know what you can do with that...
Michelle Obama could probably knock David Brooks out with one swing. The fact that Barack Obama is perfectly happy living with and loving a woman of strength (in ALL ways strength) just makes him look even better.
So, Michelle sister, you just go right on wearing those dresses and showing off those splendid appendages. Maybe a call to arms...such arms...is just what we need.
posted by Patricia Kennealy Morrison | 2:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home