They're Just Arms

Another day, another dozen articles about Michelle Obama’s preference for sleeveless dresses. Our new first lady is creating quite the stir with her finely sculpted arms.

I don’t get it. On one hand, I understand and even expect the articles on how to get arms like Mrs. Obama’s. She is in terrific shape, and her arms are an attainable asset for many women. I even find myself admiring and coveting them.

But what I don’t get are the editorials asking if it’s OK for Mrs. Obama to have bare arms. Even Maureen Dowd got in on the act today in the New York Times. The economy is in the tank and doesn’t show any signs of improving any time soon. People are losing jobs left and right. The country remains at war. Yet, Michelle Obama’s arms are international news. When her official White House portrait was unveiled, showing her in a beautiful black sheath dress, those impressive arms on display, many writers carried on like she had just posed for Playboy. It’s a sleeveless dress, people. Not a nuclear meltdown.

A journalist friend argued with me that people are tired of the bad news and want “something light and fun,” and that Mrs. Obama’s bare arms fit the bill. While I agree that soft news is needed, the tone behind many of these editorials is anything but “light and fun.” Many editorials I’ve read about Mrs. Obama’s so-called “right to bare arms” are mean and petty, as if her physical fitness is threatening. Is it because she’s strong and gives off an “I can take care of myself” vibe? Or is it because she’s in her 40s and is in better shape than many women, including those younger than her? Is it a combination of the two?

Whatever it is, I wish the media would move on and find something else to write about. There are many more important and interesting stories to tell.