TheLoop21.com

By: raechal (follow this member)
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 00:00

What a difference 50 years makes in this country, or so you would think.

We've made great strides on many societal issues in the half century since John F. Kennedy was in the White House. I'd never argue with that.

Our attitudes about women, however, haven't changed as much as we'd like to think, at least not judging by the media coverage of Michelle Obama and her trip to Europe this week for the G 20. (Yes, that man who's often photographed with her was there, too.)

If you checked out ABC News' Web site Wednesday, you read she was "expected to wear the same combination of high street and designer clothing she is famous for. To visit a cancer center in London ... she wore a green pencil skirt and a cream sparkly cardigan by J. Crew." Later, the Associated Press wrote about her taking her "signature style on the road," while the Chicago Tribune announced she was stealing the show with her fashion choices.

Is this 1961? And not just because they used the phrase "steals the show."

Just look at what Time said about first lady Jacqueline Kennedy on her trip to France that year, the one in which she was so well received for her mastery of the French language and, of course, her beauty, that President Kennedy joked he was accompanying her:

She "was magnificent in a narrow, pink-and-white straw-lace gown and a swooping 14th century hairdo with a fake topknot .... Merely by being herself, Jacqueline Kennedy had sailed across thresholds that would have tripped most women. But, armed with her femininity and bold fashion instinct, she did not miss a step."

Compare that to a Los Angeles Times blog post about Michelle Obama published Wednesday:

She "dressed conservatively in a black cardigan, white top and a black full skirt that appeared to have a tulle overlay. She was also wearing her trademark pearls, with her hair half-up, half-down .... It's not Obama's best look."

OK, to be fair, that's a blog focused on lighter news. Still, as I mentioned before, a lot of reputable news organizations are using a lot of resources to cover her looks.

This tells me that we've made little to no progress in the way we perceive women. We can't blame the media completely. You know how it works — a fluffy story like that would go away if people weren't buying it, regardless of the type of media organization.

Keep in mind, too, this coverage came in a week that began with another L.A. Times story, this one on the country's divergent views on whether the first lady's arms are too muscular, and another story from The Washington Post on how and why her favorability ratings in a Post-ABC News poll had climbed 28 points, to 76 percent, since last summer.

The Post story attributed the jump mostly to her focus on family and the vegetable garden she planted at the White House. Both those things are admirable, but they don't stray far from the media's formula for coverage of her, or even from Time's coverage of Jackie.

In the story about the arms, Jeannine Stein wrote the first lady's "curvy biceps have become something of a lightning rod for remarks from both sexes in a larger discussion of how much female muscle constitutes too much. While some praise Obama as a role model in a world gone obese, others say she's gone too far in displaying the fruit of her workouts."

Later in her piece, Stein asked why people care so much — a very valid question.

For what it's worth, my answer is that our society, including our media, still — still! — doesn't know what to do with a woman we can't easily put into a little box. Be pretty or smart, tough or shy. Pick one thing and stick with it.

Unfortunately for Michelle Obama, a smart, strong woman who graduated from no less than Princeton University and Harvard Law School, her box is fashion icon, at least for now.

Raechal Leone is TheLoop21.com's senior editor and writes the Inside the Loop blog.