Are biceps the new breasts? David Brooks of the New York Times thinks Michelle Obama “should not be known” – tut tut – “for one body part.” In Maureen Dowd’s recent column, he even advised the first lady to “put away” her beautifully toned upper arms, as if they were a set of secondary sex organs.
Over at Huffington Post, Bonnie Fuller fired back, suggesting that “wimpy”, “Republican lite” Brooks needs to get his own sorry biceps to a gym. I’m tempted to say that her reference to “jiggly girly-man arms” was below the belt, but my geography would be off – and Brooks was asking for it, even if Dowd is the one who told on him.
The first lady is transforming us into a nation of bickering biceps-watchers, unable to agree on the meaning of her upper body parts, much less whether they should be covered or celebrated.
The Frisky’s Wendy Atterberry thinks Dowd’s triumphalist interpretation of Michelle’s arms (“a reminder that Americans can do anything”) is just plain daft. What’s with the “mythologising” Atterberry asks.
Like the J Crew outfits women are buying en masse, the first lady’s biceps are quickly becoming the next must have on our list. Women at every stage of life are finding ways to emulate Michelle, wanting to bond with her physically, whether through exercise or the display of flesh. I just can’t imagine feeling this way about Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton, can you? Neither seemed to be physically in love with herself the way Michelle is. No wonder her body lends itself so nicely to political myth.
Not very long ago – before Michelle took centre stage – the female clavicle was being hailed as the new cleavage. (Those of us who regard our breasts as a private treat are always in need of alternative cleavage.) A demure collar bone peeping out from a flowing V-neck blouse makes two bare biceps seem positively risqué. But when you consider some recent options – exposed thongs, derrieres, navels and tummies – bare biceps seem quite genteel.
This is a loftier form of cleavage than anything we’ve recently experienced. Butt cleavage is saucy and profane, while the ladylike clavicle evokes a passive jewel. We needed something to bridge those extremes, and we have it in the wholesome sensuality of a prominent woman’s beautifully formed arm.
Compared with Madonna’s overworked-looking biceps, Michelle’s are less theatrical and more feminine. As a trendsetter, the first lady is, of course, more accessible than Madonna, whose tastes and whims are a little daunting. Michelle connotes style, Madonna fashion, whether we’re talking biceps or clothing and demeanour.
Why shouldn’t the first lady display her arms? I disagree with pundits and bloggers who say she’s wearing too many sleeveless dresses. Nevertheless, I think we should avoid treating the female biceps as a visual trophy. Whether we oppose or welcome its display, it’s a mistake to get too fixated on a particular muscle.
In our short-sighted quest for a toned appearance, too many women resort to quick and dirty methods to shape a specific muscle when we should be thinking more holistically. The fitness industry is built on gadgets and machines that enable us to avoid using our own body weight to get in shape. And sometimes this approach prevents us from appreciating how all the parts work together.
Getting your arms to such an exalted place involves the use of many different muscles. Indeed, Michelle shouldn’t be known for “one body part” but rather for the way she uses her lats, traps, rhoms and delts – muscles in the back and shoulder – to get there.
Dowd’s preoccupation with Michelle’s biceps as a “symbol of American strength” reminds us that the bicep is a showy muscle, ripe for comic symbolism. Think of Popeye. Or think of the American economy just a few years ago.
I’d be more impressed if the symbol of our strength were the first lady’s less-talked-about triceps. This is the harder muscle to train, and a real challenge for most women. Also, the state of your triceps is what really determines whether you should go sleeveless in the first place. Michelle’s are unimpeachable.
Source: Read Full Article