Last week President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama made a stop in Saudi Arabia to pay their respects to the late king and meet the country’s new ruler.
While there were more interesting topics brought up in the meeting that could have been covered, many news outlets in the U.S. have decided to focus on the fact that Mrs. Obama decided to forego the headscarf, just as Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton and Queen Elizabeth II have done before her. In fact, although it is Saudi law that women cover their heads outside the home, foreign women are not required to do so. So why the “uproar”?
Phrases like “international debate,” “disrespectful” and “self-orchestrated” were thrown around in the mainstream media. What the rest of us have been debating is: Do these reporters pay attention to what was going on, or are they creating some sort of gossip storm?
It is true, women going out in public without covering their heads — as well as driving a car, voting and going out without a male chaperone — is typically forbidden by Saudi law. But if this is such an outrage, why did they even allow Mrs. Obama to appear in the same room with the dignitaries?
Surely there must be some sort of detailing or security prior to these meetings that would eliminate any conflicts. But no one stopped her, and the event was televised. Could it be that the Saudis are more understanding of our customs than we give them credit for? Is it possible that we have once again been swallowed up by a sea of babble from the mainstream media?
Back in 2010, Mrs. Obama felt it was appropriate to wear a headscarf when she visited a mosque in Indonesia, but for the rest of the trip she did not don one. She could just as easily have done the same on this visit to Saudi Arabia, but neither law nor her own convictions forced her to do so.
While first ladies are typically held to a higher standard than many others, she also has a right to her own actions, and quite truthfully, she did nothing wrong.
While she did not wear a headscarf, she was very modestly dressed, showing nothing but her hands below her neckline. Given Mrs. Obama’s impeccable sense of style and reputation of never going amiss at galas and ceremonies, one almost wishes she would have been as “groundbreaking” and “bold” as the media has portrayed her.
So, was the White House deliberately sending a signal to the Saudis about how women should be treated? Was it just a big slap in the face to Saudi culture? Is blue her color? Was Mrs. Obama’s outfit way too conservative and submissive to the cruel sexist laws of Saudi Arabia? Many people seem to think some or all of these things.
Frida Ghitis, a world affairs columnist for the Miami Herald, pointed out in an interview with CNN, “Can you imagine if she had worn the headscarf, what the outcry would be in the United States and the rest of the world?” While there doesn’t seem to have been so much of a disturbance regarding the first lady’s choice of outfit, this side of the world has decided that this would be its focus on this diplomatic visit — not U.S. and Saudi relations.
Not the lowered prices of gas. Nope, instead the mainstream media has focused on whether a woman decided to do what women in that country do every day.
Had Michelle Obama worn the headscarf the commotion would have been just as loud, but only on the other side of the spectrum. People always have something to say.
Sol Canal is a UF English junior. Her column appears on Mondays.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 2/2/2015 under the headline “Headscarf or not, media focus misplaced"]
