Here in the West, we smugly tell ourselves and each other, it's not like that; women are free to wear what they want. This is why, in countries like France and Italy as well in the UK a debate is currently taking place about whether or not women should be allowed to wear the 'Burkini', a fully body swimsuit, to public swimming pools or on beaches.

The French and Italians apparently believe that women shouldn't have to cover themselves up in this way although the other issue at play here is whether or not France and Italy's imposition of the view that a woman shouldn't wear a 'Burkini' or indeed the Burka itself - which France looks set to ban - is any better or different than the view that she should.

The real debate here isn't about the actual clothing but about ownership of the female body. In the West we claim to believe that the body is a private space to be determined by the individual alone and claim to object to notions to the contrary.

However, with the recent and ongoing judgements and criticisms over the clothing donned by America's First Lady Michelle Obama I have been reminded that despite what we say, women in the West are still subject to the imposition of others' beliefs about what is and isn't considered appropriate dress. The Western woman's body and her choice of its adornments continue to be very much in the public domain, and according to the level of discussion about Michelle Obama's clothing, still must be regulated and kept in check by others.

Last week, while on holiday with her family, Michelle Obama decided to wear a pair of shorts. Outrage ensued. Her shorts were apparently too short and she was showing too much skin. In the following days, hours of talk and hundreds of column inches were devoted to discussing whether or not it was appropriate for Michelle Obama to wear said shorts. The Huffington Post even polled its readers to ask whether or not the First Lady has the 'right' to dress that way.

Even though 80% of the 13,000 Huffington Post readers polled said that Mrs Obama did in fact have the right to wear those shorts and even though her shorts weren't even all that short, that's really not the point. The point is why such such questions are being asked at all.

This is not the first time that America has debated the First Lady's clothing. It must be noted that this goes beyond the usual superficial discussion about whether or not an outfit is stylish. This is about the covering and uncovering of parts of a woman's body, about a woman's 'modesty'. Previously, the public discussion has centered mainly around Michelle Obama's arms and whether or not it is 'appropriate' for her to show them. Now it is about her legs. Each time the message is the same: the public has the right to tell her that showing these parts of her body isn't appropriate and that she would be better off to cover up.

What is this about? Why in the West where we pride ourselves on our freedoms, do we even have to think about asking whether or not a woman has a 'right' to show her legs or her arms? And in what way is this different from the impositions that we criticize other societies for putting on women?

Granted, women in America do not wear hijabs. However if the argument is that religion - or other external forces - dictate to Muslim women what they must wear and what parts of their body they may or may not show, we are demonstrating the same behaviour each and every time we criticize a western woman on the same grounds. Whether that woman is a shorts-wearing Michelle Obama or a burkini-wearing woman in Paris, it all comes down the same thing. Both women should be free to wear what they choose.

Understandably Michelle Obama is the First Lady but this discussion is clearly simply a microcosm of one that does still take place in wider society. A discussion about whether or not any lady has the 'right' to wear certain clothing is problematic and exposes those who engage in such discussions as hypocrites when it comes to how we look at the ownership of the female body. For as long as such discussions continue, people in the West cannot claim to be any better than those who they criticize.

Apparently this is some kind of triumph. However, the real question is why women still desire to have any other body shape other than that which they actually have. What is with the inability to accept one’s own natural shape - be it thin, thickset, or any other variation? Why do we continue to long for the shape that belongs to another woman, to measure ourselves up against the physique of celebrities or even friends?

Rather than holding it up as a victory that women prefer a curvier body, we should ask why any body shape is still seen by women to be more desirable than another. With all of the progress women have made, the way in which we relate to our bodies - as if they are this external thing to be moulded and dieted into which ever shape is in vogue at the time - is still stuck in a previous era.

The mindset that a certain body type is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ while another is ‘good’ or ‘right’ is not only untrue, but dangerous regardless of whether or not that body type is smaller or larger. Yet we women encourage each other and are encouraged to make value judgments about our own bodies and the bodies of others. Surveys like this ask women which body they prefer or are inspired by, if we actually have any choice over our genetically predisposed body shapes.

There’s no doubt that the results of this research will be used to push more products which continue to appeal to women’s insecurities and fears about their body shapes and their desire to achieve someone else’s shape. The fact that it might be done using curvier women is no better than if it’s done using stick thin ones.

Please no more surveys of this kind. Let’s have some studies done into what needs to be done to eradicate women's desire to compare and contrast ourselves with each other so we can get to the point where all know that there is no body which is better than another.

Palin has given various reasons for stepping down: primarily her home life and her family. However, the pundits and commentators are not satisfied with her explanation. In fact, female pundits are particularly upset about it.

Several prominent women have come out to lambast Palin, on the grounds that she has apparently broken some kind of feminist covenant. Apparently there is no way that Palin, or any woman for that matter, could possibly ever want to put her family before her career. God forbid. She’s now being called a 'quitter'.

To be honest, I don’t care much for Sarah Palin. I found her to be disingenuous, a race-baiter and not someone that I could relate with or aspire to. Her political views on issues like abortion did little to advance the progress of women’s rights and as a minority female, she is the antithesis of much that I believe in. However, I take umbrage with this idea that there is any one, fixed way in which a woman - including Sarah Palin - should behave when it comes to making choices about her life. Isn’t the whole point of feminism to enable women to have the power and right to choose?

Asserting that a woman should be concerned primarily with her career is no different to me than asserting that a woman needs necessarily only concern herself with cooking and cleaning. A woman shouldn’t have to be concerned about any particular thing - she should have the option to decide for herself what is a priority, without other people condemning her for that.

Perhaps Sarah Palin’s family is more important to her than her career. Perhaps being there for her children and raising them to be healthy and well-balanced individuals is not worth sacrificing. When did being a mother - and being there fully - become such a taboo? Surely her ability to choose should be celebrated by feminists?

Interestingly enough, similar disdain has been cast upon First Lady Michelle Obama in the past for choosing to become the self-titled ‘Mom-In-Chief’. Some seem to feel that you can only truly be a powerful woman if you are a superwoman; that somehow admitting that you are human and perhaps unwilling or even unable to cope with the demands of both a high pressured career and the needs of a family is a sign of weakness and is antithetical to feminism.

As a 28-year-old woman approaching the age when getting married and having babies seems to be the most popular pastime among my friends, I have been interested to note how many of my girlfriends - all well educated, successful women - can’t wait to become mothers and look after their children. There are a number who are willing to give up their careers to do so. And it’s not because, like Sarah Palin, they have to, it’s because they can.

The women’s rights movement gave women choices. Let’s celebrate, not criticise, them for exercising those choices.