The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
Mikaela:
You may be right about Hillary, Katerine. My impression has been that she was always, from a young age, extremely ambitious as to achieving high public office. But that, while her husband became Governor and later president, it was "too early" for her to make an independent run for it - well at least as long as she was married to an equally ambitious man. Too early in terms of her being accepted as a viable candidate by large enough groups, for more than one reason. And then, those 8 years of defending Bill and doing the china choosing - they were years she could have spent in the Senate, building real political clout back home and launching her bid for the precidency just that crucial bit earlier.
But all this is a lot of speculation and "what ifs" on my part. Still, in reading her book "Living History" I did get the distinct impression of her trying to put a brave face on her stint as first lady and extolling all the benefits and positives - while in reality gritting her teeth about having to reduce herself so much, and having to do and be so much befitting the "wife" of the place, while having to let real political ambition simmer on the back burner after that initial Health Care fiasco.
I've read a couple of Bill&Hill bios and they pretty much leave me in the dark. The dynamics of their relationship, the sum of the political, public and private, remains quite the enigma I think. She's certainly stood by her man much more than seemingly benefited her own political or otherwise career, and (it would seem) in spite of immense personal cost as well. (Over here it was often enough stated or implied during the Clinton presidency that she was the real brain in the relationship - and it was said with quite a lot of admiration for her, not scorn for either one of them.)
ETA: In thinking this over, I think that last part painted too rosy a picture. "Hillary having the brains" was said, in part, to poke fun at Bill - but not vicious fun. And it always did carry a lot of honest respect for Hillary in it. Thinking back, we didn't use the internet then for political information - we just didn't know what connotations such jokes would carry for say, US Clinton detractors. I know I personally had little idea about the details and behaviour and tactics of the Republican opposition at the time, till I got to see it in full force during the events leading up to and during the Impeachment process. That was a huge eye-opener and no mistake. :-\
---
Re Michelle: Yes, of course all moms and dads (well, nearly all!) will think their children the most important part of their lives. I did not express myself sufficiently there. It was the manner this was handled in the Michelle promo video that came across as carrying a message beyond the "obvious". It was the first point made, and the main point made, and took such overriding prominence in presenting the person Michelle that it clearly wasn't stating a fact about her, clearly wasn't just "humanizing" her, but hammering home the greater message concerning her (shall we say) homemaker nature, the caring and nurturing Michelle, the good mom and loving wife etc. etc. The balance of the thing wasn't there at all in presenting her as a whole human being, IMO.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Mikaela on November 23, 2008, 08:06:37 am ---You may be right about Hillary, Katerine. My impression has been that she was always, from a young age, extremely ambitious as to achieving high public office. But that, while her husband became Governor and later president, it was "too early" for her to make an independent run for it - well at least as long as she was married to an equally ambitious man. Too early in terms of her being accepted as a viable candidate by large enough groups, for more than one reason. And then, those 8 years of defending Bill and doing the china choosing - they were years she could have spent in the Senate, building real political clout back home and launching her bid for the precidency just that crucial bit earlier.
--- End quote ---
I might speculate that her marriage to Bill is for Hillary what being black is for Obama, as far as their political fortunes are concerned. A liability in some ways, an advantage in others. For Obama, I think, the balance sheet came out in favor of his race -- that is, I think he won more votes than he lost because of it. With Hillary, would she have done better on her own, using those eight years to build her career, or did her position in the White House give her the visibility and platform to become a "celebrity senator"? For me, that's harder to say.
--- Quote ---I've read a couple of Bill&Hill bios and they pretty much leave me in the dark.
--- End quote ---
As usual, you are more knowledgeable about American politics than I am! :laugh: I haven't read their bios.
--- Quote ---Re Michelle: Yes, of course all moms and dads (well, nearly all!) will think their children the most important part of their lives. I did not express myself sufficiently there. It was the manner this was handled in the Michelle promo video that came across as carrying a message beyond the "obvious". It was the first point made, and the main point made, and took such overriding prominence in presenting the person Michelle that it clearly wasn't stating a fact about her, clearly wasn't just "humanizing" her, but hammering home the greater message concerning her (shall we say) homemaker nature, the caring and nurturing Michelle, the good mom and loving wife etc. etc. The balance of the thing wasn't there at all in presenting her as a whole human being, IMO.
--- End quote ---
I know what you mean. This is a common practice, at least in this country, in a profile of almost anybody who is a mother. For instance, in celebrity profiles (yes, while you were reading Bill's bio, I was reading InStyle magazine ::)) it seems required for the actress to talk about how her children are more important than her career and how direct a role she takes in their upbringing, making breakfast every day and so forth. As a mom who literally does make breakfast every day, I find this annoying, because I would appreciate having a phalanx of servants ready to take over the job on those days when I don't feel like it.
So I think I did actually understand your original point. It's not so much whether it's literally true that her children are most important. It's that it's always required that this be made into a big deal, as if otherwise we might suspect that as a career woman she doesn't give a rap about them. n other words, that one's children are important is so obvious it should almost go without saying. The fact that it DOESN'T go without saying seems like protesting too much; it seems to suggest that unless it's stated explicitly, people will otherwise harbor doubts about a woman who has interests outside the domestic sphere.
delalluvia:
Is this really of any surprise to anyone? It happened to Hillary as well. Despite being a very successful career woman, top of her law class, where she did better than her husband, when he ran for president, she was expected to take his name, and admit she likes baking cookies.
Women's roles in society are enforced by peer pressure. The worst thing one can say to a woman with children is that she is a bad mother. And why? Because women are expected to put their children first and anything that inteferes with that is seen as the woman being selfish.
Men have a lot more leeway. They can be seen to be 'putting their family first' by spending a lot of time at the office making money to support them. As long as they have someone else looking after their kids for them while they do this, they're not considered selfish or neglectful.
This is why the famous saying is "There are no articles in men's magazines about how to balance career and family life." Men don't have to make the choice between family and career so long as they have a partner willing to make that sacrifice for them.
Believe me, in the president's office, no matter how important the 1st's wife's job is for her, society is never going to expect or accept the local school or daycare calling the president first to leave work and come pick up a sick child so the 1st wife can continue working.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on November 23, 2008, 01:14:39 pm ---This is why the famous saying is "There are no articles in men's magazines about how to balance career and family life." Men don't have to make the choice between family and career so long as they have a partner willing to make that sacrifice for them.
--- End quote ---
Actually, the differences between women's and men's magazines would be an interesting topic for a whole thread.
But it's a good point. And parenting magazines and parenting manuals, though they're now PC enough to use gender-neutral terms and pronouns (they're about "parenting," after all, not "mothering"), are probably read by women about 99:1.
--- Quote ---Believe me, in the president's office, no matter how important the 1st's wife's job is for her, society is never going to expect or accept the local school or daycare calling the president first to leave work and come pick up a sick child so the 1st wife can continue working.
--- End quote ---
You're right. And to a lesser degree, this translates to many sets of parents at lower job levels, of any colored collar. Women leaving work to tend to children -- whether for an afternoon when the child is sick, or for longer periods -- is still much more expected and acceptable than men doing the same. Women routinely take maternity leave, while men rarely do, and are sometimes afraid to ask for it even if they want it.
Mikaela:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 23, 2008, 01:00:06 pm ---I might speculate that her marriage to Bill is for Hillary what being black is for Obama, as far as their political fortunes are concerned. A liability in some ways, an advantage in others. [ ] With Hillary, would she have done better on her own, using those eight years to build her career, or did her position in the White House give her the visibility and platform to become a "celebrity senator"? For me, that's harder to say.
--- End quote ---
For me, too. Well, I would say that she would and should have done better on her own, - that is my personal opinion. But I'm looking at this from the European perspective.... where Hillary is much admired for her focus, intelligence, knowledge, and political staying power, but where the downright hatred of her in certain US circles just seems completely alien and incomprehensible. I am therefore unable to really fathom the depth and breath and impact of that, and of its bearing on her political chances at any time.
I must admit that I do see the fact that the two of them have stayed together through all the trials (unintended pun, there) and tribulations as a testament to them - or at least her - being governed more by human emotions and less by cold calculating ambition than their opponents would claim.
--- Quote ---As usual, you are more knowledgeable about American politics than I am! :laugh: I haven't read their bios.
--- End quote ---
Thank you. But I think I'm misleading you... my understanding of US politics to some extent suffers from tunnell vision. Ie. I have to actively search out the information, and hence I don't get the across-the-board info of all sides that Americans would get just from watching the news.
For instance, I knew very little about John McCain before this election cycle, beyond his having been a POW for those years in Vietnam. (Another thing that is hard for Europeans to fathom right there: While it's impressive that he got through those POW years of terror and hardship, it's difficult to see why that in itself should make him more due respect and more qualified as president - the way US media and US public seemed to accept without question). Anyway, as I didn't know much about him before this election, you may imagine my impression of him, stemming as it does mainly from this last year and his tragically low campaign built mainly on Obama character assassination. :-\ I'm sure Americans who have seen McCain's activity as a Senator covered in the news through the years have a better possibility of balancing their view.
--- Quote ---So I think I did actually understand your original point. It's not so much whether it's literally true that her children are most important. It's that it's always required that this be made into a big deal, as if otherwise we might suspect that as a career woman she doesn't give a rap about them. n other words, that one's children are important is so obvious it should almost go without saying. The fact that it DOESN'T go without saying seems like protesting too much; it seems to suggest that unless it's stated explicitly, people will otherwise harbor doubts about a woman who has interests outside the domestic sphere.
--- End quote ---
YesYesYes! That was exactly what I was trying to say! Thank you. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version