Author Topic: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama  (Read 10221 times)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« on: November 12, 2008, 04:33:24 pm »
Interesting essay. The part in blue below is something I recently mentioned to Amanda that I have experienced in my own life. I'd never felt particularly pigeonholed as a woman until I became a mother -- suddenly there were all these societal expectations and demands.

Any other women with children feel they confronted more sex-role stereotyping when they had kids?


The momification of Michelle Obama
The next first lady is an accomplished lawyer. But with the media focused on her clothes and family, Bamalot is starting to look a lot like Camelot.

By Rebecca Traister


Nov. 12, 2008 |

Oh, what a week, what happiness, what kvelling joy: In January, Barack Obama will become president of the United States, and along with our first black president, we will also get our first black first family. A troop -- perhaps three generations! -- of powerful broads. Plus a puppy of as-yet-indeterminate provenance! A family so young and beautiful that they took our breath away when they strode onstage in Grant Park on Nov. 4, looking at once completely different from any presidential pack this country has ever known, and like the single most sparkling, shiny embodiment of the American dream ever to park a U-Haul outside the executive residence.

So it's no wonder that many of us have caught a touch of the Camelot-it-is (or, as the New York Post dubbed it last week, "Bam-a-lot"). Here we are, oohing and aahing over what they'll be wearing, and what they'll be eating, what kind of dog they'll be getting, what bedrooms they'll be living in, and what schools they'll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas' tastes and habits. How unexpectedly comforting to slough off our brittle chrysalis of presidential detachment and invest so completely and uncynically in the lives of these people. Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again? And even better, however naive and retro it may feel, the Obamas' presence on our national stage is anything but: They are progressivism made manifest. For the first time in American history, our leaders look not like those pallid forebears who have occupied seats of power since America was born, but like the historically disenfranchised and oppressed populations that built those seats of power to begin with.

But with progress comes inevitable regress, and in our stouthearted dash to fit this family into a comfortably familiar tableau, we have fallen back into other, far too familiar, cultural traps: you know, like forgetting everything we've learned in recent decades about female achievement and identity.

The majority of the coverage of Michelle Obama in the week since her husband was elected has centered on her clothes. Not just the firecracker of a dress she donned on Election Night, but on her personal style, and what she will wear to the Inaugural balls.

Then there have been the oceans of transition pieces, about the adjustments the family will have to make as they move to Washington. In Newsweek came news that Michelle has been consulting with her husband's former presidential opponent Hillary Clinton, talking not about politics or law but about how to raise children in the White House.

The Associated Press wondered what kind of first lady Michelle will be, and concludes, "the kind of first lady this country has not seen in decades." You mean, the kind with a high-powered job? No, "the mother of young children." True enough, and the AP story did include the fact that Michelle is known to be her husband's closest advisor. But it made sure to emphasize the campaign's assertions that "she is not interested in shaping policy or reserving a seat for herself at her husband's decision-making table. She prefers, at least for now, to focus on easing the transition for Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7 -- getting them in new schools, settled and comfortable with a new way of life." Indeed, Michelle herself has been flogging the term "mom-in-chief" as the cheerily unthreatening title she'll assume when she gets to the White House.

It's a vision of her future that has been embraced by the New York Times, which published a piece about how the Obamas are "beginning to figure out how to become the first family of the United States" but did not make mention of the presumed end of Michelle's most recent job, at the University of Chicago Hospitals, from which she took a leave during the campaign. The story's only reference to the university was as the place where the Obama girls currently attend primary school.

While the story contained no specific acknowledgement of Michelle's long and varied career, it did go on to describe how, once she has settled her children into the White House, she will have to figure out "exactly what sort of first lady she wants to be. Although she dresses with unusual care -- in both designer clothing and off the rack styles she has become known for -- friends say she has only a certain amount of patience for the domestic arts. She is a get-it-done efficiently Rachael Ray type, they say, not given to elaborate Martha Stewart-like efforts." Hey, here's a crazy idea, but what if Michelle is a type of woman -- and therefore a type of first lady -- whose professional success has nothing to do with cooking or crafting?

I don't mean to suggest that I'm not as taken by the mommy and fashion stuff as everyone else. It's great that Michelle Obama is both a snazzy dresser and a terrific parent. Her solid, steely beauty, her innate sense of style and her obvious devotion to her children are among the many attractive things about her -- along with her humor, her capacity for self-deprecation, her cool confidence, her sense of self, her commitment to the community in which she grew up, her thorough and very polished education, her challenging and rigorous career choices, her good, strong, fiercely held views on America, race and politics, her protection of an identity outside of her husband's and how damn pretty she is.

Not all of these qualities will be easily transported to Washington,  and some of the most extraordinary of them -- the ones that set her apart from many of her predecessors in the East Wing -- are already falling victim to a nostalgic complacency about familial roles, and to an apparent commitment to re-creating Camelot with an African-American cast, but little modern tweaking of the role of wife and mother.

The New York Times is certainly not alone in its static view of what kinds of choices shape the role of first lady -- i.e., how will she dress, what domestic arts will she or won't she ply,  what "duties" will she assume on behalf of her husband?

Michelle Obama is a mom. And her girls are small. This kind of change will undoubtedly be extremely discombobulating for them, and they will require the attention of their parents. Michelle herself has been more than happy to tell people, most notably in a summer interview with Ebony, that her first responsibilities upon getting to Washington will be finding schools and making sure her daughters get comfortable in their new fishbowl, all invaluable responsibilities of a parent resituating his or her kids, a parent who in this case happens to be a mommy.

It's Michelle's job because Daddy is going to be the president, and he has to save the country and the world from an economic crisis and war, and so he might be too busy to come check out the new schools and decorate their rooms and help with the dog. But the fact is, he seems to be a pretty good dad, and I bet he will do some of that stuff anyway. What rankles is the smooth and unquestioning assumptions by the media that the fallback position is to assign all those duties to Michelle.

Prior to Hillary Clinton, we'd never had a first lady who had a post-graduate degree. Michelle Obama went to college at Princeton and law school at Harvard. She was a practicing lawyer at the Chicago firm Sidley Austin when she was assigned to mentor the summer associate who would become her husband. She was his mentor. And when Barack writes of first meeting her, in "The Audacity of Hope," he notes that "she was part of the intellectual property group and specialized in entertainment law ... Michelle was full of plans that day, on the fast track, with no time, she told me, for distractions -- especially men."

Later, Michelle's personal commitment to her childhood neighborhood led her to leave Sidley Austin and work for the city of Chicago, then to launch the youth mentorship program Public Allies. When Michelle cut back on work as a new mother, she was still ambitious and engaged enough in her professional life that she took on a community relations job at the University of Chicago, working to reach out from behind the school's cloistered walls to the working-class community in which she'd been raised. In 2006, Michelle Obama earned $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, where she was vice-president for community and external affairs, plus $51,200 as a salaried member of the board of directors for Treehouse Foods, a Wal-Mart supplier from which she resigned after her husband was critical of the anti-union mega-chain. Barack, on the other hand, earned $157,082 as a United States senator, plus loads more from his book royalties and their combined investments. At the point that her husband decided to run for president, Michelle was not working just to make ends meet; she had a career to which she was committed.

In all the worrying about how Sasha and Malia will adjust to having their lives turned upside down, in all the fretting about how Obama will move his Chicago-style shop to Washington, why is there so little curiosity about how Michelle will adjust to the loss of her own private, very successful, very high-profile and very independent identity? How will Michelle Obama feel as she becomes what she has long resisted -- an extension of her husband?

In one of the smartest pieces that has been written about the next first lady, Geraldine Brooks' profile of her in the October issue of More magazine, Brooks writes that while you can see Michelle's life as the quintessential modern woman's success story, the trajectory can also be read as a "depressingly retrograde narrative of stifling gender roles and frustrating trade-offs." In serious ways, Brooks writes, "it is her husband's career, his choices -- choices she has not always applauded -- that have shaped her life in the last decade."

This situation is not entirely unique. The battle to conform to wifely expectations was previously fought by Hillary Clinton, a woman who recently made a hell-bent run for the exact same job her husband held in the years that she was forced to choke on her health plan and write books about the White House cat. (So let's not pretend that the role of stifled icon might not take some independent women on a wacky psychological ride.)

But Michelle is in an even tighter bind, in part because of the legacy left her by Hillary and her detractors. Powerful couples must now tread as far as possible from the "two for one" talk, lest the female half get smacked with a nutcracker.

But Michelle's power is potentially scarier than Hillary's could ever have been. She is not simply a smart and powerful woman, but a smart and powerful black woman.

At the start of Barack's campaign, when America was talking about a female candidate for president, the way in which Michelle was discussed was as a Hillary counterpart: a thinker, a professional, a modern and independent woman.

But those very real and positive characterizations served to make her as discomfiting as Hillary had been 16 years earlier, at least to anyone who had a bone to pick with the Obama campaign. Maureen Dowd thought Michelle was emasculating because she hectored her husband about putting the butter away; Christopher Hitchens misconstrued and mischaracterized Michelle's undergraduate thesis on Princeton-educated blacks, suggesting that she was influenced by the black separatist movement. (Hitchens also managed to connect her to Louis Farrakhan in the space of two thoroughly insane and irresponsible sentences!) The most pernicious and inaccurate rumor bandied about had to do with a purported tape of Michelle using the word "whitey" during a Rainbow Coalition/PUSH conference that was also attended by Bill Clinton.

All of these imaginatively ghoulish impressions of Michelle were made possible by her real-life achievements: She had a career that made the equal division of labor in her home a necessity; she had an education and pedigree that meant neocon critics could pick apart her honors thesis; anxieties about her imagined conference remarks had heft only because it was plausible that this accomplished woman would be at a conference with Bill Clinton to begin with. What was even scarier was that Michelle was widely understood to be her husband's closest advisor and consigliere. The threat of Michelle Obama was built around her intellectual and professional competence, her personal power and insistence in the home and in the world that she have the same opportunities for success as a man.

But the day that Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, the bar for conversation about Michelle dropped precipitously. Suddenly Fox News was calling her "Obama's baby mama," and Michelle was on "The View," jawing about her bargain dress and pantyhose, breakfast foods and childcare. It was back to cookie-recipe land, the antiquated universe from which she has not since escaped. And we understand why. The exoticism and difference of Obama's race was all the progress the American people could take in one election, conventional wisdom went. A threateningly competent woman might put them over the edge.

In her convention speech in Denver, which Michelle reportedly wrote and memorized a month in advance, so clearly did she understand the importance of nailing the Ignore-the-Harvard-Diploma-on-the-Wall message, Obama presented herself precisely as she needed to in order to be digested by the American people: as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother. And definitely not as a successful and independent American working woman.

She hit it out of the Pepsi Center with elegance and aplomb. And on one hand, how wonderful for all of us that she did, so that we now have this incredible woman ready to move her offices to the East Wing. But why have so many people who should know better so readily accepted this incomplete image of the future first lady? It is possible, I suppose, that some have forgotten that Michelle Obama is more than a pair of ovaries with a commitment to organic food and the sales at J. Crew. But there is also the distinct whiff of relief in the momification of Michelle, and in the regress to Camelot. It's as though the American media -- exhausted after the progressive exertions of having to be respectful and not misogynist about two women running for political office -- has loosened its belt and is relaxing back into a world in which all you have to do is write about what they wear and how they mother.

One thing that is crucial (and heartening) is that Barack at least has acknowledged that Michelle's challenges in these coming years may not be much fun for her. In "The Audacity of Hope," he describes the gradual tipping of the professional scales in his relationship with Michelle, as she allows him to become a distraction, and then a date, and then a husband and a father, at the same time that he is becoming a politician. At first, he writes, they were both "working hard," he as a civil rights lawyer and a professor, she for the city and at Public Allies. Then they had Malia, and "the strains in our relationship began to show."

When he launched his congressional run, Barack writes, "Michelle put up no pretense of being happy with the decision. My failure to clean up the kitchen suddenly became less endearing. Leaning down to kiss Michelle good-bye in the morning, all I would get was a peck on the cheek. By the time Sasha was born ... my wife's anger toward me seemed barely contained."

Barack continues, "No matter how liberated I liked to see myself as -- no matter how much I told myself that Michelle and I were equal partners, and that her dreams and ambitions were as important as my own -- the fact was that when children showed up, it was Michelle and not I who was expected to make the necessary adjustments. Sure, I helped, but it was always on my terms, on my schedule. Meanwhile, she was the one who had to put her career on hold." Barack considers his dawning realization that in his wife, as in so many working women, there was a battle raging. "In her own mind, two visions of herself were at war with each other," he writes. "The desire to be the woman her mother had been, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids, and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she'd had on the very first day that we met."

In certain critical ways, Michelle Obama will come to stand in more prominently than anyone could have imagined for the shortcomings of feminism, as described by Linda Hirshman in her 2006 book "Get to Work," in which she argues that the weighting of domestic responsibilities toward the woman in a family handicaps her chances for professional and economic success. Obama has already said that one of the issues she plans to put front and center while in the White House is the impossible bind faced by working mothers. She knows the trade-offs and sacrifices all too well.

And now, she is in the unenviable yet deeply happy position of being a history-maker whose own balancing act allowed her husband the space to make his political career zip forward, his books sing, his daughters healthy and beautiful, and his campaign succeed. In having done all this, Michelle Obama wrought for herself a life (temporarily, at least) of playing second fiddle. Then again, did she have a choice?

Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2008, 02:04:38 pm »
Thanks for this long and interesting article K. :)

I think the way that Michelle has been framed and presented in much of the media lately is pretty interesting to analyze...  all the domestic/Mom type imagery and discussion vs. her professional career and achievements (which are usually downplayed or not mentioned much).

I don't have kids, so I don't have a first-hand reference as to how the family vs. professional identity dilemma really feels.  But, I can imagine that its a very difficult thing and must involve some personal decision making about how to embrace those two roles... and a certain amount of coping when it comes to external societal expectations that an individual can do little about.

From what I understand, when it comes to Michelle specifically... I feel like I've heard her say that she would like to address this very issue - the dilemma of blending family with professional ambitions - in her role as first lady.  Given the extent of her professional achievements, I actually assume that once the transition to life in the White House is more settled, she'll find a professional project to focus on.  I know that in PA during the campaign she made campaign stops filled with speeches (reported and shown on local news channels, etc.) about women's issues like this.  I think she's probably very conscious of issues and dilemmas that this article brings up.

And, of course it's not fair that the media and society automatically assumes that the domestic burden should fall mostly on Michelle.  I think attitudes about the burdens of family responsibilities seem to be some of the slowest stereotypes and assumptions to change.

I think this issue also highlights the inequality in the amount of value society places on traditional "women's work" (i.e. anything having to do with managing the domestic sphere) vs. activities and work more traditionally associated with men.  I mean, it actually seems impossible to say, on a personal level, whether raising one's children is more or less important than even doing something as significant as running the country.  Both things are hugely significant, but so different... that it's hard to really weigh those two activities relative to one another.

I think we're still in an adjustment phase in terms of figuring out how Michelle will define herself as a first lady.  After maybe the first year of the presidency, it will be interesting to revisit this question.












the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline belbbmfan

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,354
  • A love that will never grow old
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2008, 02:32:05 pm »
As a married, working mother of two, this really struck me (and not in a good way):

Barack continues, "No matter how liberated I liked to see myself as -- no matter how much I told myself that Michelle and I were equal partners, and that her dreams and ambitions were as important as my own -- the fact was that when children showed up, it was Michelle and not I who was expected to make the necessary adjustments. Sure, I helped, but it was always on my terms, on my schedule. Meanwhile, she was the one who had to put her career on hold." Barack considers his dawning realization that in his wife, as in so many working women, there was a battle raging. "In her own mind, two visions of herself were at war with each other," he writes. "The desire to be the woman her mother had been, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids, and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she'd had on the very first day that we met."

It made me think when will men, who actually WANT to become husbands and fathers, realise women need those husbands and fathers to balance those two roles? What kind of wives/mothers to their children to they really want?

And this:

Then they had Malia, and "the strains in our relationship began to show."

made me very sad. To be honest, Mr. Obama doesn't sound very liberated to me... :-\

'We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em'

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2008, 09:15:20 pm »
Quote
How will Michelle Obama feel as she becomes what she has long resisted -- an extension of her husband?

In one of the smartest pieces that has been written about the next first lady, Geraldine Brooks' profile of her in the October issue of More magazine, Brooks writes that while you can see Michelle's life as the quintessential modern woman's success story, the trajectory can also be read as a "depressingly retrograde narrative of stifling gender roles and frustrating trade-offs." In serious ways, Brooks writes, "it is her husband's career, his choices -- choices she has not always applauded -- that have shaped her life in the last decade."

This situation is not entirely unique. The battle to conform to wifely expectations was previously fought by Hillary Clinton....

Michelle Obama's situation has been the constant drop of bitter to me in the last couple of months, while I've been following the news of her husband's progress towards the election. I know I've mentioned that on this board before.

It's been my interpretation all along, just as this article also says, that Michelle has been warned off about coming across as Hillary did. Ie. she's been advised to at all cost avoid the "two for one" unofficial slogan that the Clintons entered the White House with, and saw such a backlash to. And I think that she and Barack have agreed among themselves to such an interpretation of the state of affairs,- agreed that a strong professional first-lady-to-be, vocal on matters of state rather than on wallpaper patterns, would be a deterrent to Barack's campaign.

It's impossible for me to see it any other way than that Michelle has agreed to take on a self-effacing, feminine, domestic, old-fashioned kind of wife&mother role in order to assuage the fears of those people who would be likely to see the infamous satirical New Yorker cover picture of the Obamas as plain gospel.

Which doeens't mean that I think being a mom is not an extremely worthwhile and important task too, but so, by God, is being a father!!

I've seen the Obama campaign's own PR video on Michelle, where Michelle's mother praises her and makes a point about how Michelle is a care-giver (for kids and the community at large...), and where Michelle herself talks about her girls being the single most important thing in her life. And so forth, and so on. To me that thing was engineered solely to present Michelle as a good, old-fashioned, non-threatening, nice and good-looking lil'old home-maker. And so, I think, all of her appearances have been intended to come across.

I am certain she has weighed this very carefully, and that she has concluded that if it would take her regressing to a 1950's type wife and mom for Barack to get into office, that's what she'd be prepared to do. I bet she believes his getting to that office was more important, not only to them personally but certainly to that biggest community there is - the country and the world.

I see her current behaviour as a voluntary and deliberate sacrifice on her part of an important part of her intellect, her competence and capabilities, of who she really is.

Unfortunately, that kind of sacrifice is as oldfashioned as the hills. A woman giving up her professional ambitions in order to forward her hubby's;  - the woman taking care of the house and the kids and organizing everything on the home front while also seeing to it that she appears glamorous and representative.

*sigh*  I do hope Barack Obama is entirey clear on how much his wife is actually doing for him. And that he's got plans for how he'll some day even the score. But of course, it'll not just be up to him... Hillary missing the boat partly because she did her 8-years' First Lady stint is proof of that.

I still feel sad for Hillary, - being wrangled into going that same road back in the day - baking cookies and managing the pets and choosing new White House plate patterns.

Yes, in short: Michelle Obama reminds me and confirms to me that sexism is alive and very well in the Western world still. Hillary's recent campaign can't change that; - she managed all that in spite of outspoken sexism, - and  her possibly becoming Secretary of State won't by any means change my view either.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2008, 11:30:06 pm »
Good post, Mikaela. A couple of comments:

Hillary missing the boat partly because she did her 8-years' First Lady stint is proof of that.

I still feel sad for Hillary, - being wrangled into going that same road back in the day - baking cookies and managing the pets and choosing new White House plate patterns.

I agree that Hillary suppressed her natural ambitions and interests and put on a façade in order to appear non-threatening. However, I would argue that she probably would not have been a presidential candidate, or perhaps even a senator, without her relationship to Bill.

I don't mean she's not capable, or that she needs Bill to prop her up in some way. It's just that, well, 99.99999999 ... percent of Americans don't become president or even senators. Hillary is undoubtedly brilliant, hard-working, energetic, etc. But lots of people have those qualities without winding up in high office. I think it's most likely that, if she'd married someone else, today Hillary would be a very successful attorney. Under other circumstances, so might Bill.

Quote
I've seen the Obama campaign's own PR video on Michelle, where Michelle's mother praises her and makes a point about how Michelle is a care-giver (for kids and the community at large...), and where Michelle herself talks about her girls being the single most important thing in her life. And so forth, and so on. To me that thing was engineered solely to present Michelle as a good, old-fashioned, non-threatening, nice and good-looking lil'old home-maker. And so, I think, all of her appearances have been intended to come across.

Almost all moms say this. Most dads, too. But moms are more likely to make a big point of it. And in most cases, it's probably true.

On the other hand, how acceptable would it be for a mom -- or even a dad -- to say, "Well, my kids are very important to me, but my career comes first." Totally un. So whether the kids are top priority for any given individual -- and I'm sure there are people, men and women, for whom, secretly, this is not the case -- is almost beside the point. It's absolutely required that they say it, or at least that they not let on otherwise.



Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #5 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.

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.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2008, 01:00:06 pm »
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.

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.

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.

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.



Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2008, 01:14:39 pm »
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. 

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2008, 01:25:13 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.

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. 

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.



Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2008, 01:42:05 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.

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.
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.

YesYesYes! That was exactly what I was trying to say! Thank you.  :)


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2008, 01:51:35 pm »
Quote
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).
[/size]

This was due to the President's role as Commander in Chief.  There are a great many people who feel that only someone with experience in war/military - the more the better - would be a better commander, with the ability to understand what it's like to serve, have empathy for the suffering of soldiers and would receive the instant respect of our military forces.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2008, 01:55:59 pm »
Quote
From the Audacity of Hope.

Barack continues, "No matter how liberated I liked to see myself as -- no matter how much I told myself that Michelle and I were equal partners, and that her dreams and ambitions were as important as my own -- the fact was that when children showed up, it was Michelle and not I who was expected to make the necessary adjustments. Sure, I helped, but it was always on my terms, on my schedule. Meanwhile, she was the one who had to put her career on hold."

I am too tempted to prove that Brokeback Mountain is relevant to any situation. So in order to illustrate the above quote, I provide this image:




Seems far too little has changed from the mid-60's to this day, where married couples' relative priorities are concerned....


Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2008, 02:09:54 pm »

This was due to the President's role as Commander in Chief.  There are a great many people who feel that only someone with experience in war/military - the more the better - would be a better commander, with the ability to understand what it's like to serve, have empathy for the suffering of soldiers and would receive the instant respect of our military forces.

Thank you. Yes, of course. That is what we (well, at least I) just don't automatically remember - the importance of and pride in the armed forces in general US society. It's so very different over here, where the military forces and military issues just aren't important factors in elections and so forth - and where broad and general concensus (mostly) reigns. The military just isn't visible in the same way.

But, you know, the one thing I said before the campaigning started, was that I very much hoped McCain would be the Republican nominee - because I (naively) figured his stint as a POW would at least make him feel empathy with the poor unfortunate sods in US detention and make him put his foot firmly down where all kinds of torture were concerned. (Human rights is my Big Thing when it comes to politics.) Instead, he ended up not opposing the "enhanced interrogation methods" or whatever the euphemism for waterboarding and the like was. I couldn't believe it.
So whether he'd actually have had that expected empathy for the suffering of soldiers, well..... let's just say I'm glad it isn't going to be put to the test.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2008, 02:42:26 pm »
Quote
So whether he'd actually have had that expected empathy for the suffering of soldiers, well..... let's just say I'm glad it isn't going to be put to the test.

I'm sure he would have - but only our own soldiers, not anyone elses.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,587
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2008, 02:55:10 pm »
I am too tempted to prove that Brokeback Mountain is relevant to any situation. So in order to illustrate the above quote, I provide this image:




Seems far too little has changed from the mid-60's to this day, where married couples' relative priorities are concerned....


I love that scene and you´re right - it is still very relevent.

I hope that one day women can be more honest, also in public, about how they feel about many things.
I for one have never wanted children at all (it´s the stuff my nightmares consist of) and sometimes when telling people that, I definately see a reaction. That whole "every woman wants kids" mentality still lives on. But I dont get a reaction all the time so I think times are about to change.
But I think it´s important for women to stand up for what they truly think as well, and not always say what people expect to hear.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2008, 02:56:14 pm »
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 always found the downright hatred of her incomprehensible, too. However, I'll say this, despite the prevalence of appalling sexist comments and the like during the primary campaigns, my sense is that Clinton came out of that being far more respected and even genuinely liked than she had been. I think if she hadn't run for president, her being named as SOS might be greeted with a lot more, "What, HER?" instead of the seeming unanimous approval, setting aside concern over whether it's the best move for her career. She really showed her mettle as well as a more convincing warmth and humanity than she had before. I never disliked her, but I'll have to say that my impression of her was as rather more cold and distant -- unlike lovable people-guy Bill -- until I watched her last summer.

Quote
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.

It could be argued, and is, that they stay together for the sake of their careers. But I'm with you. I think their regard for each other (however it's expressed in private) is deep and genuine.
 
Quote
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).

I think on the one hand, his background as a POW has to be given its respect and due, especially by Democrats whose "respect for the troops" is always being questioned by the right.

But I think the one aspect of his POW experiences that truly justifies admiration for McCain is his choice to reject early release based on his family connections as long as his fellow inmates did not get the same opportunity. That really showed amazing, almost unfathomable, courage and character. How many of us, hypothetically being solitarily confined and tortured, can be sure we'd do the same? Whether those translate to presidential skills or not, it is genuinely impressive.

This was due to the President's role as Commander in Chief.  There are a great many people who feel that only someone with experience in war/military - the more the better - would be a better commander, with the ability to understand what it's like to serve, have empathy for the suffering of soldiers and would receive the instant respect of our military forces.

Plus, the fact that the U.S. has, for better or worse, assigned itself as World Police (yes, ostensibly for the sake of justice and political balance but often for the sake of our own interests) means our military looms much larger in national importance than it would in countries where governments and citizens do not see that as their role.

Seems far too little has changed from the mid-60's to this day, where married couples' relative priorities are concerned....

I think it has changed, but only halfway.

Excellent Brokie analogy!  :D  


Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2008, 05:56:08 pm »
However, I'll say this, despite the prevalence of appalling sexist comments and the like during the primary campaigns, my sense is that Clinton came out of that being far more respected and even genuinely liked than she had been. I think if she hadn't run for president, her being named as SOS might be greeted with a lot more, "What, HER?" instead of the seeming unanimous approval.....

I think you are right, I have the exact same impression.  :)

And I think her solid campaign did help move competent women one step closer to breaching that ultimate glass ceiling.... She proved it could be done in real life, not just in theory. There, but for that immense force of nature named Barack Obama....  So in that sense, she succeeded - in a manner of speaking. And it was her own hard and diligent work that brought her there. She provides inspiration.  :)  I do believe Chelsea Clinton is serious and honest when she calls her mom her"hero".  :)

 
Quote
But I think the one aspect of his POW experiences that truly justifies admiration for McCain is his choice to reject early release based on his family connections as long as his fellow inmates did not get the same opportunity. That really showed amazing, almost unfathomable, courage and character.
I agree with that of course. But I wonder - should a man's character just be expected and assumed to remain the same over all the decades thereafter? And if so, shouldn't he also be expected to act according to that character and not against it?  He went against it IMO when going a long way towards accepting that the US use the same methods that he himself was subjected to. Is that honourable? Shouldn't he have considerable empathy for the men who haven't been given the opportunity to prove their innocence or indeed (like himself) to go home, - men held in US confinement under harsh and uncertaing conditions for years and years? Rhetorical questions, these. There are no answers that all can agree to - but I know *my* answers.

Quote
How many of us, hypothetically being solitarily confined and tortured, can be sure we'd do the same?

I am 99% sure I wouldn't have done the same. I'd probably have jumped at all and any chance of going home. And if tortured, I'm sure I'd break down and confess to plotting to kill Ceasar, participating in orgies with the Devil on Mt. Brocken, being the world leader of the Resistance during WWII and any other story I could think of or was asked to confirm and embellish. I have no illusions whatsoever on that score. And I think most people are like me, honestly.

Quite apart from the moral side of it, this is what George Bush & Co. do not seem smart enough to get - the confessions are worthless and cannot be trusted.  Torture  only have disadvantages, unless you're an oppressor out to intimidate and frighten a populace. And that's not the USA, of course...... It only gives opponents around the world an excuse to treat US soldiers the same way, with abandon. Yes, nothing but disadvantages, plus that pesky moral deficit it creates. All this is what I hope and trust Obama and Clinton both will be intelligent enough to see....

And from what Obama has said so far, he's in line with my view.

*fingers firmly crossed*

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2008, 07:44:36 pm »
But I wonder - should a man's character just be expected and assumed to remain the same over all the decades thereafter?

In fact, from what many people have said who knew more about McCain than I did, McCain's character changed pretty drastically in a matter of a few years, between the last time he ran for president and lost, and the desperate days of this campaign.


Quote
And if so, shouldn't he also be expected to act according to that character and not against it?  He went against it IMO when going a long way towards accepting that the US use the same methods that he himself was subjected to. Is that honourable? Shouldn't he have considerable empathy for the men who haven't been given the opportunity to prove their innocence or indeed (like himself) to go home, - men held in US confinement under harsh and uncertaing conditions for years and years? Rhetorical questions, these. There are no answers that all can agree to - but I know *my* answers.

You are right, of course. Part of the explanation for McCain is that I just assume he says much of what he says for the sake of getting votes. Not that that's an honorable reason, just the reality. I think many Americans are cynical enough about the election process to assume that there are certain positions a politician must take, whether they support them or not, in order to be accepted by their base and have any chance to get elected. For instance, no politician can -- or at least, none has so far -- get elected if they're athiest, or in favor of strict gun control, or firmly against capital punishment, or unabashedly pro gay marriage. Hopefully some of those positions will change in the coming years, but at this point, note that even Obama does not advocate gay marriage or gun control, and he supports capital punishment. For conservative politicians, they must also be anti-abortion, and even more anti-gun control and anti-gay marriage, etc. 

I wonder ... do politicians in other countries routinely compromise their own values and pretend to conform to majority opinions in order to get elected? Not that Obama necessarily has done that; he might actually believe those things, but if he didn't I think he'd have to pretend to.
 

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2008, 08:42:23 pm »
You are right, of course. Part of the explanation for McCain is that I just assume he says much of what he says for the sake of getting votes. Not that that's an honorable reason, just the reality.

Yes, but he was the one man among the Republicans who could have stood up firmly against torture and unlawful incarceration and been respected for it. And yet...  :-\

Quote
note that even Obama does not advocate gay marriage or gun control, and he supports capital punishment.  
Yes, i know.  :( The whole gun control thing I see as an American cultural phenomenon (one more of those we foreigners struggle to wrap our minds around, constitutional amendment or no).  But the other... **sigh**  :-\  I don't think I've ever hid that some part of my support for him wasn't because of his political views, but because of the far worse and more inhumane ones of his opponents (plural).

Quote
I wonder ... do politicians in other countries routinely compromise their own values and pretend to conform to majority opinions in order to get elected?

Yes, I think they do - though I can only speak from my experience over here. But it's not so clear-cut. For one thing, we've got a long list of parties across the political specter, so it's much easier to find one that fits any politician's main views, there's not the choice of only two. And also on issues of a more "moral" outlook, there's a much more relaxed attitude. A number of government members, including AFAIK the prime minister, are atheists. Free health care and well-developed social security is accepted across the board. Abortion is accepted by all except one Christian conservative party, but this isn't a make-or-break issue for anyone's party allegiance (there are some anti-choice people in nearly every party).  Capital punishment isn't at all on the agenda, haven't been since WWII.  Gay (ie gender neutral) marriage was just voted into law, though there are those in parliament across a number of parties who opposed it.

No, I just can't see that we've got many of these huge issues that a politician cannot voice his or her actual view on for fear of not being elected. If the issue is that major for them, they'd rather change their party allegiance. That does happen on occasion.

I can think of one instance though where I truly believe the politician in question speaks against her personal conviction: The leader of our right-wing conservatives purportes to be opposed to gay marriage, and during the debates nattered on about the sanctity of marriage and kids' needs for a mother and a father etc etc. She's relatively young, urban, modern, liberal, single..... has gay friends - there's no way she really is opposed to gay marriage IMO. She just says so to placate her conservative voter base. It makes me think considerably less of her. But she also knew, as did we all, that the law would pass without her vote.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Salon's Rebecca Traister: The momification of Michelle Obama
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2008, 11:11:51 pm »
Yes, I think they do - though I can only speak from my experience over here. But it's not so clear-cut. For one thing, we've got a long list of parties across the political specter, so it's much easier to find one that fits any politician's main views, there's not the choice of only two. And also on issues of a more "moral" outlook, there's a much more relaxed attitude. A number of government members, including AFAIK the prime minister, are atheists. Free health care and well-developed social security is accepted across the board. Abortion is accepted by all except one Christian conservative party, but this isn't a make-or-break issue for anyone's party allegiance (there are some anti-choice people in nearly every party).  Capital punishment isn't at all on the agenda, haven't been since WWII.  Gay (ie gender neutral) marriage was just voted into law, though there are those in parliament across a number of parties who opposed it.

I think it'd be nice ... to avoid the fire and brimstone crowd.  :-\

I'm hoping that Obama will unveil a secret far-left agenda we've heard so much about that includes pro gun control, anti-capital punishment, pro gender-neutral marriage (I love this term, BTW!). Otherwise, all we can do is hope that Obama secretly subscribes to these things and will gently push the rest of the country into the 21st century.

At least, as you said, we have a better chance with Obama than we did with Bush or would have with McCain. And the excitement about Obama, despite his supposedly "far left" viewpoints, gives me hope.