Michelle Obama is a big BLACK woman who doesn't apologize for what she is. The world isn't used to that. The stereotypes about black women, their appearance and their sexuality were created so that white men could feel better about raping them and white women could feel better about the fact that their husbands were rapists. What freaks the white world out so much is that Michelle Obama can't be dismissed as a Mammy or a Jezebel. She owns herself so her looks aren't accessible to the average Joe. Her husband is the only one who is allowed that privilege. Barack Obama, against the usual trend (I'm looking at you Clarence, Sidney, Harry, Quincy etc, etc) married a very black woman. He can't be attacked for racial insecurity because his choice says everything.
Michelle is a big, beautiful, BLACK woman. Deal with it.
She's young, attractive and famous - the only diff. btwn her and Jackie Kennedy is the prevalence of media and its inclination to be less fawning these days.
Really, nothing's changed - women always have been and always will be noted for their appearance.
There is the argument that ZOMG SCREAMER HEADLINES -- like, for example, the one on this article -- would tend to exacerbate the reportage's tendency, as opposed to alleviate it.
That's enough Erin Aubry Kaplan. Write an article about a woman's ass, shame on you. Write a second article, this time about her hair, shame on the therapist that hasn't helped you work out your fixation in a more constructive way.
This is interesting. Michelle's sartorial choices project a type of femininity not reserved to black women while at the same time, her tall stature, her strong defined arms and confidence complies with what we associate with black femininity.
The feminine ideal has always had white women as it's embodiment. For Michelle to have both a strong presence and also be seen as feminine is what exacerbates the fascination/obsession with her body and she adorns it with.
"Saartjie (pronounced "Saar-key," meaning "little Sara") might not even be the name she was born with, calling the -tjie diminutive suffix a "racist speech act."
I'm Dutch and the K sound in there doesn't add up (Saar-tjuh sounds more plausible)
As for the diminutive, it is used for all women and underage boys, so I would call it a sexist speech act.
@Kali Mama: I don't know how it is in Dutch, but the Spanish equivalent of "-ita" added to the end of a name to denote "little" is similar. I would agree, that more than anything it is somewhat sexist to do that to a grown woman's name, but it is also used as a term of affection (ie. Evita, little Eva) or what have you. It is done to little boys too, and between couples sometimes the woman will say that to her signifcant other, though I think that is less common. It doesn't have anything to do with race. I suppose if a white man uses the diminuitive with a darker man it would be racist, but that is not the primary way the diminuitive is used, for sure.
I think the picking apart of Michelle Obama's appearance is ridiculous, but I also know that for a lot of black woman (including myself), the fact that Michelle Obama - First Lady, style icon, listed as one of People's Most Beautiful - is also darkskinned and has some booty (sorry for being crass!) reflects our own complex relationship with our bodies. Those are physical characteristics not traditionally thought of as beautiful. Visiting my parents last summer, my dad told me he thought Michelle Obama was beautiful and that I should dress like her because we have a similar body type. We don't actually look alike, but you couldn't wipe the smile off my face. Imagine that! Me and Michelle = beautiful! This is of course a lot of projection and perhaps unfair to a woman who's accomplishments are more than the sum of her body parts, but I'm not sure if it's inherently negative.
@ShanaElmsford: I definitely see your point, but that doesn't explain the interest from, say LARRY KING on Michelle's body. It's not like the other first ladies have been conventional bombshells either, realizing of course that the fact that Michelle is black makes it empowering on another level.
@J.D.Regent: I should clarify that I was mostly addressing the articles written by Erin Aubry and other women of color. I can see where they're coming from since I'm guilty of this type of projection myself. But yes, Larry King talking about her body is disturbing and I don't know what good can come of it.
@ShanaElmsford: Without putting too much pressure on you I'm interested in what you think of this comment, from the front page?
" What interests me about this is that, in my limited exposure, a lot of the more pointed commentary is by black writers (the two Salon pieces above, Michael Eric Dyson praising Michelle's ass on TV) talking about her appearance in a celebratory fashion, as in, 'finally, a black female with a black female body type is in a position of national prominence.'
Which is completely understandable given the cultural significance involved, but it also seems to be a form of the malleability that the author above describes; wherein the First Lady is seen as more of an ambassador for black-female physical characteristics than as a total and distinct personality. I wonder if there's any ambivalence on Michelle's part over having that mantle placed on her. "
@ShanaElmsford: I agree with this. And frankly, I'm offended that someone would compare Michelle Obama's treatment in the media with the Venus Hottentot. It's a callous and lazy association. After decades of denigrating black female beauty - and I'm talking about regular phenotypically black women, not biracial or ambiguously ethnic, pan-ethnic, Beyonce, Paula Patton look-alikes - FINALLY M. Obama emerges as an attainable style icon and more importantly, as an accomplished intelligent woman. Didn't Jezebel just post an article about how women in India and other countries are influenced by the fact that she is both brown-skinned and considered beautiful and the fact that she is her husband's intellectual and career equal?
Honestly, people are just looking for things to bitch about. Besides from the Dyson commenting on her ass I feel like the focus on her looks is respectful and certainly no more out of hand than Jackie O., Carla Bruni or Hilary Clinton (though in a negative way here)
@J.D.Regent: Once again, I think the reason black writers have approached Michelle Obama in this way is more of a reflection of their own issues with their bodies. As much as I was embarrased reading it, I liked Aubry's article about Michelle's hair because at the time I was deciding whether or not I should go "natural" and stop relaxing my hair. Notice that article isn't about Michelle at all, but about Erin. Dyson complimenting Michelle's ass isn't about Michelle, but about HIS joy of having a first lady he's attracted to. Obviously this is obnoxious and a bit sexist. It also isn't fair to her. I would love to know what she thought about these articles/statements.
Also, the fact that Michelle is also very confident about her physical appearance is not just confusing to black women, but everyone. I wonder if people don't read that confidence as permission to disect her the way we have??
@ShanaElmsford: that's a really good point that the black writers commenting on Michelle are really talking about themselves... that differentiates it from the white male media establishment's othering, voyeuristic sort of gaze and discourse.
I wish I could remember the article I was reading the other day...it was about Michelle's PR strategy. We talk about her clothes, and what she is like as a mother, because that is what she wants us to talk about. By building up a positive image, she'll gain more acceptance later when she begins working on policies. That was the jist of the article, anyway.
I believe we're paying attention to her because not only is she smart, but she is young and beautiful. When is the last time we've had such a first lady, or such a young first family? Quite a while, which is why we're all so enchanted.
The Obamas are the equivalent of American royalty, so we're a bit obsessed with them. Laura Bush has a relatively boring, very private image. Michelle is more dynamic and open attracting more attention. I think that this attention says a lot in general about how we perceive women and older women.
While the media is being boorish in regards to Obamas race, the comparison with Saartjie feels very unnatural. Saartjie was ripped from her home and paraded naked around Europe in the most dehumanizing manner. We may be focusing our Michelle's physical presence too much, but it is just not in any real way the same. How "other" can she be when she has a whole closet of J. Crew?
Also, Hillary was attacked for having aggressive highlights back in the day. The conservatives pick on Democratic wives, and we all obsess over every First Lady. Obama's race adds a new layer to this, but it isn't a wholly new concept.
@acookieaday: Agreed. It's a sad fact that women's appearances come under very close public scrutiny and their intellectual achievements tend to be overlooked. But, with the handful of notable exceptions reported in this piece, most of what I hear about Michelle Obama is highly complimentary. She's continually compared to Jacqueline Kennedy and her clothes are admired and tend to sell out once she's been photographed in them. I think she's getting more attention than, say, Laura Bush, because she's more beautiful and charismatic. I don't see something peculiarly sinister afoot here.
@PhillyLass: Ugh! I really don't want this to devolve into a "we have to lead the befuddled White people into contextual understanding" conversation.
However, I have to point out - the tenor of those "highly complimentary" remarks is frequently surprised. And that's the insulting part.
Would there really be a link on AOL to a blog noting Hilary Clinton's $400 footwear? No, but the fact that Michelle wears pricey kicks to volunteer at a food pantry makes news. That story would inspire less racial paranoia in me if they had surveyed the other governmental spouses there and tallied up the cost of their footwear.
This is an interesting comparison. I tend to think that it may not hold up well, on the whole, because the dissection of Sarah Bartmann's appearance seems to be to be more explicitly linked to her racial/ethnic 'otherness' than her femaleness.
While I think there are racial undertones to Michelle Obama's treatment, as pointed out by the author, I also think that dissection based on physical appearance is a sad fact of how women are treated by American society in general. I haven't been following the Michelle Obama coverage very closely, but the analysis that I've heard seems to be very much in the vein of discussion about other female figures (Hillary Clinton's laugh, pantsuits, and refusal to bake cookies come to mind, as does Lindsay Lohan's weight).
@thegogglesdonothing: it's true but as I mention upthread I am less disturbed by talk about her wardrobe than talk about her body. I don't think there is anything like this toward any other female political figure, nor about any other first lady in the past, which makes me think it is more about her race, or in particular her gendered race.
Her approval rating is higher than her husband's. Conversations about her inevitably focus on her appearance and her sartorial choices. Unlike her husband, she is not making government-altering decisions. I think it's easier to approve of someone like that. Her power is relatively minimal.
05/01/09
Michelle is a big, beautiful, BLACK woman. Deal with it.
05/01/09
I want that bee pin.
05/01/09
Really, nothing's changed - women always have been and always will be noted for their appearance.
Get over it.
05/01/09
05/01/09
Well.
There is the argument that ZOMG SCREAMER HEADLINES -- like, for example, the one on this article -- would tend to exacerbate the reportage's tendency, as opposed to alleviate it.
But it's Friday.
So perhaps the argument can wait.
05/01/09
05/01/09
The feminine ideal has always had white women as it's embodiment. For Michelle to have both a strong presence and also be seen as feminine is what exacerbates the fascination/obsession with her body and she adorns it with.
05/01/09
I refused, telling the boys in the newsroom it was a sexist story.
I also told them Maxim was trashy magazine, and that at least Playboy has good fiction.
This is why I continue to be a freelancer.
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
I'm Dutch and the K sound in there doesn't add up (Saar-tjuh sounds more plausible)
As for the diminutive, it is used for all women and underage boys, so I would call it a sexist speech act.
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
" What interests me about this is that, in my limited exposure, a lot of the more pointed commentary is by black writers (the two Salon pieces above, Michael Eric Dyson praising Michelle's ass on TV) talking about her appearance in a celebratory fashion, as in, 'finally, a black female with a black female body type is in a position of national prominence.'
Which is completely understandable given the cultural significance involved, but it also seems to be a form of the malleability that the author above describes; wherein the First Lady is seen as more of an ambassador for black-female physical characteristics than as a total and distinct personality. I wonder if there's any ambivalence on Michelle's part over having that mantle placed on her. "
05/01/09
Honestly, people are just looking for things to bitch about. Besides from the Dyson commenting on her ass I feel like the focus on her looks is respectful and certainly no more out of hand than Jackie O., Carla Bruni or Hilary Clinton (though in a negative way here)
05/01/09
Also, the fact that Michelle is also very confident about her physical appearance is not just confusing to black women, but everyone. I wonder if people don't read that confidence as permission to disect her the way we have??
05/01/09
05/01/09
Fuck I hate people.
05/01/09
05/01/09
"Her remains were repatriated to her land of birth, the Gamtoos Valley, on 6 May 2002"
05/01/09
05/01/09
I believe we're paying attention to her because not only is she smart, but she is young and beautiful. When is the last time we've had such a first lady, or such a young first family? Quite a while, which is why we're all so enchanted.
05/01/09
05/01/09
While the media is being boorish in regards to Obamas race, the comparison with Saartjie feels very unnatural. Saartjie was ripped from her home and paraded naked around Europe in the most dehumanizing manner. We may be focusing our Michelle's physical presence too much, but it is just not in any real way the same. How "other" can she be when she has a whole closet of J. Crew?
Also, Hillary was attacked for having aggressive highlights back in the day. The conservatives pick on Democratic wives, and we all obsess over every First Lady. Obama's race adds a new layer to this, but it isn't a wholly new concept.
05/01/09
05/01/09
However, I have to point out - the tenor of those "highly complimentary" remarks is frequently surprised. And that's the insulting part.
Would there really be a link on AOL to a blog noting Hilary Clinton's $400 footwear? No, but the fact that Michelle wears pricey kicks to volunteer at a food pantry makes news. That story would inspire less racial paranoia in me if they had surveyed the other governmental spouses there and tallied up the cost of their footwear.
05/01/09
And, if Clinton had ever shone even a passing interest in fashion and spent $400 on shoes, you can bet the press would cover it. Consider this:
[www.huffingtonpost.com]
or this:
[sarahpalinshoes.com]
or this:
[www.latimes.com]
The common denominator here is not race. It's gender.
05/01/09
05/01/09
While I think there are racial undertones to Michelle Obama's treatment, as pointed out by the author, I also think that dissection based on physical appearance is a sad fact of how women are treated by American society in general. I haven't been following the Michelle Obama coverage very closely, but the analysis that I've heard seems to be very much in the vein of discussion about other female figures (Hillary Clinton's laugh, pantsuits, and refusal to bake cookies come to mind, as does Lindsay Lohan's weight).
05/01/09
05/01/09