Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:04 AM
Tue Nov 10
73 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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