Michelle Obama, feminism and the strong black woman

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

I’ve been following the media’s handling of race in its coverage of Barack Obama’s presidential bid very closely over the last few months. But right now I’m particularly riveted by the media coverage of his wife, Michelle Obama. Race, gender, and feminism are intersecting in fascinating ways. Here are some highlights.

As my fellow BlogHer Contributing Editor Laina Dawes wrote a few weeks back, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has criticized Michelle Obama’s light-hearted comments about her husband being “just a man” and not knowing how to put his socks in the laundry. Dowd felt that these remarks were “emasculating”:

Many people I talked to afterward found Michelle wondrous. But others worried that her chiding was emasculating, casting her husband - under fire for lacking experience - as an undisciplined child.

Just a few days ago, Michelle Obama resigned from her high-powered job as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals to focus on her husband’s presidential campaign.

Debra Dickerson, writing for Salon, declared that she is “in a feminist fury” about it:

Just as we watch curvy, healthy-looking singers and actresses like Lindsay Lohan become anorexic too-blonde hoochies before our very eyes, so we’re now in danger of having to watch the political version of that process: Any day now, Michelle Obama’s handlers will have her glued into one of those Sunday-go-to-meeting Baptist grandma crown hats while smiling vapidly for hours at a time. When, of course, she’s not staring moonstruck, à la Nancy Reagan, at her moon doggie god-husband who’s not one bit smarter than she is.

In response to Dickerson’s article, the new Gawker Media blog Jezebel (worst name ever, by the way) declared that Michelle’s “weird passive-aggressive comments” can only be explained by one thing: Barack obviously cheated on her:

…when Michelle Obama says stuff like “someday maybe he’ll deserve all the attention” or “he’s just a man” or calls him “the brother” even when she knows it makes the white folks uneasy is pretty simple: “The brother” fucked up! It wasn’t Gennifer or even Monica; it was probably just some one-night fling…

Mrs J, writing at Our Kind of Parenting, points out the Jezebel bloggers’ embarrassing cluelessness when it comes to African-American vernacular:

For the record, even if it makes white people uncomfortable, calling someone “the brother” (even if it is one’s husband) is not a diss. Especially when, in context, it is to say “The brother is smart”, as Mrs.O actually did recently (to an all black crowd)… This is a serious presidential candidate we’re talking about, ladies, not you’re effing ex-boyfriend. Save the cheap shots for someone else.

The Coup Magazine blog analyzes reactions to Michelle Obama in relation to the “Strong Black Woman (SBW) syndrome” and points out that Michelle is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t:

She can’t be funny. She probably shouldn’t work. After all, if she wants to counter the SBW stereotype and make her husband appear to be in charge, she cannot have a career. But when she quits her job, her motivation and commitment are called into question, and she risks losing credibility in the eyes of feminists. She can never have a hair out of place, appear aggressive, or ever be shown working out (one of her favorite activities), lest she characterized by someone as a “nappy headed ho.” In light of this constant and very public criticism, Michelle Obama can never quite be herself without being stereotyped as the aforementioned SBWa categorization that could potentially destroy her husband’s presidential campaign.

And finally, Malena Amusa, writing for Racewire, suggests that Michelle is integral to Barack Obama’s racial authenticity:

Her presentation is a well-engineered counter to Barack’s Black masculinity that has been attacked for being diluted. Michelle proves Barack’s Black authenticity by her being so home-grown, down-home, and straight-up on the issues. Further, if Barack had said some of the things Michelle has, he’d be lumped under the Black nationalist umbrella held up by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, and so many white people probably wouldn’t like him as much.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. » Michelle, my belle on 31 May 2007 at 4:03 pm

    […] and Maureen Dowd’s syndicated op-ed piece, reproduced here from the San Jose Mercury News. Racialicious also has a great post outlining the Dickerson and Dowd articles (amongst others). It’s […]

Comments

  1. marisa wrote:

    This was a solid survey of the issue. Thank you!

  2. dnA wrote:

    There is no question but that Michelle strengthens Obama’s racial authenticity. If he had been married to a white woman he would never have been a possibility as a candidate.

    I have to emphasize, though, that I think racial authenticity is more important to whites than blacks.

  3. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    > I have to emphasize, though, that I think racial authenticity is more important to whites than blacks.

    dnA - interesting. How so?

  4. Alex Hammer wrote:

    Barack Obama Wiki!
    http://candidatesforpresident2008.wetpaint.com/page/Barack+Obama

  5. Anna wrote:

    I agree with dnA, I think the white media is testing to see if Barack is “black enough” but not “too black” and using these curious columns and articles about Michelle to indirectly see how far they can go with it.

    I also think members of the national political media, after what happened to their good friend Imus, are chicken about criticizing Barack for much of anything. If they came up with a negative meme as they always do with candidates(Edwards=pretty boy, H. Clinton=cold hearted b-h, McCain=too old), it could backfire and no individual wants to be called out as the racist. When they’ve tried out “he’s too soft” or “doesn’t have a _____ policy” Obama has been very deft at turning it back, keeping it from sticking.

    So analyzing Michelle’s performance as a wife, mother, feminist, public figure, etc seems safer, no one was ever fired for holding women to impossible, hypocritical standards. Well, except Republican wives, we’ve learned more about Michelle Obama in the past month than we will ever know about Laura Bush.

  6. brad wrote:

    Dowd, Dickerson, and Jezebel are disgusting. Dickerson and Dowd are moderate Republicans. Dowd had a field day attacking Gore in 2000 and now she’s trying to score points by attacking Obama and his wife.

    Why is it so wrong for a wife to make a joke about her husband? Frankly, joking about a man putting a sock away is hardly emasculating.

    As for Ms. Obama quitting her job to help her husband campaign, big frickin’ deal. Did Dowd attack Maria Shriver for quitting her day job?

    I also agree with the this whole “authenticity” crap being nothing more an issue for many white journalists than for African Americans. Come on. Both Thurgood Marshall and Adam Clayton Powell looked more “white” than Obama .

    Jeez, many of the most famous “black” leaders were mixed-race, first generation, like Obama.

  7. dnA wrote:

    I think that white people require assurance that a black person is really “black” as they understand blackness before they will give their approval.

    Obama is alot of white folks “first black friend”. You want your “first black friend” to be “really black” don’t you?

    In any case, I think the media always focuses on their priorities, not ours– so I think its safe to say the agonizing over Obama’s racial authenticity has come mostly from white folks., since they don’t pay any attention to our stuff most of the time, why would they start with this? I agree with Anna.

  8. rikyrah wrote:

    This is a good summary of the Michelle ‘issue’. I think she’s one of his biggest assets.

  9. Ric Caric wrote:

    The media might be experimenting with using Michelle Obama as a way to shoehorn Barack Obama into a couple of their favorite boxes.

    A favorite media tactic is to portray Democratics as personally repugnant (Gore, Kerry) and Republicans as regular guys, charmers, or Reaganesque. Typing Michelle Obama as vaguely repugnant (as was Teresa Heinz Kerry) might be a way to get that done with Barack Obama despite his charisma.

    The media also likes their Democrats “weak.” Worrying about Michelle Obama being “too strong,” “emasculating,” or a “strong black woman” type is one way to indirectly portray Barack Obama as emasculated and unmanly.

    But it’s also important to emphasize that the Barack and Hillary candidacies are throwing the media off their game. I don’t think they don’t quite know what to do with either of them. So they’re experimenting with this theme or that theme without definitively landing on any of them.

  10. Anna wrote:

    See this morning’s(6/1) NYTimes article (on the front of the website) about Barack’s basketball skills, for all the evidence you need that the white media is obsessed with his black authenticity.
    As a white person, I’m so relieved he can play basketball!(kidding)

  11. April wrote:

    I think everyone in this country is astounded that Michelle is who she is. It’s funny how people just can’t leave her alone, and look at her merit. Good grief. I find that all this shit is extremely disgusting, because it is quite misogynistic and racist in nature to presuppose a mammy stereotype to Michelle like this — it does a disservice to her integrity and honesty.

  12. styleosophy wrote:

    Excellent survey….all the different opinions, good and bad, indifferent or not….you cannot, ever please everyone.

  13. Leona Ellsworth wrote:

    So, I’m just curious…Regan, Bush I and II, Carter, Clinton, Washington, Johnson etc. did not have to “prove” their whiteness…so why should Obama have to prove his “blackness?”

    And why are whites considered as “individuals” (having unique qualities, hair, face, skin tone) and blacks (first of all called “black” when we are actually brown and don’t tell me about the black power movement because we turned the negative “black” into the positive “empowerment”) are either catagorized as athletes, mammies, pimps, and lawbreakers (forgive me if I don’t mention other negative stereotypes of the “black” characteristic)?

    Is America ready for a black president? NO! And why would we be when we can’t seem to get past “blackness” in America and all it seems to represent?

    Blacks in America have become the “invisible race, so why would we think Americans are suddenly going to take of their “black blindfold” and allow a “black” man to govern us?

    Americans can barely stand to walk down the same supermarket isle without fearing their “safety” so why would we place one of “those” in the biggest position of authority in America?

    So, yeah…when I see stories trying to “dehumanize” Obama and his wife I am not at all surprise. It is to be expected.

  14. Zack Young wrote:

    This is a good survey of M. Obama.

    I think there are some serious problems, however, with Debra Dickerson’s article. Number one, it starts out with the assumption that M. didn’t really make up her own mind when she decided to quit her job. From there, Dickerson makes her points. My opinion- As good as M’s work was/is, I think having a ‘over-achiever’ spouse getting into the White House is probably worth it- its also worth trusting M’s judgment. In this respect, Dickerson’s article represents a narrow form of feminism that gives preference [entitlement] to the rights of an individual woman over more immediate issues, like how cool it would be to have someone like Obama, and M, in the White House. Not only is Obama stronger than Hillary on the issue of domestic violence, but his politics are a better embodiment of feminist ideals. No doubt in large part thanks to M and two daughters. I really doubt M will go to sleep in the White House, get pretty and set a bad example for her daughters in the White House. Dickerson’s diss on the patriarchy seems better aimed at the structure of the office of the executive itself– do we elect a single leader or a man or woman who is not just an individual, but a leader through her life as wife, spouse and mother?

    The other two HUGE problems with Dickerson’s article are:

    1) Dickerson writes writes of feminism’s failure to engage Black women, when in fact Black women have been on the forefront of feminist theory and giving feminists, largely white women, a loving knock on the head for espousing reverse sexism and using racist assumptions. M would be good for raising awareness of feminist issues in the Black community, so will her husband– and all of us stand to benefit from a more engaged Black community.

    2) The number two problem with Dickerson’s article is that it comes up readily in Internet searches on M. One option, Give Dickerson the benefit of the doubt: Dickerson wants to push the discussion forward and push M to be more progressive. Lacking the benefit of the doubt, Dickerson’s piece reads like a political hit piece by the Hillary camp.

    In sum:
    Dickerson writes that Hillary has blazed a trail for working women, and then contrasts Hillary and M in ways that don’t really make sense. Hillary did take back seat to Bill, was a powerful lawyer in Arkansas and served on Wal Mart’s board, no small feats, but I don’t feel comfortable giving Hillary credit for blazing a trail for women. She certainly did blaze a trail for herself. This country seems ready for a woman president, but that is largely not attributable to Hillary.

    I plan to volunteer for Hillary in 08 if she beats Obama without the help of superdelegates or dirty tactics to take the original counts in Michigan and Florida. And I hope that I’ll be welcome there.

  15. Robert Lewis wrote:

    The

    http://webofdeception.com/theobamaoptions.html

    says Michelle used her free office space at the University of Chicago Hospital to run her business and do outside stock options.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.