Michelle Obama: Ain’t She a Woman?

by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published on What Tami Said


Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama (born January 17, 1964) is an American lawyer and the wife of Illinois senator Barack Obama, who is a candidate for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for U.S. President. She was born and grew up on the South Side of Chicago and then educated at Princeton University and Harvard Law School. After completing her formal education, she returned to Chicago and went to work for the law firm Sidley Austin, on the staff of the Mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley, and for the University of Chicago and the University of Chicago Hospitals. She is the sister of Craig Robinson, men’s basketball coach at Oregon State University. Read more

I admire Michelle Obama. By all reliable accounts, she is smart, accomplished and an equal partner in her marriage to a high-profile, powerful man. Obama is not overshadowed by her husband. He complements her, and she him. In many ways, she reminds me of another First-Spouse-to-be that I once admired: Hillary Clinton. And just like Clinton back in 1992, Michelle Obama is being demonized for not being a cipher that stands quietly by her man, enraptured by his power and prowess.

Kathy G. at The G Spot blog nailed it when she wrote about a recent Michelle Obama hit piece written by Christopher Hitchens for Slate:

The Hitchens piece, contemptible piece o’ shite though it is, a surefire sign that, now that it’s clear Hillary’s presidential campaign is all but over, the right is proceeding apace with its attempt to Hillary-ize Michelle Obama. We have, of course, all heard about how “unpatriotic” she is. Maureen Dowd has already cattily attacked her for not being sufficiently deferential to her husband. And now we’re being treated to Hitchens’ exegesis of how her college term papers prove she’s really Stokely Carmichael in drag. Delightful! But hey . . . radical, unfeminine, unpatriotic — remind you of any other right-wing caricatures of a certain prominent Democratic woman with a famous husband? Read more…

I was barely out of college at the dawn of the Clinton years, but I still knew what the deal was when conservatives, and even some Democrats, poked at Clinton for using her maiden name or for “not staying home and baking cookies.” For all our talk of progress, America likes our First Ladies (Can we find a less antiquated term?) decidedly NOT like Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton or Theresa Heinz Kerry or Dr. Judy Dean or their foremother Eleanor Roosevelt. These women are too multi-dimensional, too fully formed, too autonomous.

Every feminist, womanist or unlabeled supporter of equal rights knew why, when Hillary Clinton entered the Democratic presidential primary as a frontrunner, there were still those with an irrational dislike for her…why some men and women unabashedly called her a bitch and cable TV talking heads like Chris Matthews gleefully attacked her for her “shrillness” and pantsuits. We all knew what that was about. And throughout the primary season, feminist Web sites, columnists and female supporters have derided the sexism aimed at Hillary Clinton. While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, while I think that some of her supporters’ cries of sexism have been completely spurious, and while I vehemently disagree with the notion that Hillary Clinton lost the nomination because of sexism, I CANNOT deny the ingrained sexism that has been a part of this campaign cycle. Women are right to be vocal about the ways our gender has been denigrated. But I wonder, where is the feminist support for Michelle Obama? I mean, ain’t she a woman?
The mainstream feminist blogosphere has been largely silent on an issue that is spreading through the black blogosphere like wildfire. This image…

…which was initially posted last week on the progressive site Daily Kos and has now spread through the rightosphere, has struck many black women as blatantly offensive. To be fair, the image initially accompanied a post about the modern Southern Strategy and how it is being used against Barack Obama. The social criticism of racism by the author, a poster called One Citizen, was good, but the inflammatory image injected into the discussion a disturbing aspect of woman in peril sexuality. Here you have Michelle Obama, bound, submissive and strangely sexualized in a backless, clinging red dress intersected with themes of racial violence. Black female bloggers raised a ruckus, but many of our allies have been noticeably silent, and if possible, the groups that have been most vocal about sexism against Hillary Clinton have been worse than silent on this and other incidents of sexism aimed at the presumptive Democratic nominee’s wife.

Michelle Obama seems not to inspire the fealty among mainstream women that Hillary Clinton does. Over at the blog Hillary is 44, which has very vocal about suspected sexism directed at the first viable female candidate for president, a screed was recently posted entitled “God damn Michelle Obama.”

When we read that Barack Obama demands that Josephine Michelle Obama – daughter and soldier of the Chicago thug machine is “off limits” to attacks – we knew we would have to respond.

We knew we needed to respond. We knew we needed to respond in language that Barack and Michelle would understand. Therefore we chose the language of their church and of their pastor. We chose the language Barack and Michelle exposed their daughters to for years. God Damn Michelle Obama.

Jake Tapper noted that Obama and the Democratic? National Committee have been consistently attacking Cindy McCain.

    Michelle Obama is being attacked, recall, for comments she made from a stage while campaigning for her husband. Should the Democrats “lay off” Mrs. McCain as well, to use Obama’s words? Is it “low class” to go after Cindy McCain on the tax issue?

Obama wants his lantern jawed wife to be “off-limits”. Michelle apparently is the only spouse to get such special treatment. It was Michelle of course that debased herself by trying to dredge past right-wing attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was the Obama campaign that circulated anonymous memos attacking spouse Bill Clinton.

Lantern-jawed? It is sooo feminist to attack a woman based on her appearance. It’s a safe bet that the proud women at Hillary is 44 won’t be speaking out about how press, pundits and even some progressive bloggers have painted Michelle Obama as the stereotypical domineering black woman–a two-fer sexist and racist label.

Maureen Dowd accused Obama of being “emasculating” for daring to gently tease the possible future president of the United States on the stump. Dowd says she loves cocky guys and cheeky gals in old 40s films. Michelle and Barack–not so much. She relates the experience of attending an Obama fund-raiser where Michelle Obama mentioned her husband’s helplessness at domestic duties like putting the butter away.

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. Read more…

And MSNBC smarmily reports this incident:

At a May ice cream social in New Hampshire, Michelle Obama stood on what seemed to be a figurative and literal pedestal to introduce her husband. “I’m the better looking one. I’m smarter, too,” she said.

As the crowd laughed, her husband nodded, offered a half-smile, and looked down, rocking his body as if waiting for his wife’s latest ego-knockdown to end. When she finished, there was an awkward half-hug and kiss embrace, with neither spouse seeming to know how to interact with the other. Read more…

What a domineering she-wolf! Michelle Obama should stay in her place and show proper deference to her husband, shouldn’t she?

And of course there is the militant, loud-mouthed Michelle meme that some have embraced–The woman who dared give voice to the feelings many black people have about America, and wrote a thesis in graduate school about the alienation black students at majority white universities often feel. For these things, she is vilified, while her charming, affable husband is embraced. Hmmmm…where have we seen this scenario play out before?

The most recent issue of TIME magazine reports on Barack Obama’s warning to opponents to lay off his wife:

Such pushback may have been an act of chivalry in the face of talk-radio furies and bloggers attacking, as one commenter did, “the bitter, anti-American, ungrateful, rude, crude, ghetto, angry Michelle Obama.” But it also may signal that as attention turns to the general campaign, Michelle could be a liability as well as an asset. Her speeches can sound stark and stern compared with her husband’s roof raisers. He’s all about the promise; she’s more about the problem. It’s not just that she says times are hard and “we’re not where we need to be”; with that, the vast majority of the country agrees. She goes further, worrying out loud about the country’s lack of fairness, the corrosive cynicism of its citizens and how Americans “spend more time talking about what we can’t do, what won’t work, what can’t change” than about what is possible. “The challenges that we are really facing have very little to do with health care and all the practical things that people like to think about,” she told TIME. “At our core, it is how we see one another. That’s how it all starts for me.” So the test may be, in the weeks ahead, How will voters see her? And is her understanding of the state of our union one that they share? Read more…

So Barack Obama’s Ivy League-educated, accomplished, outspoken wife–a woman who as First Lady could be a wonderful role model for the country, and certainly young women–may prove to be a liability to his campaign. Sixteen years ago, a similar woman became a liability. According to PBS’s Frontline:

JACKIE JUDD, ABC NEWS (VO): When Jerry Brown accused Bill Clinton, his facts may or may not have been right, but he sure hit a nerve. Overnight, Hillary Clinton became a campaign issue. And she hit another nerve the next day when she tried to answer the charge.

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.

JUDD (VO): Never mind that Clinton went on to say feminism means the right to choose work, or home, or both; the damage had been done. She’d been tagged an elitist and an ultra – feminist.

PATRICIA O’BRIEN, AUTHOR: There’s an entire new generation of candidates, so there is therefore an entire new generation of candidates’ wives. And they are not the traditional women people have been used to seeing on the campaign trail and in the White House, and they have – they come with different lives, their own lives. They are not necessarily formed by their husbands’ careers, and this is causing all sorts of problems.

JUDD (VO): Hadassah Lieberman, a career woman and wife of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, says Hillary Clinton, like most political wives, faces a no – win situation.

HADASSAH LIEBERMAN: When they say nothing, there’s a problem. When they say something, there’s an even greater problem. And it sort of – what it does is, it reinforces the notion that a political wife should just step into the background and don’t say anything that’s controversial.

Read more…

Rigid political double standards are bad for ALL women of ALL races, nationalities and classes. This is a problem that we can all get behind, no? No. It seems not. All I hear is crickets.

But then, it is clear that the feminist ideology of some women only extends as far as their favorite candidate. Witness Clinton supporter Sylvia Welsh on Huffington Post explaining why Barack Obama’s faithfulness to his wife makes him less of a man:

Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife. Does anyone doubt Obama’s fidelity? Now that it’s near certain he will be the Democratic nominee, I’ve been trying to sort out why I don’t think this is a good thing. It’s not that I’m pro-infidelity, mind you. As a psychologist who has seen many couples torn to pieces over it, I know how corrosive betrayal is to a relationship. Yet, Obama’s certain fidelity is somehow troubling me.

Now, to many of you on this site who have seen my postings before (and I want to thank you for the bodyguard I felt the need to hire), you know that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. Perhaps I was more drawn to her to begin with because of her fierceness. It made me feel safe knowing there’d be this big, strong bear of a Mother in the House protecting her children at all times, ever vigilant and ever ready to do whatever it took to keep us out of harm’s way. On the other hand, Obama’s monotonic calm admittedly kind of scares me. Maybe because he looks kind of scared himself, especially in Hillary’s presence.

Read more…

Welsh goes on to explain that Obama’s calm demeanor and commitment to his wife makes him a bit of a girly man–an unsexy girly man:

Obama seems to lack is what makes these powerful guys sexy: comfort with his aggression. He’s just not comfortable with all that macho, aggressive, puffed-up-chest-capable-of-surviving-torture-ready-to-do-battle-if-necessary kind of thing. In fact, Dowd’s characterization of him as a gazelle (to Clinton’s lioness) and her affectionately nicknaming him Obambi implies that even she doesn’t find him all that manly. Comparing her guy to a motherless baby deer must bring out Dowd’s frustrated maternal longing, else why on earth would she want Bambi for President?

Now there is some bold sexism for you. I suppose if Michelle Obama isn’t woman enough, maybe it is good that her husband is.

Mainstream feminists have been extremely vocal about the gender bias that has dogged Hillary Clinton since she appeared on the national stage. They rightly realized that sexism against the former First Lady and current Senator is just an example of the way society views ALL women. So, why are so many women standing silent, and worse, abetting the demonization of another woman of substance?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Somebody loan Michelle Obama an umbrella. An big one. « Ottermatic on 04 Jun 2008 at 9:57 am

    [...] has a preview today in a post by Tami from What Tami Said entitled Michelle Obama: Aint’ She a Woman? Michelle Obama seems not to inspire the fealty among mainstream women that Hillary Clinton does. [...]

  2. anthro.pophago.us snippets of media, anthropology, design, culture and politics. on 04 Jun 2008 at 11:04 am

    [...] Michelle Obama: Ain’t She a Woman? [...]

  3. anthro.pophago.us snippets of media, anthropology, design, culture and politics. on 04 Jun 2008 at 12:19 pm

    [...] Michelle Obama: Ain’t She a Woman? at Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop culture [...]

  4.   Reading for June 4th by ripples of hope on 04 Jun 2008 at 7:01 pm

    [...] Michelle Obama: Ain?t She a Woman? [...]

  5. partnership bump « miss bee’s grandbaby on 05 Jun 2008 at 10:11 am

    [...] critics are trying to turn Michelle into the next Hillary. But I rest assured that Michelle can handle the scrutiny. And I love it because Barack recognizes what he has in Michelle and he has her back as [...]

  6. The Sexist, Racist Demonization of Michelle Obama « Pizza Diavola on 06 Jun 2008 at 4:24 am

    [...] discussion of the it’s-already-started vilification of Michelle Obama. Discussions by Tami at Racialicious “Michelle Obama: Ain’t She a Woman?”. Recently, a dailyKos post on the Republicans’ Southern Strategy included this [...]

  7. Celebrity Pictures Xtra » Blog Archive » Michelle Obama Is Going To Be In For It [Sexism And The Election] on 17 Jun 2008 at 2:49 pm

    [...] One of my favorites thus far, was a post on the “Hillary is 44″ site, since removed but immortalized here, that called her “lantern-jawed,” because it’s so appropriate to mock a woman for [...]

  8. This one is hopefully gonna be short but… « thingzfal1apart on 11 Jul 2008 at 3:39 pm

    [...] who yell sexism but remain silent when the same type of filth is broadcast toward a different target. After all, don’t all women apply when talking about [...]

  9. A picture really is worth a thousand words, just ask… « thingzfal1apart on 14 Jul 2008 at 5:11 pm

    [...] not to add fuel to the fire, if you want to be mad at a magazine cover, I think this one or this one (scroll down to Southern Strategy) may be the more [...]

  10. The Loud Silence of Black Women « peacocks and lilies on 17 Jul 2008 at 10:51 am

    [...] this primary season, but for 16 long years? Yet women like Mary Curtis, or Kathy G. of G-Spot, or Tammy at Racialicious can now ask, without any sort of self-reflection, or acknowledgment of reality, [...]

  11. Do mom-bloggers care about anti racist parenting? | Unconventional Origins on 04 Mar 2009 at 11:13 am

    [...] This post at Racialicious about white feminists bloggers and their silence about the sexism towards Michelle Obama during the campaign season. Then check out this piece about how feminism in the blogosphere reflects the same race problems of feminism in general. [...]

Comments

  1. Mary wrote:

    Thank you for writing this. I expect sexism watchdog Geraldine Ferraro will be going on Fox News at any moment to back you up completely… oh, wait. :rolleyes:

    Seriously, I think the way people have gone after Michelle Obama is totally sick.

    In a way I think this shows how Obama’s international, mixed-race, “elitist” background has paradoxically provided him with a tiny bit of a shield – his background is unusual enough that people didn’t quite know how to stereotype him at first, which I think gave him an unexpected window of opportunity to speak for himself. (Not to minimize the racism and Islamophobia he does truly face – obviously there are people willing to stereotype him off the bat without caring what his background actually is.)

    With Michelle I feel like people are pinning all this “angry black lady” baggage on her. Like the tape where she supposedly says “whitey” – I have not seen this evidence anywhere – but I know people will believe she did it anyway because she’s a “regular” American black person and they’re all angry like that, right??? She is familiar enough to white America that she gets a familiar stereotype. Which absolutely blows my mind – what mother on earth would want her daughter to emulate Laura Bush instead of a successful, smart, critical thinker like Michelle Obama? Sadly, there are probably quite a few…

    If you were sickened by the sexism against Hillary Clinton – and I honestly do believe she has been the target of sexist attacks, whatever else you can say about her or her campaign – you can’t not be sickened when you see the same thing happening to Michelle Obama. I don’t read Maureen Dowd anymore, and that was just a good reminder why. She’s a spoiled brat who happens to have good prose.

    Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife.

    I have to disagree – I’m not familiar with any infidelity rumours that have “stuck” to George W. Bush, and lord knows that being questioned on toughness is the least of his problems. There were the odd rumours about W. and Condoleezza Rice, but even those were fairly lackluster by cheating-politician standards. And yes, I utterly chafe at comparing Obama to Bush in any way, but it’s true…

  2. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    Maureen Dowd is a terrible writer– overrated and overhyped. I dont’ ever understand anything she’s saying in her writings.

    Michelle Obama is badass, I love her. It’s hilarious and sad how the white male dominated media feels so threatened by a strong, independent assertive black woman.

  3. SarahMC wrote:

    Right on, Tami. This makes me sick.
    Most white bloggers fail to acknowledge patterns of behaviour that demonstrate white privilege.
    I think Melissa McEwan has addressed sexist/racist attacks against Michelle Obama, and I hope she continues to do so. I am confident she will have many opportunities in the months (and years?) to come. A few other prominent feminist bloggers (Jill Filipovic comes to mind) have briefly condemned racist attacks on Michelle, but I do hope that she and the others devote more time and offer more analysis now that the Obamas are center stage.

    People who think Hillary Clinton got the misogyny treatment just because she’s Hillary Clinton are in for a surprise.

  4. Caro wrote:

    I second the “thank you” for writing this. Now that media and political sexists won’t have HRC to pick on much longer, they’re going to switch to Michelle Obama, and quick. You make a great point that she will likely be portrayed in the same way that Hillary was in ‘92, except with the added “scary angry uppity black lady” angle.

  5. Slush wrote:

    Wow, this was very informative. I don’t know very much about Michelle Obama except I heard mostly good things about her in the abstract. I had no idea about any of this stuff.

    I’d like to think that all feminist bloggers will be objecting to this if they are aware of it happening… if that does not turn out to be the case then it is about the best case for pretty obscene racism in the feminist movement ever.

    And where did that horrific graphic with the facial parts labeled come from?

  6. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re “Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife.”

    Well, with the exception of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry, among others, in the last 40 years. All of whom were faithful to their wives, as far as we know.

    If you want to go further back, I believe John Adams, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln were among the presidents considered faithful to their wives. Rumors of affairs and mistresses have tarnished only some of our presidents, not all of them.

  7. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ Slush –

    Came from here:

    http://www.236.com/news/2008/02/14/is_america_ready_for_a_first_l_4440.php

  8. lowercase tasha wrote:

    Tami, we’ve been down this road before.

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/25/pimping-gets-you-suspended-lynching-gets-you

    How much concern for Hillary did the black blogisphere/press show when she was under attack as DNC nominee, Bill Clinton’s wife? How much concern did the black blogisphere show for the ingrained sexism against Hillary during the nomination race? You can’t say that the mainstream, feminist, blogisphere hasn’t gone out of its way to decry racism against Barack. Many, if not the majority of the most trafficked feminist sites, have been Obama’s biggest cheerleaders, and those sites defend Michelle too.

    I’ve seen some vile, sexist/racist avatars about Hillary similar to the one above, like “bros before ho’s,” “ho sit down,” this, that, and the other on popular black gossip sites, so why is this image of Michelle so much more inflammatory? Your saying that you first saw it on Daily Kos does not impress or surprise me in the least. When has Daily Kos ever missed an opportunity to elicit sympathy for the Obamas as victims? Why Is Maureen Dowd only deserving of a call-out when she’s criticizing Obama, or haven’t you noticed the multitude of swipes she’s taken at Hillary in op-ed’s, the sheer volume of which I KNOW outweigh and outnumber any controversial remarks she may have written about Michelle or her husband? I mean, I can’t even believe you went there. Don’t make me dig up some of Maureen’s greatest hits about Hillary Clinton.

    And once again, just like in the other thread, you conveniently neglected to include the controversial, sexist remarks that Michelle herself has said about HRC, as if she’s completely undeserving of any type of criticism. It hasn’t all been about Michelle only recently “being proud of her country.” As I recall, there were quite a few fun sound bites before that, like the one about not liking “Hillary’s tone,” and “you have to be to take care of your own house before you can take care of the white house” which was begging to be taken out of context, just like Hillary’s “cooking baking” remark, which was completely out of pocket.

    However wrong I am, I get the feeling that you think what’s going on with Michelle is somehow worse or will be as the worse than what Hillary endured as a DNC candidate’s wife , as the campaign progresses. If anything, Michelle is probably going to be spared the brunt of being parodied in political cartoons in mainstream magazines and song ballads because people will be afraid of being called racist.

  9. meownette wrote:

    @ Deaf Feminist Punk:
    Me too! Maureen Dowd is a total enigma to me. I usually have no idea what she’s talking about.

    I love Michelle Obama. Politically speaking, I think she’s a great asset for Barack to have, and she is so incredibly chic! My father predicted a few months ago that she will be his undoing in the media, though, that the media will rail so hard against her that something terrible will happen with regard to his campaign. I don’t find that hard to believe, based on the articles posted on this thread.

  10. Big Man wrote:

    Yeah because being afraid of being called a racist has been such a deterence so far in this campaign.

    I mean, nobody has been willing level racist attacks at Obama or play on racial animosity because their afraid of being attacked. It just hasn’t happened.

    Black people are just imagining things.

  11. G.D. wrote:

    SarahMC:

    “Most white bloggers fail to acknowledge patterns of behaviour that demonstrate white privilege.”

    You’re right. And I’m not to incite an argument, but, um…was this *another* SarahMC who said this on feministing the other day? :

    “Also, I wonder if anti-racist blogs are as invested in ending bigotry against women as feminist blogs are in ending bigotry against people of color.
    Half the people of color out there are men – men who don’t give a SHIT about women, even women of color. ”

    http://feministing.com/archives/009263.html

  12. SarahMC wrote:

    Nope, that was me. I would still like to see MEN of color devote time to feminist issues.

  13. Slush wrote:

    @GD

    I don’t know SarahMC, but it seems like a pretty legitimate role to question and challenge both sides of the discussion on their home turf, no?

  14. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ SarahMC –

    And are you the same SarahMC on yesterday’s Jezebel thread saying the Oppression Olympics only gets called on women talking about sexism?

    http://jezebel.com/5012821/anditsover#c6012055

    It’s a wide wide web, but it can get really small sometimes…

  15. juju wrote:

    “How much concern did the black blogisphere show for the ingrained sexism against Hillary during the nomination race? ”

    @lowercase tasha
    Good point. There does seem to be more concern shown in some circles for the sexism targeting MO then HRC. Perhaps it’s because MO is getting the double wammy of sexism coupled with racism. Well, that and the fact that at least some people believe that HRC deserves whatever she gets.

  16. juju wrote:

    “@ SarahMC –

    And are you the same SarahMC on yesterday’s Jezebel thread saying the Oppression Olympics only gets called on women talking about sexism? ”

    I recall responding to the same claim made in a thread over at Feministe. A small world indeed.

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/06/01/young-hillary-clinton/

  17. Wanderinglady wrote:

    Rob Schmidt wrote: “If you want to go further back, I believe John Adams, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln were among the presidents considered faithful to their wives. Rumors of affairs and mistresses have tarnished only some of our presidents, not all of them.”

    Just an observation: Is it a coincidence that Rob refers to three First Ladies who were well-educated, influential, controversial (in the case of Mary Todd Lincoln)? I suspect that if they lived today, they would be a lot like Michelle Obama.

  18. baltogeek wrote:

    lowercase tasha, you are right to question the black blogosphere’s response to the misogyny against Hillary Clinton.

    I think the reason you didn’t see more folks speak up is because she chose to run around with a fucking scumbag like this.

    Hillary’s brand of feminism excuses the exploitation of black and brown women.

    I’m done supporting people who won’t support me.

    Feminists only trot out that sisterhood noise when they want something.

  19. SarahMC wrote:

    I do object to phrases like “Oppression Olympics” because I only see it applied to one group when they highlight media hypocricy. I see it as a weapon used against women who would at least like society to PRETEND to respect them. Pretend respect is not really respect, but it sucks to realize that one’s peers don’t even feel the need to disguise their hatred.
    If I am not welcome here, I understand, and will stop commenting.

  20. Chica Dificil wrote:

    I’m in my mid-30’s and for the first time ever, there is a possibility of a ‘first wife’ in the White House who represents ME! I can actually relate to her as a strong, educated, empowered, community oriented WOMYN, wife, and mother with a wicked sense of humor. I can’t tell you how much it inspires me and will have a profound effect on countless other young women of color in this nation!!

    MICHELLE REPRESENTS ME!!!! You don’t have to like her but she deserves R-E-S-P-E-C-T for all she has accomplished in her life at all levels on her own individual talent and merit. She is no trust fund baby or heiress.

  21. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @SarahMC –

    Did you not see our thread on the Oppression Olympics here? Or the general use of it when other POCs try to rank and file oppression depending on when it’s useful. And did you miss the paper I linked to by Andrea Smith which outlined the pillars of white supremacy as a frame work with which to replace the Oppression Olympics? Or the ensuing conversation in that thread about why the term continues to be useful?

    As long as you are contributing to the conversation, you are more than welcome to comment here. But I just find it a bit interesting your message changes depending on the company you keep.

  22. Vodalus wrote:

    Wow, just… wow. That “image” needs a trigger warning. I cannot believe that a supposed ally created that and distributed it.

    I think this election has really demonstrated the gulf between Economy Democrats and Social Justice Democrats.

  23. SarahMC wrote:

    How has my message changed, Latoya? I abhor sexist/racist attacks on Michelle (Is there a word for the combined affect of sexism + racism?), and think they should be pointed out and loudly condemned.

    I do not think sexism is worse, morally, than racism. I don’t think sexism is more prevalent than racism. I recoginze that they manifest in different ways, and often work together. I realize that white people need to accept it when POC point out instances of covert racism, and have had my eyes opened to much of the bigotry that would otherwise have been invisible to my white eyes.
    Maybe I can’t get over how disgusted I’ve been with sexism in the media. Because it has personally hurt me, unlike the racism.

  24. juju wrote:

    @SarahMC
    “I do object to phrases like “Oppression Olympics” because I only see it applied to one group when they highlight media hypocricy. I see it as a weapon used against women who would at least like society to PRETEND to respect them. ”

    I object to this statement because I don’t believe it to be accurate. I have seen people called out, on this very blog and others, for claiming that African Americans, Mexican immigrants, GLBT, women (generally meaning white women), etc. have won the oppression olympics. I respect that you believe your statement to be accurate, but I disagree with you. My objection is to what I believe pits one group against another. I think statements like yours can do more harm than good.

    I’m sorry that it probably seem to you like you are being singled out when there are others, on all sides, making similar statements.

  25. SarahMC wrote:

    Juju, I do not feel “pitted” against any demographic other than white men, to be honest. But they seem to be the only group that’s not hurt when people play the O.O.
    Maybe because I only spend time on woman-centric (or at least woman-owned) blogs, I perceive things in a warped way.

  26. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @SarahMC –

    Juju expressed a great bit of what I wanted to say, but I do want to also add something.

    Saying things like OO is a weapon against women kind of is playing the oppression olympics. Why? Because you claimed that when women speak up, they are accused by other minorities groups as playing, but it never goes the other way.

    Which it does.

    Key example – see the Esther Ku post from a few days back. While I didn’t specifically use the term “oppression olympics” that was essentially what was going on. The idea that yes, other groups are still marginalized but no one says anything when it’s your group – that’s part of the oppression olympics. While you still may believe all the things you stated above, it’s still getting that last dig in – “but we can’t talk about it so it’s worse!”

    A lot of things dig at people personally, SarahMC. So I understand you taking the sexist bullshit personally and being angry at the inadequate response. But, I could do the same thing. Except now I’m angry because we can discuss sexism, but HRC folks tiptoe around the racism as if it isn’t happening, and continually bring up Obama’s speech on race as if he just decided clear out of the air to give one, instead of being forced into it, and I am really angry that I could try to discuss sexism but it has been made clear time and time again that the “women” are all white and the black man is getting over.

    And so forth.

    But, again, where does that leave us? Me talking about how I feel slighted doesn’t make you feel better. And vice versa.

    That’s why I do try to advocate that we discuss issues separately. I really hate when someone has a great argument, like Alvin did, and then ruins it by tossing in “but they wouldn’t do this to black people!” or “but this is so much more accepted, because wherever I go I see X action condemned!”

    Now, I should dedicate a post to more of the surrounding issues with oppression olympics – especially vis-a-vis racism and sexism. I really liked Andrea Smith’s point that a lot of groups want to co-opt the civil rights movement and point to the black struggle to strengthen their own movements, but do not stand in solidarity with blacks when something happens. (Hence, how far my hackles rise when I hear the phrase “you wouldn’t do it to black people!”)

    But we will get into that a little later.

  27. SarahMC wrote:

    “The idea that yes, other groups are still marginalized but no one says anything when it’s your group – that’s part of the oppression olympics.”

    I had never considered that. Thanks for pointing it out.

  28. lowercase tasha wrote:

    @Big Man

    When did I say that the Obamas weren’t subject to racist attacks? I never said that blacks were imagining things. Don’t put words in my mouth. Can you refer me to mainstream periodicals/publications that have been publishing unflattering cartoons of Michelle Obama? I don’t remember Hillary getting the cover of Newsweek after her “cookie” remark (of course I was in elementary school) the way Michelle did after her “patriotism” comments, when she got to tell her side of the story.

    @ baltogeek

    If Bob Johnson was in Obama’s camp, would you be saying the same? And also, I’m not trying to say that white feminists haven’t fallen short in including/championing black women. I’m not saying that at all, but you can’t just take the one example of this one photo and make a blanket statement about the entire feminist blogisphere not sticking up for Michelle, especially when so many of the popular sites have been pro-Obama. When Rush made his lynch comments, the white feminist blogs covered it. Lots of bandwith has been devoted to Michelle on those blogs, far more than Cindy McCain, and why do you think that is? Most likely because most of the popular white feminist blogs are left leaning, and Michelle would take priority because she’s Barack’s wife, right? Well, if so, then wouldn’t it make sense that those same blogs would prioritize Hillary, not because she’s white, but because, she’s the one actually running for President and not Michelle?

    And can I just say, Ga-el Mon-Fils, snitches! Gael Monfils! 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 6-1 Next stop, on the Monfils derailment tour, the Fed-Express! He’s coming for you, Roger. He’s coming!

  29. Jen* wrote:

    I had no idea about that awful racist image from Daily Kos. Frankly, I can’t imagine how anyone could come up with that, unless they had no aversion to those kinds of images in the beginning.

    I’ve actually been trying to bury my head in the sand as much as possible, since I’m past fatigue in this whole election cycle. I wish we could all just vote tomorrow.

    But attitudes like those spotlighted in this post just make me sick. It’s obvious that Michelle is not even considered to be a full human, with the same rights and feelings – otherwise, MoDo & friends wouldn’t be so nasty.

    oh – and cosign w/ everyone else who can’t fathom MoDo’s pieces. They don’t make any sense to me – and they usually end up being offensive, so I just don’t bother.

    Wake me up on Jan 20?

  30. baltogeek wrote:

    @ lowercase tasha

    If he was part of Obama’s camp I would.

    Please answer this question. How can Hillary Clinton be considered a feminist if she allows misogynist scum like this represent her?

    I have yet to hear a Clinton supporter answer for his presence on her campaign.

    I have yet to hear them talk about how legitimizing hurts women of color.

    Why is that?

    Please explain it to me.

    It’s been very illuminating to see just where the lines are drawn when people talk about misogyny and its effects.

    And yes I apply my criticism to white feminists because they haven’t had anything to say about this.

    BET does as much damage daily to women as everything else you’ve brought up.

    Why the silence?

  31. lowercase tasha wrote:

    @baltogeek

    Why so high and mighty? As I recall, Obama was just fine with being a member of Rev. Wright’s congregation and using Wright’s influence to court the black vote in Chicago when he was a state senator, until it became inconvenient. All of Obama’s supporters are not squeaky clean either. Didn’t 50 Cent shift his allegiance from Hillary to Obama? We all know about Jesse (Jackson’s) indescretions, and Obama didn’t renounce his endorsement. Chris Rock was recently sued for paternity by one of his mistresses and caught up in a shady wire tap scandal. He does voice calls for Obama’s get out the vote initiative. Jay-Z, anyone? And before you go stating that he isn’t calling women bitches and ho’s on “American Gangster” and how he’s turned over a new leaf, Bob Johnson no longer owns BET, and anyway, those artists like Jay, Will I.Am., 50 that Obama’s down with all air their videos on BET. So, shouldn’t you be mad at them too for airing their content on Bob’s former channel? Politics is a dirty business, and sometimes you have to get into bed with less than savory individuals.

  32. baltogeek wrote:

    tasha, Last time I checked 50 Cent didn’t host a campaign rally for Obama.

    Neither did Jay-Z.

    Bob Johnson was on stage with Clinton and is an official surrogate for her campaign.

    If you can’t understand the difference there then too bad.

    Politics is a dirty business, and sometimes you have to get into bed with less than savory individuals.

    Ah there it is. How easy to explain away everything right?

  33. lowercase tasha wrote:

    Mod Note –

    I’ve saved your comment. I will go and post it after you address the replies on the other thread. -LDP

  34. jvansteppes wrote:

    “I really hate when someone has a great argument, like Alvin did, and then ruins it by tossing in “but they wouldn’t do this to black people!” or “but this is so much more accepted, because wherever I go I see X action condemned!”

    Latoya you stuck gold here. The funny thing too is that often the myth that ‘they wouldn’t do this to such and such a group’ is often dead wrong anyway.

    There’s so much to digest in this post and the title is perfect. I remember when Michelle Obama made the statement about finally being able to be proud of her country; I have rarely been so impressed by such a courageous and desperately needed statement.

    I love how the illustration has an assassination joke, an assumption from out of nowhere that Condoleeza Rice is a threat to her marriage [obviously he MUST see her as interchangeable with his wife because they're both black women so they're essentially the same!] and a jab at Al Sharpton. What is with people picking on him? White media people seem to love suggesting that Obama hates him or that he’s embarrassing. I haven’t followed his career for long but I like Sharpton.

  35. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    And, for the record, Bob Johnson is still speaking on behalf of HRC.

    Or at least, that’s what he told CNN.

  36. Tami wrote:

    lowercase tasha,

    Me thinks you are suffering from post-primary sensitivity. I do not think the sexism against Michelle Obama is any worse. I spent the early paragraphs of my post addressing the sexism that has dogged Hillary Clinton since she appeared on the national stage. I COMPARED the media’s treatment of both women and acknowleged the additional sexism that occured during the present campaign.

    My point is that I have not seen vocal feminists defending Obama in the way they have defended Clinton. I have seen SOME, just not most. Re: the black blogosphere and Hillary Clinton? I think most members of the blogosphere were stinging from the racism coming from the Clinton campaign, and thus not eager to come to the candidate’s defense.

  37. A. wrote:

    This is why I’m going to love Michelle Obama as First Lady.

    Finally, someone REAL. It’s a breath of fresh air. I’m so sick of these damn docile women who really aren’t much more than housewives. They serve tea and stand BEHIND their husbands. Not Michelle Obama. I’ve met her in person. She will not stand behind ANYONE. She will, if anything, stand ALONGSIDE Obama.

    For some reason, powerful first ladies seem to fuck up the minds of some of the male pundits and some men in this country. A woman with power who will tell her husband to chill and is pretty influential in her own right? Someone that young women like me can identify with? SURELY YOU JEST.

    She’s charismatic, she’s beautiful, she’s stylish, she’s intelligent, and most of all, she’s a POSITIVE rolemodel for young women.

  38. jsb16 wrote:

    FWIW, I pretty sure I first heard outrage about the Kos image of Michelle Obama on Ginmar’s LJ. Ginmar may not have the acknowledged status of, say, Geraldine Ferraro or Gloria Steinem, but she’s a strong Clinton partisan and internet feminist.

    @lowercase tasha: Please say that this:

    How much concern for Hillary did the black blogisphere/press show when she was under attack as DNC nominee, Bill Clinton’s wife?

    isn’t talking about the 1992 campaign, when Hillary Clinton was under attack for not being a cardboard cutout labeled “dutiful wife” next to the DNC nominee, Bill Clinton. Because the blogosphere didn’t exist in 1992.

  39. Renee wrote:

    Now that he has clinched the nomination the attacks on Michelle will only increase. I truly wonder myself where are all of the white feminists in regard to the specific gender and racial attacks on her? Silent once again…and they have the nerve to wonder why it is that black women don’t want to invest in feminism.

  40. Sniper wrote:

    You don’t have to like her but she deserves R-E-S-P-E-C-T for all she has accomplished in her life at all levels on her own individual talent and merit. She is no trust fund baby or heiress.

    Even if she were, all right-thinking people should still defend her against racist and sexist attacks. And Hillary Clinton, while no feminist examplar, deserves the same defence, because racism and sexism are wrong and these kinds of attacks inevitably hit unintended targets. Michelle Obama is a brilliant woman and a role model, but even if she were Laura Bush part II there’d still be no excuse for the sexist, racist crap. Even Ann Fucking Coulter deserves better than to be attacked for how she was born. The worst part of this campaign for me has been clear, appalling evidence that many “progressives” are willing to use filthy tactics to attack those with whom they disagree.

  41. NancyP wrote:

    I admit I missed all the comments about Michelle Obama, because I was busy paying attention to the actual candidates. The fact that people have been racist and sexist to the actual candidates is no surprise, and with HRC, there’s about 16 years of bile – for Barack O, only 6 year history of racist grumbling within the few IL Democrats.

    It’s little surprise that mainstream media can make more overt sexist comments than racist comments. The racist stuff is coded.

    The NYT is getting pretty conservative in its commentariat choice and feature pieces. Mo Dowd is like David Brooks – a lazy whiner. The endless feature pieces about “feminism is dead” “career women ditch everything for homemaking”, and so on.

  42. Jaye wrote:

    I really think it is unfortunate that HRC turned out to be the candidate she was, because between her and Obama, this country could have had some serious things to say about racism and sexism. Instead, we’re having a serious talk about racism, led by Obama’s excellent example, and the sexism is being overshadowed by HRC’s brand of racist feminism.

    HRC has really done a great disservice to feminism, because I think we could have talked about the rampant sexism in a lot of communities, the American community at large, but also in individual communities of color. Instead, we’re focusing on her manipulation of sexism to mask her racist undertones, and rightly so. She could have been a leader in that regard, and I think Barack and Michelle would have followed her lead in tackling the sexism from the media and elsewhere in this campaign, but to deal with it, you need a leader of integrity, of honesty, a person with character who really means it. And HRC didn’t mean it. And I think that’s why Obama didn’t deal with the sexism HRC faced, because she wasn’t serious about fighting it, to HRC, sexism was just a tool to use to win votes, and he knew that. People can see her dishonesty, her insincerity, and I think that’s why a lot of feminist of color haven’t rallied around HRC, because she didn’t mean it. At least that’s why I didn’t feel sorry for her when it happened. I mean, she deliberately uses racism to get ahead, the complains that she’s the victim of sexism? I think it’s kind of fitting.

  43. Slush wrote:

    @Jaye
    I have to disagree. While both candidates were big flashpoints for identity politics, it makes no sense to hold either of them responsible for the greater American dialogue about racism or sexism. Hillary Clinton could NEVER have had a prayer to be candidate for President if she’d been more of an avowed feminist, and Obama avoided raising race issues as long as he could possibly get away with it. And he’s progressively distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright since that big speech he made. The fact that he’s now winning the nomination doesn’t show that his position on race was better than hers on feminism because they’re not the same issue and don’t have the same degree of import to the public at large. I don’t think most of mainstream America is having more of a discussion about racism other than “will people vote for a black man?” which is about as shallow as it gets.

  44. Manju wrote:

    “Please answer this question. How can Hillary Clinton be considered a feminist if she allows misogynist scum like this represent her?”

    Well, cut her some slack…she is married to him.

  45. Sharon wrote:

    Wonderful article. Not being American but a woman residing in Europe, I have to admit that it was very painful article to read and disappointing that a progressive nation like the US has citizens who thwart that very notion of progress by just demeaning thoughts. What a sad day.

  46. RhondaCoca wrote:

    Please do not expect the black blogosphere to even think about defending HRC after her race-baiting campaign. Even when people were going to give her the benefit of the doubt, she came back and made the statement about “hardworking Americans…white Americans” that made most if not all African Americans upset.

    I also get upset in regards to people using “women” when they mean “white women”, the use of simply women with the shared assumptions that people are refering to “white women” gives credence to white supremacy and invisible whiteness. It kills me.

    Over at my blog, I had wrote a piece in response to Melissa Harris Lacewell piece outlining why black women would not vote for or support HRC on the basis on sisterhood. The black women (which seems to be invisible to some of you) usually do not make sexist remarks but once again, they are not fond of her so they do not defend her.

    lowercase tasha,

    Yes, you seem to still be upset over the primary. I will kindly ask you to stop reading Taylor Marsh because you made it obvious by your rambling.

    The whole “Bros vs. Hos” t-shirt, I was against it and upset about…where would you see black women enjoying a t-shirt like that. The good progressive black bloggers were not advertising that but you chose to slap labels on them.

    I very rarely see white men rallying against sexism so why would you demand it from black man who are often just as chauvinistic?

    Geraldine Ferraro was unfortunately on television using the Hillary lost because of sexism thing. While I believe that she was the victim of a lot of overt and covert sexism, the spokesperson was all wrong.

    Lastly, there have been countless articles that are now surfacing about the treatment of Michelle Obama. I am happy because for a while, there had seemed to be a silence. As a black women and womanist, I have been offended but what I had been hearing in the media and reading on blogs. The intersectionality of race and gender in Michelle make the attacks all the more piercing.

  47. Jaye wrote:

    Slush –

    Really, you don’t think that we should look to the first female candidate and the first African American candidate to shape the discourse on race relations and gender relations in this country? I don’t mind that Obama avoided talking about race, because he felt like he had a better chance of winning that way and I agree, but when he did talk about it, even if he was forced to, he was honest, he was nuanced, he was visionary, and he forced me to re-think my own assumptions about race. And to say that there hasn’t been a larger discussion about racism because of it…is just not true. I don’t think that the discussion has been as deep or as civil as we would like it to be, but his speech was the front page of every newspaper…we see people’s latent racism coming out not just in Kentucky and W. Virginia, but by a lot of “liberal Democrats”, and it’s being talked about, whether we like the way it’s being talked about it or not. But Obama, by his example, has helped to shape that discussion, and he has elevated it rather than lower it.

    I never said that he won the nomination because of the way he shaped the discourse on race, I’m just saying that is what makes him a great leader, not even necessarily to be president, but just someone people look to in general. And I didn’t need HRC to be a frontline feminist, I just would have liked her not be a racist, and not to pick and choose the parts of feminism that she wanted when it suited her, and discard the rest.

    You said: “Hillary Clinton could NEVER have had a prayer to be candidate for President if she’d been more of an avowed feminist”

    Well, she’s certainly running on being a victim of sexism now, so maybe it could have worked for her if she had started it a little bit earlier. So in the end, she did run on gender, and it is just unfortunate that she didn’t really mean it…because when she was backed into a corner and needed to discuss (the very real) sexism that she faced, it wouldn’t have sound so hypocritical coming out of the mouth of someone who deliberately inflamed race relations to get votes. I think Obama would have backed her up in her criticism of the sexism she faced in the campaign IF SHE HAD BEEN SINCERE rather than using it as a tool to get votes, and I wish she had backed him up when he was forced to talk about race. They’re leaders and role models just because of who they are, whether they like it or not, and they are our examples for race and gender relations in this country.

  48. marge twain wrote:

    It’s telling that so many examples of sexism directed at Michelle Obama have come from Slate, MSNBC, Maureen Dowd, and DailyKos, all places to find extreme sexism against HRC. I’ve said here before that MO reminded me of HRC in 1992. This bullshit should only be surprising to BO supporters who have so far been enjoying/participating in the sexist attacks on Clinton and thinking it’s not about all women, it’s okay because it’s the opposing candidate, it’s okay because of something she or Bill have done and she deserves it.

    “Rigid political double standards are bad for ALL women of ALL races, nationalities and classes. This is a problem that we can all get behind, no? No. It seems not. All I hear is crickets.”

    I totally agree with the first part of this statement. We need to continue to call out sexism used against Michelle Obama but also not think that slurs against HRC are justified.

    Visible, vocal, white feminists have blogged about the sexist treatment of MO and sexism used agaist BO(people calling him hen-pecked, weak, insufficently masculine) See Feministe, Feministing, The Curvature, Shakesville for numerous examples.

  49. Mary wrote:

    Michelle referred to as Obama’s “Baby Mama.”

    Fuck you Fox News. Just, fuck you.

  50. marge twain wrote:

    Holy shit, Mary!