It’s a different challenge for a number of reasons. Most feminist writings on Cindy were negative, with use of words like “Stepford.” It was interesting to break this down and try to understand it better. On Michelle, it’s split. A number of articles and reports portray her as angry, bitter, emasculating, hypocritical, overprivileged. And other articles portray her as a perfect female role model. Essence lists her among the 25 Most Inspiring Women, Vanity Fair among the 10 Best Dressed. Most feminist blogs, even while allowing occasional nuance on her husband, will brook no discordant words about Michelle.
It’s hard to find a nuanced treatment of Michelle, although some surely exist. Her portrayal seems caught between various stereotpes of women and especially black women: “strong” vs “angry.” Do the laudatory articles do her justice? I’m not sure. They present an idealized woman, and seem to want to keep a distance from her. And as she’s been in the media only recently, that’s somewhat understandable. We have tons of tomes, glowing and also deeply critical, about Hillary. But is there something else there? Is there a fear that there will be a penalty for discussing an imperfection? A noted WOC blogger stated once that she felt commenters marveled at her, but didn’t critically engage. Is that a theme with Michelle’s supporters, as well?
One thing most agree about Michelle: she’s impressive. She grew up in a far poorer family than that of her husband, albeit a much more stable one. Michelle went to a top magnet school, skipped second grade, made National Honor Society and then, as most know, graduated cum laude from Princeton and with a JD from Harvard Law.
Michelle’s Princeton Thesis isn’t the radical tract it’s made out to be. I read it yesterday. It’s well written, excellently researched, and even-handed in its conclusions. She looks at black Princeton alumni and how their attitudes about relating to blacks and whites and feelings of responsibility to the black community are affected by a number of variables. She avoids simplistic conclusions, and clarifies that one cannot make firm determinations based on whether one associates with blacks or whites, or enjoys various aspects of black culture. Far from ultra-liberal, she mentions favorably some capitalistic themes (we like that).
Michelle wrote that her goal at Princeton was to "utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit [the black] community first and foremost." But she was concerned that the non-diverse, conservative Princeton would "likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure. As I enter my final year at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates -- acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals are not as clear as before."
Michelle would later achieve these goals – acceptance to Harvard and a high-paying job. But she didn’t forget her roots.
Michelle’s thesis does not seem to look at differences between the views of black men and black women at Princeton. Which is understandable, given the limited time for research and the difficulty of tossing in too many variables. Also, there were more female than black students percentagewise, and therefore possibly she felt more isolated based on race. Or, because her thesis invokes the relationship between race and class and discusses alums contributing to poor blacks, she felt looking at race gave her an opportunity to look at the idea of giving back to a community in a different way than looking at gender + race would.
One interesting thing about Michelle’s schooling and early work years is that she pushed the envelope in productive ways. At Princeton, as one of few black students, she advocated for language classes to incorporate more conversational elements. At Sidley & Austin, she strove for ways to innovate, to find meaning in the drone-like work of a junior associate, and was proactive in requesting challenging assignments.
The story of Michelle’s meeting Barack Obama at Sidley is well known. After meeting Barack, she left her law firm job for a public sector job while he was a law professor and then practicing lawyer and politician. In 1996, the year her husband became a state senator, Michelle was the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, and in 2002 she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals.
Michelle asked Barack to meet her prospective boss Valerie Jarrett when she left Sidley to go into the public sector, something Jarrett felt was unusual.
So there were both the envelope pushing and traditional themes. Michelle felt she was smarter than her brother and if he could go to a top school, she could easily do so. She was proactive and a leader in her work, setting fundraising targets in the public interest arena. At the same time, she asked her husband to quiz her future boss (who now works for him) and derived a substantial salary increase which nearly tripled her salary at the U of C Hospitals two months after her husband become a senator. Shortly thereafter, Barack requested an earmark for $1 million for the U of C Hospitals (which wasn’t granted).
It could be that Michelle’s performance warranted a triple salary increase, and certainly her work earned high praise. However, the position of “Vice-President for Community and External Affairs” did not exist before it was given to her, and once she resigned it disappeared. While public relations is important, as the average salary for Chicago doctors is in the 200K range and she was making six figures higher as a fairly recent PR person, it is hard to believe there was no causal connection there.
So what, though? I mean, even if there was, this is something we’d all consider. On the other hand, high hospital admin salaries contribute to the high deductibles and insurance premiums that strain our health care, an important issue for both Obamas. But on the other hand (oops, that would be three hands), all politicians make these kinds of trades. Both Clintons did so frequently.
Michelle also joined the board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, a WalMart supplier. This post earned her close to $100,000 in stock options. Michelle was on the TreeHouse board in November 2005, when one of its divisions announced plans to close a plant in La Junta, Colo., displacing 150 "mainly Hispanic'' workers. A year later, Barack criticized Wal-Mart's treatment of its workers. "How can she defend TreeHouse while her husband is attacking Wal-Mart?'' political consultant Joe Novak said. However, shortly after the critiques, Michelle left the TreeHouse board.
Despite Maureen Dowd’s idiotic chiding of Michelle on her sarcasm, the latter often used humor to good advantage while giving stump speeches for Barack’s campaign. Her softening of her image as the campaign continued was a necessary reaction to media twisting of various comments, complete with racist overtones, such as the famous “proud” comment. On that, I find Michelle’s explanation quite plausible that she saw a new commitment to get involved in politics on behalf of voters. Asked about it later, she made clear she was proud of her country above and beyond her and her husband’s success. It should have ended right there.
Michelle noted during the campaign the importance of not demonizing the other side. HuffPo reports, however, that “Michelle said she travels with her husband in part ‘to model what it means to have family values,’ adding ‘if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House.’ She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.”
Asked in February 2008 whether she could see herself "working to support" Hillary Clinton if she got the nomination, Michelle said "I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about policies, her approach, her tone." (Both Clintons unequivocally stated they’d support the Democratic nominee, whomever that was). Despite her criticisms of Clinton during the 2008 campaign, when asked in 2004 which political spouse she admired, Obama cited Hillary Clinton, stating:"She is smart and gracious and everything she appears to be in public — someone who's managed to raise what appears to be a solid, grounded child."
So in 2004 Michelle admired Hillary and felt she’d had done a good job with her personal life, yet a few years later she felt Hillary’s being cheated on rendered her incapable of being President. And did the “tone” comment refer to the acrimony between the two primary contenders, or was it along the same lines as Michelle’s earlier statement that she admired that Laura Bush didn’t “fuel the fire” – the way, maybe, other notable political wives had.
Michelle also noted that having a “good” husband is important for voters to consider: “He is a fabulous husband and father, and I think that is right up there with everything else you should look at.”
Leaving Hillary aside, though, don’t many worthy women, especially in poorer communities, suffer from unfaithful or non-present men? Sure, politics and all, and maybe one says what one has to say to win. But I have trouble with the implication that a woman’s navigation of relationships and/or marriage needs to be a certain way for her to be able to hold her head up, to “run” stuff.
Michelle has said she’s not a feminist. As Rev. Irene Monroe, an African-American feminist theologian, states:
“’You know, I’m not that into labels,’ Michelle Obama told [Washington Post writer Anne] Kornblut. ‘So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it…I wouldn’t identify as a feminist, just like I probably wouldn’t identify as a liberal or a progressive.’
When white feminists pounced on Michelle Obama for not using the F-word, many African-American sisters came to her rescue, stating that many African-American women don’t use the term ‘feminist’ but instead prefer the term ‘womanist’because of the racism embedded in the feminist movement and the strained history that remain unaddressed.”
Personally, I’d have liked to hear more about Michelle’s reasoning here. Are her feelings regarding the “F” word, like those of many other women who I believe are actually feminists in action and thought if not self-label, because of a sense that the movement hasn’t been appropriately inclusive? Why not say: “I unequivocally believe women are equal, but I don’t feel the movement, while it’s done a lot of good, represents all women adequately.” That would satisfy her feminist constituency as well as her own integrity, if this were indeed her opinion. But saying she isn’t a feminist or a liberal or progressive, without further clarification – well, who knows.
There could be a lot of good reasons she wasn’t more explicit. Maybe, for example, Michelle as a denizen of large law firms and organizations and a proponent of capitalism (she referred to her husband’s book royalties as “Jack and his magic beans,” which acknowledges that in the publishing industry, the bookstore workers and book delivery workers and truckers are not going to see the receipts that bestselling authors like Barack will) felt that as a likely fiscal moderate/social liberal, she didn’t view herself as liberal across the board. Or, maybe Michelle felt that both “F” and “L” words were best avoided during an election year. We don’t know. I’m curious, though.
I’m also curious as to why, on a campaign trip to Zanesville, a struggling Ohio town, Michelle told local women at a day care center:
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse.”
She complained that, because of lower pay in the “helping” industry, "many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management."
Now, as we know, Hillary went into corporate law and Chelsea Clinton went into hedge fund management.
However, Michelle also went into corporate law. She left the private sector after she met her fast-track partner, and ultimately landed in a cushy in-house job with a $300K paycheck. The median income in Zanesville for female workers was $20K, and 88% of adults there don’t have college degrees. The capitalist framework – Princeton, Harvard, Sidley & Austin – that allowed Michelle her soft landing into a “helping” profession – and, PR for a Hospital as well as sitting on a WalMart supplier board is on a different level from nursing or community work – is not available to many of them.
I hope and believe Barack and Michelle have done good and will do much good. That their star-studded resumes provided good platforms to then engage in work with philanthropic goals. It is also a legitimate path to go straight into a “helping” job. But what Michelle left out is that she didn’t do that, and that if those women she was speaking to chose another path to a “helping” job – maybe to get a little for themselves and their families first, as she did, or to create a larger platform for their philanthropy, as she did, then that is OK too.
Because if women go straight into “helping” [others] without passing go, and men pass go and collect $200 first, then that perpetuates an inequality and a power deficit. And the same is true for WOC vs MOC. WOC like Michelle who have clout as well as the desire to make change are critical assets, and should not be discouraged from following paths to self enrichment on their way to other goals. The women and girls in Zanesville do not have Chelsea Clinton’s opportunities. But then, Michelle Obama also grew up with limited opportunities, and it will benefit all of us that she didn’t skip Princeton and go into nursing.
All that said, Michelle also has spoken up bravely the way few highly visible women have about gender inequalities. As Leslie Bennetts in Vanity Fair comments:
“Mrs. Obama has a long history of speaking out about the ways in which men’s choices—particularly their professional ambitions—often leave their wives to pick up the slack, even when they have their own careers. ‘What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first,’ she told the Chicago Tribune in 2004. ‘And for women, me is fourth, and that’s not healthy.’”
This reminds me of the suggestion Barack made about the committee a woman considering an abortion should consult and in what order. In any case, Michelle nails it. Being fourth isn’t healthy. She’s got the guts to speak up about something pretty much all other first wives and most other women generally haven’t adequately addressed.
In the VF article, Michelle says she considered what Barack’s running for president meant for her own goals. She didn’t articulate that at one point she’d been his superior and had also considered politics, but instead he had moved into that arena – similar to the Clintons, both who’d considered becoming Governor. But that was the subtext for her dilemma.
Rebecca Traister comments:
“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 centre 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?”
But Rebecca does Michelle a disservice. Michelle made a considered choice, possibly one she'd have made differently at a different time, but saying she "stands in... for the shortcoming of feminism" is blatantly unfair and inaccurate. I doubt whether a President Michelle Obama could have overcome the collective national biases the way a President Barack Obama did, for reasons oft discussed here and elsewhere. Perhaps Michelle knew that too, and decided that their common goals were important enough that finding the politically palatable way of achieving them was the priority. That’s a reasonable choice.
In any event, Michelle should be applauded for giving words to the struggle. She’s an admirable and complicated person, and I look forward to learning more about her.
31 comments:
Very good, balanced and thorough post.
I'm conflicted about Michelle. I don't see her as a feminist icon, unlike a lot of people who voted Democratic this year. I don't think we'll ever "know" her the way Hillary feels known to me.
I do cut her some slack in the feminist department because I do think she's being prevented by a number of factors from being fully herself, specifically what that would mean for the image of his family that Barack Obama necessarily had to build in order to pass as an acceptable black candidate. His wife and children couldn't be seen to be anything but conventional and non-threatening.
I, for one, hope Michelle continues on her own separate non-political career-path. I have many reasons for this, including that I find the whole idea of "first lady" demeaning and unworthy of Michelle's status as a professional in her own right. But also because she won't be able to win, no matter what persona she projects, and she may as well not try. Not be a Laura Bush, but not be a Hillary Clinton either. The way the public reacts to the voice of "the wife" is absolutely toxic.
I don't envy her the next four (or eight) years. But I hope she comes through this with some of her own identity intact. I will not get over the fact that it was Barack and not Michelle who invested herself fully into professional realization. But for that, I blame the wife-and-motherhood model, nor either Barack or Michelle.
Still. It rankles like hell.
i rather like Michelle Obama. Now, I don't care about her feminist creds, mind you, but I absolutely adored her when I saw an interview with her when she was talking about how at her height and shoe size, shopping could be hard as hell...something I think a lot of women notice for themselves. I was impressed with the way she talked about her children, and her husband. I think she's a strong woman with opinions, and I respect that.
Thanks, A.
"I will not get over the fact that it was Barack and not Michelle who invested herself fully into professional realization. But for that, I blame the wife-and-motherhood model, nor either Barack or Michelle."
I agree. They are both tactical, and made choices based on the conditions on the ground, re US government at that level.
Capitalism is a flawed system, like all systems. But one reason I like it (appropriately regulated) is that it's meritocratic. The flaw is that this doesn't correct for starting imbalances, and regulations need to do that. But if a woman is better, in many capitalistic fields, money will talk. And someone like Obama can capitalize on "Jack's magic beans." Oprah, from a more modest background, did that too.
But entertainment and publishing allow people viewed as unlikely to achieve -- politics is less capitalistic and more centrally managed. Whatever Michelle's individual strenghts, and I think they're formidable, she made a calculated decision that central management wouldn't correctly showcase or hear her.
Ren -- yeah, I like her honesty too.
I do care about her feminist creds, although she's got time to clarify them. I look at some of the girls I work with in Northridge (SFValley area with some disadvantaged schools) and although I can't put myself in their place, I know many look at her as a spokesperson. They may instinctively understand she may be a feminist in deed if not in name. Or they may be confused and wonder if feminist is a bad thing, not because of any flaws in the movement, but because of flaws in the concept of women's equality. For that reason, I think it would be helpful if she clarified her views.
I agree, I really like how she talked (esp earlier in the campaign before people like Dowd started criticizing) about her family in realistic ways. And having opinions is not a virtue of many first ladies (I hate that term) and hopefully she won't get pilloried for sharing hers.
Nice job, Thanks.
A quibble: you characterized her childhood as "poor". Her father worked for Chicago's sanitation department, uninterrupted as I understand. How is that "poor"? Seems solidly middle class to me.
I loved the bizarre comments made in Zanesville OHio. As the author stated , "capitalism saves the day"......for the Obama Family. Why would she not advocate it for others? Her comments seem polyannaish, and wishful thinking. Our economy does well when each works to maximize their own potential.
Her comments re: Hilary being cheated on rendered her incapable of being President (huh???), and her statement about traveling with Him to demonstrate family values may be rooted in her own scare with Obama's purported Bimbo episode while running for IL senator in 2004.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html
MANY share your suspicions on her job at UChicago Hospitals.
Both of my daughters live in Hyde Park; one just 4 blocks from the Obama home( a la Tony Rezko). Not above celebrity gawking, I tried to walk past their home Saturday. The police have restricted access at a two block radius to residents only. Darn.
Nice job, Thanks.
A quibble: you characterized her childhood as "poor". Her father worked for Chicago's sanitation department, uninterrupted as I understand. How is that "poor"? Seems solidly middle class to me.
I loved the bizarre comments made in Zanesville OHio. As the author stated , "capitalism saves the day"......for the Obama Family. Why would she not advocate it for others? Her comments seem polyannaish, and wishful thinking. Our economy does well when each works to maximize their own potential.
Her comments re: Hilary being cheated on rendered her incapable of being President (huh???), and her statement about traveling with Him to demonstrate family values may be rooted in her own scare with Obama's purported Bimbo episode while running for IL senator in 2004.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html
MANY share your suspicions on her job at UChicago Hospitals.
Both of my daughters live in Hyde Park; one just 4 blocks from the Obama home( a la Tony Rezko). Not above celebrity gawking, I tried to walk past their home Saturday. The police have restricted access at a two block radius to residents only. Darn.
"A quibble: you characterized her childhood as "poor". Her father worked for Chicago's sanitation department, uninterrupted as I understand. How is that "poor"? Seems solidly middle class to me."
Agree with the quibble to a point. However, it is more likely her father would be classified as working class than "solidly middle class".
As someone who grew up in a once working-class urban neighborhood, most of my neighbors ranged from people on disability/welfare to those working blue collar jobs such as factory workers and sanitation.
One dividing line from a few neighbors and elementary school teachers was whether one's job was considered a "vocational/blue collar" job where one had to work with one's hands or if the job was respectably considered "professional" and/or required a college/higher-level degree and required one to work with one's mind more than one's hands.
Though income did play a critical part, the socio-cultural biases and prejudices of a given society also play an important part...especially when I've seen how corporate professionals* at my workplaces proclaiming themselves "solidly middle-class professionals" would laugh scornfully and even feel insulted at being placed in the same category as sanitation workers or other blue-collar occupations.
* Co-workers fresh out of college and managers with MBAs at a financial services company I used to work at who looked down on anyone who worked in the public sector/helping professions or worse...those who worked in blue collar occupations. Attitudes that were unfortunately shared by most of my older upper/upper-middle class relatives who worked as financial analysts, engineers, lawyers, senior corporate execs, etc. :roll:
JZ, thanks!
Quibble on the quibble: I said MO's background was "poorer" than that of BO, not "poor." BO's grandmother was a bank VP, he went to an expensive private school.
I later refer to MO having limited opportunities, true. And my phrasing here wasn't very good. What I should've said was: higher hurdles. I was getting at exholt's point about educational privilege. Even with blue-collar parents who are making the same as white-collar ones, kids with parents who've gone to college have an easier time navigating the educational system.
My childhood fits into this well. My dad, and my mom part-time, had academic jobs that weren't well-paying, but helped me to perceive my opportunities a certain way even if we didn't get clothes, vacations, allowance, etc. like some of kids whose parents may not have both gone to college.
So while her options weren't limited in the sense that she was resourceful enough to ensure they weren't, I think the hurdles Michelle faced were higher than those many middle-class kids did.
"Attitudes that were unfortunately shared by most of my older upper/upper-middle class relatives who worked as financial analysts, engineers, lawyers, senior corporate execs, etc. :roll:"
Yup! Funny enough: my two highest-paying jobs I've ever had, and that's NOT counting being a lawyer or corporate supervisor, were ones not requiring a college degree (not that it doesn't help at all) and ones my relatives aren't impressed by. Money and prestige don't necessarily connect.
And happiness and prestige don't either. My husband, belatedly in his 40s, realized that he's really good with his hands and he'd like to own a store where he sells things, or something where he can work with his hands. He's the punchline for the joke: what do you call a Jewish guy who faints at the sight of blood? (a lawyer).
Obviously, the limited horizons because of lack of educational privilege are a much more critical issue than those because of too much of it. But good point that biases and prejudices often have more impact on where one places oneself class-wise than income.
I really appreciate this thorough post. But for me, it's not sufficient that she got into good schools, got good jobs and appears strong. Perhaps I just don't know it, but I'm curious if she's ever done anything significant to boost other women. Why would she be more inspiring than any other woman who got into good schools and made a lot of money?
In contrast, Hillary also got a good education and made money, but she worked with the Children's Defense Fund, promoted improvements in health and education, and did many other things that helped women.
Compare her article in Wikipedia with that of Michelle Obama's. Hillary also became a mother and the wife of a rising politician, but she was always working for the improvement of society, including women.
Octo,
on "educational privilege":
I have a soapbox monologue on "higher education these days" It starts with , "let me tell you about my nephew the welder who makes %125,000/yr. and ends with, "There are only two reasons to purchase a university degree." But, I'm too lazy to type it out now.
Does a Hawaii bank VP make more money than a city of Chicago sanitation worker? I'll hazard that the city worker has more job security.
suzie, great synopsis: "Why would she be more inspiring than any other woman who got into good schools and made a lot of money?"
Suzie --thanks.
I agree with you. I don't put MO in the category of HRC. That's why, while I think we can look at their treatment from a feminist standpoint, I don't think we can compare them from a feminist standpoint.
That's not to knock Michelle. She worked at a non-profit for four years in between top-salaried jobs, which is laudable. Most women haven't had Hillary's achievements in the areas of women's and children's rights. Most men certainly haven't (Barack included).
Michelle's not a politician, though, so comparing her to one isn't apples to apples.
As to whether she's inspriring -- as a feminist role model, I don't think she's comparable to HRC, no. Maybe in time, she will be.
RE "Why would she be more inspiring than any other woman who got into good schools and made a lot of money?" First off, a caveat that I'm not going to be able to speak for WOC for obvious reasons. But I think for any woman from a working-class family without parents who went to college (which is true of the Clintons as well), she's a great example. And as Michelle braved prejudice that white women didn't, she had higher hurdles to clear, and her clearing them is inspirational to WOC.
I don't want to read too much into your comment, but I wonder if you are talking about ageism as well. Is it just "sexier" to find the younger, more conventionally "hot" woman the more appealing role model? Probably, yeah. I think HRC has much more to achieve. I'd bet there are liberal, evolved feminists who don't consider themselves ageist but may not view her that way. That's part of the equation, I think -- you?
JZ -- one of these days I'd love to see that post!
I think educational privilege is real. I think there are counterexamples, but often it's a recipe for higher upside. Query how much upside welding has.
"he went to an expensive private school. "
He attended it on a scholarship according to what I heard from cousins who attended Punahou around the same period and from several news sources such as the two below:
http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/Story?id=3082803&page=1
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/26/ln/hawaii802260354.html
Also, from what I heard from those Hawaii raised cousins, Hawaii's public school system is widely perceived to be so woefully inadequate to prepare students competitively for college admissions/level work, especially by middle/upper-families that most families, especially those in the middle and upper-class do whatever they can to get their children into private schools....especially those as highly esteemed for academics as Punahou and Iolani.
From they way those cousins described it, the widespread perception was you got your kid into a private school...especially ones like Punahou....or risk finding him/her severely underprepared for college-level work at even the second-tier and lower-level colleges/universities and his/her higher ed options severely curtailed.
Though I often like to trade barbs toward my older wealthier cousins for having attended Punahou and Iolani where one has to pay a lot unless one is on a scholarship*.....they made it clear that as a New Yorker, I had far more quality public school options than a Hawaiian would.
* Neither one had a scholarship due to lack of financial need and one of those cousins being an academic mediocrity.
Thanks for the info, exholt. I still believe there may be a discrepancy w/r/t educational privilege. I'm not sure getting a scholarship means one is poor; most kids at my public high school, including me, couldn't have gone to private school without one, and still weren't viewed as poor. Both BO's parents were college educated, as well as his stepdad; MO's weren't.
In any case, I don't want to quibble about their respective wealth; I really cannot speak to that. My main point in that comparison was to say that she had some disadvantages that he and others with parents who've checked the "college" box don't have. There are plenty of examples where someone has a rich businessperson or tradesperson mom or dad who didn't attend college and hell, Bill Gates never completed college, but I'm talking about general themes.
Octo, I agree that Michelle's achievements are still very impressive and could be inspiring to a WOC or anyone from a poor or working-class background. I don't mean to take that away from her.
I hadn't really put my finger on it, but I think what you say about ageism is true. If Michelle was older, or if she was obese, for example, I think people would not find her as inspiring. We live in a celebrity culture and it matters that the Obamas are (relatively) young, attractive, fashionable, etc. Those aren't faults, of course.
"I'm not sure getting a scholarship means one is poor; most kids at my public high school, including me, couldn't have gone to private school without one, and still weren't viewed as poor."
Not saying he was poor.
From what I heard from the cousins, however, his grandparents was at the most somewhere in the lower middle-class or else he would have exceeded the maximum family income restrictions and thus, lose eligibility for that scholarship....especially when competition to gain a scholarship admission to Punahou was quite keen.
Moreover, from catching a few glimpses of his grandparents' old residence and the surrounding area, they may not have been poor....but they were certainly not solid middle-class...especially by Hawaiian standards considering how ridiculous real estate and living expenses are there.
Thankfully, I was fortunate enough to attend an urban public magnet high school in NYC that provided at least the same level, if not a superior level of academic rigor as Punahou or Iolani at no expense to the student and his/her family.
I do know that if I grew up in Hawaii, my family and I, regardless of income, would move whatever mountains to get me into a private school like Punahou or Iolani considering the widespread perceptions by family, their neighbors, and university classmates from Hawaii of how the Hawaiian public school system wasn't up to the task of preparing its students for college-level work.
Do agree that Michelle Obama grew up with less comparative advantages than Barack Obama....though as a Chicago resident, she was able to attend an academically rigorous public magnet high school similar to the one I attended if the wiki about her is correct....schools which were not available in Hawaii during the period Barack Obama or my cousins attended high school.
*waves*
Nope I disagree iwth you on some things but my issue with people is essentially the same.
They really don't believe she's human or treat her as such
Hi, BA! Yes, I thought that might resonate.
Whether they don't think she's human, or whether they think they'll be perceived as better humans if they pretend they don't -- either way, it's toxic.
I think most of us would pick understanding (or attempts at it) over unthinking worship, most days.
Octogalore,
Sorry to post again, but I forgot to make one point.
Both Michelle Obama and Barack Obama's families were making the best of the limited quantity and quality of educational options that were available in their respective areas.
Moreover, attending a private school does not necessarily mean the student came from a middle/upper class background. I knew several undergrad classmates who came from working/lower middle-class backgrounds in economically strapped rural and inner-city areas who managed to gain full scholarships to well-known private schools like Choate, Groton, and Phillip Exeter because of demonstrated financial need and superior academic records relative to their admitted non-scholarship peers.
In addition, it looks like what my Hawaiian raised cousins said about the school situation there still applied as recently as 2001 according to this NYT article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DB153FF931A25753C1A9679C8B63
Still the common mentality among most Hawaiian parents, especially the upper/middle classes and students aspiring to decent colleges that it is private school or be consigned to the educational gutter. :(
This mentality didn't exist anywhere to the same extent in NYC or Chicago where there were excellent public high schools where kids could gain a rigorous education without having to resort to a private school.
Sounds like Hawaiian students still don't have good public school options. :(
Exholt -- thanks for the info. Seriously, that's stuff I would not have known about options in HI. I was in public school until college and everyone I knew who went to private school was pretty well off, but I know there are exceptions.
I do think with a bank VP as ones main caretaker, as well as a well-off stepdad, one may not be as "needy" as the typical need-based scholarship recipient, but we're all just guessing here. In any case, the post's discussion doesn't really rely on hardcore factual info about MO's or BO's childhoold household economics.
I like that Michelle Obama is essentially her own person, she doesn't call herself a radical, or feminist, or progressive, and I can relate to that (although I do call myself feminist) and see how her thinking on a lot of important issues is solid.
I think the way that people project a whole lot of crap onto Michelle Obama is nothing short of disturbing. I hated all the "she's not First Lady material" scoffing that preceded election night. I'm glad she's getting the last laugh, not just because I like her, but because she has earned it. Her talents speak for themselves.
And I also like the note of consideration for Cindy McCain as well.
Cindy McCain was always going to be the second wife - young, pretty, wealthy, so of course people hate her without a second thought (this is not to say that Carol McCain should be forgotten - but according to most that I've read, it was John who pursued Cindy, not the other way around). I think what people underestimate are the power dynamics between a man like McCain and a much younger woman like Cindy - she may have had the wealth, but she also seemed devoted to her husband's success in a way he didn't reciprocate (this is pure conjecture on my part, I don't know this family, I'm just saying that this is what it *looks* like to me).
This is more armchair psyche, but I can't help but notice the emotionless mask that Cindy has worn in public. I think there is a lot under that mask, and that the "Stepford" characterization has been unnecessarily cruel.
I like to think that I have no illusions about Cindy's wealthy and privileged position in our society, but she has the right to her feelings as much as anyone else does, and to me, she looks like a person who's had it rough this year, rougher than her husband.
He's the hero, she's the "bitch" that everyone tolerates because she has money.
@Octogalore: "Capitalism is a flawed system, like all systems. But one reason I like it (appropriately regulated) is that it's meritocratic. The flaw is that this doesn't correct for starting imbalances, and regulations need to do that."
Yes, that summed up my feelings on capitalism too. Whenever anti-caps start in on their "socialism is perfect and has a gold halo around it" I bring up these exact points. And good analysis of Michelle. I like her as a person too because she kinda reminds me of my Mom physically and intellectually. I would love to see Michelle run for office one day.
Aspasia -- yeah, I think the issue is the human tendency to think problems are best solved with complete overhauls rather than the harder work of analyzing what's bad and what's good with how things have evolved (for specific reasons) currently.
I don't think we'd have a President Obama without capitalism. Starting from high school. Most socialist systems distribute scholarship money more evenly and focusing purely on need, not a combination of need and merit. Same with college. Next, what enabled him and Michelle to afford to do public interest was their investment of time in capitalistic environments (big law firms, public company boards). Finally, without the "magic beans" from his bestselling book (not distributed more widely among booksellers, delivery workers, etc. but concentrated towards rewarding bestselling authors and their agents) he would not have had the visibility to run for President, and Michelle could not have afforded to reduce her workload to help him do so.
Great post - thoughtful and nuanced. A breath of fresh air, really!
Glad Lauren at Feministe linked to you.
"Starting from high school. Most socialist systems distribute scholarship money more evenly and focusing purely on need, not a combination of need and merit."
I'm dubious of such a blanket statement. Do you have specific examples? The Marxist-derived/Socialist nations I have studied employ educational mechanisms so it usually ends up being a combination of need and merit.
While education into university is free in some European countries like Germany or Cold War era Hungary, that's assuming one is able to pass rigorous admissions exams to gain admission to academic-oriented high schools, graduate, and have sufficiently high grades/examination scores to gain admission to the university and academic department concerned. From what I've heard from my German and other European classmates, many students end up being screened out of the college track well before high school so the ones who end up going to university are almost always the top students in their age group.
In Mainland China's case, they theoretically had free public education up to university level until the mid-late 1990s so there was no tuition for students to worry about.
With the exception of the Cultural Revolution period when educational institutions were effectively gutted and shut down for a decade, the usual situation till the 1990s was that the university student can gain a free college education on the condition the applicants were able to pass a rigorous cutthroat national college entrance exam which make American college admissions look like a joke in comparison.*
Even though Mainland Chinese colleges now charge tuition, this examination process still exists as according to the 2007 statistics I read, more than half of all Mainland college applicants failed to score high enough to gain admission to any single university.
* One reason many Chinese and other East Asian high school graduates from socio-economically privileged backgrounds opt to attend American schools....even Ivys like Columbia as competition to get into an Ivy was far less demanding than attempting to gain admission to even a second or third-tier Chinese university.
A reason why some Chinese/East Asian PhD/grad students at Ivy/Ivy-level schools who did their undergrad in their home countries look upon those undergrads with a greater degree of contempt than we do with socio-economically privileged legacy students who gain admission to Ivy/Ivy-level private universities despite having mediocre academic records.
This is especially the case if those undergrads majored in math or math related fields as those grad students who TA courses in such fields feel the level/rigor of the American undergrad curriculum is far below the rigor they experienced as undergrads in their home countries.
exholt, that's a good point that some socialist systems do have merit incorporated into educational consideration. Yet I maintain that BO's particular gifts would not have emerged in such systems in order to single him out in the way that has happened in this country. He has an entrepreneurialism such that he's been able to use a particular skillset to capture the spoils of the system.
Natalia -- yes, I agree about Cindy McC. I don't think we can accurately speculate on what a second wife knew at the time, when she's told a guy she meets is separated and divorce pending. And while someone is less sympathetic by dint of being blond, rich and thin, are those really character flaws?
Redstar: thanks much!
I actually have no comment other than to say that this was one of the very best posts I have seen on Michelle Obama. You simply out did yourself. Though this is virtual, consider it a standing ovation.
Renee, thanks so much. That means a lot. I know you know of what you speak as you've posted and commented frequently and eloquently about Michelle Obama, so this is high praise indeed.
Post a Comment