Do we need the term "First Lady"? Thoughts on Michelle Obama...
Michelle Obama’s trip to the G-20 summit is perhaps as publicized as her husband’s, though for different reasons; the main concern with her trip is “What is she wearing” (J. Crew) and “Who is she sitting next to at dinner?” (J.K. Rowling, among others
( Read more... )
I don't think the role of First Lady needs to be redefined. I think, throughout history, each woman to occupy that role has defined it in her own way. It's an honorific more than anything else; certain things are required of you (playing hostess, for example) but I don't know that there's a definitive job description.
I don't have a problem with Mrs. Obama quitting her job to help her husband. I might be a LITTLE upset if they didn't have two young children, but they do, and they all want to live together, so...Mrs. O has to move to DC. Fine. She's YOUNG. In eight years, she can take up her career again - or do something new, like Hillary Clinton. If Mrs. Obama were president, I'd expect Barack to be First Gentleman.
Anyway, this is a good, thought-provoking post.
Reply
Chris Matthews...can be a real idiot sometimes.
You know, maybe that's why I reacted so strongly to his comments: I simply wasn't expecting them. I'm more of a Keith Olberman/Rachel Maddow fan, so it was more of a rarity for me to tune into Hardball. I had no prior experience with Matthews, so for me it was absolutely shocking to hear someone on MSNBC say these things.
What's also interesting about Carla Bruni is that she's EXTREMELY educated and highly respected by Europeans. Yes she is a model, one who speaks four languages, plays four instruments, was educated at a Swiss boarding school before begining to study architecture, only left that because she was offered more money in one year than she would have made in her lifetime ($7.5 million a year for over five years) and never even needed to work in the first place as she sits on a multi-million dollar fourtune from her fathers tire industry, and she writes all of her our music.
I don't like Sarah Palin at all, but I got so angry last fall, when people used her "beauty queen" days to dismiss her. As if there weren't other, more valid reasons to dismiss her.
Exactly-- and there are SO MANY MORE valid reasons!! haha! It's a shame that looks so often play into female politicians' roles. Hillary got a lot of flak for her wardrobe (though I was very young when Bill was in office, so most of what I've read has been in retrospectives).
I think, throughout history, each woman to occupy that role has defined it in her own way. It's an honorific more than anything else; certain things are required of you (playing hostess, for example) but I don't know that there's a definitive job description.
I see your point, but I do think it's problematic that we have someone who's not an elected official, who doesn't have a public mandate, fulillfing quasi-political roles. I think it contributes to the heterosexual hierarchy, or of royalty-- the idea that you can "marry into" power (though clearly that is not what Michelle did). Since it's now an option for women to be political in ways it wasn't when the honorific title was first created, I think we need to decide exactly how much influence we want a First Lady to have officially. If we're going to make her do Christmas tours and specials, then when a female gets elected, we better have a First Man doing that too. There needs to be consistency in order to get away from past stereotypes of sexism.
Thanks again for reading and commenting!!! :)
Reply
Leave a comment