In looking at Michelle Obama’s possible roles as First Lady, the Associated Press takes some liberties in characterizing public opinion and expectations. Take the following, for example:
Hillary Clinton was the first real career woman to become first lady; she was a practicing lawyer, children’s rights advocate and first lady of Arkansas when her husband, Bill, was elected. She offended the public during the campaign by saying she wasn’t about to give up her career to “bake cookies and serve tea.”
Were you offended when Hillary Clinton made that statement? I know I wasn’t. And does this properly define your expectations for Michelle Obama?
Americans expect a certain kind of first lady, one who supports the president, doesn’t steal too much of his spotlight, stays out of trouble, advocates for favored causes and does all the other things that come with running a home, such as raising children, being a hostess, planning parties and decorating.
I think we can all agree that we would like to see Michelle Obama stay out of trouble and avoid stealing the spotlight, but do we expect her to spend all her time being a hostess, planning parties, and decorating? Seriously?
“People expect the first ladies to be more traditional than they expect the women in their own lives to be,” said Kristie Miller, an independent historian who has written books about the Coolidge and Wilson first ladies.
Maybe this is true, but there is no polling data provided to back it up. It’s kind of obvious that the First Lady is a bit constricted in what she can do career-wise. Michelle Obama can’t exactly take a job at a DC law firm and resume her activities as a corporate lawyer. So, it’s true that we don’t expect the First Lady to work like we expect the ‘women in our lives’ to do, and that suggests a certain degree of traditionalism. But it doesn’t follow from that that we expect Michelle Obama to be decorator-in-chief. I think what little expectations there are for a First Lady are pretty much restricted to seeing them act in various ceremonial roles and as advocates for certain pet projects.
It can’t be easy for an ambitious and talented woman like Michelle Obama to put aside her career, but she made that decision quite some time ago when she put all her efforts towards raising the kids and advancing her husband’s political ambitions. Her role now will be behind the scenes as one of Barack’s key touchstones and sounding boards. All I expect of her is that she give him sound advice.
Well, some people are more traditional than others.
Anyone with a Doctoral Degree earns the right to the title “Doctor”.
The title reserved only for medical doctors is M.D.
Jesus, that damn Liberal Media out there in California!
Someone once asked me if I were a “real doctor” or just a PhD.
Sounds like more Wingnut framing….
Can’t affect the major issues(the big rocks), so start moving the pebbles around that fall underfoot, and sooner or later, you’ll trip ’em up….
I think Ladybird Johnson said it all, first ladies are chosen by the man and answer only to him. Their only obligations are not to embarrass their husband or the country.
Yes, I was offended when Hillary made the “baking cookies” crack. I felt that she was sneering at women who had not chosen to make a career outside the home their priority. I was a “working woman” out of necessity, but I never regarded myself as a “career woman”. In my folly I always thought that feminism was to give women choices. That some women prefer to work at hearth and home should be just as valid a choice as the women who prefer to work outside the home. Neither is deserving of scorn.
And I’d like to see a little Eleanor Roosevelt action from Michele.
Thank you for saying part of it for me. I was offended because I was a full-time homemaker and mother. I was lucky enough to have that choice when my children were young. I felt that Hillary was denigrating my job. I was a Martha Stewart-type before Martha was famous and approached caregiving as a job that required my best efforts. I had even given actual tea parties for people who could advance my husband’s career! So I took it quite personally that she didn’t see that my accomplishments were as good as her law degree.
I’m not sure that’s what she was saying. I think what she was objecting to – if my memory of the incident is accurate after all these years – was the suggestion that suddenly, now that she was First Lady, she was expected to take on a completely different role – a role that was strictly defined based on outmoded tradition – and one she had no interest in.
It was awkward, ill-considered, and I can understand why it was offensive to people for whom homemaking and family care taking is their profession, but I really don’t think she meant it in the way it came across to a lot of people.
I still find it offensive, as someone who has stayed home and baked cookies as well as had a career. Who the hell was Hillary to make fun of other women’s choices?
Hillary wasn’t sneering at homemakers, she was sneerng at those who presumed a Yale-trained corproate lawyer should be nothing other than a homemaker. They were deserving of every ounce of derision that she could fling their way, and I was 100% with her on that.
I still contend that she decided to run for presdent when they made her cut her hair…
No kidding.
The woman had been a partner in a law firm and they expected her to suddenly turn into Bess Truman. Not even Eleanor Roosevelt.
They deserved every ounce of derision. It’s a shame that other women thought she was deriding them but it taught her the importance of message control, which she is very good at now.
I’m sorry, but that’s what made me fall in love with Hillary Clinton back then. At that point, it was clear to me that she supported Bill, so WTH did she need to bake cookies and such? Maybe she doesn’t like it or maybe she couldn’t cook or maybe just didn’t GAF–why should she? What did that have to do with anything? It grated my nerves then and now because again, if you don’t embrace the full on domestic stuff, then you are a ball-busting, emasculating rhymes-with-witch who eats toddlers and puppies for dinner.
And I say that as a shoe-loving, MAC-wearing, tea-drinking, pink-is-my-favorite-color woman. (And green of course. :<) )
Of course, M. Obama has the extra layer of race added to the sexism, where she will need to be even mousier lest she upstage and emasculate her husband. (See also: Juan Williams and his vile “Stokely Charmichael in a Designer Dress” comments) He clearly has issues but I’m sure it all comes from the school of “thought” that says African-Americans would be better off if men were allowed to be men and women put in place to bat our eyes in adoring submission. Hell, maybe even prone. Can’t have a strong race without strong men, and you can’t have strong men without submissive women. Bleh.
Then there is the other side from some Black women who think the pedestal is something to aspire to because we’ve always had to work. And it’s not that I don’t sympathize with the view: if you had to clean up someone else’s messes, hosting tea parties sound pretty damned good. I get it…but having no choice to work a job you hate and being a Harvard-trained lawyer with a brilliant mind are two different things entirely. It’s more than obvious that the Obamas are FANTASTIC parents, but M. Obama obviously has more to offer than tea parties and baking.
Hmmm. All the Blacks are men, all the women are white, and there’s hell to pay to satisfy the extremes at both ends.
You know what I hope?
Let’s say Obama gets re-elected in 2012. I hope in 2014 Michelle gets a paying job outside the home (white house) and works it for the last 2 years of Obama’s presidency. It would be so ground breaking for her to do it. And she has the personality to do it – if they don’t beat her down over the next 6 years.
Some day we are going to have a woman president and you have to wonder what happens then. Will the first husband just be expected to quit his job and host parties? If he did that I bet the the opposite stereotype would come into play at that point. People would wonder what his problem was and why he was such a slacker.
That’s exactly what a lot of people thought about him. He was held to a very different standard than his wife Margaret would have been, had the roles been reversed.
Now, Cherie Blair kept up her work as a barrister when her spouse was PM of Great Britain. She suffered some disapproval of this, I’m certain. I had hopes, however, that her example might “soften up” some of the stereotypes held here for First Ladies. Not much, I think.
Admit it: When you first typed your comment the phrase was “nothing more than a homemaker,” wasn’t it? Then, you thought better of it and replaced “more” with “other.”
It’s still twisted. Why couldn’t a career lawyer decide to influence world leaders over White House tea cups with her home-baked cookies? She was saying that it was beneath her. What obligated her to insist on being called a lawyer when she was no longer actively practicing law? Her “profession” for the next eight years was being First Lady so why would learning how to bake some damn cookies detract from her previous accomplishments?
I bet Michelle Obama baked cookies with her daughters while she was a practicing lawyer and won’t stop now out of some misguided attempt to be “other than.” Doggonit! A woman engaging in traditionally feminine activities is not anti-feminist and does not diminish her empowerment in other areas of her life.
She was (ineptly) snapping at the people who think that women can’t have an opinion worth listening to. It wasn’t meant to be an insult to people who choose to be a homemaker. She was trying to say that life choices don’t define whether or not you are a woman.
It’s not that it was beneath her, it’s that it absolutely was not her. From what I understand of Hillary, her homemaking skills are roughly equal to my basketball skills. As a 6’2″ Black man one might might assme those skills to be considerable, but one would be dead wrong – I’m useless on a basketball court unless you need someone with fouls to give (my forearm works well). Could I become a decent basketball player? Sure, but I’m not even remotely interested in that and I would have some choice words for those who would suggest that I must do so on account of my race.
Much like Hillary with her gender.
The point was that Hillary – and Hillary alone – was in a position to defne Hillary, and Bett Crocker wasn’t part of her definition. I was perfectly fine with that, and I’d have been perfectly fine if she defined herself as pure Bett Crocker – the point was that she defined herself and not allow others of any gender to define her for her.
Not quite sure why the iPhone decided to turn Betty Crocker into Bett Crocker – probably fat finger syndrome.
Are you f’in kidding me?
Why couldn’t a career lawyer decide to influence world leaders over White House tea cups with her home-baked cookies? She was saying that it was beneath her. What obligated her to insist on being called a lawyer when she was no longer actively practicing law? Her “profession” for the next eight years was being First Lady so why would learning how to bake some damn cookies detract from her previous accomplishments?
Of course she could decide to do it. But why on earth couldn’t she decide not to. She wasn’t really being given a choice.
And why the hell should she NOT insist on being called a lawyer. She WAS a lawyer. She IS a lawyer. She spent a lot of time and effort becoming a lawyer.
Read what you wrote. You’re saying she should have gone into the kitchen in the white house and made HOME BAKED COOKIES to serve to world leaders. Are you f’in kidding me? If she wanted to be a cook she would have gone to culinary school NOT law school. She IS a lawyer. To be turned into a cookie baker against her will IS beneath her. To bake cookies because she WANTS to is a whole other story.
We’re not talking about her going into the kitchen to bake cookies with her daughter. We’re talking about a society (or at least the media and people like YOU) who think that the first lady of the United States is required to be in the kitchen.
You’re right about this: A woman engaging in traditionally feminine activities is not anti-feminist and does not diminish her empowerment in other areas of her life. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a society that FORCES a woman to engatge in traditionally feminine activities against her will.
We’re talking about choice here. It is people like you who want to FORCE women into traditional roles who are twisted.
“…people like YOU…” WTF! That’s a bit too personal, don’t you think? This is the internet; you don’t know me. You’re claiming to have actually seen me hold a gun to the head of some other woman and “FORCE” her to bake cookies? Puh-leaze!
I felt Clinton’s comment was dismissive of the choice I’d made in my life at the time. That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it. It doesn’t add up to me forcing my choice on anyone else or being twisted. Right now, I’m an organic farmer and, dammit, you’re going to buy your vegetables locally or else… LOL!
“What obligated her to insist on being called a lawyer when she was no longer actively practicing law?“
One does not have to be actively practicing law to justify being called a lawyer.
Do you stop referring to a physician as a doctor if they stop practicing medicine?
Look, I agree with you that engaging in traditionally feminine activities does not in any way diminish a woman in any area of life. However, I took Hillary’s comment as coming from a rather different place than you see to.
As a working woman just starting out in a male dominated field, I liked what she said. She was mocking the stereotype that women SHOULD fill some kind of “wifely” role that was perpetuated (and is still perpetuated) by the media and elitist Washington. In fact she was mocking even the stereotype – women who do not work outside the home work VERY hard and yet the stereotype is a June Cleaver, baking cookies in your pearls stereotype.
I applauded her at the time for making it clear that women should NOT be stereotyped and I still applaud her.
Of course what she learned is that sarcasm is never the best way to get your message across and it would be far better to make a simple and direct statement that you don’t feel women should be stereotyped.
My wife is a tenured university professor. We have three small children. My late mother-in-law was a pediatrician. She also had three children. Both my wife and my mother-in-law baked cookies and served tea frequently, and, interestingly enough, neither of them ever thought much of Hillary Clinton.
I expect Michelle to do Michelle – define herself in her own terms, assert herself in her own way, and embarrass the hell out of anyone who tries to make her do otherwise.
You would think that AP could find enough to write about Michelle’s husband, and leave her alone.
I don’t expect anything from a first lady. I didn’t vote for her. As long as she doesn’t bring negative attention to the White House, what she does is fine with me.
The problem with a ‘2-for-1’ deal like Hillary Clinton, is that they didn’t run on it. If you’re not elected, and the people have no way to hold you ACCOUNTABLE, then, no, there should be no 2-for-1 deal.
Look, this country has problems and will continue to have problems with an intelligent, strong BLACK woman that shatters every comfortable stereotype that they have about Black women.
After spending centuries taking care of other people’s children, hearing Michelle stand up unapologetically and proclaim that her first priority is taking care of the well-being of HER children…makes me smile everytime I hear it.
If she did nothing more than everything Laura Bush did, it would still be different because it’s Michelle Obama doing it. So, if she only did that, and provided The President, with a comfort zone that allows him to keep his sanity over the next 4 years…Michelle Obama would have done enough for me. Anything else she does, is just gravy.
I’m amazed. 23 comments so far and nobody has made either of two really obvious points. The Pond is usually savvier than this.
The first is that in regards to women’s roles, times have changed, even from when HRC made her comment back in 1992 (17 years ago!) Accomplished professional women in the White House or VP’s residence won’t be an anomaly in the future. People like that idiotic LAT reporter just need to get over it.
The second is that an enormous number of women, black and white, and not a few men have tremendous admiration for the way Michelle Obama has carried herself in public life, particularly how she has supported her husband and family but refused to be defined solely by those roles. As an unelected celebrity ambassador for our country, she could do far worse than to keep doing exactly what she’s been doing over the past two years. And I trust her (and her husband) to figure out how best to accomplish that.
Side note: I don’t have a doctorate, but I supported my (then-)wife when she got one. It took her two extra years because she was randomly assigned a faculty advisor who genuinely believed that women were inherently incapable of graduate degrees, and thus wouldn’t even consider her work. (This was in 1983 in Houston. But still.) It’s still a good rule of thumb that women with the credentials of Michelle Biden or Jill Obama are very, very impressive human beings.
That’s Michelle Obama and Jill Biden. Now you know why I didn’t go past the masters level in academia: I lacked the necessary attention to detail… 🙂
BTW, my then-wife in the above anecdote was also non-white, so I have some additional appreciation for the shit Michelle probably had to deal with to accomplish what she has done.
Absolutely. Hillary Clinton was answering some rather stupid question I believe on her ‘role’…her answer or the tag end of it was ‘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 had entered before my husband was in public life.”
Besides that it wasn’t like she abdicated her role as first lady of Arkansas in favor of her outside job as a lawyer. She managed to do both.
Yah I realize I’m late to this discussion but I just wanted to add the comment that the original quote was:
That was actually HRC talking about her life BEFORE Bill was elected president. If I remember correctly, it was answering a question as to why she had continued to practice law while he was GOVERNOR of Arkansas.
Pax
This is all preventative backlash against another Eleanor Roosevelt. The right-wing extremists that have controlled the Federal Government since 1980 are trying to prevent the First Lady from doing anything useful. These people HATE FDR and Eleanor because they helped the people and were against fascism.
Doesn’t get drunk in public. No sexual scandals in the tabloids. Stuff like that. She’s the President’s wife, not an official. First ladies have been much much more, notably Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton, but personal decorum is all I expect.
Yeah, it offended me, because that was exactly what I was doing. I put aside my career to raise my kids, which included baking cookies and having tea parties. Obviously if she thought that was all there was to staying home, she was clueless. It’s moms like me who support all the working moms like her. We’re the ones who keep their kids when school is closed, we’re the ones who teach them to read when we volunteer in our kids’ schools, we’re the ones who take them on outings on the weekends because their parents are too tired or busy to do it themselves. And when my husband got deployed, that just made my “job” that much harder. Bake cookies? Hell yeah, I baked cookies! It was either that or cry.
It was an offensive thing to say, and I assumed when she said it that she’d never make it to the White House, having nailed that coffin door shut.
Umm, this is nonsense: “It can’t be easy for an ambitious and talented woman like Michelle Obama to put aside her career, but she made that decision quite some time ago when she put all her efforts towards raising the kids and advancing her husband’s political ambitions.”
She wasn’t exactly just raising the kids and supporting the hubby. Until the presidential campaign, when she resigned her hospital system vice presidency, she was making a whole lot more money than he was. They couldn’t have bought the house they lived in on his Senate salary.
I can’t believe nobody above mentioned that salient fact.
that’s just my mistake.
But then we have the 30 commenters who didn’t notice!