Download PDF Version Revolt Magazine, Volume 1 Issue No.4

absurd and misogynistic claims leveled against her.
But men are not the only culprits of perpetuating
this type of discourse, Horyn goes on to quote a
designer who, “observed, with some accuracy, ‘Her
clothes are too tight.’” As though this criticism is
not only of the utmost importance, but also a strike
against her and an indictment of her character.
Even though America has pushed Michelle Obama
to embrace her role as its First Lady fashionista,
she is not even permitted to find respite within this
feminine stereotype. When she plays into the heavily
gendered role she’s been dealt, the criticism is just
as intense and focused as when she was viewed as
her husband’s radical-thinking co-conspirator.
The New Yorker on January 22, 2013 justified
the lack of negative media attention surrounding
Michelle Obama’s pricey clothing (which, in fact,
there has been a substantial amount of critique on),
by saying, “When her husband ran for President in
2008, there were barely veiled insinuations about
whether the role of First Lady was really right for
her—whether she was too angry, or could really
Photo courtesy of The White House.
feel comfortable. (One suspects that a sense of the
pressures on her may explain why she is not taken to
task as much as she might be for the price of these
clothes.)” So, in other words, in the face of massive
amounts of criticism surrounding her aptitude to
simply be married to the President of the United
States, her luxurious fashion expenditures have
been forgiven as an effort to fit in. Horyn’s 2012
New York Times article suggested a very similar
idea, saying, “It’s a funny thing: four years ago she
denied conservatives the chance to vilify her as ‘an
angry black woman’ by taking immense pleasure
in traditional first lady pursuits, like fashion,
entertaining and gardening.” In other words, the only
safe place in politics for intelligent women to prove
themselves as true role models and not be branded
as angry, bitchy, or stubborn shrews, is to retreat
into the shallow, vain realm of the traditionally
feminine. These articles promote the idea that if a
woman is opinionated, politicized or powerful she
automatically, and unquestionably, is asking for
criticism. Traits that are respected and encouraged
in male political candidates, in women, become
egregious trademarks of an overbearing personality
that has overstepped its proper bounds and can only
be tamed by relegating her authority and decision
making into venal pursuits. Even the topics the First
Lady endorses during her husband’s presidency
are meant to be of the simplest, most ethically
uncontroversial nature (although, there are a handful
of First Ladies who have proved exceptions to this
rule). Laura Bush, for example, promoted education,
while Michelle promotes “Let’s Move,” a campaign
devoted to ending childhood obesity in America and
promoting healthy eating habits. However, even this
meager, unquestionably positive health initiative
(a step towards the demure femininity expected of
Mrs. Obama), has not managed to escape the wrath
of politicians and pundits claiming Mrs. Obama is
trying to tell Americans how to raise and what to
feed their children.
Wisconsin Republican congressman Jim
Sensenbrenner very publicly took the First Lady’s
health initiative to task, when he was overheard
at Washington’s Reagan National Airport loudly
criticizing “Let’s Move,” saying, “She lectures us
on eating right while she has a large posterior
herself.” After causing a media sensation with
his rude, insensitive, and plainly inappropriate
remarks, Sensenbrenner (who is not exactly the
paragon of health himself) promised to “send the
first lady an apology.” It’s clear from his statement
that Sensenbrenner’s problems lie not with the
First Lady’s initiatives to promote healthy children,
but rather with her body. This is a fundamentally
misogynist issue many male Republicans seem
to currently be struggling with: the belief that it is
their right to objectify, comment upon and legislate
the female body. The lack of backlash and public
outrage against Sensenbrenner only encourages
such invectives and makes it seem acceptable, even
permissible, to discuss a First Lady’s posterior when
describing her politics. Criticisms that were once
considered taboo, particularly when discussing the
first family, have suddenly been given a no-holds-bar
policy under the Obama administration. It seems
that white politicians and the media have made
the collective decision that electing a black man
into office has lifted a moratorium on the political
incorrectness of full-blown, uncensored racism and
sexism.
Much like Sensenbrenner, in January 2012, a
speaker of the Kansas House, Republican Mike
O’Neal, had to apologize after forwarding an email
around the House which referred to the First Lady
as “Mrs. YoMama.” He claims that he forwarded
the email on without reading it, simply enjoying the
picture of Mrs. Obama side by side with the Grinch
above the caption “Twins separated at birth?” In his
mind, this seemed to excuse the racist slur found
above. In a public statement, O’Neal said that he
found the cartoon amusing because, “I’ve had bad
hair days too.” An unacceptable response to even
more unacceptable behavior. But it’s not just her
physical appearance that has riled a conservative
nation, but also the ease with which she’s accepted,
even embraced, her role as a pop icon and a woman
who wields substantial media power.
The American media has turned Michelle Obama
into a celebrity, a pop culture phenomenon and an
arbiter of style. Yet, at every turn, as she accepts
and utilizes her unique status and position to
promote positive change, she is greeted with
immense backlash, criticizing her for feeding into
the Hollywood machine. When she was invited to
pose for the cover of Vogue in 2008, her advisers
were concerned that she might be seen as “a
fashionista,” a status she assuredly already had
and that has only grown throughout the duration of
her husband’s presidency. To Michelle’s credit, she
made the compelling argument in favor of posing
for the cover, saying that, “there are young black
women across this country, and I want them to see a
black woman on the cover of Vogue.” In the end, the
cover received little notoriety or criticism, unlike her
2013 Oscar appearance where she announced, via
satellite along with Jack Nicholson, the Oscar winner
for Best Picture. The Washington Post claimed that
“attendees and viewers were flabbergasted at the
satellite image of the elegantly dressed, Obama.”
Many accused her of indulging in the frivolities of
stardom and the media criticized her for playing
the role of the Hollywood starlet. An ironic jab at
Michelle, considering these publications are a part
of the same publicity machine that simultaneously
encourage this exact type of celebrity tabloid
coverage surrounding the First Lady, cataloging her
outfits and purchases down to the smallest detail.
The American people and media have cast Michelle
Obama in the role of entertainer and then condemn
her when she chooses to play along.
America has created a no-win situation for the First
Lady. Either she’s a political and intellectual radical
and “angry black woman,” or she is a fashionista
with a spending problem and an over-investment in
frivolous, undignified pursuits. In the 2009 Economist
piece by Wooldridge, he said, “I think if a first lady
were purely decorative in the 21st century, it would
actually look rather odd.” But isn’t that precisely the
position the media is attempting to cast Michelle
Obama in? The media, Obama’s fellow politicians,
even the White House itself has attempted to paint
her as this decorative, fashionable mouthpiece of
“change.” Michelle, much like Hilary before her,
is not the quiet, demure woman behind the man
that is easily silenced or brushed aside. Both are
smart, capable progressive women who seek to use
their political positions as platforms to make real
progress forward. When we limit our discussion of
women in power to their physical appearance and
choice in apparel and hairstyle, we strip them of
their authority and try to re-appropriate them as flat,
antiquated images of womanhood. We are in the
midst of a struggle to redefine the spheres females
are allowed to encompass and wield authority
within, and news sources, by proliferating these
REVOLT
Magazine Number 4, 2013 16