This is not anything against the Obama, as I obviously love them - and I was quite smitten with Michelle when she visited my school, but I wanted to bring up a few points about politicians and gender roles.
Why is it that everytime a politician runs for office, his spouse is always dutifully helping him out, traveling the nation to talk about and endorse her husband, and serving as in a second-hand capacity to him?
What would happen if, instead of giving up their life, career and aspirations to endorse their husbands, women actually pursuit their own careers and dreams? Most certainly, society would have such a problem with it if a man took time off his work and pursuing his dreams to support his wife? (Bill Clinton was the exception because of his status as a former president)
The problem here is that we've come to expect politicians to act a certain way - and to have certain traits; in this case, politicians must be married with cute little children, a devoted wife who gives up her own dreams for his, and will dutifully clap every time he says something that, sitting at home, I can only comment by saying, "No shit, genius."
No, really, why do we expect politicians' wives to act in the supportive role? Why can't we just can't accept the fact that they are two people who love one another very much, but they have different dreams and agenda. When I bring this up, people tend to say, "what if it's her dream, too?" Really? What female child or woman in college ever says, "One day, I want to be a politician's wife?" I just don't get it. If we don't expect a CEO to bring his wife to an interview for a job (in fact, I've been told it's pretty taboo), why don't we expect that same person to lug around his wife when running for a political campaign?
Ever since college, the majority of the women I've dated or been interested in are those I met at conferences, political fundraisers, feminist meetings and such, so it's a sure bet that when I get married, it'll be to someone ambitious and political, intelligent and feminist ...yet, if I ever do run for political office, which I plan to do so, she'll be expected to give up all her ambitions just for me. A bit unfair, isn't it? But it seems like even I, rabid feminist that I am, might have to give in to it all; and do you know why? Because people don't elect politicians who stand up against tradition values.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Michelle Obama and gender roles.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8432
Great points. I remember a while back I was listening to some radio hosts discuss whether family and wives were fair game in political bashing. At first I thought, of course not, what does the wife have to do with it? And then I realized that politicians' wives are there all the time in the spotlight with them, so they basically do. It's so weird to me; I can't imagine giving up my career aspirations to be a campaign feature for someone.
to be fair, i think the wife thing is more about the political process in this country than retarded gender expectations (although obviously that has played a role as well). politicians' spouses go on the stump for them or at least appear with them cheering on and give interviews to vanity fair for the same reason that there are features on presidential children and pets and grandmothers. a large part of winning high office, particularly the presidency is not about issues, but about narrative. candidates who win have a story that resonates with voters, and one's family is typically a key part of that story.
i have no doubt that as soon as the next female presidential contender gets out there, her husband will be expected to perform most of the same functions as have michelle obama, et al.
as far as giving up one's career ambitions, in this case that doesn't exactly ring true--michelle did leave her job to campaign for her husband, but you're still overlooking the major modern development, which is that she HAD a high-powered job to leave in the first place and her own set of ivy degrees. i have no doubt that if for some reason obama were to lose the election, michelle would go right back to work in a great job.
i think that a lot of the issues that remain here will be less of a problem as time goes on and more and more male politicians have spouses that are also career-driven, and of course, as more women get elected to high offices.
as far as giving up one's career ambitions, in this case that doesn't exactly ring true--michelle did leave her job to campaign for her husband, but you're still overlooking the major modern development, which is that she HAD a high-powered job to leave in the first place and her own set of ivy degrees.
I think that's actually worse. All her hard work and all her success, and she's still expected to give it up and fill a "traditional" role? It just seems to completely devalue her efforts.
Yes, she chose it, and good for her if it's what she wanted. But I think Marc has a very good point in this post.
I do think that complaints about the gender aspect are absolutely valid. every crappy entertainment show is having a field day comparing the styles of michelle obama and cindy mccain. it disgusts me every time. every time i here a "debate" about one of their hair cuts, or dresses, jewelry, etc....it reminds me that, being in my mid-30's, there is a good bedroom furniture chance i will not live to see a female as president of the united states.
In all fairness, I think Bill played a "secondary hand capacity" to Hillary.
Michelle plays a supportive role simply because she isn't running for president.
I'm from New York, and I was still living there a few months ago when our charming governor, Elliot Spitzer, was caught up in some unmentionable acts. I remember reading an article at that time that basically said of his wife, Silda Spitzer, "Hm, too bad she quit her day job."
The article went on to explain that a lot of political spouses (ie. women) with high-powered jobs, choose to leave their professions because there may appear to be a conflict of interest between the work that they are doing and their husbands political ambitions. For example, Silda was a very successful lawyer, arguably more successful and good at what she did than her husband. But what if while he was in office, she had to represent somebody who was accused of a nasty crime? Well, that reflects on Spitzer's administration.
Now, read into this what you will. It still feeds into the "my job is more important than yours" mentality. And in Silda's case, she ended up working a few hours a week pro-bono for some kind of charity cause, I believe, to keep her law skills tuned. But I can see how in some cases, there may be a practical application, however reeking of bullshit they may be. Why Laura Bush couldn't continue to be a librarian is beyond me.
I was about to bring up Silda Spitzer.
How about Howard Dean's wife? She, like him, is a doctor, and when Dean ran for president, she didn't follow him on the campaign trail or give many interviews/speeches. Instead, she simply continued to practice medicine. I can't recall a huge deal being made of this, but perhaps had Dean gotten th nomination, it would have become an issue.
Hey, I can comment again. Thanks, JV! Give me a break with the gender aspects of this complaint since we have had ONE female Presidential candidate and her husband was a former President. We will have many more female candidates and the men in their lives will be shoved into the background, as well they should. I was pro-Hillary because of Hillary, not because of Bill. I am pro-Obama because of Barack, not Michelle.
well, sometimes i doubt i'll get to see, in my lifetime, how a first gentleman (or whatever the media will end up calling him after months of debate) will be treated, or what will be expected from him. but, i do think that complaints about the gender aspect are absolutely valid. every crappy entertainment show is having a field day comparing the styles of michelle obama and cindy mccain. it disgusts me every time. every time i here a "debate" about one of their hair cuts, or dresses, jewelry, etc....it reminds me that, being in my mid-30's, there is a good chance i will not live to see a female as president of the united states. if our "look" is still so freaking important, and the "grace" of being first lady, etc., how could the voters every truly take a female candidate seriously?