“Hot Chicks Dig Obama”

I find it strangely complementary to this month’s I-can’t-help-but-sound-a-bit-down-when-I ‘m-saying-positive-things-about-black-people cover over at The Atlantic Monthly: “Why Obama Matters.” (Though first place for this award goes to NBC’s Brian Williams for “African American Women: Where They Stand”)

But “Hot Chicks Dig Obama” gets to its point a bit faster, no?

Gee, I hope I’m hot enough to vote for Obama.

The picture is from a New York Times story by Katharine Seelye, about presidential candidate wives, “They Stand By Their Men, Loudly.” The story is a little bit weird in its construction, though I guess it wants to be about the changing presence of wives in the campaign.

Indeed, the story suddenly made me wonder if I should come up with a campaign equivalent of the “weight statement,” a term I’ve used to describe these sort of non-stories that are frequently trotted out by celebrithon media, in which a female actress declares that she “loves her curves,” or so on. It becomes a way for the media to talk about women’s bodies without saying anything directly, instead reporting what women are saying about themselves.

There’s a tinge of nonstory around this NYT report, so must ask, what is it really trying to say?

Well, the story takes up what I hinted at a month or two ago in “Michelle, my belle“– the question of what it means for wives, who in some past presidencies might have been understood as working “behind the scenes,” to emerge as public agents in their husband’s candidacies. Rather than be strategically deployed by campaigns, they go out and campaign. This is good, right?

But then the story picks up to the two most controversial statements made by Madames Obama and Edwards this season: Obama’s misquoted “family values” statement and Edwards’ oft-quoted (and genuinely precious) comment on the financial efficacy of being black or female in this election, versus a white man. We then come to this ambivalence:

With spouses less programmed than in the past, the line is blurrier between what women like Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama want to say and what the campaigns need them to say.“These are two women lawyers who have been in the professional world where they’re expected to speak up,” Mr. Anthony said. “But they still serve as windows into their husbands’ character.”

That’s right: there’s a concern that Obama and Edwards, careerwomen, won’t know how to keep their big mouths shut. That is, after all, the problem with women who work; they too often “run their yappers.”

I think this easy play on stereotype is what’s been nagging me about the story’s title, and why I have written many words on what I’ve already claimed to be a nonstory (though in a way I guess the nonstory is more interesting than a story, because it tells us so much in its efforts to not say anything too much!). This is the stereotype of women in power as compulsive loudmouth’s– they have the power to speak, but, as women, nevertheless lack restraint. As “windows into their husbands’ character,” their independence is emasculating– he can’t keep her under control.

But this is, again, an ambivalence: by ending with Hillary Clinton, Seelye also (perhaps consciously but regardless fortunately) offers up the outcome of being a loudmouth as, well, running for president! I totally think there’s some political ambition evident in Michelle Obama’s campaigning. As I’ve noted elsewhere, remember Hillary’s “It takes a village”?

So yes, be annoyed by them and their big mouths, but also know that its exactly what they need.

And anyway, there are gazillions of old, retiring posts on $3.60, in favorite categories like world-making, feral women, and the global uncanny. Who needs me?

In other news, this week has also seen, sadly, lots of back to school shopping. Oh, who am I fooling? Back to school shopping makes school so much better! I am a professor. I know these things, things confirmed by Forever 21. Admittedly, it would be great if they would change their name, but I guess I’m finally old enough to hold my head high, for I know there is nothing about my twenties (except the body, of course) that I would want to return to! And, I found better fitting “versions” of items I had bought and returned to Anthropologie, thus saving a stunning amount of money–to then be spent on a ridiculous and happy-making Juicy hoodie. And yep; let’s make this year three without any real H&M happiness. Alas.

Oh, and this year’s teaching theme? “Disco demure.” Last year was “shiny comfort,” but I got bored because I couldn’t find the right infusion of gym shoes.

(If you are or have been my student, you are probably thinking that I look the same every year and all of the time, but it’s all about our illusions, no?)

(I guess Gwen Stefani is suing Forever 21 for ripping off L.A.M.B.? I totally get it, but can’t help but twinge at the idea that the mash-up reference queen could sue anyone for versioning anything. Shouldn’t she be sued by a Harajuku girl, or Jamaica?)

Okay, back to business:

The topic docket is long: Cypher & Syllable needs some formatting and some editors; the NAACP is fully on my nerves; I’m incensed that I was the last person to see The Last King of Scotland, and now it seems too late to rant; why so many of the Utah miner stories, like many such reports, so actively skirt questions of miner safety; I’m fascinated with the out of control rhetoric of CNN’s God’s Warrior’s series; find Obama and the black thing irresistible, and on and on and on and on. Oh, and the new M.I.A. album?

On hearing the news (did he really hear it right that moment? I’m unclear), Obama immediately makes the connection between the Genarlow Wilson sentence and the Libby commutation.

This is the same connection Obama would go on to use in a speech he has given in a variety of venues, which I mentioned in an earlier post.

Obama in New Hampshire:

And here are some details on the speech the comments above eventually morphed into, and which I discuss further in a previous post, “Obama on Scooter Libby and Genarlow Wilson“:

Related posts at $3.60:

More on Barack Obama

More on Genarlow Wilson

More on Michelle Obama

Related posts by me at Cypher&Syllable:

More on Michelle Obama

What Parsons’ refers to as “the personal” in Obama’s remarks I simply see as his willingness to speak on silence and inaction in the media– especially when it comes to justice for black people. And even though he’s not talking about anything new, there is something particularly striking in the specter of disproportionate sentencing in this cultural moment, this moment of Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby, of Genarlow Wilson, the Newark lesbians sentencing, and the Jena Six. (Jesse Rae Beard, one of the h.s. students, is pictured, left.) Obama took a good opportunity for shifting the norm, by using specific examples to make other candidates seem too abstract and less connected to the cultural moment, without affecting his own reputation for being “intellectual,” but here humanized, relatable.

The story is a good one. Below it is a Jena Six background story, since I haven’t posted on the case yet:

And here’s a background story related to the Jena Six, whom I will say more about in a later post:

Related posts at $3.60:

More on Barack Obama

More on Genarlow Wilson

More on Michelle Obama

Related posts by me at Cypher&Syllable:

More on Michelle Obama

What do you think?

Fun and irreverent take on being young and down with the Obama campaign? Or sinister shadow of the Harold-Fordism Obama should expect throughout his campaign?

[6/20/07: Jack and Jill Politics has a nice update, here.]

And it does seem to have a scent of Limbaugh on it:

Related story:

I am sure you are well-apprised of what I am going to call “The Michelle Obama feminism challenge.” But just in case, Mirror on America did a very nice post last week, outlining some of the most notable sites of contestation, particularly as they’ve been crystallized in Debra Dickerson’s recent article in Slate, and Maureen Dowd’s syndicated op-ed piece, reproduced here from the San Jose Mercury News. Racialicious also has a great post outlining the Dickerson and Dowd articles (amongst others). It’s redundant to rehearse the Racialicious and Mirror on America points, so check them out!

What I find interesting is the way Dickerson’s and Dowd’s pieces are in fact quite different from each other’s, but nonetheless show a striking similarity in the feelings of irritation each seems to elicit from people of color!

It has been my experience that many women of color find feminism immensely tiresome, tiresome in its disavowed self-interest and in its refusal to be held accountable for other -isms that it is not itself immune to. Reading Dowd and Dickerson, I felt the irritation; I felt the tiredness. And I teach feminism. I actually am a feminist. So what gives?

“Feminism,” as a political movement nascent in the suffrage movement and blossoming in the late sixties and early seventies, has a history of not being attuned to the specific concerns of women who are not white and/or not middle class. Out of this, in the eighties, came the notion of womanism, which seeks broaden the perspective and interests of feminism. (You can find a nice historicization of feminism and womanism here).

But it is important to note that feminists quite often disagree with being characterized as out of touch. To my mind, however, it’s the very insistence that they are in touch that signifies their out-of-touchness (like how I just unintentionally slipped into ‘us’ and ‘they’? I’m going to keep it for a while). The reason we so often think of feminism as ‘white,’ then, isn’t necessarily because all feminists are white, or because feminism necessarily excludes women of color– it’s because feminism just doesn’t know how to listen. How to pay attention to difference and to imagine women’s options accordingly. Historically, ‘not listening’ to others with less privelage translates to ‘being white.’ That is why The HNIC Report’s take on the matter resonates so well: “The White Lady Just Doesn’t Get It.”

This is one of the reasons why woc who might otherwise identify as feminists risk feeling shut out from feminism. And this is also why feminists must also remember that all things do not mean the same things to all people; that feminism might be more of a position than a movement; and that the work of looking out for women’s interests is ultimately ineffective if it misses or consistently misreads other elements that make up our social experiences of the world, like race, class, and religion.

My challenge to you, feminism? Think away from yourself. What I find so immensely irritating about both articles is my nagging sense that neither woman is particularly committed to making a point about Michelle Obama. Simultaneously released with big profiles on M’bama, I am suspicious that each article is simply taking an opportunity to “bring gender” to the table. No one really believes Obama is “giving up her career,” i.e. leaving the workforce. And I just don’t think anyone truly believes Mr. Obama is being henpecked out of the presidency. By claiming M’bama isn’t feminist enough (Dickerson), or that she is too much woman (Dowd), each writer manages to overlook anything specific to Obama, who she is and the kinds of decisions she is responsible for making. Kinda reminiscent of the whole “is Obama black enough” debate, no?

Both Dowd and Dickerson dropped the ball on Michelle Obama. And if I were reading this more fully in terms of race, I would even go so far as to say that to serve their own interests, as feminist and Democrat, they are actually bouncing said ball off M. Obama’s back. (Ouch! I think it nicked me.)

Sometimes it seems like America works on some kooky law of conservation, powered by a difference engine, adding and subtracting, adding and subtracting. In this instance, it seems that we might want to elevate a black man to the presidency, but we might be willing to use Michelle’s back to get him there.

And oh, by the way, Michelle Obama would likely never call herself a feminist. See, now I’m feeling all feministy again… My challenge to lady Obama? You can leave the word, but don’t leave the game.

Six minutes, Six minutes, Six minutes and Obama you’re on…

Last weekend, on the bucolic Quad at Harvard University–typically, the site of a casual game of Ultimate, or perhaps an afternoon reading of some Shakespearean sonnets before English class-an unusual and, to some, frightening scene was played out. There were people throwing things! And running! And jumping! And most scary of all, every single one of them was black. So the Harvard students watching from their dormitory windows, growing increasingly agitated at the sights below, did what any normal, white Harvard student would do when they saw a large, seemingly unruly group of black people: They called the cops!

Uhm, what?

And here is some reporting from The Harvard Crimson:

Bryan C. Barnhill II ‘08, president of the BMF, said that police officers asked the students whether they had a permit to be on the field, and left after students explained that they had gained permission.

Barnhill said that many of the participants had been wearing Harvard paraphernalia and the event had been approved by all the Quad House masters. He said the call to HUPD was “disturbing” because of the “assumption that we didn’t belong there.”

Seguing from one of our discussions in the last weeks of classes, I found this story particularly striking. Of course the students who called would never call it racism, because we still often think racism only has meaning in overt violence. It also speaks to how our ideas of race and racial meaning are tied to space: unexpectedly present on the Quad, those black students were not perceived as being the right bodies in the right space at the right time.

But, of course, they are students, meaning they were exactly the right people in their rightful place in the school’s historical and metaphorical center. And it is racist to assume they are in the wrong place, no matter how unfamiliar the scene may seem. If their appearance had been contextualized as a “black event” that everyone knew about, the response may have been the opposite; it’s so great they’re here! But don’ t they too have a right to their randomness? Or is that still a luxury for people of color?

And it is interesting, no? The students on the Quad say that many of them were wearing Harvard clothing. What would it mean to look right at them, but nevertheless manage not to see them as they are? Just kind of being there, playing dodgeball and capture-the-flag; could you get a more Seventh Heaven vision of college?

This is like some post-King, “hey weren’t you going to vote Obama for president?” page out of Ralph Ellison’s prologue to Invisible Man!

But really, Barnhill puts it best:

“In this day and age, racism rears its ugly face in ways that are much more subtle,” he said.

“We just want to show that subtle forms of racism exist, such as seeing a group of black people on Harvard property and assuming they don’t belong there,” he added.

Oh, and by the way, I know Gawker is just being snippy, which is the kind of thing I want from them, but this time, doesn’t their title, “Blacks Terrorize Harvard Students” kinda over-reinforce the race dynamic the article is criticizing?

And the aftermath: here are two more Crimson articles, Ashton Lattimore in an opinion piece, and an Editorial letter.