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.

I am only thinking of Tarantino at all because, while dinking around to prepare for Kill Bill, I came across scans at AMPHA of Tarantino’s photo spread in the latest issue of GQ. As you can see, the pictures are just oozing with Tarantino-ism.

I am only putting one photo up here; you can pick up the rest on newstands, or at the aforementioned (and extremely tired) AMPHA (aka the Asian Male Public Health Association):

I could go for days, but is it not all captured in that tongue, trying so hard to get our attention? And in those beady little tarantino eyes, watching our watching.

Ick!

O popular imagination, you give so much… but never really seem to take much away!

It’s a nice photo and video clip essay, so please check it out. Further, as a way of producing an online essay, girlpower people might also find this an appealing way to share thoughts on visual and audio culture (I am happy to show you how to make one).