“And ambivalence should be her birthright.”
“To the First Lady, With Love” is an article which consists of “four thank-you notes to Michelle Obama.” The four contributors are: Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche, Gloria Steinem, Jon Meacham and Rashida Jones. Each note gives an account of Michelle Obama from the writers’ lens. This is a feminist piece, and it is fascinating to witness how different feminisms define Michelle Obama and her life in the White House. Adiche highlights that “she had to flatten herself to better fit the mold of first lady.” Steinem addresses the collective bias of a country which questioned whether or not Mrs. Obama “Was… too strong, physically and mentally to be a proper first lady.” Meacham focused on her organic garden—“ she cultivated her own garden, never threatening and never intimidating her neighbors.” Last but not least, Jones is concerned with the First Lady’s ability to be many things at once; she concludes that a part of Michelle Obama’s legacy is that she showed women “that it’s okay to be everything.”
“The position of first lady is, unfortunately, symbolic and it makes it fair game for media analysis ad nauseum. But no think piece can fully encompass a real woman.”
A symbol is a thing that represents something else; it usually represents something abstract. What is the first lady a symbol of? I am interested in how both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama have been characterized. It is intriguing that a recurring sentiment in this piece is that Michelle Obama had to be purposely non-threatening. Was she successful? I believe that Mrs. Obama’s highlighted role as a great mother, a champion of healthy eating for the nation’s children, and a dedicated wife shifted attention away from her intelligence and her other accomplishments. It seems that one of the roles of the first lady is to make her husband relatable. It seems that Mr. Clinton has taken up the task to make his wife relatable, which is the traditional role of the first spouse. However, this traditional role has been characterized in such way that it reflects badly on H. R. Clinton. That is, she’s been characterized as weak , inaccessible and/ lacking in some way;therefore it is necessary that her husband, who is more charismatic, campaign for her.
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
This is a great read. I think you bring up some powerful questions about the role of the First Lady. I want to focus on the below idea:
“It is intriguing that a recurring sentiment in this piece is that Michelle Obama had to be purposely non-threatening. Was she successful? I believe that Mrs. Obama’s highlighted role as a great mother, a champion of healthy eating for the nation’s children, and a dedicated wife shifted attention away from her intelligence and her other accomplishments.”
I think these letters are being written at the turning point in Michelle Obama’s legacy. Adichie notes this shift in her persona as her husband’s final term draws to a close, citing in her letter Michelle’s rhetoric and affect at the Democratic Convention as “relaxed,” however awakened and fully realized:
“Her rhythm was subtler, because she no longer needed it as her armor, because she had conquered.”
She is quite liberated at the moment; as her husband’s term comes to a close, so does hers (in many ways). Both Obamas aren’t mincing their words on the campaign trail, perhaps providing us with speeches and sentiments closest to their actual, unfiltered opinions.
With that said, I want to refocus on Michelle’s time as First Lady. Were the roles she undertook, the titles she confidently wore, were they “nonthreatening?” I think that this rhetoric betrays the systemic and inherent racism that persists in our country, that a woman, let alone a black woman, in politics (or any power position) has the potential to be threatening. What does that mean or look like? How would we define threatening in order to understand Michelle’s nonthreatening persona?
And to focus on the specific “nonthreatening” roles cited in the letter, I’d like to get to a place in our country where intelligence can be measured in a strong mother, nutrition advocate, and loyal wife — what about these roles suggests unintelligence? Would a man’s intelligence be questioned if he advocated for these same qualities in other Americans?
We’re in for a real treat should (when) Hillary Clinton wins and our country welcomes our first female president and our first male first gentleman (is that what we’ll call him?). To me, this is the real test of gender roles, where we will undoubtedly see rhetorical contradictions and double standards in the way that the country views Bill’s role in his wife’s presidency. But maybe I’m being a bit harsh or unfair. I’d love to hear other’s thoughts on this…
LikeLike
I too, am curious and intrigued about how the country will handle a new kind of first spouse as well as what expectations will be placed upon him. If I think about it, First Gentleman seems like an appropriate title. I wonder if it would be thought of as emasculating if the First Gentleman focused many efforts on cultivating a beautiful garden and curbing childhood obesity throughout the nation.
LikeLike
Hi rgelmosner & csandy54,
I think any of Bill’s attempts to get involved with political affairs will be embraced, if not expected, whereas Hillary’s similar attempts as first lady – i.e. fighting for health care reform in the 90s – were not only discouraged, but outright belittled.
It’s also important to point out that, when she was first lady, America regarded Hillary as both powerless and powerful at the same time. She was denigrated for attempting feats beyond her capabilities as a woman, yet she was feared for pushing the boundaries, often successfully, of what a first lady – or any woman – can or should do. Bill will not be considered a threat to Hillary’s authority in any way. He will probably be characterized as a capable former president who is forced to watch as his wife “has a go” at his old job.
Hopefully four years in the White House will alter mainstream America’s perception of women in leadership positions – but there’s really no guarantee.
LikeLike
I think that Michelle Obama certainly had to focus on being “non threatening,” one example was the “fist bump heard round the world” controversy. After she fist bumped her husband on the campaign trail, the conservative media was driven into a frenzy, calling it a “Terrorist Fist Jab” and a “Terrorist Handshake.” To address how ludicrous this blatantly racist misunderstanding of a hand gesture was, Michelle Obama diffused the controversy and removed the “threat” by using humor. She fist bumped members of the View, while appearing on the show, the panel laughed about how it was what the kids are doing, instead of giving “high fives,” and all was forgotten.
LikeLike
I think it was on the heels of this controversy that The New Yorker published a cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama fist-bumping while dressed as terrorist sympathizers. I have some memory that the magazine cover (despite being a criticism of the original racist criticism) was itself criticized for reinforcing a racist depiction rather than successfully undermining the original.
We haven’t looked at (m)any political cartoons of Hillary Clinton throughout her career, have we? We should! I bet there are some that were intended to satirize sexist criticism that were themselves criticized for being sexist.
LikeLike
I love your point about the gender roles really being tested by Bill Clinton’s role during Hillary’s presidency. Hillary’s role as president will be the same. The presidency does not change. But the role of the “first spouse” will undoubtedly take on an entirely different connotation for the first time in our nation’s history, the first spouse will be a man. I would highly doubt that Bill Clinton will play a traditional role and take on some charitable cause, although I could be wrong. To be honest I am endlessly curious about this transition and I cannot wait to see how it plays out. Rest assured it will be littered with rhetoric that further illuminates how boxed in the role of “first spouse” has been, that is, until a man held the title.
LikeLike
Thank you for posting this article; it was delightful to read. There’s a statement in Rashida Jones’ note, “Michelle Obama will have her own legacy, separate from her husband’s” which made me think that no matter who has an opinion on Mrs. Obama, all will (even begrudgingly) agree because her demeanor, her rhetoric, and her flair demand attention (in a good way). Michelle Obama has remained undeniably authentic and intelligent. Even though trustworthiness or authentic are not words that many people can ascribe to Hillary Clinton, she too, has remained undeniably intelligent. I think and I hope that things in this country are changing for a better and more democratic way when a woman’s intelligence is not only recognized, but accepted as a part of her that adds to her character.
LikeLike
I think the point you make is important and one that has been repeatedly mentioned in our discussions in class. As Professor Hayden herself has said on several occasions, and many of us have echoed, who needs a relatable candidate or a candidate who is accessible enough to enjoy a beer with? Give me intelligent and capable. Give me a Presidential who can use appropriately modified rhetoric for the American people, but whose language and demeanor betrays a deeper understanding far beyond your average citizens’ knowledge (as it should be!).
LikeLike
I really enjoyed this article too! Michelle Obama has emerged as a cohesive symbol of a powerful woman and first lady. I cringe at the “Angry Black Woman” label as it has come to encompass a racist thread in our lexicon and is equally reductive of our history as flawed Americans with a shameful past. The key word that stuck out to me in the article, and what Michelle Obama has found in herself, is ‘balance’. That she was careful, as if walking a tightrope during her time as first lady, is no dismissal of her evolution of public figure, her intelligence, and a testament to her moral character and future legacy. As far as Bill, let’s hope for the best, as his role as the First Gentleman will be another symbol of how a man will embody the supportive helpmate to his powerful and capable spouse, and by redefining these roles is a great step for all. Perhaps he can redefine his own legacy by taking this role seriously and walking the rope as carefully as Michelle Obama.
LikeLike
I like how you brought up Bill Clinton and how he’s poised to create his personal legacy of First Gentleman (?). Hopefully he will take cues from the First Lady and step up to the standard of intellect that’s been established by the Obamas and HRC.
LikeLike
I love how you highlight the intelligence evident in both Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, a trait that is often sidelined (especially when scrutinizing women in the public eye) in favor of considering how attractive or charming a woman is. I too hope that our society is shifting towards an emphasis on women’s intelligence.
However, I have to wonder at the extent to which this is true, especially in the context of the role of the First Lady. I think of Hillary Clinton, a highly intelligent and politically active first lady who was called “overly ambitious” for using her position at first lady to attempt to enact sociopolitical change. Michelle Obama, for all her Harvard Law education and her work as an advocate for healthfulness among American children, has been scrutinized for her style and her physical appearance—everything from her face to her arms to her complexion. I have seen posts on Facebook about what a lovely first lady Melania Trump would be, with her style and poise emphasized and her intellect downplayed.
LikeLike
Hi nonzamo,
In response to your question, it could be argued that the soon-to-be former first lady is symbolic of many things, perhaps all at once. This aligns with what Rashida Jones suggests: ” . . . she [Michelle Obama] was the first first lady to show women that they don’t have to choose. That it’s okay to be everything.” Like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I think Obama is a symbol of not only the modern black woman in America, but the emerging, confident voice of the modern black woman in America. Like Gloria Steinem, I think Obama is a symbol of the intelligent, capable, and – most importantly – overwhelmingly EQUAL American woman. And, like Jon Meacham, I think Obama may be symbolic of balance in an increasingly polarized world. Meacham’s point is especially potent for the modern American women, who is embattled by past, present, and future demands of what a woman should or shouldn’t be.
Although (or BECAUSE) Obama is, in effect, a positive and inspiring symbol for all things “modern woman,” her critics have been ruthless. Over the past eight years, hard right conservatives have focused their attacks on her physical appearance. Some even insisted, in the cruelest manner possible, that she was a transgender woman, too masculine-looking and acting to be truly female. Hillary Clinton has faced similar attacks. They are both, undoubtedly, attractive women; however, their accomplishments far outshine their superficial attributes. I find it ironic that their success in a “man’s world” implies that they must be masculine, if not men, in a negative sense.
Despite years of hate directed toward both the Obamas, I believe Michelle was successful in remaining somewhat subdued, molding herself into the role of first lady in order to best assist her husband’s presidency and its many goals – and obstacles. When it comes to the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary have been and will continue to be lambasted for “flipping the gender script,” if you will. If and when she wins the presidential election, Hillary will be characterized as a shrill, domineering wife. On the other hand, Bill will be characterized as the browbeaten cuckold whose only outlet is to cheat on his overbearing wife. Unfortunate, but likely.
Thanks for reading!
~ BH
LikeLike
“I find it ironic that their success in a “man’s world” implies that they must be masculine, if not men, in a negative sense.”
I’m not sure I understand this or if I do that I necessarily agree with it. Aren’t women judged by “feminine” attributes such as beauty and dress while their accomplishments go ignored? Isn’t Hillary lambasted for her mistakes in the political arena as a means to say her place is “in the kitchen”?
Being “masculine” by common use of the term means taking an active role and I think that a success criteria for anyone. “Masculine” rhetoric needs a new name.
But that’s just my reading!
LikeLike
“She had rhythm, a flow and swerve, hands slicing air, body weight moving from foot to foot, a beautiful rhythm. In anything else but a black American body, it would have been contrived.”
Could you imagine a young HIllary described this way? She seems far more stiff than Michelle. Would adopting these traits of livelihood benefit Hillary or would she indeed be considered contrived?
Just thinking about all this First Lady talk, I realized that I don’t think I’ve heard a word of Bush Jr.’s wife at all during his presidency whereas I recall seeing a lot of Michelle early on in the Obama campaign and a lot more as of late.
What’s remarkable is that the claim to notoriety for women in politics is either for a. disrupting the idyllic patriotic model of America (i.e. backlash to Michelle’s ambivalence toward America) or b. being or doing something just plain stupid (i.e. Melania’s plagiarism vs. the Palin).
Do women have a defined zone in politics where their position is either to contest or submit their power? If Hillary wins the election, does that make Bill the “First Man” in the white house?
LikeLike
*name changed from “wordsofthewall”
LikeLike
I find it interesting that from all these letters it seems as if these people actually like Michelle Obama more than her husband Mr. President. Gloria and Chimamanda both early on bring up that Michelle was Barack’s mentor and that she commanded a strong space within their relationship since the beginning.
You pose the question “What is the First Lady a symbol of?” It could simply be that the First Lady is the symbol of the faithful wife who stands by and uplifts their husband during their tenure as President. Yet every First Lady has pursued her own goals, outside of the agenda of their husbands – Hillary Clinton with healthcare and Michelle Obama with healthy eating for instance. If a First Lady merely supports the President, then why do they pursue policy? I think there is a greater symbolism behind the “office” of First Lady, that they not only help the President but that they can help represent an American society that is meant to love the President. By pursuing “greater good” initiatives, speaking on behalf of both the President and the nation, and appealing to citizens as much as the chief executive does the First Lady can almost become a model for how us citizens are supposed to be in relation to our government. First Lady to President is as citizenry to country.
All First Ladies have faced criticism in the media and from political opponents, but Michelle Obama has faced some truly vicious attacks. She did subdue herself somewhat to step into her role, but Republicans especially still found any part of her to attack, including physical appearance. Yet it can not stop people from feeling deep love and admiration for Michelle. Hillary Clinton has faced her own immense amount of vitriol during her tenure as First Lady, yet all of that rhetoric actually damaged her character and has made people question her. Why is it that Michelle survives criticism so well and Hillary doesnt?
And what does this article say about stepping out of the role of First Lady? Michelle seems to be metamorphosing, but what will he rhetoric become? Some say that they would love to see Michelle Obama run for office – if she can handle criticism better than Hillary will she be able to create more effective political rhetoric if she ever decides to run?
LikeLike
After reading these thank you letters to Michelle Obama, I was struck by the idea that Michelle Obama was forced to “flatten herself” to fit into the role as first lady. I immediately thought of how this relates to her personal style. Michelle often wears inexpensive pieces from independent designers and stores like JCrew and Banana Republic to appear more approachable and accessible to the American public. Her jewelry pieces also reflect this, for example her fake oversized pearls. Recently, for the last State dinner, Michelle Obama decided to really indulge in glamour, and chose a Rose Gold Versace gown, which cost $12,000, more than many Americans make in months, but which she could most certainly afford. The gown was gorgeous and suited her beautifully but many conservatives criticized the cost of the dress and shamed her for wearing it. This led me to wonder if she she chose to wear it at the last state dinner because she finally felt free to choose what she wanted, she doesn’t have to campaign for her husband anymore, the focus is now on the current election. Perhaps she would have rather wore more fun and exciting fashion items like this dress, during the past 10 years, but felt like she could not because of her role as First Lady. This certainly translates to a “flattening” of herself. Can you imagine not being able to wear what you want for over 8 years?
In addition, I find the First Lady’s campaign of choice quite intelligent for someone who is attempting to avoid criticism. It is quite hard to criticize someone who is trying to help children. Grocery shopping, gardening, meal planning and food preparation in our society is generally seen as the role of the matriarch of the family unit, so it fits nicely with traditional female gender roles. This contrasts with Hillary Clinton’s choice to campaign for universal healthcare as First Lady, something considered quite controversial at the time.
LikeLike
These articles perfectly sum up my love of Michelle Obama. She has done a tremendous amount for women and the conceptualization of a woman’ s place in America, simply by being herself for 8 years through the most trying and critical conditions. In my mind she is the picture of grace, even when she does not want to be. I have always thought that the Obamas as a couple were extremely cognizant of the importance of the role they were about the play and how it would ultimately impact the subconscious of all Americans as they, for the first time, saw a black man and a black family in the White House. The Obamas always appeared to be in it, it being the presidency and all that it meant, together. They knew what they were up against. Decades of racism embedded so deep into our collective American consciousness that we often seem to forget its there and deny its very existence. Arguably, they were the only two people in the country capable of slowly chipping away at the inherent bias of white America and they did so with a quiet strength that makes me incredible proud to be an American. I attribute a lot of their success to Michelle and I could not agree more that she has personally shown that women of color and women in general can embody and embrace all aspects of who they are. Women do not have to be one thing or the other, they can pursue their identities through any number of channels.
Michelle Obama carefully wielded her own version of feminine strength, firm but gentle, a force to be reckoned with but not to be feared. She gave women the space to embrace themselves on every level, whether they, themselves were like Michelle Obama or not and she did this all without yelling or screaming for reform or calling out everyone on unconscious biases. Michelle Obama is a talented and savvy orator. Her speak at the Democratic National Convention as well as her more recent speech at a Hillary Clinton rally are evidence enough. But she is so much more than that. She is a perfect representation of the newest wave a feminism, a wave that states no traits, feminine or not in their traditional sense should be more valued than others. We all should simply value who we are, without questioning whether or not our inherent traits are appropriate according to society and Michelle Obama was a very visible example of someone who can have biceps, brain and style, and have them not because she thinks she needs to, but simply because she’s being herself.
Overall, love this piece and love the first lady. Many thanks for who she is.
LikeLike
I agree, she really was very effective and this definitely solidified my love of her.
LikeLike
“She gave women the space to embrace themselves on every level.” I completely agree. She has mastered the art of comfortability and class. You feel you can relate to her but also feel she sets a good examples of what to strive for in terms of relationships, marriage, kids, work-life-balance, etc.
LikeLike
I’m trying to connect this recurring idea of private vs. public, or mediating one’s private and public roles, to HRC’s trustworthiness issue.
Referring to the latest email issue that arose from Weiner’s repeat criminal offense, Amy Davidson (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/yet-more-email-trouble-for-clinton) claimed that “for all Clinton’s strengths, one of her flaws [is] her failure to draw boundaries between the personal and the political, between her family’s private interests and its public obligation.” This statement confused me because I thought that second-wave feminism decided that the personal IS the political, so can we really blame HRC for this “failure?”
Anyway, if Davidson is right, perhaps HRC can borrow some secret notes from the First Lady (I call them secret because we don’t really know how Michelle does it).
Michelle Obama was able to prevail over public scrutiny by finding a balance between her public and private roles, according to Jon Meacham in the NYT piece. Gloria Steinem agrees: “After a decade under a public microscope, she has managed what no other first lady — and few people in any public position — have succeeded in doing: She has lived a public life without sacrificing her privacy and authenticity.” What’s HRC’s problem, then? Does her longstanding position in public affairs having anything to do with her difficulty keeping the two realms separate? Do we cut the First Lady more slack because she hasn’t been in politics to the extent that Hillary has? Do we cut her slack because she’s a black woman who made it through the odds, so to speak? Or are we comparing apples to oranges here (meaning, does Michelle just have an inherent authenticity that Hillary can never hope to cultivate?)
Davidson ends her Comment with a sobering imperative: “For Clinton’s defenders to say that all this is just politics as usual is to explain why so many Americans distrust politicians—and why, perhaps, politics ought to change. Clinton herself needs to make the case that she can bring reform. And she has a week left to do it.”
LikeLike
Though I enjoyed this piece, both the person its highlighting and its feminist view, I was a bit pissed off when comparing how Michele is portrayed in this and then how Hillary is portrayed in the current campaign. People say that Hillary seems so spread out and she goes after too many things and needs to have one consistent ‘thing’, but in this article these authors of the letters show that it is okay for women to ‘do everything’! Hillary has had a consistent ‘area,’ it has been health care and children, which both have been part of her career for MANY MANY years.
Why is it okay for Michele to be ‘everything’ while it is not okay for Hillary. Does being first lady in a time when a woman has ran for president before change the game from when Hillary was first lady? Does it create a different atmosphere for pre-Michele first ladies.
I think that the way that these people write about Michele is another way to show just how harshly Hillary is patronized by voters, whether they support her or not. Hillary is held to this impossible standard, which she has somehow kept up with, but I think there is something further there to explore. I wonder if another woman who was equally experienced as Hillary, with some marks on her record, would be as criticized as Hillary or if this is just on an individual bases in the realm of female politicians/public servants…? In light of that, I wonder how people would actually react if Michele Obama ever ran..? I hear people saying they would vote for Michele, but what if that was actually an option? But you would actually have to factor in opponent, country state, etc. And it is important to note how the people writing these letters talk to highly of Michele’s ability to speak/give speeches. Her presents is amazing, refined, capturing; which Hillary is not known for.
LikeLike
As soon as I began to read the article it brought up the issues of “appropriateness” as a first lady. From the clothes they wear to the initiatives they back, the first lady, year after year but be judged on how “appropriate” they are to be in the white house or be the wife of the president. They are scrutinized constantly and expected to take the criticism with grace and ease. They extra layer that the article took note of is how Michelle not only has to be conscious about how she fits the role of a woman in the white house but how she can do so as a Black woman in the white house. She must balance the sexist and racist remarks on a daily, doing so much as sometimes having to stop some of her language about Black people to appease Obama supporters. She has to be so aware of herself on a different level than any other first lady.
LikeLike