Please, tell me it’s a parody.
Maybe I didn’t get the joke.
It boggles the mind that Salon Magazine is currently featuring an article on Michelle Obama’s backside. It was only a few days ago that I wrote about the objectification of women in Cosmo, and now it’s happening on Salon?
The piece is degrading and disrespectful. Kaplan writes:
“To hell with biracialism! Compromise, bipartisanship? Don't think so. Here was one clear signifier of blackness that couldn't be tamed, muted or otherwise made invisible. It emerged right before our eyes, in the midst of our growing uncertainty about everything, and we were too bogged down in the daily campaign madness to notice. The one clear predictor of success that the pundits, despite all their fancy maps, charts and holograms, missed completely? Michelle's butt.”
For most of human history, women have struggled to convince men that they are more than two breasts and a vagina. If we believe (and I hope we do) that women should not be reduced to their body parts and valued only because of those parts, why is Salon hosting an article that appeals to the worst, most archaic stereotypes?
It does not help that the piece is billed as an “appreciation.” There’s no quicker way to diminish the achievements of a powerful woman than to talk about her body in an inappropriate setting. Do you think that mentioning a female CEO’s butt in a board meeting is an appreciation? How about mentioning a female surgeon’s breasts at a medical conference? Is it any better if the offenders insist it was meant as a compliment? No, no and no.
The anatomical attributes of the future First Lady should not be fodder for a serious liberal magazine. What were you thinking, Salon? What on earth were you thinking?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Esther AR
Salon.com
Comments
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=45535
As my husband (Brazilian) would say, in his broken translation of a well known Brazilian idiom: what would be of the pink without the blue. As in, it takes all kinds.
I could really do without stumbling over a mind in the gutter in order to appreciate an enlightened human being.
The article is about the feeling of liberation and pride that results from Michelle Obama's positive place in the public eye, not just as a woman or as an African-American but as an African-American woman in whom African-American women (or at least the author) can see themselves.
It is not actually an appreciation of her butt as such; the butt is a symbol, a reference that's a figurative way of saying, "I identify strongly with Michelle Obama."
As the subtitle says: "I'm a black woman who never thought I'd see a powerful, beautiful female with a body like mine in the White House."
"Do you think that mentioning a female CEO’s butt in a board meeting is an appreciation? How about mentioning a female surgeon’s breasts at a medical conference?"
Of course not, no more than it would it be okay to comment on a person's speech impediment or some other superficial characteristic in a meeting or conference. But if I happened to have (say) severe rosacea, and, after a medical conference I said, "I feel so empowered by the fact that I saw a person with rosacea speaking there with such authority, and now I feel like I can grab onto far more opportunities than I could before!"... that would be completely reasonable.
Do you see the difference?
over Obama that this wouldn't happen. And, of course, we
get the ever present "lighten up"...... Just take it ladies.
I didn't read the whole piece so I shouldn't comment on it but will say the race and gender of the author should be irrelevant. It is only relevant in assessing how wrongheaded it was for the author to write that phrase.
Perhaps the rest of the piece is a proper celebration of Michelle Obama as a powerful symbol for women and African-American women in particular.
But commenting on her anatomy is way out of line. You do not comment on people's physical attributes, its demeaning. Period. And to reference a particular attribute as having a racial identity is farcical.
"The article is about the feeling of liberation and pride that results from Michelle Obama's positive place in the public eye, not just as a woman or as an African-American but as an African-American woman in whom African-American women (or at least the author) can see themselves."
Thank you, but I had no trouble understanding the article. I don't find the purported motive to be very compelling. The author feels self-conscious about her own backside, appears to view other women through the prism of her own pre-occupation. From the author's website in 2006:
"I have a big butt. Not wide hips, not a preening, weightlifting-enhanced butt thrust up like a chin, not an occasionally saucy rear that throws coquettish glances at strangers when it's in a good mood and can withdraw like a turtle when it's not. Every day, my butt wears me ..."
The author wrote about Jennifer Lopez' butt on Salon back in 2000. Evidently, this kind of "appreciation" is the author's specialty.
"Of course not, no more than it would it be okay to comment on a person's speech impediment or some other superficial characteristic in a meeting or conference...
Do you see the difference?"
As a matter of fact, I don't, and I'm surprised that anyone would think there is a difference. This piece is inappropriate precisely because of WHERE it is. It would be fine in the Onion, or in any other humor publication. It is not fine as the featured article in a liberal opinion magazine.
Consider: What if this piece were published on the GOP website? How about the Weekly Standard? What about the website of a white separatist group? It wouldn't be an "appreciation" then, would it? So why is it an "appreciation" on Salon?
"What you fail to mention is that the author is an African-American WOMAN, who is celebrating the fact that, in Michele Obama, we at last have a feminine ideal that is something other than skinny and white."
That's because I don't find it relevant. There's no special exemption for black women to write about the anatomy of the future first lady.
Can you envision a similar piece about a Jewish Senator and his big nose? How about an African American governor and his big lips? Would it make any difference that the author was "appreciating" similarities between the politician and himself?
"And, of course, we get the ever present "lighten up"...... Just take it ladies."
Sounds suspiciously reminiscent of, "Don't worry your pretty little head about it. You simply don't understand."
I'm not a radical feminist, not even close, but the bullying atmosphere on Open Salon in the past few days is certainly giving me pause. Evidently when some men learn that they are not considered the extraordinary lovers they imagine themselves to be, they find it difficult to tolerate. They swarm to the offending blogs and insist, loudly, that they are indeed fabulous lovers, that questioning their ability to satisfy any and all women is gender bias (!) , and that women who think otherwise better back down.
Sorry, but that's not the way it works anymore. Men can no longer simply announce that women should "lighten up" and assume that they will dutifully acquiesce to accepting objectification as an "appreciation," or a joke.
Since when do we de-value the point of view of the author? Regardless of our sex or race or level of political correctness ... since when do we hang on to specific words and phrases and skip over the point ... the message ... the heart of the writer???
The Daily Show did a piece during the election, where a guy did a focus group with a buch of Jewish folks in Florida ... then segment ended on the same topic ... the white lady was explaining to the white hubsand and the black Daily Show guy, Wyatt, that Michelle Obama had the body of a black woman.
So that's funny ... but a black woman relating to what is probably her national hero is not??? Whatever ... I'm sure Barack & Michelle are very happy with the way she looks and that she has an amazing body ... when she get's pissed about it, then I'll give it some more thought.
I read the piece so I could form my own opinion, and I have to say that what most came through to me was the author's immaturity in focusing on Michelle's butt, her own butt, everybody's butt. I'm one of the white ladies the author claims has "boosted stock for having an exotic feature"--she said something like that--but when I was coming of age I didn't feel like I had good stock any more than she apparently did. I was embarrassed about my butt and tried to hide it. And yes, I did look around (in vain) for other girls who looked like me so I might feel better about myself. Then... drum roll... I grew up!
I don't need a butt role model in the White House, I need a woman who will show her smarts and professionalism. Sheesh.
"Since when do we de-value the point of view of the author?"
Every time an editor rejects a piece as inappropriate for her publication.
Would somebody please sit down for a few minutes to write a similar, simultaneously self-conscious and self-congratulatory article called something along the lines of "Brother-In-Chief's Got Funny Ears"?
Please?
If not, how about "My Next Prez Has A Fine Package Just Like Mine"?
"I would want them to be interested in me as a human being, not aspects of my anatomy that I have only so much control over."
Exactly. Suppose the editors had an opportunity to meet Michelle Obama. Would they be proud to show her the article as an "appreciation" of her virtues? Or would they wish they never published it and hope that she had never seen it?
"Then... drum roll... I grew up!"
Right. That's what most of us do. We stop projecting our insecurities on other people and accept ourselves for who we are.
Did anyone notice commentary on the President Elect's significance based on the color of his skin? Did anyone come out and say they were proud and/or empowered to see a BLACK man elected President?
This article is just a more specific and arguably more vulgar version of the same thing.
Confessional articles whering the athor puts their neuroses on display are not to everyone's taste. Given the commoness of such areticles it seems there is a market for them out there.
It is not for me to say, but I cannot eliminate the possiblitiy that some African-American women might identify with the feelings of the author.
For those women, this article could be an expression of their feelings and thoughts that they might appreciate seeing.
Please everyone be aware that you might be sensitive to some issues (like women's issues) and insensitive to other issues (like race issues).
When, then, is it appropriate to comment on the physical appearance of a political figure? Is talking about Barack Obama’s beautiful smile off limits? How about his skinniness or his big ears? Are caricature drawings of the Obamas inappropriate? But okay for white candidates? Okay for men but not women? Okay only if the drawings emphasize certain features and not others?
There’s room, I believe, for reasonable people to differ on this issue, and I think that Kaplan, despite the drubbing she’s taken in some of the comments on her post, has opened up an interesting subject. I’ve always been fascinated by pear-shaped fertility figures from ancient societies, and the sense of power that they convey. Is not the celebration of a large rear end, as opposed to the prevailing Barbie doll standard, a kind of reconnection to that ancient female potency? As an ob-gyn, I’m sure you have thoughts on this.
Aaaarrgghh….sucked into the OS vortex once again. Gotta go pack for a trip. (To Paris, where, like Michelle, we’ll feeling proud to be American...for a change!)
(BTW, my name is Laurel, not Lauren. A common mistake, but it makes me crazy!)
A little background: I'm 45, a black woman, physician, hardcore egalitarian feminist (though sometimes I identify better with the womanist movement since they are a little less shrill), and old lady mom. When I read this Salon article today I laughed and nodded in understanding. Finally another type of body image in the White House. That's pretty damn great!
All my life I've noted the subtle differences used to describe we sistas. White women: delicate, graceful, sophisticated, demure, elegant. Black women: strong, powerful, athletic, dominant. Remember the black figure skaters Surya Bonaly and Debi Thomas? Always described as "powerful" and "athletic" but never "graceful" or "elegant." And what of the Williams sisters of tennis fame? Again, they are described with words that speak more to power and musculature than grace and elegance.
So this begs the question as to whether sistas are physically different or are simply *seen as* being physically different. Well having worked with a rainbow coalition of patients, I have definitely observed that there are different levels of comfort with size between black and white adolescent girls. And also there are some differences in physical habitus...for example, the butt. For many young sistas (and older ones too), having a nice butt is a source of personal pride. As many people who think JLo's rear end is too big (and say as much in online venues), JLo herself is proud of this body part. Is there something wrong with having such pride? I would say that there isn't.
But back to the article. So sista-author's main point is that despite the work to neutralize "ethnicity" in the campaign (except for the attempts by the Fox news team), we have a visible symbol of ethnicity in the White House: a black woman who is built like a black woman. Forget her perm and the girls' press and curl styles (hair is yet another major marker of "ethnicity"), we have a true sista with a sista's body as First Lady. And how cool is that?
Now I'm just waiting to see whether she gets described as graceful and elegant or powerful and dominant after the Inauguration.
I read the article on Salon and found it to be positive, not demeaning. I truly fail to see what the fuss is all about.
I found your response to be spot on and very refreshing! Thank you!
My personal favorite is from What About Our Daughters:
"It takes a very “special” Black woman to sell herself on the auction block for a two piece and a biscuit, but only a true multimedia crack head can take another Black woman and throw them up on the auction block for a side of fries...
So apparently Erin Aubrey Kaplan , handmaiden of misogyny, decided to sell MIchelle Obama’s behind. LITERALLY! Fresh off of her dazzling interview on 60 Minutes- demonstrating intellect, dignity, and class, Salon.com decided it was necessary to bring Michelle Obama down to size by comparing her to the women in Sir Mic-A-lot video “Baby Got Back.”
To carry out their dirty work to make sure that Black women are bereft of many images of themselves NOT viewed through the lens of the Regime of Bullets Booty and Bling, Salon acquired the services of Erin Aubry Kaplan to write this hack job ...
... Is your self esteem so damaged. Your intellect so limited. Your creativity so lacking that the most exciting thing about Michelle Obama, a Princeton and Harvard graduate, mother of two and corporate executive is her “booty?” Did all your buddies over at Salon.com tell you how clever you were? Did you feel like the very special clever Black person Erin? Did you get a gold star? I hope they paid you more than $1.25 per word, because surely selling Michelle Obama down river by chopping her up into pieces, marginalizing and dehumanizing her was worth more than a two piece and a biscuit..."
You said what I was TRYING to say, only you said it much better. And, just for the record, I think that Michelle O is graceful, elegant AND powerful -- who says you can't be both?
Amy: I'm a little too much of a grown-up to have my feelings swayed by the writings of others. Yes, much of the commentary has been negative on Salon. Each of us are entitled to his/her own opinion, no? I stand by my assessment. Much ado and all that...
Laurel: I believe you can be *all* of the adjectives, but it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Now must pick up the munchkin from daycare.
We’ve covered these types of dimwitted Black women on this blog before. Those idiots that cheered the acquittal of R. Kelly on ESSENCE.com. Those brain damaged miscreants who blamed a 12 year old girl for being raped by 21 men and boys. Sadists like Lauryn London who praise Black men who shoot other Black men in the head. Or the countless mothers who auction up their children to their boyfriends so they can “keep a man” while he is “messing” with their daughters or worse.
Its not as if we haven’t witnessed Black women who would sell another Black woman or girl down river. So I present to you our latest slave auctioneer, one Erin Aubrey Kaplan
...
Erin Aubry Kaplan is what my friends and I like to call “Simple.” You know like the Mama who leaves her daughter down stairs with two teenage boys and doesn’t come running when here baby is screaming. We all know women like Erin Aubry Kaplan. Maybe their fathers didn’t love them enough or they were teased as children. Like the stripper who recruited a 12 year old girl to come dance in the club.They may be “simple,” but they are indeed dangerous. Simple Black women always manage to survive unscathed, but everything around them ends up scorched. Which is why they are to be avoided like the plague.
Maybe I am oversensitive to this kind of stuff but I felt it was fairly offensive - am I being unreasonable?
The main problem with the article is that Aubry is a crappy writer. A more skilled writer could have made the same point with humor and grace instead of off-putting vulgarity. Teendoc did a better job here in the comments.
I guess I don't see the article as an "objectification" of women or reduction to body parts. I saw it as an acknowledgement or celebration of finally having a role model that reflects the author's self-image. In an ideal world, that role model wouldn't be based on looks or shape or image at all. But, in that ideal world, people (women, men, children) wouldn't be bombarded with images that reflect a narrowly defined body type and image as the standard or norm -
white, thin (or at least, not fat), tall-ish, with perfect skin and classic hair (usually blonde)
I'm sorry - it is pretty hard to NOT notice that Michelle Obama represents a very different body type. To me, her obvious comfort with her own body is refreshing and is an example for women. Talking about this aspect doesn't take anything away from her intelligence or achievements.
One of the EP letters on Salon - by anonymous8888 sums up my feelings -
i'm amazed at the negative response to this article. as a white woman with a big butt, i thoroughly enjoyed this piece and read it with a big smile on my face.
i can relate to the author's joy that we now have a role model who has a body type that is not typically celebrated in the media and advertising. it's very validating.
maybe those of you who didn't grow up with a big booty can't get it, but to celebrate michelle's butt, and the arrival of such a butt in the white house, is just as uplifting as the fact that it's also the first black family in the white house.
i won't belabor this because i think kaplan already did a better job than i can of expressing this.
but one last stab: to think that a body type that has never exactly been celebrated as the standard of female beauty may now become fashionable is pretty exciting to those of us who have been covering up our booties with long jackets for decades.
Salon has published 24 articles about Hugh Hefner, not all of them critical.
Like I said, I agree with your points about the article. I am only questioning your thoughts that it doesn't fit in with Salon.
(Rated)
I don't disagree with your points on the article, which, as far as I'm concerned, committed the worst of all writing sins; it was boring.
Most of you are not old enough to write objectively about this. I am.
And given the wisdom that comes with pushing 70 I can assure you that I have never had conscious or unconscious thoughts about Mrs. Obama's butt. In fact, had the whole issue never have been "stuck out there' as it were, I would never in my life given it any consideration.
My Solomon like conclusion is that we all have butts and what they look like will be, when you get to be my age, irrelevant. Kind of like my comment.
Monte.
PS: I'll be back. The comments alone are worth the price of admission.
Also, I don't know how Michelle would feel about that article. Do you?
I don't recall seeing similar articles about the figures of other first ladies so why is it OK write one about Mrs. Obama?
Salon is the perfect place.
As to whether she would want Sasha and Malia to see it. Why not? It would make great fodder for discussion.
From what I know of Michelle Obama from people who know her, she is a very grounded and, for lack of a better descriptor, "real" person. I cannot imagine that with all she has experienced and all that she and Barack have been through to get where they are, that a complimentary ode to her sista-gurl figure would get her too bent out of shape. But who knows...
"I don't recall seeing similar articles about the figures of other first ladies so why is it OK write one about Mrs. Obama?"
I am sure there were plenty of such articles. But I think it's beside the point anyway; the article was not really about her "butt" as such, it was about the feeling that comes from finally seeing someone who looks like you in the White House, when for your whole life all you've ever seen is someone who looks very different, and therefore marks you out as different from those in power.
I would not personally have focused on the butt had I sought to write such an article, but I didn't take it to be anything other than the author's attempt to emphasise just how many ways, besides skin colour alone, she has previously felt separate from every other first family. Good article? Not especially. Misogynistic? Hardly.
I am genuinely fascinated as to how somebody could be so incensed by this article about Michelle Obama's butt, which is clearly well-intentioned even if it isn't totally satisfactory, while at the same time selecting as her "favorite" online comment about the article one that states:
Erin Aubry Kaplan is what my friends and I like to call “Simple.” You know like the Mama who leaves her daughter down stairs with two teenage boys and doesn’t come running when here baby is screaming. We all know women like Erin Aubry Kaplan. Maybe their fathers didn’t love them enough or they were teased as children. Like the stripper who recruited a 12 year old girl to come dance in the club.They may be “simple,” but they are indeed dangerous. Simple Black women always manage to survive unscathed, but everything around them ends up scorched. Which is why they are to be avoided like the plague.
It is clearly reprehensible to call Kaplan "a simple black woman" and claim that she is the sort of woman who is likely to neglect and abuse children, just because she wrote an article that referenced Michelle Obama's body type. But somehow this gets to be a "favorite" while the Salon piece is beyond the pale?
Good grief.
Maybe middle aged white people don't have the last best insight on this. Just consider the possibility that this is true.
It's not always gender; sometimes it's race.
Also, take heed of the comment that points out the rampant racism of the site that one of the quoted reactions to the article comes from. Perhaps a rush to judgment happened here?
I've seen some discussion in this context about third wave feminism. First wave feminism was the fight for the most basic human political and economic rights, like the right to vote. Second wave feminism was radical, interpreting everything through the lens of the oppressive patriarchal hegemony. Third wave feminism is a rejection of second wave feminism and its relentless insistence on the essentialist nature of women (that all women want the same things simply because they are women).
Third wave feminism is noted for its positive attitude toward sex (rather than viewing it as "oppression" by men). This positive attitude is related to the third wave emphasis on individuality. Some women may like pornography. Some women may want to be subjects of pornography. Each woman can and should be respected for her individual needs and desires.
The positive view of sexuality should not be construed as a license to derogate other women, or to re-institute traditional gender stereotypes. So while Ms. Kaplan might be obsessed with her own derriere and enjoy talking about it, that does not give her license to talk about other women in the same way, since they may not share her individual needs and desires.
Third wave feminism applauds the enjoyment of pornography by women who enjoy it. It does not applaud pornified portrayals of other women who might not feel the same way. Ultimately, third wave feminism is about being respected on your own terms; it is not about foisting your own terms on other women, because nothing can justify that.
Perhaps (and you'll rarely hear me saying something like this) you would have to be a woman of color to really connect with what she was saying, albeit not the best way possible, but in her own way.
I don't think she meant any disrespect to Ms. Obama....on the contrary, in my opinion.
Perspective is exactly what I meant.
nothing, is worse than not being cool. And what's the comeback?
I don't know, other than to keep at it.
Thank you Dr Amy for keeping at it. And I will do the same.
Amy: Yes, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. And yours is indeed fascinating. How you move from the author's description of the sense of disenfranchisement black women can feel about the differences in their bodies to a dismissive "she's obsessed with butts" assessment is astounding. It speaks to a lack of sensitivity for the experiences of women of color.
It also illustrates one of the reasons why black women have often moved away from the feminist movement to the womanist movement because the feminist movement is seen as a movement primarily for and about white women, not all women. There are other reasons, but that is a concern commonly voiced. And your words speak to this dismissal of our experience, in my opinion. Again, your right to do so, but it saddens me nonetheless.
Palindrome: I agree with you.
"How you move from the author's description of the sense of disenfranchisement black women can feel about the differences in their bodies to a dismissive "she's obsessed with butts" assessment is astounding."
Oh, please. Spare me that baloney. No one gets a pass for racism, sexism or degrading writing because of their ethnic "experience."
The woman has made a career of writing about the backsides of notable women. She herself says that her most important piece of writing is "The Butt." I'd call that obsession, regardless of her color.
"Thank you so much for summing up your assessment of the experiences of black women and their feelings of disenfranchisement as "baloney." We'd better kowtow to the general feminist agenda or get run over. Good to know. Good to know."
Honestly, teendoc, have you been appointed mediator of the experiences and feelings of all black women? Why are you implying that you speak for all of them?
I ask because according to the massive amount of comment generated both on Salon and on other websites, most African-American women appear to be as much or more angry than I am about the inappropriate and degrading use of Michelle Obama's physiology to extend the author's oeuvre on other women's backsides.
Never implied that and don't know how you inferred that. I speak for myself and for my experiences. Experiences that I share with Ms. Kaplan due to our common race and sex...and experiences you have dismissed as "baloney" with your great spirit of sisterhood.
"and experiences you have dismissed as "baloney" with your great spirit of sisterhood. "
Please, teendoc, go back and read my statement again. I did not say that your experiences are baloney, I said specifically that your claim that I moved from "[the] description of the sense of disenfranchisement black women can feel about the differences in their bodies to a dismissive "she's obsessed with butts" assessment is astounding. It speaks to a lack of sensitivity for the experiences of women of color."
I still believe that your claim (not your past experience) is baloney. Asserting that an author who has written three major pieces on butts (hers, J Lo's and Michelle Obama's) is obsessed with the topic has NOTHING to do with the race of the author, and it was wrong of you to imply that it did.
Should Michelle Obama's booty be off-limits? written by Broadsheet's Sarah Hepola.
Here's the comment that I posted:
How to put down a professional woman
A great deal of (virtual) ink has been spilled debating the appropriateness of writing a paean to overcoming racial stereotypes by invoking racial stereotypes. I agree with the bloggers at Racialicious and Michelle Obama Watch that the the article crossed the line.
As the "offended Open Salon blogger" referenced in Hepola's piece, I was equally struck by the author's apparent lack of awareness that "compliments" about a professional woman's anatomy have often been used to subtly or not so subtly undermine the credibility of professional women.
When I applied to medical school almost 30 years ago, I was stunned to have my appearance and wardrobe discussed in detail by my male interviewer. I had no choice then but to play along. My female colleagues and I had very little choice when male surgeons leaned on us during surgery, and I certainly had no choice when a male resident "complimented" me by inviting me to his call room after hours, even though I was married. I reported that incident, but it was brushed off by the head of the program and I was advised by the dean of the medical school to drop it.
"Compliments" about a professional woman's anatomy are usually not compliments. They are efforts to marginalize professional women by making it clear that no matter how much education they have, and how many professional accomplishments they have amassed, they are still nothing more than their anatomy.
how do any of the issues you raised about your experience and beliefs apply to the author of the article?
Are you suggesting that the author was trying to say that Michele Obama was nothing more than her anatomy?
Are you saying that the author intended, consciously or not, to marginalize the First Lady Elect?
I think you are imposing your set of issues onto the author unfairly. People should allowed to discuss their reactions to public events and figures honestly and benignly without having to answer for every negative association or emotional reaction they could raise in every possible reader.
I think you are not doing a good job of processing the point of view of someone who is unlike you in significant ways.
I think you could have taken the article at face value and not imposed your interpretation and imputed so many perniscous motives to the writer.
I think your reaction is unfair.
Try to remember how so many alt-health proponents unfairly imputed wrongful motives to so many of your posts. I think you are doing something similar here.
The author's basic premise was not only valid but important. Body issues are prominent in many women's (dare I say most women's?) psyches. These issues are not trivial; many women whose body doesn't correspond to what is considered "beautiful" or even "the norm" (and even women whose bodies DO correspond to those standards) can tell you how this has affected them and their self-concept in many areas of their lives.
So I don't think it's inappropriate to point out how important "body image" role models are, or to observe that the First Lady will serve as such a role model.
I agree with other commenters who say the problem is in the tone and attitude of the article. Repeated references to "Baby Got Back" turn the focus to a sexual rather than a feminist one. Making the article about her butt, rather than speaking more generally about her body type, achieves the same result.
The author writes, "Thanks to Michelle, looking professional and provocative in a distinctly black way will become not only acceptable but also part of a whole presidential look that's more, well, inclusive." Um, how does "provocative" come into this? Looking professional and ... "attractive"? "Well-groomed"? "Beautiful"? These terms would not seem demeaning to me, but describing her look as "provocative" seems bizarre. Is her look "provocative" simply because she has a butt? Sexualized statements like this throughout the article confuse me.
I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that Michelle Obama's looks are reassuring, bolstering, and inspiring to many women. However, this article's elaboration of that fact troubles me.
"Are you suggesting that the author was trying to say that Michele Obama was nothing more than her anatomy?
Are you saying that the author intended, consciously or not, to marginalize the First Lady Elect?"
Let's be realistic here. The authors is a paid professional freelance journalist. She was just trying to make a buck.
There's nothing wrong with trying to make a living, and many freelance authors do so by writing several iterations on a particular topic. The author was not creating a deep and profound cri de coeur on why she admired Michelle Obama. She was writing the same sophomoric drivel she always writes: she's embarrassed about her large derriere and she feels better about herself when she sees public figure who also have a large derriere.
It was immature and demeaning for the author to draft Michelle Obama in her attempt to reprise her success in obsessing about her own butt. The author is entitled to write what she wants to write, but that does not mean that anyone has to publish it. That's why publications have editors.
Salon is not Highlights Magazine where articles about "people who look like me" are written to boost the confidence of children. It represents itself as a serious, liberal magazine. Paying the author $1000 dollars for her musings on women's backsides, and then featuring the article was intended to shock people, amass page views and raise advertising revenues. That's not what a serious liberal magazine ought to be doing. It was grossly inappropriate for Salon to try to make a buck by comparing the future first lady's derriere to anyone's, let alone a marginally successful freelance writer's.
"The author writes, "Thanks to Michelle, looking professional and provocative in a distinctly black way will become not only acceptable but also part of a whole presidential look that's more, well, inclusive." Um, how does "provocative" come into this? Looking professional and ... "attractive"? "Well-groomed"? "Beautiful"? These terms would not seem demeaning to me, but describing her look as "provocative" seems bizarre. Is her look "provocative" simply because she has a butt? Sexualized statements like this throughout the article confuse me."
I agree.