I am not totally sure how to respond to this commentary on CNN about Michelle Obama's choice to stay at home during the presidency of Barack Obama. I don't want to be too hard on it, because I do think on one level highlighting that there are also women of color that stay at home and sometimes feel isolated and alienated so they should build relationships, well that is great. Having the resources to be a stay at home is even better. However, suggesting that you should stay home to do it for the betterment of the country and to uphold traditional values-well that is just not OK.
She makes an apt argument about black women taking care of wealthy white people's children.
From breast-feeding to bathing to rocking them, the women tended their owners' children, while not being allowed to lavish such attention on their own. Long after slavery was over, little changed in this dynamic.It was common for black women to leave their own children at home to fend for themselves and go to work for low wages as domestics in the homes of well-off white families. As African-Americans have gotten more opportunities, a college degree has been a ticket to the career ladder. Period. Devoting full time to motherhood is considered a waste of education by many in the black community.
And while I think there is some cultural impetus for black women working outside the home, I think more times than not, it is class privilege that gives people the ability or idea to "stay at home."
Outside of the class assumptions behind the idea of the "stay-at-home" mom, I don't necessarily think that Michelle Obama's choice to stay home is a win for us women of color that are just looking for a role model to let us know we can stay at home nor does it disrupt the racist idea that only white women stay at home. I think it feeds into antiquated notions of motherhood that make her more palatable to a wide audience suggesting that yes, she disrupts the idea of the "normal" American by being black, but is as American as apple pie, by staying in the home.
via CNN.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Mocha moms" take over the white house. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10642
-Being a stay-at-home mom is SUCH a personal choice, it hardly warrants criticism, especially given the fact that the Obamas don't NEED a two income sources.
-Given her track record as an Ivy-educated attorney and her competence on the campaign trail, I hardly consider her a "Stay At Home Mom."
-Isn't the position of First Lady a job in itself?
Leave Michelle alone.
Really? What's the salary?
Not to say that First Lady isn't a huge responsibility, with an extremely high workload. Being a regular SAHM is a full time job.
What's problematic about this "tradition" is it demonstrably reinforces the idea that a woman's work belongs to her husband, and is not of worth in and of itself.
For a normal SAHM, this is an extremely personal decision and should be left alone. For the first family, who are inarguably role models, such a decision warrants discussion.
-Isn't the position of First Lady a job in itself?
Really? What's the salary?
There isn't one, but God knows there should be. What I really wish is that this were taken as a chance to push for a salary for the First Lady, rather than mock the position because it has none. It's one thing to wring our hands because she's choosing to become a SAHM, but the home she's choosing to stay in is the White House. Her position is going to require an insane amount of work, quite possibly as much as her current positions. The First Lady has her own office, her own staff, and she's in charge of social and ceremonial events at the White House, not to mention all of the work she'll be expected to do in the public eye. Regardless of her SAHM status when she moves into the White House, she still has a job to do. So, really, why DON'T we pay the First Lady? The First Lady chooses to take on this responsibility, puts herself out there, uses her position to put a spotlight of causes that need them, and we don't even pay her? That bothers me far more than whether or not Michelle Obama chooses to work outside the home when they move into the White House.
I just keep thinking about what would have happened if Hilary Clinton had made it into the White House, or if McCain had won and later passed away, giving us our first First Gentleman. If they had taken the opportunity to focus on that position rather than a job outside the White House -- hell, even if they had kept their jobs outside the White House -- can't you picture them pushing for the position to be a paying one? They would point out all of the work involved with being the President's spouse and probably have no problem asking for a paycheck. So why isn't that more of a consideration when it's a woman in the position?
While the *idea* behind giving the FL a salary is great, I knee jerked at our bankrupt government giving more money to the already super-rich. I guess that's what economic crisis does, lol.
Samhita, I've been enjoying your recent posts about Michelle Obama. In the future, I'm sure we'll see lots more mainstream news coverage highlighting women of color (for better or for worse).
Like you, I also found Jolene Ivey's argument a bit problematic. Ivey's comment about Obama having the chance to be "a traditional first lady" made me cringe. And I think the pressure is on Obama to prove she can be just as "normal" as all the other First Ladies, to even prove that having more melanin is the only thing that separates most White women from most women of color. It's similar to that "post-racial" and "colorblind" stuff that came up after the Colin Powell endorsement. Ultimately, it's too difficult for me to untangle all of the thoughts about class and race that surfaced when I read the commentary. But I appreciate you bringing it over.
"Given her track record as an Ivy-educated attorney and her competence on the campaign trail, I hardly consider her a "Stay At Home Mom.""
Please please explain to me where you were going with this. Because it sounds like you're saying that if you're highly educated and competent then you're just so obviously superior to those other "stay at home moms" that the label doesn't even really apply to you.
I don't see why your level of education or career success should have any effect on whether or not you're a "real" stay-at-home Mom.
Sorry, that was meant to be a reply to Tsunade's comment up above.
Extremely good point! I myself do NOT look down at SAHM's. God knows that the workload of holding down the fort is enormous (I couldn't do it). The media is doing all the judging for me on that front. MY point was that she already scraped and climbed her way to Princeton, and Harvard, held her own as a professional, so I think she's earned her right to have ONE (highly stressful) job instead of MULTIPLE ones right now (as so many women have at the moment).
The fact that we're discussing her decision to not hold down another (yes, another) job is a sign of the times. If Laura Bush had worked outside the home during her husband's term, that would have certainly raised some eyebrows.
And yes, let's not give FL's a salary. If we had a female president, how would you feel about the FM getting a paycut? I consider the considerable power and platform wielded by FL's to be a salary in itself. Why not give military wives/husbands/baby's mothers and fathers a paycheck, or more benefits for the constant moving and deployments instead?
Historically black women have never had the luxury of choosing to work or stay at home. We had to work in order provide for our families whether we wanted to or not. I think Michelle Obama being a stay at home mom is seen as a triumph by many black women because it was not a luxury that our mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers had. I personally don't see being a first lady as a demotion from having a career. Michelle Obama will have a lot of influence and be able to bring awareness to any causes she advocates for because of her high-profile position. There is more to life than having a career.
I think it was bell hooks who wrote about this in "Ain't I a Woman" but I want to track it down after Thanksgiving. It was the first thing that came to mind when I read this post. Really complicated subject. I do knee-jerk when a highly-educated, brilliant woman like Michelle calls herself the first mom and chooses to be a Stay at home mom. I'm not sure it sets a great example for young, female, college grads. You know what happens when a young girl ties her fortunes to her husband right? 20 years later he's left her for a, yep, 20 year old, and she's working as a receptionist wondering what happened to her dreams.
But I remember being really struck by what hooks wrote on this, and I think you just touched on that here.
I see being First Lady as a job/position in and of itself. I think it is the right choice. And I would for damn sure not want to go thru the hassel of working in an area where the President's wife was,the security would be hell. And I have a problem with folks who demean at home moms.
It's not demeaning them. It is important to discuss whether, even today, talented women are putting their own ambitions on the back-burner to support their husband's ambitions.
I think about this a lot. My niece is being raised by my very traditional sister-in-law, who comes from a family where all of the women seem to have a goal of five, not four, but five children. Her older sister's and brother's daughters are all college-educated and several of them married after working for one year, and had a baby, and quit. The others seem to hold that as their dream.
I have watched too many older women, forced back into the workplace after decades of marriage, which ended in divorce. They were financially disempowered, hanging onto their ex-husbands for every dollar they could get, while their ex's fought like hell because they had a new, younger wife to spend those spoils on. By and large, these women were working as receptionists. Half of marriages end in divorce.
Further, if your marriage doesn't end in divorce, it's always good to be empowered in any relationship. It's good for you, it's good for your man, and it's good for your relationship.
...also in this and age many people work at home. Isn't that the new trend?
thenderson, that makes a lot of sense to me.
In general though, the changes in Michelle Obama's image have really troubled me. If it's been all completely 100% her choice, then that's great. But it seemed like the closer Barack got to the presidency, the more Michelle was being asked to stop wearing suits, stop sounding "angry," emphasize her role as a mom and downplay herself as a lawyer.
I think it's really troubling that the First Lady is supposed to reflect the values of the good ol' days before the women's movement. I'm troubled that Michelle seems to have an extra burden placed on her to prove that black women can be just like white women, but I'm also pretty unhapy about the First Lady role in general. Look what happened to Hillary Rodham Clinton when she tried to be non-traditional. Huge backlash.
To Mariella:
I agree that it's a bad choice for the Obamas if it's a situation being forced on Michelle.
As a general post:
As a SAHM (yes, I'm white, and yes, we're in debt up to our eyeballs to have made that happen and yes I'm grateful that I had a choice about it), I beg you to be careful about what you say about motherhood. Honestly, the only thing I've learned as a mother is that you cannot, cannot judge what other mothers do. As a feminist, I support whatever choice a mother makes, as long as it's an authentic choice.
And while Michelle being a SAHM is possibly not her authentic choice (and that's a super-not-great thing), it does make me feel better for the Obama girls to have a SAH parent. Maybe eight years from now, ex-President Obama will decide to SAH.
I am curious about SAHD (stay at home dad). If McCain had won and die unexpectedly, thus allowing Gov. Palin to become president, what roles would Todd Palin had?
He is currently unemployed but he is often on the campaign trail with Sarah. Will he devote his time to his children?
Sarah brings her children with her on the campaign trail and forces her two daughters, Willow and Piper to miss two whole months of school.
Since Todd was unemployed or manage a job at home, shouldn't Sarah allow Todd to takes the girls to school every single day instead of appearing with her on the campaign for two months.
Why isn't Todd taking the girls to school, why isn't he at home to lend an ear to Bristol during her pregnancy, and encourage his son in law, Levi Johnston to stay in school so that he can take care of Bristol instead of dropping out, and make sure that Track was not involve in any bad behaviors.
why didn't Todd take care of Trig and tried to learn about how to better parent himself in order to be prepare to raise a special need child. He should also devote himself to his children whereas Sarah is the one bringing in the bacon.
If it was the other way around, where Todd was the chosen nominee and Sarah was the housewife, of course she would be doing all these things since it is expected of her.
I always see double standard here. Since women are encourage to be housewife if her husband had a high paying job or a job that encourage a lot of support, such being president or the Governor of a state.
Many first ladies do the childbearing and duties of traditional first ladies if their husband is in politics but men and the husband are not expected to behave the same way.
Even though Sarah Palin was governor, she was still the one who bears the household duties and taking care of the children whereas stay at home dad, Todd is rarely seen doing "feminine" duties, like taking the girls to school while Sarah was campaigning.
We always talk about the duties of a first lady but what about a first gentleman? Would we praise Todd Palin if he had chosen to continue to be a SAHD but chose not to participate in any social service but instead allow Sarah to do it while being the president?
I understand what you are saying. What do you think the role of a president's wife should be? do you just not like the term "first lady" and the history of it? and when we do elect a woman president do you think we will be forced to redefine or even change the term? first spouse maybe??
I think that the role of the First Lady should be defined by each individual woman. I don't have a problem with how traditional someone like Laura Bush seems because she seems like she's really like that. But ALL First Ladies are expected to reflect traditional families by staying at home and devoting her time only to her children.
Hillary Clinton was more than qualified to do official work in President Clinton's administration but people absolutely despised her because she did and she was forced to start playing a traditional role. People freaked out at even the thought that Michelle Obama might do something similar, and since then her image has changed a lot. She just has so much to offer in so many arenas that I really hope she's not being limited.
I don't mind the term First Lady, though there will definitely be a new term when a female is elected. I'm guessing it would officially be First Gentleman, but everyone will probably come up with their own terms, with varying degrees of obnoxiousness.
Perhaps I should just write my own post somewhere, because I seem to be having some problem with the whole SAHM issue. Personally, I think being a SAHM is a perfectly valid and respectable choice, when it's even financially possible to make such a choice. Having been one for periods of time, I recognize that it is just as demanding and tiring, if not more so (since the day never ends) than out of home employment. I love that we are seeing more men respect this dynamic, and even take it on themselves if the woman is the higher earner.
It is generally a very personal decision within families. It requires a great amount of trust to put your "pay package," as it were, in the hands of your romantic partner rather than a formal employer who is bound by law to provide at least minimum wage and benefits (and can also give room for advancement).
How many times have we heard of the archetypal "housewife" who vindictively sues for half "her husband's" assets upon divorce? Because, of course, her work is valueless, and she is "really" entitled to absolutely fuck all (or at best a pittance that will allow her to live in a residential hotel until she can get a minimum wage job that requires no recent workforce experience).
Obviously, the Obamas don't fall into this kind of situation, as Michelle Obama is highly educated, has independent means, and is not likely to become redundant in the workforce. I am sure "First Lady" looks awesome on a resume.
However, most people do. So, the roll-modeling of this dynamic as "desirable" because it's "traditional" is problematic and warrants discussion.
Ultimately, of course, it is their choice. I'm not even trying to insinuate that it's the wrong choice. Just that it should be analyzed for what it is, not accepted as "correct" because of tradition.
I think this situation is a little different. She will be first lady and her children will live in the white house. Being the presidents daughters is hard. Being BLACK makes this situation way more sensitive. Michelle Obama knows what she is doing. She needs to be there in order to take care of her children and make sure that she protects them from certain critisms and make sure that they grow up as "noramally" as they can. I believe the grandmother took care of the children when Obama wasnt involved in the presidency. And Michelle worked. This isnt ALL just about upholding some Black stay at home image for America. Although, I do believe that is part of it.
I am sick of Black women forever having to redeem themselves. Somehow, we always get blamed for the "fall" of the Black family. The woman accused Black women of moving their sole concentration from white women and their family to money instead of holding dear to the white patriachal "norm" of being a stay home mom. Because thats what it is, in its historical context. If anything, it IS the domesticity that disrupted Black women's participation in stay at home momdem.
Once a fuckinggin. Yes, thats a word. One Black woman has to represent every Black women in America. Prraaaisssseee her for representing a stay at home mom. And what does that say to Black women who are single mothers because of invisible dads?
I will admit my bias. I hate it when women with crazy education decide to stay at home and raise children and never go back to work. It pisses me off. And I think thats just because I value education so much. That is a waste of educationin my opinion whatever. I do believe that being a stay at home mom is a job, a job that isnt valued in this country and in many ways women are punished for raising their children. Being a stay at home dad is the same. RAISING CHILDREN IS A JOB. No matter if your a woman or a man.
Bottom line, what their really saying is praise Michelle for redeeming Black women and staying in line with gender roles. Because their not realy praising that the children will have one parent that will be able to help them transition, what their saying is praise God, they have their Mother...A woman that knows her place.
Gosh..my thought was long. lol
"I will admit my bias. I hate it when women with crazy education decide to stay at home and raise children and never go back to work. It pisses me off. And I think thats just because I value education so much. That is a waste of educationin my opinion whatever."
As an educated woman who has chosen to struggle financially and depend on my husband's income to support our family, and try daily and maybe every single second to swallow that fact and square it with my feminist sensibilities, I resent the idea that raising children is a "waste of education".
I chose not to work outside my home because I want to use and continue my education, learned through schooling and through living, to educate my own. . .to never compromise their upbringing and education in order to fulfill my own desires, mostly because, as a mother, my greatest desire is to see my children become thoughtful and hopeful and caring and courageous and self-sufficient people.
Beleive me, it is not a luxury. I am poor, in terms of material possesions. We struggle to make ends meet,but I do not feel a goddamned second is wasted when I see my daughter learning her colors and putting puzzles together. Not a thing has been wasted if my son can enter a room at age eight, long-haired and pink shirted, all tender and loving, without a hint of shame, and with a great deal of poise.
Where in this argument is the idea that, as stay-at-home mothers, we are subverting the society we all so-love to criticize? Why not look at the idea that removing oneself from the work-force can be EMPOWERING? That, even, keeping our kids out of school, keeping them in our homes, removes them from gender-stereotyping, creativity-inhibiting, mind-numbing, dumb-downing, aggressive american culture.
I am so sick of being seen as some whitebread suzie fucking homemaker type for doing what I feel is best for my family.
That is your decision and I am not judging you as a human being, a wife, a mother. And I appreciate you raising your children in such an environment and I think that's important. It's awesome. And I do appreciate your comment (um. even the anger) because as I think about it, I think the parent I would be most concerned about is one without any education (qualified or not) and without life experience raising children. My problem is the choice never to go back to work. Yes, motherhood is a job, but it isnt a lifelong job. So will you continue to stay at home even after your children are out of the house. (You dont have to anwser that question really). And what are husbands roles in these feminist centered stay at home mom situations. I would hope they are interactive as well. And I admitted it as a bias, not a fact, not something that is written in stone in my life. A recognized bias. Right now it stands, but it does help to hear your perspective. It is a complex issue and one that is very personal.I know so many women, one in particular who claims feminist values and perspectives but left behind a job that she loves (she has a masters in counseling) for another one that she loves as well...stay at home momdem...but yet, she still feels trapped. I almost get the sense she was guilted into that position by society and her family. The pressure is still there, so I always have to wonder. Because she really has a patriachal household where her work isnt valued. But, now Im rambling. The point is, do what is right for you. My opinion is not to change people's choices and beliefs. And I respect your decision to be a stay at mom and what it represents for you. It just becomes a complex issue with me when degrees are involved.
I respect your choice and applaud you, truly, for being such a conscientious parent. My mother was a highly-achieving woman who made the same sacrifices, and she has my everlasting admiration and gratitude.
But that's the fatal rub, ins't it?
It's always women.
Now and forevermore.
When I see SAHM with staying home to rear up daughters, all I can see is a mental flash-forward to that daughter being grown and equally well-educated and choosing to stay home out of an equally self-sacrificial--and admirable!-- attention to her children's education and socialization.
And then I see THAT little daughter growing up and doing the same thing.
Forevermore...
In an endless cycle...
And it is always the daughters being educated and writing superb undergrad theses and even graduate theses and passing the bar exam or having a huge gallery opening and then...and then...taking her place on the merry-go-round so that the next generation of boys will be superbly educated to become the leaders of our world and the next generation of girls will be superbly educated...to become the next on the merry-ground, so that the next generation ....
Well said.
Being a SAHM isn't wasting one's education. It's just not getting paid to use one's education.
A SAHM, or any woman, can use her education for moral and intellectual fulfillment. Why is making money the barometer of whether or not you're using your mind and talents?
You obviously didnt read my responses. Thanks though.
I don't see why Michelle Obama has to answer to you, or me, or anyone for this. So she is in the public eye — so what? God forbid she lives her life however's best for her without worrying about whether every choice in her personal life sends the right message.
I'm white, so I'm not going to touch the race aspects of this simply because I wouldn't be able to improve the argument any.
However, I am a SAHM who has a job. I am not saying being a SAHM is my job. It is definitely work, and hard work at that, especially on the days when I take care of my best friend's toddler too. But it is not my job. It is my love in life. For me, life is about happiness and finding your passion or as my husband and I call it "your can't not." I think people place too much emphasis on education leading to a job and that somehow you have wasted your education and are no good if you don't automatically jump into some noble profession to better humanity. My education has improved me as a person. It makes me function better as a person in society whether I work or not. And I take that education and pass what I can onto my daughter and equally share it with any of those I care about around me. The hardest thing in life is to find what makes you happy, truly happy. If being a SAHM is what does that, then you should never be made to feel inferior for your choice. I work nights as a computing archaeologist but it isn't my can't not. It pays the bills. So, when people ask what I do, I proudly say I am a SAHM because that is my happiness. It is a bit arrogant and presumptuous to label people who make these choices as wasting their education.
If that is what Michelle Obama wants, then great. But, like many on here, given the persona she has presented to the public in the past, I have trouble believing this is a choice she is making simply to be happier.
I definetely liked what you said about your education being something you use for your children and the people you love around you. I always have had this perspective that my degree has to educate the world or its worthless. That's not how everyone perceives theirs and it shouldnt be! And it really is hard to find what really makes you happy!
Michelle! Honey, what are you thinking?! You can't sit the bench on being First Lady. It's OK to take a while to adjust, get the kids settled, potty train the puppy. After that, ya'll gotta get out there bring some positive change to Amnerica. Yes, you can!
^_^
We're watching.
*hugs*
Whups, typo... DO Over.. can anyone delete this?
Michelle! Honey, what are you thinking?! You can't sit the bench on being First Lady. It's OK to take a while to adjust, get the kids settled, potty train the puppy. After that, ya'll gotta get out there bring some positive change to America. Yes, you can!
^_^
We're watching.
*hugs*
I can't believe so many people are surprised by this (well actually I can, but I wish otherwise).
Michelle has SAID from the very beginning of the campaign that she personally has no interest in politics, and that she did not plan to be a politician at any point.
She was a BUSINESS lawyer. That's nothing like being a politician. During the campaign she said she avoided reading much news so that she could provide positive support to Obama.
So I always thought it was kind of silly when people tried to say she would be a strong female politician in the vein of Hillary Clinton.
Which is not to say raising kids isn't important. But, there are some good stay at home moms, and then there are some really bad ones. And everything in-between. So I am not going to hold her up as a martyr or heroine for her decision...
I strongly disagree that it is "class privilege" that makes SAHM an appealing idea. Poor white rural dwellers vote Republican after all (a friend of mine is engaged to one) and it's hardly because they are looking after vast estates.
Yeah, I think a lot of SAHMs do not view it as a privilige thing.
Some do it out of a sense of obligation or because it's the right thing to do.
Some do it because paying for childcare would cost more.
(I do understand though, that if you need two salaries to literally survive, then SAHM is not an option)
Either way, I think nearly all SAHM's I've ever known, whether they still thought they were doing the right thing or not, grew terribly bored and frustrated with it after awhile.
Umm, that should have read:
"Some do it out of a sense of obligation or because they believe it's the right thing to do."
Well just because they don't view it as a privilege thing (which i agree, very few do) doesn't mean it isn't. i mean, to survive on a single-parent income, it has to be a pretty decent income. you do have to have some level of class privilege going on for it to even be feasible.
It does not necessarily require a big income. It depends on where you live, and how you want to live.
To the extent that yes, some basic income is required, you could make the same argument about many, many other dimensions in life. The concept of privilige is always somewhat relative. To have a roof over your head or to eat three meals a day is a privilige thing. Why aren't we condemning people who do those things as "priviliged"?
The point I was making, I guess, was that there are many people MORE priviliged than the majority of stay-at-home moms, both financially and in other ways.
I believe the term "stay at home mom" is being thrown at Michelle Obama as an insult from both sides.
For conservatives who find her scary, too independent, too powerful, too black, they want her to be a SAHM because it diminishes her in their minds. She is no longer threatening if she is just a SAHM.
For liberals who feel betrayed that she won't be getting a salary and for putting her kids in private school, they let the title SAHM stick because to them it means she is being spineless.
The truth is, the role of first lady is as powerful as she chooses to make it. She could champion the rights of the poor, like Eleanor Roosevelt; or try to fight drug abuse, like Nancy Reagan; or support literacy, like Laura Bush; or even talk at international conferences on human rights pushing for women's rights around the world, like Hilary Clinton. Any cause she wants to champion, she can be a powerful voice for. If she wants to talk about an issue, she can speak anywhere, and she will get in the news. If she asks someone to help her on a cause, they will say yes. As first lady, she will be more powerful than she could ever be as a business lawyer.
So I think we should stop muddying up the discussion of what Michelle Obama's role should be as first lady by making it a debate on the value of SAHMs, because that is what this really is. As first lady, she will not be a SAHM, plain and simple.
We also need to have a discussion about whether we can value SAHMs, because, frankly, I don't really buy it when people say that it is ok to choose to be a SAHM, but then they list all the things they don't like about SAHMs. At the very least, the feminist writers who say SAHMs are not feminist and are betraying all women are being honest and not hiding behind some veil of supporting other women.
For myself, I don't consider myself spineless or braindead, and I can be threatening when I need to be. I think this goes for Michelle Obama, too. I don't mind an honest discussion about where SAHMs fit in society and feminism, but keep honest.
No offense meant here, but I'm sorry, I stopped reading your comment at "fighting drug abuse like Nancy Reagan."
Mama Mia, I appreciate your points and agree with some of them.
But please understand that feminists who applaud SAHMs and then say "but..." are not talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I rejoice for an individual SAHM's personal choice and for her children's benefiting from a conscientious, clever, dedicated full-time parent.
I weep for society at large. Do people not see the correlation between still-overwhelmingly female SAHparents and low rates of female representation in national politics; oppressive family leave policies; continually male-dominated fields like engineering; and so on, and so forth? When women drop out in large numbers, we don't make it to the top in large numbers. And society remains unchanged.
It IS possible to compliment SAHMs and details what's wrong with many women making the same choice, over and over, throughout society, forevermore.
Okra,
I definitely agree with you that all aspects of women's lives need to be examined, that we all need to be conscientious about how we fit into the whole and how we affect other people with our decisions. My frustrations stem from two things: first, when people talk about wasted educations and vindictiveness of SAHMs in one breath, then when someone says they find that offensive, they immediately say they completely value the choice of being a SAHM; to me, that is disingenuous.
Second, I still haven't seen evidence of massive numbers of women "dropping out"- it just isn't happening, yet the few women who pause for a few years (most SAHM's DO go back to work, or start small businesses, despite what people seem to think) seem to take the brunt of the blame for setting back all of women's rights.
I absolutely think there is reason to critique how SAHM's fit into society, and I think about my own role quite a bit. But there a lot more reasons that women are underrepresented in politics than just me. That's my frustration.
Surely this is more about their children rather than anything else??!
However caring a father he is, Obama is not going to have much time for the children now, they are very young and will be under the spotlight of the world media and in danger of losing touch with reality as there will be bodyguards and staff on hand 24/7 to look after their every need. Also they will be major terrorist targets in their own right. Under those circumstances surely the other partner in the presidential marriage (husband or wife) would want to make sure they were there to give the children as normal a life as possible? And make sure the children still feel like the most important priority within the family?
Surely this is more about their children rather than anything else??!
However caring a father he is, Obama is not going to have much time for the children now, they are very young and will be under the spotlight of the world media and in danger of losing touch with reality as there will be bodyguards and staff on hand 24/7 to look after their every need. Also they will be major terrorist targets in their own right. Under those circumstances surely the other partner in the presidential marriage (husband or wife) would want to make sure they were there to give the children as normal a life as possible? And make sure the children still feel like the most important priority within the family?
Surely this is more about their children rather than anything else??!
However caring a father he is, Obama is not going to have much time for the children now, they are very young and will be under the spotlight of the world media and in danger of losing touch with reality as there will be bodyguards and staff on hand 24/7 to look after their every need. Also they will be major terrorist targets in their own right. Under those circumstances surely the other partner in the presidential marriage (husband or wife) would want to make sure they were there to give the children as normal a life as possible? And make sure the children still feel like the most important priority within the family?
Why is first lady even a official role, why does someone's family even come in to this discussion - it has nothing to do with being a leader...?
What makes me uncomfortable is the article itself, not Michelle's decision to put her daughters first. All the rhetoric of 'traditional' families and 'traditional' first ladies -- ick. Stay at home parenting is not inherently traditional in the sense that this writer seems to think it is. It's an extremely personal and individual decision, and each parent who takes on this role tailors it to their own life and family. And I must have missed the part where Michelle announced that she was never going to work again, as many commenters have assumed is the case. As far as I've heard, she's made a decision to take a year or so off to help her children adjust to a situation that none of us can even begin to relate to. What is wrong with that? After all we've seen and heard from her in the past couple of years, I highly doubt she's suddenly going to become a docile, stay-at-home throwback to the fifties.
Sarah, I definitely agree...it's all the talk of "traditional roles" and what a woman is supposed to be doing, as opposed to what women actually WANT to be doing. If Michelle choose to stay at home, great, that's her choice...I know a lot of women aren't really given a choice about what they want, but are more often than not just expected to do certain things and adhere to "traditional" roles. Hopefully, Michelle was given a choice and this is what she's decided.
Although one thing Mariella brought up is this: "But it seemed like the closer Barack got to the presidency, the more, Michelle was being asked to stop wearing suits, stop sounding "angry," emphasize her role as a mom and downplay herself as a lawyer." I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but that did get me thinking. I certainly hope someone isn't telling Michelle to act a certain way "for his sake and the sake of the country"...But I did notice a change in how she was presented on the campaign as the election got closer and closer.
Well, I guess it all remains to be seen what sort of role she takes on, i.e. if she will be more "traditional" like Laura Bush or more active politically and diplomatically, like Hillary Clinton. Personally, I think she will probably be more like Hillary Clinton and take on important roles/duties that interest her, and maybe that's why she decided not to have another job at this time in her life; so she can focus on all the work that she will be doing...one this is for sure, although I think Michelle has already proved this, she's no Laura Bush! We know she is smart and successful, and I highly doubt she's going to just sit back and serve tea for four (8?)years.
On a side note, it would also be nice to see Barack take on certain duties/roles that aren't seen as "traditional male" or "traditional husband"...we've already seen pictures of him trick or treating and taking his daughters to school...that's only two examples, but it would be awesome to finally have a president who challenges society's rigid definition of "male-ness" and the traditional gender roles that comes with being male, like the "hunt em down, smoke 'em out" cowboy persona that Bush was known for during his presidency. [see Susan Fauli's article] Wow, I can't wait until Jan. 20th!
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Yes, why is that the barometer?
Also, phatphales, why do you question whether I will return to the work-force after my children are grown? I want to travel, to retire, and hope that can someday be a possibility. I can find ways to make money that don't involve me giving up so much of my free time, which is what working day to day teaching at a high school ended up feeling like for me.
I know plenty of men with philosophy degrees and such who have never had a job relating to their degree. They are singers and dj's and emcees and dads and rock climbers and noone assumes that they have chosen to do something else with their lives out of some kind of obligation to society. Quite the opposite, actually.
From what I can get out of what you have written, you're a stay at home mom, with no intention of ever earning a paycheck (I do not say, go back to work, I understand raising children is work), and when you are finished with that, you want to travel and "retire" from, I guess, raising your children.
Firstly, let's get this out there now - this is some high-falutin "problems". Very few women have this option today. Secondly, all of your plans are 100% dependent upon another human being paying 100% of the freight, forever.
That's a lot to put on another person, and it's a lot for them to carry for their entire lives. Remember - he can always opt out. And if he does, what are you going to do? Oh, he would never do that...20 years down the road, things will be different, and he will have changed. Will you have changed? I don't see how.
(that first part was meant as a reply to Lucinda)
Raising kids is challenging. I was a SAHM for a year - now my husband is the parent-at-home.
Raising children in a way that allows you to 1) negotiate and honor the integrity of your own identity and values and 2) transmit your progressive values to your children... is particularly challenging.
I would love it if discussions on the work of parents (including, but not limited to stay-at-home-parenting) would recognize that parenting is more than the supervision and feeding of children. It is more than finger painting, play dates and endless chores.
Parenting is the cultivation of citizens. It is the transmission of culture and social values. It is laying the foundation for learning and for the love of learning (or lack thereof).
As it tends to be with socially/politically progressive thinkers, navigating the work of parenting with integrity to values of feminism and anti-racism; teaching kids not to be ageist, ableist, classist, self-absorbed (more than is appropriate), environmentally carelss, etc., is difficult enough that having a college degree or three is actually rather helpful. I have two, and neither is wasted on raising my daughter, who is going to kick so much ass one day...
The world teaches children to be oppressive to others. Who is going to help them unlearn that? Should we wait for them to get to college, so the learned professors can do it, or maybe start a little sooner?
If you made good use of your time in college, it is likely to have provided some tools that will be helpful in raising socially aware kids.
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT SAYING that all parents need college degree! NOT, NOT, NOT saying that. I am saying that I use things that I learned in college as tools in raising my kid, and that it's not a waste of my education now, nor was it when I was a SAHM.
...have many First Ladies NOT been stay at home moms?
Just because someone stays at home -- for a year, or four years -- to help their (in this case pretty young) children adjust to a rather radical situation, does not mean they will not be doing quite a lot on their own.
I don't know: I don't like a condemnation of what, in the end, is rather a personal choice. If she's being pressured to stay at home for publicity reasons, of course that's not a good thing. But we can't know that, and she stands to be very effective in many ways, to many people, where she is.
Did she actually say that she would be taking off for the entire four years? I haven't been following the discussion, but when I first heard about it it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that she would take SOME time off, temporarily, to help the family get settled in their new digs. But "settling in" only takes so much time, and I assumed that the family will re-evaluate the situation periodically. Just because she's staying home now doesn't mean she'll still be staying home two years from now.
I admit that I do look down on the choice to be a stay-at-home mom, unless you are homeschooling. It is work, of course, but it's not a job. A job means financial independence. It just seems, well, stupid to me to curtail your own ability to support yourself for the sake of a spouse who, in all likelihood, will eventually leave you. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and nobody thinks that their marriage will until it does.
My own mom stayed at home to take care of, well, everything, while my dad worked to be a doctor. I understand why she did this during his training and residency - there's really no other choice when he's working 36-hour shifts with 12 off to sleep - but I am made uncomfortable by the fact that she continued to do that after he had a more reasonable schedule. I asked her last night, actually, why she did that, and she said that one the one hand, she had just already gotten into that pattern, and on the other, the one time she did branch out and start doing her own thing, my father basically threw a hissy fit. It was not long after he had finished his residency that we got shipped off to Okinawa for 2 years, where my dad felt like he was just wasting his time not doing much, because career-wise, he was. My mom, on the other hand, joined up with a jazz band there (she is a very gifted musician - it is her passion) which became quite successful over there, even touring the Japanese mainland. She tells me now that the whole time he did nothing but gripe and complain that she was out "singing in bars" while he was stuck with us. So when we moved back to the states, she went back to being a SAHM.
I always thought my dad was a wonderful father growing up. I thought about how lucky I was to have two parents who still loved each other and were still together when literally all of my friends had divorced parents. Well, a little over a year ago, my father began cheating on my mom with, you got it, a woman almost half his age. He had had a drinking problem for a number of years before that, but he didn't really change until he started cheating. Suddenly he was a mean, selfish person who didn't give a flying fuck about his family. I haven't seen him in all of that time and I hope I never do again. My parents are in the middle of a divorce now and my mom is in a terrible situation having to depend on a spiteful alcoholic for support (which means so do my siblings and I) until they can get some kind of settlement. She never finished college because his job required us to move a lot (navy brat) and now she's trying desperately to find a decent job. And we are all struggling and begging and crying to get him to send us money every month like he said he would so we can afford to eat and pay rent. I am about to graduate and will be able to support myself soon, but my siblings are still stuck depending on him.
It is a terrible, terrible situation that could have been made much more livable had my mom pursued a career.
This is tragic. My heart goes out to you and your family.
Thanks very much for sharing it; it helps to put a human face on a problem that's often couched in hypotheticals and statistics.
It's certainly your prerogative to "look down on" your own mother for your own personal reasons. To generalize your situation to every woman who chooses to stay at home does not make sense.
A job does not mean financial independence - not as a matter of definition. It means that you work in exchange for something - usually money. If you have a job that pays you less than you are worth and doesn't pay all of your bills, is that better than being a SAHM because you get a paycheck? No.
Try not to judge all women who choose at-home parenting for your mother's choices.
And back to the topic at hand, Michelle Obama has choices and resources. Her situation is pretty unlike that of most women. She doesn't owe anything to anyone but her family - her professional success is admirable, but it was socially valuable because of her choices to serve communities. She will still have plenty of opportunities to do that, and to use all of the skills and lessons made possible by her academic and professional pedigree. Jobs, in and of themselves, are not always fulfilling. Seldom, in fact.
The first lady's job seems to be to visibly serve for the good of the nation. Her job as a mother is to protect and care for her kids. It seems that she'll get to do both, and I suspect she'll do it on her own terms. If that's what she wants to do, that sounds alright to me.
You are in a tough spot - however, my mom worked for most of her married life and it didn't stop her from being totally screwed by my Dad in their divorce. He wanted tons of alimony and quit his job so that he would get a more favorable judgement.
There's no easy answers - all you can do is pitch in, help your mom, and encourage her to get a good lawyer.
artdyke, I've thought quite a bit about your situation, and it really is terrible. I think what it illustrates is not the inherent problem with being a SAHM, but the fact that our society is designed to see being a SAHM as invisible, non-work.
If a man chooses to get a job at Boeing as a machinist, over the course of 10 years, he develops a very specialized skill set that doesn't necessarily translate well to other jobs. When the economy drops, Boeing always lays people off, and a lot of these people, like this man, find they can't get another job with the skill they have built. We, as a society, have said we will help them until they can transition to new work, by offering unemployment benefits, and in good cases, help with job re-training. We never say to the man that it was his own stupid fault for choosing a job so specialized that would make it hard for him to get a different job should something unexpected happen.
With SAHMs, we do say it is their own stupid fault for giving up "real" work and they are to blame if they end up divorced. Instead, as feminists, I think we should be saying there are a lot of women doing this kind of work by choice and society is pushing them into it and at the same time punishing them for it. We should be fighting for unemployment benefits and social security benefits (SAHMS don't qualify for that) and job retraining when it is needed, just like we do for the laid off worker.
Your mother should never be forced to beg her ex-husband for help. Plus, the government should be doing more to force him to live up to his responsibility to his children. And I would guess that it isn't that you look down on your mom for the life she chose (although I can understand being angry and conflicted), but the unbearable situation that our society has forced her into because it doesn't value "women's work."
I didn't mean to imply that I look down on my mother - I don't at all. She's a kick-ass lady. She has done so much for all of us during this whole mess, and even done so much for him to try to help him through rehab and everything when I kept telling her that he was a dickface and she should divorce him (she has since come around to my thinking). She is my hero, and has been my whole life.
It's not just the financial independence thing... I guess taking care of the kids seems to me to be like doing the dishes and visiting your parents. It's just *life* and both spouses should be splitting it. Doing the dishes is work, but it's not a job. Kids are part of the life you build together outside of your career and I am bothered by this couching of the world of the home in career terms.
My mom had plenty of other goals she wanted to pursue - music, school - but she couldn't because of the demands of, well, ostensibly "the family" but really it was my father. I hate this idea that it's ok to give up the things that matter to you so that the other spouse doesn't have to contribute as much to the "life" part of work, and unless their goals are conducive to achieving them in the home during school hours or after the kids go to bed, it's very likely that many women wind up pushing them aside when they stay at home. If society is pushing them into it, I suspect that, like my mom, it's not totally their choice in a large number of cases. I guess I just wish more women wouldn't get pushed along with the tide like that. And it does seem like squandered potential.
But I agree with all you said about valuing the skillset and experience that being a SAHM gives you. I am well aware of how the system is stacked against divorcing moms from all my friends. I had many who were forced to visit abusive fathers who *never* paid child support, including my new wife. (got it in before the prop 8 buzzer!) There is certainly a lot of work to be done on that front and I vehemently support those efforts.
I think your mom is a good example of the wrong situation for a SAHM. She didn't choose it, when she tried to branch out, she wasn't supported, she wasn't allowed to pursue the things she wanted to.
Older SAHMs from a previous generation were expected to do it for their entire lives, and I think that sounds very difficult. I think a lot of younger SAHMs feel they are assumed to be in the same position as older SAHMs, pushed into it by society and unsupported or acknowledged. In my own circle, everyone plans to go back to work, and we have been doing things to keep ourselves up to date. We know it will be hard, but we aren't giving everything up for the long term, just 2 or 3 years. Our partners also want us to go back to work when we are ready. We feel like we have chosen this, we understand what we are doing, we are learning something about ourselves as we do it.
I would guess that for the SAHMs that are often so frustrated on threads like this, the underlying thing is knowing people assume we are no different from that previous generation, but we are different.
artdyke, I really feel bad for your mom and your situation. It is so unfair and unhealthy. And I don't blame you for wanting to avoid a similar situation in your own life.
And also congratulations! I'm so glad you snuck under there before Prop 8. Now we just have to get it overturned so it will stick!
I'm sorry. All too often this is the terrible outcome. I swear, I don't understand how younger women, not your mother's generation, but mine, and after mine, yours, can even think of quitting their careers to be full time moms, for good. Haven't we seen what you describe happen over, and over and over again?
I hope things get better for you and your family.
It's pretty interesting to me that everyone has stripped the racial dimension out of this discussion to rehash, albeit politely, the 'mommy wars'. This is the position in which black women like me constantly find ourselves. Our unique difficulties made invisible to instead spout generalities contextualized within a different history.
Forgive me if this seems hostile but this is why it has taken women of color so long to feel truly embraced by the feminist movement. I know as a woman of color, articles criticizing Michelle are beginning to enrage me.
A lot of the white female feminists constantly commenting on Michelle Obama's so called identity as a SAHM and how terrible it is - they are displaying their own prejudice. Black women are not allowed to be vulnerable, they are not allowed to be complex. Michelle Obama must fit into some 2 dimensional box created by the white male media. And that is the identity that so called progressives are going to run with. These feminists don't want to discuss the interplay of sex and race, they just to define, define and essentialize this woman who they do not know.
The best is an article in Root by a white feminist saying that by wearing J Crew etc, Michelle is acting white! These so called feminists, if they are completely honest, hold such an extreme stereotyped view of what a strong black woman should behave like. Michelle will never live up to this unless she puts a pick in her hair and wears a dashiki. Talking about her family is 'pandering', smiling at her children is 'pandering', perfectly sensible childcare arrangements are 'setting women back'.
Well, let me tell you something. Michelle Obama and other educated black women - WE DON'T NEED YOU. We know ALL about pandering, we know allabout passing. We know all about sacrifice. We have juggled family and work with quiet dignity - before it was something rich white women did when they felt 'dissatisfied', we have coped with racism, prejudice and injustice, we have carried the load for broken communities and have made agonizing decisions about where loyalties lie. We have been pilloried and humiliated and ignored and despised.
Michelle Obama can be whoever she wants to be. She has my 100% support. She belongs to me. Let me say that again - she belongs to me. She doesn't belong to you - you've only borrowed her. Barack belongs to everyone but Michelle is a triumph for black women everywhere.
We don't need middle class 'color blind' white people essentializing us. We don't need middle class white people defining us. We don't need you to tell us how we can dress, who we can speak to, what we can wear, where we can work.
I sincerely hope that as the Hispanic and black communities grow, they use their heft to create a stronger counter point to the lazy, white feminism (which is not meant to define third wavers, but always seems to creep up there).
you make good points. I guess it's foolish to say "let's leave aside the racial dimension for this discussion and just talk about the implications on sexism." the racial dimension isn't something Michelle Obama or anyone else can just leave aside
Michelle Obama is a talented and successful woman whom we all as women should be proud to have as a sister. She does not belong to anyone but herself.
If you choose not to find the accomplishments of non-black women meaningful because they don't look like you that's your perogative. I guess we've cast aside all that nonsense about judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
With the number of multi-ethnic kids out there, narrow definitions of race are about to be thrown out the window or at least turned on their head and I hope this sort of narrow racial stereotyping goes with them. Michelle's kids are part of that wave - being part white and all.... Do their own mother's accomplishments belong less to them because they are "tainted" with non-black blood? Is my daughter supposed to not relate to the lessons she can learn from a powerful smart woman like Michelle because they are of different apparent ethnicities? I think you might want to rethink this a little.
Ivory, thank you for proving my point.
Identifying by gender is fine, but recognizing race is 'judging by the color of one's skin'. You are one of those morons who says that talking about race is 'racist' because we should all be color blind!!!
I'm not going to restate my point because it was 100% right last time but let me just try yours one more time.
You are sitting here commenting on a woman and how her personal decisions (which are none of your business) impact on her role model status... to other women, like your daughter. These women will look up to her and her decisions, because she is a woman. And they want to relate to her in her status as a woman. You are relating to her by GENDER
But when I point that her status cannot be determined or even understood without looking at her as a BLACK woman, and what that means, you point out that race is arbitrary social construct, one which (you seem to assume) can be wiped away by a bit of interracial fucking. It's not important and we shouldn't use it to classify people. It makes the ghost of MLK cry!
Well, why does your daughter even need female role models? Why can't she just be inspired by Warren Buffett - he's a great man with plenty of life lessons. Why are you teaching her to judge people by what's between their legs, instead of by the content of their characters!! You shouldn't look for female role models for her - that's sexist - by your standards.
I mean gender and race are totally different. Race is a totally arbitrary biological phenomenon given its significance through social structures and cultural norms. And gender is...
Oops, oh yeah. I guess you just decide what's important. Oh great wise white feminist? Can you tell me when I can go to the bathroom? I'd do it myself but I forgot that you set the priorities for the entire world. Race isn't important because you said so. We should stop judging by race - just live life color blind. By the same token, we should stop talking about Michelle Obama. Stop telling your daughter to admire her - she's only another woman. Gender isn't important. Women trying to share and build on 'collective experiences' is sexist and I'm pretty sure would have made Martin Luther King cry that little bit harder.
There. See how ridiculous it sounds?
So how about you step away from lazy platitudes and stop marginalizing and ridiculing something just because you don't identity with it.
FYI - when someone needs to quote MLK in an argument against recognizing the the powerful impact of race they are generally pretty stupid. You know, you'd probably learn something if you put down 'great quotes of the 20th century' and picked up an actual book. FYI.
It's hard to read you, you're too angry. Your sarcasm destroys any points you may have. I also need to point out, you don't speak for all black women. You remind me a lot of a black leftist I know who was always yelling at me during the primaries that I didn't know anything about how black women might feel about the primary - which I had never claimed to know. He of course, had apparently been appointed as the Great Black Father Spokesman for black women, at some meeting during which a bunch of black women said "we need a penis to talk for us".
It never occurred to him that I might have some common experiences with black women, based on gender, just as he might have some common experiences with black women based on race, nor that, we both might have some experiences simply based upon our mutual humanity.
It seems to not have occurred to you either. I am almost tempted to ask if you are single, I would offer to hook you two up, but I would be smiling as I wrote that, and you don't come across as being interested in a little levity.
You're right I am angry.
I'm angry that there is such relentless criticism of her and she hasn't even done anything. I'm angry that people (even feminists) will not admit that a good portion of it is racially tinged. I'm angry that people are happy to leave the racial aspect out of it.
Here's a scenario: my married friend has just quit her job to take care of her kids. I'm not gonna discuss the gender angel though, I'm not an expert. I know people are being respectful but it's disappointing that we are even here.
And you know what - I'm sure you sound as shrill, angry and crazy to all the men calling you a whiny feminist as those black 'leftists' sounded to you. Just because it's not your experience, don't presume to know it.
I, for one, talk about the broader issue here of SAHM in general rather than the interplay of that with race because I don't feel qualified to talk about it. I don't know much about Michelle Obama personally or what went into her decision-making process so I don't feel in a position to comment. I don't think it's trying to erase the race issue; I just don't have a personal relationship to it. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the issue, and so I'm not going to just throw my "wise white feminist" view on the issue out there.
I think a lot of white people are afraid to talk about race because they aren't really qualified to. I know I am quite often bothered by what straight people say on the rare occasions they try to speak about the socio-cultural nuances of sexual orientation. Similarly, I usually keep my mouth shut when race comes up and just listen, unless it is to point out obvious racism.
So this all brings up an interesting question - how do we bring to the forefront issues of race when so many of us are quite frankly unqualified to talk about it (or at least feel that way)? How do we navigate around this issue and prevent a mere falling back onto issues that most of us are more comfortable talking about, like the "mommy wars"?
I think Michelle Obama is making an intelligent and strategic career choice. and no, i don't think her role is a "stay at home mom" because I don't think she will be staying at home much, or doing things that a stay at home mom does. I think she is being underestimated and misrepresented by the media.
on the subject of SAHMs: as a professional, I have a huge problem with the concept of a "stay at home mom" because this creates "stay at work dads" who end up setting ridiculous standards for my work environment (working 24/7) and women have to compete with them at work.
pololly, I have a sense for where you are coming from. as an immigrant middle eastern feminist, I have had to deal with condescending misconceptions myself, and the mentality that considers middle eastern women a little less human than american women (and this condescending attitude didn't come just from white americans). Although I know that is not the same as the historical racism against black people here.
I think michelle not only belongs to everyone in the US, but she also belongs to the world now, including where i come from. and everyone is looking up to her. Don't mind people passing judgment, she is not in a position of weakness.
I think michelle obama is going to kick ass.
"on the subject of SAHMs: as a professional, I have a huge problem with the concept of a "stay at home mom" because this creates "stay at work dads" who end up setting ridiculous standards for my work environment (working 24/7) and women have to compete with them at work. "
Nope. Not taking the blame for that. If you look closer you will find that most "stay at work dads" today have working wives. They don't suddenly start leaving work at 5pm just because their wives work. They expect their wives to pick up the slack. That's called the "second shift." Don't lay that at the feet of SAHMs.
I think Michelle Obama is making an intelligent and strategic career choice. and no, i don't think her role is a "stay at home mom" because I don't think she will be staying at home much, or doing things that a stay at home mom does. I think she is being underestimated and misrepresented by the media.
Totally agree. On a slightly different point, the whole "SAHM" debate has the really annoying feature of totally ignoring the fact that most women return to the workforce after taking time out for childrearing. Michelle is just taking a break from the traditional salaried workforce; there's no doubt that in four or eight years she'll be back working in some incredibly impressive capacity -- maybe head of a new foundation, maybe a university professor, maybe head of a nonprofit. Maybe...senator??
In many ways Michell is following a time-honored path for highly successful women: take some time off to attend to family, then go roaring back into the workplace. While this pattern of course reflects some gender disparities (why don't the husbands take the time off and sacrifice those years themselves...?) I think that in the case of the Obamas we can make *some* concessions to the fact that one of the spouses actually has a more important job at this point. At any rate, the point is that acting like Michelle has suddenly thrown away her education and career is just silly. She'll be back.
Another angle is that it would be totally impractical for Michelle to have a job outside of the Whitehouse. Security alone would be a nightmare, and she'd have to take so much time off to attend to Whitehouse and diplomatic events.
It seems really petty to me that all of us would sit here and argue whether MO should be a "stay at home mom" or not.
My kind of feminism is the kind where we support women's choices, and when they aren't allowed to choose what they'd like because there are walls in the way, we help to break those walls down.
If she wants to keep her kids home and school them herself and bake pies all day long, right fucking on.
If she wants to work a full-time job while her husband is president, right fucking on too. She knows better than I do what the right choices for her, as a woman, in her life are. I will not belittle her choices by trying to access what they mean for all of woman-kind because I don't ever want for someone to do that to me.