noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-04-09 10:38 AM
Original message |
lukasahero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-04-09 06:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But I've given up trying to make anyone else understand... :(
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-04-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. One thing I find depressing |
|
is that she could be a great role model for girls, but because of what we see of her, I consider her to be a kind of crappy role model - not someone I'd want my own kid to emulate.
I don't know to what degree that's because of how she's portraying herself, how much it's the media, or how much it's that I haven't been watching the news much and these are the aspects DU tends to focus on.
Some combination of that has reduced her to shitty beauty queen keeper of the patriarchy (in this one-dimensional view I get from DU). The people here who seem to admire her most also seem to be the ones promoting that one-dimensional impression.
|
lukasahero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-04-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. I hold out hope that it's more media than Michelle |
|
I have long since stopped basing any judgement of reality on the opinions of people here. How much Michelle vs. how much media is a tougher nut to crack but I'm inclined to believe that, like most women, her own words and ideas are overlooked by those who have control of the image.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-14-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. I think handlers are also aware that they have to 'domesticate' her image so there are no repeats of |
|
Eleanor, Betty, Rossalyn or Hillary.
|
bliss_eternal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-09-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong... |
|
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 08:45 PM by bliss_eternal
...or perhaps hallucinating when I read this as a a woman is being blamed for the way the patriarchy is using her....:(
So, what are we saying now? The media just ----poof---- overnight, has little to do with *spin* and no measure of power in the fuss being made over Michelle's appearance and clothing? If I'm reading this correctly, someone who's always been rather in tune to the ways that women are used by the media is suggesting that we look to the woman, not the power structure as the party responsible? It has nothing at all to do with the media realization of a profound money making opportunity?
Since when is a woman held responsible for (or blamed for) the ways she's represented (marketed) in the media? Michelle Obama is not Oprah (who has her own publishing company and media empire). Even Oprah has many an unflattering story written about her, last I checked--in spite of her media power. (...AND Oprah seems quite the willing tool in the patriarchical machine--but that's another post altogether).
Yeah, it's ALL Michelle's fault. Suddenly a woman of color has massive super powers and supreme final input into how she's photographed, portrayed and written about by the media powers that be. :eyes:
This would be funny, if it didn't make me so *^%#$ sad (and angry).
|
ismnotwasm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-10-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Not even a little bit.
Interesting, yes? Pathetic, but interesting.
I'm curious who actually thought that Michelle Obama wouldn't be taken apart body piece by body piece by the media leaving her ideology and considerable intellect in the background.
And given my great personal respect for Ms. Obama, I'm pretty sure that she herself knew it would happen, and has the wisdom to counter it. What has it been, a couple of months? My, my. What miracles we expect from a newly elected President and a new first Lady.
The entrenched system for regulating women to tits and ass--and evidently arms in the case of Ms. Obama--draped by clothes is already in place. Add race to that system and it's practically the media equivalent of a symbiotic parasite.
Perhaps the sniffers of potential media carrion would be happier if she wore FLDS attire? Made by her own two hands of course.
Oh, wait, that would mean something else.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-04-09 08:31 PM
Response to Original message |
2. No, you are certainly not alone. nt |
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-04-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I'm glad it's not just me.
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-05-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message |
iverglas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-11-09 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |
|
When Obama when on his first state visit -- here in Canada -- he left the wife behind. Thank goodness. It wasn't a social call. Just as what he's been up to in Europe isn't a social call, either.
We up here really don't hold with dynasties and royalty and all that stuff. Everybody can just marry whomever they like. We don't really care, eh?
Barack Obama is a head of state / head of government. He's of public interest.
Michelle Obama is a wife of. She isn't. Not to the neighbours here, anyhow, who really just don't grasp this whole "First Lady" thing. And, at least in my case, find it just icky and cloying and pretty hugely unfeminist in its manifestations.
I swear, I can't remember the name of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's wife just at the moment, and I'm happy if it stays that way. About all I can think of about her is that she's some sort of bleached blonde.
Okay, okay, we had Margaret Trudeau. I guess that was enough for a lifetime. ;)
|
backtoblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-13-09 10:18 AM
Response to Original message |
GOB2K
(5 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-29-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 12:49 PM
Response to Original message |