Rebecca Walker Blog
What Michelle Obama is Giving Up: A Question of Power
Hey all,
I have an essay in The Root today about Michelle Obama and feminism.
Yesterday afternoon, in tandem with the piece, I joined a group of exceptional women including Anna Perez, the former Press Secretary for Barbara Bush, Leslie Morgan Steiner, the editor of the best-selling anthology Mommy Wars, and Jolene Ivey, co-founder of Mocha Moms on Michel Martin's NPR show, Tell Me More to talk about:
What Michelle Obama is Giving Up.
It was a fascinating conversation, but five intense women talking about Michelle Obama for thirty-five minutes? We could have been there for hours. I left the studio thinking about all the things I wished there had been more time to say.
Like:
I wish the show had been called "What Michelle Obama is Gaining"
I wish we had been able to talk more about the financial aspect of Michelle Obama's choice. Her affairs are none of our business, but I agree with Michel Martin that talking about how couples manage finances when one is the primary winner of bread is important.
But again:
I wish we would give Michelle Obama credit. As an attorney, a business woman, a product of two very smart parents and a beneficiary of the discourse about equality (and equity) of all forms, I'm fairly sure she has thought through various financial scenarios. In the interview with Soledad, I actually got the sense Michelle is the one who manages the family money.
I wish we had been able to spend more time talking the question of "power" vs "influence." It's my view that Michelle has the opportunity to have a tremendous amount of power--political, personal, ideological, symbolic, financial, social, maternal, emotional, psychological-- but Anna Perez says Michelle will have influence, but because she can't write legislation, doesn't have a vote on key issues, won't have power.
I wish we could have talked more about this, and the different kinds of power. Laws change administration to administration, but transforming the consciousness of a generation is forever. Did Martin Luther King, Jr. have power or influence? Did Jackie Kennedy want more power and less influence? Eleanor Roosevelt?
And what about our former First Lady, Hillary Clinton? She almost because POTUS in large part as a result of her "influence."
What about the Nobel committee? Do they have power or influence? Freud and Jung? Jesus?
I was actually taken aback by Anna Perez's view--aren't we privileging one realm of existence and denigrating another when we articulate and perceive of power in this way? Aren't the two inextricable?
And even if we follow Perez's paradigm, Michelle Obama seems to have been able to have the power she wants and the influence she deserves thus far. I can't imagine that changing any time soon.
Is it really so hard to see Michelle as a winner in all this, rather than a victim?
My feeling is we denigrate her by denigrating her choices. Projecting an idea of her as a deer in the headlights rather than a lioness on the plain reflects a crisis of the imagination, and speaks volumes about what we think is possible for a woman, or any human being, to negotiate.
What do you think? Do you have power or influence, power and influence, or no power and no influence?
How do you define power?
Why I didn't buy Tenzin an Obama shirt.
So of course I love this shirt, and contemplated buying it for Tenzin during the campaign.
But I didn't.
Because I don't want to politicize Tenzin's body any more than it is already. Because he didn't choose Obama himself. Because he is not a walking billboard for my beliefs.
Because it just didn't feel right.
Because politics is a divisive, winner takes all paradigm. Because while I engage and vote, I do not view the world in terms of sides or camps, and would like to allow my son the same freedom for as long as possible.
Because even though I believe in Obama, I am not certain that inculcating my son into the spectacle, the theater, of politics is actually in his best interest.
Et vous? What did you do?
Alma de Fuego--Soul of Fire
I love reading black femi power at Alma de fuego. She asks an important question today, referencing a Diego Rivera painting. Here is an excerpt of my comments. You can find the whole thing on the post.
What I like about this image, and many by Rivera is the portrayal of women and men working together to carry the burden. That is what seems to be lost in so many contemporary critiques-- this idea of partnership as a soul maintenance program in the face of empire. Even more, as a mechanism through which accomplishment can be achieved. In that way it is actually a redefinition of success. Success here is the way in which the two are not at odds--their union, the tenderness of it in the face of unspeakable brutality, is more "successful" than any financial gain (which, it should go without saying at this point, but doesn't, should not be read as romanticizing oppression).
This discussion reminds me of the cuban film Lucia--one of the famous ones from the Cuban revolution, when they were making the films about the liberation of women as part of the overall liberatory program. The contemporary, revolutionary Lucia (there are three portrayed overall) is beautiful, she goes from the oppression of a macho spouse to the "freedom" of an agricultural collective--but she never has to choose solitude. Her health is never contextualized outside of the potential for a loving, respectful and yes, sexy pairing. Her future sexuality with an equally transformed masculine seems to be part of what will define her health.
Yes, this is a discussion which, in its explicit privileging of a heterosexual pairing, may be seen as exclusionary and problematic, and yet…we can no more abandon heterosexuality and its power than we can abandon the human family. To deny the power and validity of heterosexuality is as problematic as its opposite.
What do you think?
Malia and Sasha: Public or Private
Today's Root post:
I'm a little late to this conversation, but I feel compelled to weigh in on the question of whether the Obama children should go to public or private school. I truly, deeply, completely understand why some feel sending Malia and Sasha to a private school will indicate an "abandonment" of the public school system, but still and all I think this is an inappropriate, bordering on reckless, discussion.
First of all--the question reminds me of Obama's behind the scenes remark in Newsweek:
"So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f–––ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."
I don't think sending the girls to public school is going to solve the unbelievable decline of our schools. And I seriously doubt he will be less motivated to improve the public school system de facto because he and Michelle send their girls to a private school.
Then there is the quality of the DC public school system. They are working on it, and I have tremendous respect for the teachers and many excellent public schools, especially the charter schools, in DC, but the history is fraught with issues. I went to one of the best public schools on Capitol Hill when my father worked for the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jimmy Carter, and let's just say it could have been better.
Which brings us to the question of giving your kids "less" on principle. It reminds me of parents who believe you shouldn't leave money to your children because they won't work hard or appreciate the benefits of self-reliance, which is fine. But what if that somehow compromises the stability of your children or grandchildren?
Aren't principles, if they undermine long-term viability and health, dysfunctional?
But what really troubles me about these conversations is the assumption Malia and Sasha are just like everyone else. They may be in some ways, but they are not in one very big way: they are the children of the President of the United States. There are massive security issues to be managed. Those kids need to be in the most controlled environment possible. That means contained campuses, administrative familiarity with similar situations, and all manner of other considerations.
Safety first. Principles second. Or, what about safety being the overriding principle?
What do you think?
