Michelle Obama and the silence of the feminists

By Kathy G.

The black blogosphere has been ablaze with posts about an ickily racist and misogynist image of Michelle Obama that was posted (and then taken down) at Daily Kos.* rikyrah at Jack and Jill Politics writes about it here. Tami of the excellent blog What Tami Said points out something disturbing:

Mainstream feminists have been extremely vocal about the gender bias that has dogged Hillary Clinton since she appeared on the national stage. They rightly realized that sexism against the former First Lady and current Senator is just an example of the way society views ALL women. So, why are so many women standing silent, and worse, abetting the demonization of another woman of substance?

As Tami notes, the feminist blogosphere has largely ignored the extremely nasty racism, sexism, and character assassination that has been targeted at Michelle Obama. Worse, some "feminists" have themselves gleefully joined in the Michelle-bashing. Tami quotes one Hillary supporter who wrote a vitriolic post about Michelle with the charming title, "God Damn Michelle Obama"; among other things, the writer takes a cheap shot at Michelle's physical appearance. Tami also cites a post by another Hillary supporter who attacks Barack for somehow being less than a man; it's the typically vicious, catty, and extremely sexist Maureen Dowd dealio.

This kind of crap from people who, like Michelle, are Democrats and feminists saddens me. That the right would pull this kind of shit was a no-brainer, but it's more painful when it comes from people you think are your allies. I guess it shouldn't surprise me, though. When I wrote an earlier post about the attacks on Michelle, I got a couple of troll-riffic commenters who more or less said that bashing Michelle was a-okay with them, and as best I could tell, those commenters were Democrats.

The attacks on Michelle by other women are distressing, for a number of reasons. For one thing, they violate the basic principle of feminist solidarity that Echidne of the Snakes articulated so powerfully in this post:

The sexism is not bad, because it might hurt Hillary Clinton, just as the racism is not bad, because it might hurt Barack Obama. Not really. 

That is a narrow and cramped and, dare I say it?, elitist view of what is going on, a view which revolves around the people in power and their political strategies and tactics. It is also a view which ignores the real problem altogether, this:

The sexist comments and the racist slurs are bad, because they are being washed, re-clad in Armani, presented back in high society, made to look innocent, and after all this they will be cropping up much more frequently everywhere, aimed at everyone who qualifies to be their victim. THAT's what is bad about them.

How can I make that any stronger and clearer? It can be any of us women or any person of color or both that will suffer from the new domestication of sexist and racists taunts. Any Of Us.  

I have not written about the sexism in these Democratic Primaries in order to protect Hillary Clinton. She looks fairly well equipped to protect herself. I have written about it because sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere.

I understand that a lot of the Hillary supporters are deeply disappointed that their candidate came so close but still didn't make it. But Barack Obama is also a historic candidate; he is also, like Hillary, brilliant and talented; and his and Hillary's voting records and their stands on the issues are almost identical. And really, this election is so not about the personalities or the individuals! What it is about, is the vital importance of pulling this country out of the ditch Bush drove us into and electing a progressive Democrat president this November. Anyone who facilitates sexist, racist, wingnut bullshit by attacking Michelle is doing John McCain's dirty work for him, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

As feminists and as Democrats, we need to be vigilant about the attacks on Michelle. As Echidne so  eloquently explained, a sexist attack on one woman hurts all women. A racist attack on one African-American color hurts all African-Americans. And hateful attacks on a progressive harms not just that individual but the progressive cause as a whole.

We saw what the right and their enablers in the mainstream media did to Hillary Clinton. We cannot allow them to get away with it again with Michelle. But I fear they are already succeeding.

One final note: today rikyrah also wrote this very moving post about Michelle Obama, patriot. Key graf:

The talk about questioning the patriotism of Barack and Michelle Obama is patently absurd. Practically, from the moment he announced, his life and the lives of his family have been threatened. Nobody who doesn't love this country is going to subject the ones they love most to this possible horror. Lack of patriotism? Patriotism is the only theme large enough to explain it to small children. To explain why Daddy is away so much. To explain why all these strange people are around. To explain why Mama is gone sometimes too. Patriotism and love of country is the only way to get a small child to envision something larger than themselves, and to ask them to understand that they must be less selfish - for love of country.

*UPDATE: The text accompanying the image was unobjectionable -- in fact the post was an attack on the Republican's racist Southern Strategy. But many people found the image offensive, and at the very least it was insensitive and in poor taste.

Comments

[nikkos]

Perhaps I am misreading you, but are you suggesting that the DKos post was an attack on Michelle Obama? I rad it, and my reading of the post is that it is attacking the southern strategy employed by the GOP, not attacking Michelle Obama. In fact, the post defends Michelle and points to the McCains as the true elitists.

The post utilized the image in question as a way of visualizing that strategy of demonization and dehumanization that is inherent in the southern strategy. Now, you may feel that using the image you link to above was inappropriate. That is fine - it is your right to voice your opinion. However, I believe you are incorrect when you assert that this is somehow an attack on Michelle.

[Sir Charles]

I was rather distressed to get an email from a female relative the other day who is a vehement Hillary supporter -- indeed cannot believe anyone could support Obama over her but for sexism -- in which she denounced Michelle as "Ms. Affirmative Action" and a hater of America. She seemed shocked that I was offended.

[nikkos]

Sir Charles-

I know what you mean. I too have been distressed to hear self-described Democrats utter similar things, for instance, "The thing that worries me about Obama is that his father was a Muslim and his mother was an atheist."

The correct reply to such nonsense, of course, is: "SO WHAT?"

[johnbpt]

Thanks for this post, Kathy.

Supporting a female candidate alone does not a feminist make. And in my book, the people you're describing are in no way feminists, simply extremists caught up in the cult of Hillary.

The feminist tradition that I embrace confronts not just the evil of sexism, but also the bigotries of racism, homophobia, ageism, religious intolerance, body shape chauvinism, etc.

The fact that some Hillary supporters resort to racial and other dehumanizing attacks on the Obamas –– or stand silent as others do it –– reveals them as bigots, plain and simple, Their attempts to cloak themselves in the mantle of feminism is an insult to anyone who is truly committed to equality for all, and they must be called on it at every turn.

[Michelle]

Hi, I came over here from JJP where this post is listed as a link.

nikkos wrote: "The post utilized the image in question as a way of visualizing that strategy of demonization and dehumanization that is inherent in the southern strategy. Now, you may feel that using the image you link to above was inappropriate. That is fine - it is your right to voice your opinion. However, I believe you are incorrect when you assert that this is somehow an attack on Michelle."

This kind of disconnected distance from the violence in the image, and from the actual human-ness of the person pictured in there -- such disconnectedness and distance is not available to everyone.

It is certainly not available to me.

Maybe it shouldn't be available to anyone.

Way I feel it is: Michelle Obama is an actual human being -- not a object, not an abstracted symbol in a language of communication. White (male?) blogger making this image of extreme violence to "communicate" in a such a cold disconnected manner is horrific at some visceral level to me. Others defending this usage from a similar cold and disconnected space horrifies me. Using her basically as a letter in the language of communication promotes and accepts her dehumanization at a very basic level.

Some very basic humanity is missing here. Basic.

*shiver*

[nikkos]

Michelle-

Thanks for the reply and for your thoughts. I understand where you're coming from and I am in many ways inclined to agree.

But, on the other hand, I think that in order to push back against those that will try to resuscitate the southern strategy against the Obamas (and they will), we may have to at times show people exactly what it is we are fighting back against. Not everyone out there in America is as well-versed in these issues and sometimes the "picture worth a thousand words" adage can be used to make the point. Their imagery- like their ideology- is odious. Is it within or out of bounds to illustrate their ideology to demonstrate just how odious it can be?

It would have been better and more to the point if the DKos poster had used imagery created by the right wing rather than imagery s/he created him/herself, but the right has become smart enough to not be as explicit as they once were and they hide behind code words and "dog whistles."

Would I have created and posted such an image? Probably not. But must we consider all such imagery an attack, no matter whence it came? I think that is the real question and it is probably unanswerable to anyone's complete satisfaction.

In any event, I asked my question above mainly to determine what Kathy's intended point was in her initial post- it was not clear to me what she was objecting to, or why, or if she thought the DKos poster was anti-Obama or what. I do think the intent makes a difference here.

[Linden]

I'd like to see some evidence of self-described feminists supporting misogynistic attacks on Michelle Obama. Just because some women do something doesn't make it a feminist statement. And dKos is definitely not a hotbed of feminist activism - quite the opposite.

I hang on a lot of feminist blogs, and contrary to your statements, they have not been silent. I've seen people sticking up for Michelle Obama. I've also seen people sticking up for Ann Coulter, and for Obama when he's been smeared with "girly-man" taunts.

[Kathy G.]

I did not think the text of the DKos post was objectionable, but the imagery, though well-intentioned, was offensive. Certainly the African-American bloggers I were appalled by it, and I think it's important to listen to them. People of color who live in a racist world tend to be a better judge of what is racist than those of us who are not, because they are forced to be far more sensitive to these things. Just as women are far more sensitive to sexism.

But my bigger point is to argue that it's unacceptable to vilify Michelle Obama especially when it is done (as is often the case) in racist and/or sexist terms. And honestly, I haven't seen *any* of the mainstream feminist bloggers address the attacks on Michelle (though it's always possible I've missed something -- if so, please correct me). And I think it's very important that we -- as feminists, as anti-racists, as progressives, as Democrats -- defend Michelle Obama, and try to prevent the mainstream media from doing to her what they did to Hillary.

But far worse than folks saying nothing when Michelle is attacked, is when they join in the attacks themselves. I was appalled at the sexist things the so-called feminist bloggers quoted by Tami at What Tami Said wrote about Michelle, and I think it's very important that we be clear that such things are unacceptable, and that they harm all women. That was the point of my post.

[nikkos]

Kathy-

Thanks for replying to my questions.

While I agree in that it is always a good idea to listen to people of color about racism, I would caution you that people of color are not a monolithic group with the exact same opinions (some might even construe that implication they are as racist in itself)...which means that some people of color no doubt would be offended, and some would not. Thus, one cannot simply follow the lead of the people of color opinion, as it will itself vary. One must think for oneself. While the commenter Michelle decries attitude this as "cold," I would prefer to see it as being rational. I reserve my outrage for after I have made up my mind, not as a substitute for doing so.

What I am suggesting is that none of this is quite as simple as you or the commenter Michelle make it out to be.

I agree that taken out of context and posted on a right wing blog with an accompanying racist and/or sexist screed, the meaning of the image in question is undeniably sexist...but when posted atop a piece which seeks to defend both Barack and Michelle while also exposing and denigrating the right's ideology and strategy, do you not agree that its meaning changes?

If you are, rather, suggesting that such imagery should never be used, regardless of the context, that is another kettle of fish. By disregarding the context you risk attacking an ally when we should be focusing our energies outward.

In any case, while I agree with your larger point- the dearth of feminists standing up to defend Michelle- I think you have unnecessarily clouded the issue with a sloppily written and sourced post.

[Melissa McEwan]

And honestly, I haven't seen *any* of the mainstream feminist bloggers address the attacks on Michelle (though it's always possible I've missed something -- if so, please correct me).

I don't know if I'm considered a mainstream feminist blogger or not, but I've posted in defense of Michelle Obama on several occasions -- after a MoDo column, after a WSJ piece, after Bill O'Reilly talked shit about her.

That doesn't mean I couldn't be doing more. Your post is spot-on.

[Kathy G.]

Nikkos, you make a fair point about the context of the image. But as I said, though the blogger who posted the image was well-meaning, many people found it offensive and racist. At the very least it was insensitive and in poor taste. And no, I didn't say people of color are always right when they believe something is racist. But I think charges of racism should be listened to and not dismissed out of hand, especially when, as in this case, more than a few people felt offended.

Linden says that "just because some feminist does something does not make it a feminist statement." I totally agree, and that was point in writing about the "feminists" quoted on Tami's blog who made sexist attacks the Obamas. Attacking Michelle Obama for her physical appearance, or Barack Obama for being a girly-man, is in no way feminist, and anyone who does such things deserves to be called on it.

[nikkos]

Kathy-

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully address my points- it's something I fear is all too lacking on both sides of the blogosphere.

Melissa-

Don't be shy: post up some links for those that may not already be familiar with your writing, specifically your pro-Michelle posts!

[Emily]

That's interesting. I know I read about this illustration of M. Obama, and I generally stick to the feminist blogs, but I can't find now where I read it...

[Kathy G.]

Melissa, yes of course, you have defended Michelle on several occasions, and your documentation of all the sexist crap that's been thrown at Hillary has been stellar (though pretty fucking depressing as well).

I just don't remember having seen much on Michelle on the feminist blogs lately -- though of course there's always so much sexist bullshit going down in the world that no single blog could possibly keep up. There's tons of important stuff going on I never deal with on this blog, for example -- not just feminist issues either, but everything else.

[Hattie]

It should be clear to everyone that Michelle Obama will come under major attack once Hillary Clinton's ememies have disposed of her. I wish Obama had made it clear to his followers from the word go that no misogynistic attacks on Hillary would be tolerated in his camp, but he let vile remarks about her be posted on his web site under his smiling photo and has not chastised Obama fans who invite Hillary to drop dead.
Remember when Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton the Whitehouse dog? Hillary Clinton corrected him firmly and warned the press to lay off her daughter.
I hope Obama's firm statement that he will not tolerate attacks on his wife will help.

[C]

"Thus, one cannot simply follow the lead of the people of color opinion, as it will itself vary. One must think for oneself. While the commenter Michelle decries attitude this as "cold," I would prefer to see it as being rational. I reserve my outrage for after I have made up my mind, not as a substitute for doing so."--Nikkos

Where have I heard this before? Hm....the idea that one can discount the opinion of someone who lives the experience, substituting one's own interpretation (regardless of qualification), and implying that anyone who doesn't agree has substituted knee-jerk anger (or is it "hysteria") for rational thought?

Gosh. Can't figure it out. Must be the girly-brain syndrome, I just can't 'member why this sounds so familiar.

If one woman says something's sexist and another says it's not, that doesn't mean that Greatest Common Denominator is "the right one". It means that the women have something to talk about.

It doesn't mean that Men get to render THE VERDICT after preponderance of the *evidence*. It means they get to listen.

As Melissa said, she's addressed sexism against Michelle. It's there and it's disgusting. It might not discussed as much yet because she's not running for office, but you can bet that if Obama gets the nomination (and it's in our faces all the time) people who are really, truly anti-sexism will be in there swinging to defend her. Just as we've defended every OTHER woman, and MAN, against misogynistic attacks.

[Susie from Philly]

I think I speak for the vast majority of feminist Clinton supporters when I say that it's been a very long time since we've bothered reading Daily Kos - because of offensive posts like the one you describe.

So you're implying that somehow Clinton supporters should 1) know of such an attack, when it took place on a blog so clearly hostile to their own positions that most of us no longer read it and 2) should be standing up against it.

Here's some news: I, for one, have been writing all along about how those attacks can't be defended against ANY Democrat. But for some reason, Obama supporters thought it was okay as long it was Clinton being attacked.

So now you finally understand what we were talking about. Good for you!

[nikkos]

C-

How exactly do my statements "it is always a good idea to listen to people of color about racism" and "One must think for oneself" equal "Men get to render THE VERDICT" (your words)?

I didn't suggest that men make the call- I merely suggested one can listen to the opinion and experiences of others but at the end of the day a person must make up his/her own mind.

But what do I know? I'm just a man.

[Foxx]

What Susie from Philly said.

The Jack and Jill link above had an extremely ugly, sexist column on Hillary. I haven't read anything similar about Michelle on feminist blogs. If I did I would say something about it.

[Yuri Rennenkampf]

"ickily racist and misogynist image of Michelle Obama"

I suppose you were similarly outraged by a similarly sexist and racist cartoon of Condaleeza Rice. I have in in mind one in particular the offering (which you can see here: http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/049887.php) of one Jeff Danziger who has her speaking in a disgusting parody of what he no doubt imagines to be typical African-American dialect. Or is it okay to be racist if its all for a good cause?

[Melissa McEwan]

"Don't be shy: post up some links for those that may not already be familiar with your writing, specifically your pro-Michelle posts!"

Here is the post I wrote after Bill O'Reilly said he didn't "want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels…that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever": http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-write-letters_22.html

Here is one in which I pointed out that a WSJ piece about Michelle Obama was written in a way that would be taken as negative by misogynists and racists but was taken well by me: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/michelle-bars-belle.html

Here is one in which I respond to MoDo's bullshit about Michelle Obama's alleged sense of entitlement: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/shut-up-maureen-dowd.html

And as I said above, that doesn't mean at all that I think my work is unassailable. I agree whole-heartedly with Kathy's post; I need fires lit under me.

I blog more about Clinton because she's a candidate and, to be perfectly honest, because people send me stuff since I've become the "go-to gal" for the Sexism Watch. I get more stuff every day than I could possibly blog, just about Clinton.

I write about attacks on Michelle Obama when I come across them in my regular rounds of the news and other blogs. I've never been sent something about MO and not blogged it; that happens with stuff I've been sent about HRC a lot.

[ClareA]

If people think Hillary Clinton got the misogynistic treatment just because she was Hillary Clinton, they are in for a surprise.
In the past I have commented against sexist attacks on Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. There is enough in their writings to attack them on!
What happened was that no one responded to my comments- either positively or negatively. In every case, the comment was not worth commenting on...
When I look back on that I realize I ought not to have been so surprised at the misogny coming from the mouths of "progressives" in this primary.
Perhaps some people will be more sensitive to this when Michelle Obama is the target,(and she will be) because, you know, SHE doesn't "deserve it".
I hate to see any women subjected to this crap.
I hope that after this primary people who can't recognize misogyny when it's directed at "the other side", might open their eyes.

[Rich]

I am sorry but this is just sad. White women really need to step into reality for a minute. As a Black male, that's married to a white women, I can say that without a doubt it's easier to be a White women than a Black male in this country. Just the fact that White women are able to catch a cab should be a clue. I have seen it personally. And when was the last time that you heard of a White women being shot 50 times? I rest my case.

At this point, the feminist movement has become nothing more that a cry for White female entitlement. They have taken over affirmative action and now they feel insulted that a Black male is actually more qualified, but now White women are crying rape. Get over yourselves.

[Siva Vaidhyanathan]

Hi Kathy. It turns out that Ann Bartow did take on the anti-Michelle Obama sexism on both Feminist Law Professors' Blog and on Sivacracy.

See http://www.sivacracy.net/2008/05/the_sexism_in_the_democratic_p.html

[David Dzidzikashvili]

The fact that Obama is running against McCain demonstrates that racism and stereotyping minorities soon will be a history in US. Obama is truly revolutionary leader and Michelle has stood behind him all 100%.