A Thousand Points of Lite

Okay, this is amazing. Newsweek has released an inside the beltway spoof of the (scripted) reality shows “The Hills” and “The City” which takes us inside the world of Barack Obama, or as his screen caption identifies him, “Barack, President”. Entitled “The District,” this parody mimics the montage-heavy, sound-byte laden editing style of the shows after which it is modeled, and also features a similar soundtrack of clubby pop, interspersed with narration by an Obama impersonator (on a side note, who is that guy and why couldn’t SNL get someone that good to play Obama? Fred Armisen, take note) who sets the stage and introduces a cast of characters, including Obama’s BFFs, Joe and Hillary, who, we are told, used to be Obama’s “frenemies” until they joined his team. In one great part, footage of an Obama press conference is spliced together with footage of the Tim Geithner confirmation hearings to look like they’re having a really awkward conversation. Here’s a bit of the opening narration, spoken by pseudo-Barack over a pulsating electronic dance beat:

“Previously on The District: I’m Barack. I was a senator from Illinois, living the Chicago dream with my wife, Michelle and my girls, Sasha and Malia. Then I heard about the opportunity of a lifetime. So I decided to risk it all, give up everything I know, and run for President. And then…I actually won. I moved into this amazing house in the one city where you can make a difference. In this city, you have to learn pretty quickly where you fit in. There are the Democrats, like my best friends, Joe and Hillary…we used to be frenemies when we were all running for the Democratic nomination. Now, they’re totally on Team Barack. Then there’s the Republican crowd–we don’t really see eye to eye on most issues. I think they’re just nervous because their old friend in the White House just moved back to Texas. Now, I’m going to have to figure out what I can change and who I can trust. And it all begins here…in the District.

Not only is this clip extremely entertaining, but it’s a great lead-in to a lot of issues I’m starting to think about in relation to a class I’m taking this semester, entitled “Cultural Industries, Mass Media & Celebrity”. In the class, we’re going to look at a lot of aspects of the history and social construction of celebrity and fame, a topic I find incredibly fascinating, and one I think ties in nicely with the kind of work I am potentially interested in doing in the future, with media reform and/or media literacy and education. It also ties in nicely with my interest in issues of women in the media–sexism, negative body image, etc. Each person in the class is in charge of presenting one week’s material and leading the class discussion for that week, and my week will deal with celebrity and politics, and the interesting overlaps and intersections thereof. I’m really excited about this topic and I think it’s a very timely one–to take the most obvious example, there’s no doubt that President Obama (nope, still no less thrilling to type) has become a huge celebrity, a “rock star” of epic proportions, and I look forward to looking at the phenomenon of politicians-as-celebrities (not to mention celebrities-as-politicians like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenneger, and, if Blagojovich had had his way, Oprah) as well as other related phenomena, such as the success of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Of course, at this point, my presentation is weeks away and we’re only a week or so into class so I haven’t delved much into the theoretical work, but even before the class, I’d been fascinated by the way that the modern media machine entertainment-izes everything, even, or perhaps especially, politics. Not that I think the politician-as-hero or politician-as-celebrity is by any means a new phenomenon. But with each election cycle, the level of media saturation and, thus, media consumption increases and media thus plays an ever greater role in guiding and dictating the discourse. Many even go so far as to argue that the media decides the race, and I’m not sure that is such a stretch. Indeed, as I touched on previously, I do believe that Obama’s understanding of the intersections between politics and media and, therefore, the importance of a multi-media platform and he and his campaign staff’s skillful use of a variety of forms of media, from web video to text message updates, to Facebook outreach to his prime-time TV special days before the election, was a huge contributing factor in his success. And he and his family truly have become celebrities, they have appeared on the cover of US Weekly, been interviewed by  Ellen Degeneres and the ladies of The View, and Beanie Baby recently released Sasha and Malia dolls, much to the consternation of Michelle Obama.

Being an avid reader and watcher of  both political coverage from a variety of sources, from MSNBC to Media Matters, Wonkette to the Washington Post and, I must admit, entertainment and celebrity coverage from a similarly wide range of  print publications, online sources and television, it’s extremely interesting how similar the conventions, stylistic choices, and even the content of the two kinds of coverage can sometimes be. The truth is,  it seems pretty clearly that it’s not just the media–politicians and their ties with the rich and famous make it all too easy to see them as celebrities of sorts, themselves. After all, part of the reason “The District” works so well as parody is that it hits just close enough to the truth that it is really funny. 

I’m sure I’ll have lots more to add as I get deeper into this class and start reading more things that relate directly to this topic, particularly as I prepare for my in-class presentation. Until then, watch “The District“. Will Barack’s stimulus package be his one-way ticket to Loserville? Will Joe’s big mouth cause tensions to run high? Who will Hillary catch Michelle with in the Lincoln bedroom? Tune in next Monday for an all new episode of “The District”!

Cease and Desist

The mainstream media’s seemingly endless barrage of banality with regard to First Lady fashion continues in the latest of a long string of articles devoted to dissecting the style choices of First Ladies past and present (in this case, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama). To read this article, one would think that Michelle Obama’s choice of gown for the upcoming Inaugural Ball was actually a key policy issue worthy of the review of an emergency lame duck session of Congress (or at least an audience vote on Dancing With the Stars). The thing is, if Michelle Obama loves clothes, that’s great. There’s nothing wrong with that and I’m not saying she shouldn’t. I just don’t understand why it was newsworthy in the first place, let alone after dozens if not hundreds of articles have meticulously dissected every fashion choice this woman makes, drawing sweeping sociological, psychological, and political conclusions from the color of a dress or the shape of a neckline.

This particular article quotes Mandi Norwood, former editor in chief of Shop Etc., who is now writing a style guide directed at Michelle Obama. Ms. Norwood says, “Most previous first ladies have appeared to believe that displaying an interest in fashion and style undermines the importance of their role. They’ve subscribed to the old-fashioned view that a woman should de-sexualize herself or dress like a man if she wants to be regarded as intelligent and of good conscience.” While I know looks and fashion can be a double-edged sword for women in the way Norwood is describing, she seems to discount another obvious possibility–maybe some of them just don’t care that much about it. Sure, Hillary Clinton definitely toned down her femininity while running for President, but as First Lady, it seems to me that her style choices were mostly not very premeditated–she just had other priorities. And the thing is, there should be nothing wrong with either Hillary Clinton’s lack of interest in fashion or Michelle Obama’s apparent love of it. Norwood’s comments almost seem to hint that any woman who doesn’t embrace fashion must be purposefully denying her womanhood and sexuality out of some old fashioned sensibility about roles for women. It’s pretty ludicrous to suggest that Hillary Clinton of all people, a woman who came pretty close to being President and is about to be named Secretary of State, is mired in antiquated ideas about gender roles.

As much as I believe that it’s perfectly fine for a strong, modern woman to be interested in fashion like Michelle Obama, I also think it’s equally fine for a strong, modern woman not to be, without people suggesting that she’s trying to deny her womanhood or desexualize herself. That’s what real empowerment is about–choices, and embracing the reality that womanhood and femininity are not monolithic concepts.

The Tipping Point?

Apropos of nothing: Why is mainstream media so obsessed with giving every issue and topic its own special catch phrase and graphic?

Tina Brown’s newest project, the news blog The Daily Beast, today published the findings of a poll they conducted post-election looking at a broad array of issues pertaining to attitudes and opinions about women, politics, and the media. The poll, conducted with a group of 1000 men and women voters from across the political spectrum, reflects a lot of interesting disparities between the attitudes and beliefs of women and men as well as between younger and older women about whether and to what extent women face unequal treatment, particularly in the media. It also explored attitudes about women in power and their abilities to provide effective leadership, compared to men.

The official report of the findings, entitled  The Barrier That Didn’t Fall , does not break down the results along gender or other demographic lines, which is unfortunate because many of the most interesting findings have to do with the gaps that appear to exist between men’s and women’s perceptions of these issues. Fortunately, The Daily Beast included some of these results in their write-up of the poll results.

The study found that the women polled overwhelmingly felt that women receive unfair treatment by the media as well as in politics, in the workplace and in the armed forces. In fact, 61% of women agreed with the idea that there is a gender bias in the media, compared to only 19% who did not and fully 72% agreed that women were being treated unfairly in politics. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama were all considered role models by the women in the survey and a whopping 85% agreed that a female President would bring valuable qualities to the office that most male candidates lack, rejecting the notion of women as too weak to effectively govern. Finally, 70% of women contended that candidates’ physical appearances and attributes are not a legitimate topic of discussion.

Several interesting facts complicate these numbers. First of all, older women seemed to feel more strongly about gender disparities and media treatment of women, including women in politics, than did younger women. This is not a huge surprise to me, though I continue to find it frustrating and at least somewhat counterintuitive. While I was at NOW last year, I had many discussions with people about the generational divisions within the feminist movement, and even witnessed the phenomenon firsthand, to a limited extent. I think  a lot of second-wave feminists still tend to understand women’s activism through the lens of the movement as it was in the ’60’s and ’70’s, and feel in some sense that the younger generation of feminists, my generation, take for granted many of the things for which they worked so hard. Meanwhile, younger feminists sometimes look at these older guard of feminists as out of touch with the current realities and issues emerging and reshaping the movement and the new avenues through which activism in the 21st century often occurs. I think part of the issue has to do with this changing face of activism– what it means to be an activist, how one asserts their views and opinions in a constructive way and how a social movement enacts change most effectively. So, while I think there is some element of apathy in many young people today (as there is, I think, with every generation), which is reflected in this survey and should certainly be actively worked on and counteracted, it seems to me that it’s often greatly over-emphasized or misunderstood. I think there is some amount of mutual generational misunderstanding that manifests itself in feminist activism and ends up being a divisional and counterproductive force within the movement.

Speaking of feminist activism, perhaps the most shocking (to me) statistic the poll results presented, though it probably shouldn’t have been, was the fact that only 20% of women surveyed would describe themselves as feminists. Even more shocking, only 17% would want a daughter to consider herself a feminist. Wow. I don’t really understand what it is about that little word that scares people in this country so intensely, but it does. Pat Robertson said at the 1992 Republican Convention, “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians” and this archetype seems to be so deeply ingrained that even women whose lives exemplify the ideals of feminism often resist the label. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard a woman say “I believe in women’s equality, but I’m not a feminist.”

Another disturbing set of findings of the poll were the disparities between men’s and women’s attitudes toward these issues. The men in the survey rejected the notion that a media bias against women existed, though they agreed that gender biases do exist in the realms of politics and the workplace. 40% of the men surveyed openly admitted to feeling sexist attitudes toward the idea of a woman President with about the same percentage contending that a male is “naturally more suited” to carrying out the duties of the highest office. There was also some disparity between women’s and men’s perceptions of equality in the home. While there was a more or less even split among women on whether they thought women in the US were treated equally in the home, the men surveyed contended by a 2/1 margin that no gender inequality existed in the home.

This poll presents so much raw data, it’s a little difficult to draw a single cohesive conclusion from it. But I agree with The Daily Beast’s analysis that the overwhelmingly negative and frustrated attitudes of the women in the survey towards the treatment of women in the media and politics as well as in the workplace, the military, and to some extent even in the home, suggests the potential for a revitalization of the women’s equality movement. I felt that kind of energy building tremendously during Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in a way I’ve never before felt so manifestly in my lifetime and while there were some that felt disillusioned by her loss of the nomination, I don’t think that energy I felt just vanished with Clinton’s capitulation. I don’t think it will by any means be a quick or straightforward process to give widespread, cohesive form to the broad frustrations expressed by the women in this survey, or to channel these feelings into constructive action, but I do believe that now is a crucial moment to try to do so. To put it in the most trite way possible, organizations and movements of reform and change need to strike while the iron is hot, while the treatment of Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin is still fresh in people’s minds and while these issues still have people fired up and ready for change.

Fashions Speak Louder than Words?

Nicely tying back to both of my last two posts, The Huffington Post’s Bonnie Fuller (that’s right, a female op-ed writer for the blog) on November 11, 2008 wrote an article (not, however, published on the front page of the site) entitled “Why Michelle’s Red Dress Shook the World” (that’s right, flagrant trivialization of the First Lady through close analysis of her clothes). Fuller jumps in head first, opening her piece with these words:

Michelle O. made the power statement of her political career yesterday, and she did it without uttering a word. The red dress that she wore on her first visit to the White House said it all, and it said a lot.

Ah, so now Michelle Obama, the Harvard-educated lawyer need not speak for herself with actual “words”. Her most important statements are made, apparently, by her CLOTHES, in this case, a red dress she wore to Monday’s White House visit. “Hear me Carla Bruni-Sarkozy,” Fuller writes, “you’ve been surpassed as a First Lady force in the news, and yes, even as a force in fashion.” Because of course that’s what some of the highest-profile women in the world care most about–outshopping each other.

Apparently, the red dress had a lot of talking to do–not only did it tell Ms. Fuller that Michelle Obama is a fashion force of international proportions and that she’s patriotic, it also, apparently made a clear statement that she’s “powerful, but not threatening”…whew, what a relief. Fuller writes:

There’s something about a woman in a suit that American men and women still find intimidating. A suit strikes them as too cold, too impersonal, and too ambitious.

Fuller even writes that this state of affairs is unfortunate and unfair. But what she doesn’t seem to realize is that by writing this very article, she’s participating in the perpetuation of a climate where people even view dissecting Ms. Obama’s clothing choices rather than her credentials as legitimate. Yet, even after declaring the dissection of Obama’s clothing in this way “ridiculously unfair,” Fuller ploughs on, adding two further “statements” to the list of things that the apparently very vociferous red dress had to say–#4 “She will be Barack’s Best Friend and Life Partner, not his political partner” and #5 “She’s totally modern”–modern enough, in fact, to

choose a dress with enough curve to flatter her pear shape. Modern enough to have the confidence to stand out in red. Modern enough to understand that one dress can speak to the American people, and make many, many crucial points.

Was the red dress vintage? Because all of the messages it seems to be spouting sure reek of a bygone era. I know Michelle Obama has much more to say to the American people than her dress ever could. Unfortunately, if journalism like this continues to let such trivialities consume the public discourse about Obama and so many other intelligent and accomplished women, their efforts to speak for themselves, to redefine modern womanhood through words and actions instead of through dresses or hairstyles, will continue to be difficult.

Fuller’s full article can be found here.

The Metamorphosis of Michelle Obama

"No way, I get my hosiery at Target, too! Fist bumps and Cosmos all around, ladies."

In an excellent article published on Salon.com on November 12, 2008, Rebecca Traister looks at Michelle Obama, a Harvard educated lawyer whose career and ambitions have largely taken a backburner to her husband’s as his political career has blossomed. She discusses the way that the media has been all too happy to embrace the uncontroversial, soccer mom, J. Crew shopping, White House decorating incarnation of Michelle Obama that has emerged over the course of the campaign and continues to be forwarded, not only by the media, but by the Obama campaign and Michelle Obama herself. Traister deals with many of the same tensions I explored in an article I wrote last year for the National Organization for Women in which I explored the coverage of women politicians like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi by the mainstream media (it can be found here). Although Michelle Obama is not a politician, she is a political wife, and, as the future First Lady, a political figure who has the potential to be a very influencial female figure in American society.

Traister writes that:

It’s as though the American media — exhausted after the progressive exertions of having to be respectful and not misogynist about two women running for political office — has loosened its belt and is relaxing back into a world in which all you have to do is write about what they wear and how they mother

I think this analysis is spot-on. I’ve had this same thought at many, many moments over the past months and, even in the midst of the incredible euphoria and sense of hope that I have felt in the days since Obama’s election, these impressions lingered, nagging in the periphery of my mind. Just as some small part of me still mourns the fact that Hillary Clinton, perhaps the only woman in the country at this point so well situated to take her run for President all the way, was unable to achieve the highest office in the land, the trajectory of the media portrayals of Michelle Obama, as well as the unquestioned expectation that she play second fiddle to her husband and conform to an image of femininity at its most unthreatening, have somewhat tempered the victory for me. Don’t get me wrong–I am absolutely thrilled that Barack Obama will be our next President. I volunteered and donated money to his campaign and felt greater joy on the night of November 4th than I can remember experiencing in a very long time. I simply hope that in all the hullabaloo over the historic nature of Obama’s election, we don’t take a pass on women–their portrayals by the media and the incredible double standards still imposed on them, as exemplified by Michelle Obama.

Anyway, enough from me–check out Traister’s article here.