It’s About Making Babies!

Sharon Astyk at Casaubon’s Book writes about the Obama visit to Russia, and how Mrs Michele Obama was received by Russian women. The topic of her post is unhappy and clearly and effectively speaks to how limiting the role of the First Lady is – and the roles of women in the family.

Where I come from

The roles of men and women, and cultural assumptions about marriage, change from year to year, and have since I guess forever. Whether it is true, or simple projection, the consensus seems to be that prehistory started the model we have today – men work and hunt, women keep the cave and children.

One other historic premise. I forget the source, but religions through history haven’t always tolerated each other. When the origination of the Judeo-Christian faith occurred, many religions and cultures were matriarchal. That is, giving birth was seen as a closer bond and representation of godhood, women held places of authority in church and often over state as well. The competition led to the Judeo-Christian position of very strict patriarchal traditions and values. The traditional church wedding vows often cite the reference that Man is head of house and woman. And in this case they always meant the male gender, not humankind in general.

Where Sharon is coming from

I think that Sharon is projecting the motivations, frustrations, and inequities of individual circumstances and frustrations onto cultural generalizations. When the reality is that we have been confused, as a nation, almost forever.

We claim and have laws, as communities and as a nation, about the sanctity of marriage, yet have had prostitution, adultery, and fornication (sexual intercourse between unwed partners), since before America was a nation. Recall that Ben Franklin was an acknowledged and tolerated “womanizer”. We have had Presidents with not-so-clandestine “mistresses”. Etc. And our neighbors and leaders continue the tradition, some of them.

Our ancestors claimed that “a woman’s place is in the home”, yet there have always been women, single, married, divorced or widowed, parent or alone, that have worked for others. America relied in no small part on the ability of women in industry during war time. Yet girls still dream of the immense (and expensive) big wedding as the goal of their pre-married life.

We are not a homogeneous society or culture. Not all women, men, boys, girls, have the same dreams. Not all communities or faiths teach the same values. And no generalization, including this one, is completely true.

Yet powerful traditions in America trace back to the crude, outdated, “Keep them barefoot and pregnant”.

My model

First, let me state that my model informs the traditions and expectations, the limits and scope, of marriage today; it is not a goal or even desirable for anyone to try to follow this as a guideline in their lives. I use this as an illustrative tool to examine how what we have today might have come about.

In past times men have been seen as representing a unit of culture, of work. A family was considered an accessory to the man; a man took a job or craft, the family supported the man. In some professions and positions, a family – supportive wife, possibly children to bring up in the trade – were necessary to meet mundane, domestic, and business or political demands. Women have been seen as steadying influences on a man in a position of influence.

A wife and family have also been seen as a mark of affluence, in some circles, or of character. In the military, there were unwritten rules in the past that an officer below a certain grade (few years of service) should not marry, while officers in more senior grades must be married.

The First Lady

Sharon laments that the Russian women identified most with the First Lady – about the infamous White House Garden. That an article brings out the Russian woman’s struggle with independence and domestic roles. That Michele Obama is defined in her role as First Lady not by her education and aptitude, but by the domesticity of her role as the wife of the President.

I find the argument disingenuous.

First, a politician uses any tool, pretext, or scam to “appeal” to people, to make a “connection” – to get people to believe the politician is a friend and understands them. Politics is a profession of perception, with substance and honest running poor thirds.

The organizers of the trip promoted Michele Obama for her roles in parenting their children and gardening as being the ties that show she understands and sympathizes with the women working in Russia. How sincere is that image? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. It seems to have worked, for the moment. What I know is that Michele O. sold her support during the campaign season for a humongously expensive custom ring, Chicago payoff style.

Sharon laments that the article in question spends time on attire. Oh, please. The turnout at the MJ service didn’t just happen to look like a who’s how of entertainment – it was staged, people, for the benefit of building and maintaining business for entertainers. Mrs. Obama wore flat shoes. Duh. The article pointed that out, and it appealed to the (nameless?) Russian women – because it might be tough to visualize Michele Obama as a gardener and active parent in killer stiletto heels. There was an image to create, and the shoes were part of the presentation.

The role of First Lady

First Lady is not an elected office. In the past, women have made little or much of the role, depending on the times and the people involved. Whether an unseen presence in the White House, or an outspoken social or cultural leader, there is no reason to think that the “domestic limits” Sharon finds in her Russian trip article are anything significant, or even more than a facade presented for one occasion. Nancy Reagan, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy Onassis – I haven’t followed the First Ladies of the nation, since they hold their office by virtue of their direct and indirect support of their elected husbands.

And that brings me back to seeing the role of wife as a symbol of stature of the family and of the husband, in society, a symbol of character and affluence, and as a resource and asset in pursuing the husband’s career.

Tradition

The Presidency of the United States is enshrouded, if not enshrined, in tradition. From the traditional Easter Egg Hunt and Pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkey, to the presence of the Secret Service protection details, the President in many ways is a symbol of tradition, stability, and security to the nation.

And the tradition, right or wrong, applicable or not, of the wife as being a support for her husband, is alive and well in the perceptions that the White House uses to put forward the President’s agenda.

Keep in mind that the lifestyle that the President portrays is affluent. Not all children have a work-at-home father. Not all families *know* the rent, or taxes, are paid for the next several years. Not all women have a choice about whether to wear flats to work. Not all spouses get to go along on business trips.

My reading of what has come out of the White House is that the only real restrictions on Michele Obama are negotiated with her husband. But the appearances will be maintained, where it suits B. Hussein Obama and his wife.

A Patriarchal view

Judeo-Christian faiths and Western Civilization are based on a patriarchal view of society. Despite recognition of how artificial it is to define roles and responsibilities based on gender, patriarchal, male dominant, traditions and values still make themselves felt.

Lamenting that the US President and his family portray an image, when it is useful, of being traditional, is missing the point. Michele Obama seems to have enjoyed and successfully played up to her assigned role. This is not a tragedy, any more than for anyone else winning a part in an exciting play. This is not much of a mirror of reality, either.