Style is totes more important than substance. Totes.
I also have boots that I wear sometimes, especially in the winter. I also wear skirts with leggings or tights with nerdy t-shirts. Honestly, I think the entire reason I moved away from the deserts of Arizona to the cold (Vermont) is because I wanted to wear tights and leggings nearly year-round, haha.
2 Likes
Who said that?
Not you.
I know. And in fact, no one in the article referenced, or in the written BoingBoing blurb, or in these comments, has said or implied anywhere near that. I’m trying to figure out where your snark is coming from.
1 Like
Because your dismissal of her credentials is so close (and perhaps even a good example of) blatant sexism. Why even bring it up to casually dismiss it? Put your lawyer hat on–why did you bring up a fact then say it isn’t important or relevant? What did you actually intend to say?
Because that is what you said. You said it wasn’t important, I disagreed and challenge you on why you think it is unimportant or even relevant to discuss the merits of in the first place.
I don’t think it has anything to do with sexism. If this had been GWB visiting schools and talking about education, would we talk about this letting people aspire to get MBAs, or aspire to become the President? If it was Mr. Obama, would it be about letting black kids aspire to get law degrees or aspire to be the President? Similarly, Michelle Obama is in Asia in her capacity as First Lady, not in her capacity as lawyer; if she’s an example of what kids can aspire to, it’s that they can aspire to marry a powerful man.
I’m not the one who brought up her being a lawyer (and showing that girls can aspire to be lawyers); the original article did. I raised my objection to this on the basis that these girls don’t see her as a lawyer, but as the First Lady. And that undercuts the entire thesis of the article, which is to say that Michelle is showing people that you can be feminine and be an accomplished professional: I think it’s more accurate to say she’s showing you can be feminine and marry a President, which is quite a different message.
No. What I said is that the degree is irrelevant to how she is perceived and the role she is playing. Your objection is that advanced degrees should be honored in and of themselves… in which case I wonder why you consider it relevant that someone who has an advanced degree is married to you. I mean, unless you think your spouse is identified primarily in terms of his/her relationship to you, I don’t see why his/her marital status is relevant.
Kernel of disagreement.
I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive; I believe men get more positive press for holding advanced degrees (while women are often an afterthought); and considering her role I believe that extensive higher education is extremely relevant.
I don’t know if Biden and GWB get lots of credit for their advanced degrees. It seems like every other politician has a law degree, and I don’t know how relevant that is for most of them. I’m not sure how her advanced degree is relevant to her role, or what you consider her role to be.
In the specific context of Michelle Obama and this Asia trip, I really doubt that she’s being seen as an independently-successful professional woman. In the broader US context, it’s also difficult to read very much into this, especially since she would not dress like this at her old firm of Sidley Austin and as such it’s difficult to interpret her role as being a successful lawyer. Right now she’s in the perfect position where she’s powerful enough to do whatever she wants (even partners at large firms don’t really have this luxury), without having to worry about how this will affect her job or career (since her current position is divorced from whatever career aspirations she has).
Finally, if the well-educated Jackie Kennedy ran a similar program in the '60s, how would her femininity be interpreted in light of her education? I think most people would look at her and say “This is what a good First Lady looks like,” and not “This is what a college-educated journalist looks like.” Similarly, I don’t think many people look at Michelle Obama and think “This is what a high-power corporate lawyer looks like.”
Look, I don’t know what to say. Are you married? Do you understand marriage dynamics? If you do then we both know how each partners role is played and the importance of every member.
The very specific issue I had was one, finite thing–your casual mention and dismissal. Michelle Obamas role is virtually inconsequential. It was your comment that took me off balance.
Her education is irrelevant besides being the second (or perhaps first) most important person in the world–where is that coming from?
Here you get to the point: it’s not about dismissing the higher degrees, but about doing so within the context of marriage. And it’s in this context that Michelle is interpreted: she isn’t seen just as an adult with a higher degree, but as the wife of President Obama. This isn’t a lawyer who wears dresses, but a spouse who wears dresses.
If she actually was a Sidley Austin partner who dressed like this to work, it would actually be a much more meaningful statement—especially if she dressed like this before being elevated to partner.
What are you saying? That Michelle Obama’s role is to be the second most important person in the world? A role that could be played by anyone, regardless of their education or ability, so long as they captured their spouse’s attention? A role that says little about the person, and more about their spouse? How is aspiring to this role empowering?
Heh, we could go at this all day 
(but I came here for an argument!)
The basis of your comment there is inherently flawed. Partners are partners, they are not interchangeable. They are not cogs. While the notion of “one perfect partner for life” is ridiculous, it is still a small, finite number for people as well educated as the Obamas.
1 Like
No, and the rhetorical device I used explicitly stated the ambiguity of the relationship.
But back to basics, casual dismissal of advanced degrees is a jerk move.
So what? They’re also not elected, and they have very litle to do with how competent and capable their spouses are for their positions… but maybe you think that it’s fair to evaluate people and their suitability for jobs based on their spouse?
So we should genuflect over irrelevant degrees? Respect GWB for his MBA, and pretend it is relevant to his presidency?
If I become First Spouse, I don’t expect anyone to think my JD is particularly relevant to that position.
Yes, they do. Do you never discuss important decisions with your SO? Every person I have ever known in a partnership has been fundamentally affected in knowledge and judgment by their partner.
I don’t know, how then are you defining feminine? I certainly wouldn’t describe them as masculine. Conservative, sure, but that’s another issue. Michelle Obama is younger than some other first ladies, so that’s probably part of it. But when I was searching for images of Hillary Clinton when she was first lady, I found a lot of skirt suits. And pant suits were actually more in style in the 90s! So I think a certain image of femininity does go hand in hand with the role of first lady.Which is not to say the current first lady isn’t certainly stepping her game up over previous first ladies in the style department, I don’t think you could argue she’s bringing back any femininity to the role.
1 Like
This is the tiring part–GWB himself gave him the mantle of first CEO president! So yes, it is relevant. That rhetoric didn’t start with Clinton, bush sr., reagon, carter, etc.
GWBs MBA, as it was, affected his presidency. And for all of us that were there we remember.
–CSB time–
I hung out with some 14 year old kids recently and mentioned Dick Cheney. They said, “dick who?”. I guffawed.
Is it therefore reasonable to fire someone if they get married or divorced? Should you interview candidates’ spouses? Should there be equal clamor over Michelle Obama’s grades and transcripts?
GWB’s education is relevant and deserving of respect because he said so? You think this is a core part of how we should think of GWB?
No, but ignoring their influence is naive.
