Oh, Mrs. O

The world is suddenly obsessed with Michelle Obama’s every sartorial decision. And she, being no fool, knows it.

by Anne Kingston on Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:00am - 5 Comments

Traditionally, this image has been threatening, says Robinson-Flint, pointing to the purportedly ironic depiction of Michelle Obama as an angry Angela Davis-style radical with an Afro and a gun on the cover of The New Yorker. As the daughter of two working-class African-American parents, Obama symbolizes the lineage of U.S. black history in the U.S. in a way her husband doesn’t, says Robinson-Flint: “African-Americans have been brutalized by racism in this country and that is something that Barack Obama [whose mother was white] does not carry as much as Michelle does.”

When Michelle Obama commands the cover of Vogue’s March issue, as is rumoured, she’ll be only one of slightly more than a dozen African-American women to have done so. Fashion remains an industry of racial stereotyping and exclusion. Zoe Whitley, a visiting lecturer at Sussex University who recently wrote her M.A. thesis about the representation of black models in Vogue, found repeated use of tribal and exotic tropes—models in animal prints or photographed crawling and leaping in the air.

Within the African-American community, Michelle Obama’s fit, pear-shaped body is itself viewed as a political weapon of change. In the salon.com article, Erin Aubry Kaplan writes: “I’m a black woman who never thought I’d see a powerful, beautiful female with a body like mine in the White House,” adding: “Try as Michelle might to cover it with those Mamie Eisenhower skirts and sheath dresses meant to reassure mainstream voters, the butt would not be denied.”

But to reassure those mainstream voters, Kaplan complained, the Obamas sublimated their black heritage: “Michelle’s ethnic butt might have snuck under the radar, but an ethnic do wouldn’t have stood a chance.” Danielle Belton, whose Black Snob blog tracks Mrs. Obama’s clothing, believes her ethnicity is more subtly conveyed in her choice of bright colours: “African-Americans love colour when it comes to fashion.”

Obama’s bold choices have occasionally misfired. The red-and-black Narciso Rodriguez dress she wore on election night to anchor a carefully colour-coordinated family tableaux, for example, received more criticism than any of her husband’s cabinet picks. Slate.com issued a finger wag: “Mrs. Obama, black with red is too jarring a color combination for a first lady. It’s too dramatic.”

Unbowed, Obama chose a variation on Nancy Reagan’s favourite hue when she made a post-election visit to the White House with her husband in November. Her coral Maria Pinto dress eclipsed Laura Bush’s mousy brown outfit in every photo. The optics were clear: hold on, America, a more vibrant administration is coming. The subtext was stealthier: I’m the next first lady. I’m definitely not Nancy Reagan. And you’re going to stop and pay attention.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.macleansfordummies.wordpress.com Maclean’s for Dummies

    After just recently soundly trashing Jennifer Aniston, now you pick on Michelle Obama? I think her red dress on election night was resoundingly regarded as a ‘dog’ (wasn’t it ugly?). Why not put some truth into your trashing misrepresentations, some of ‘you’, if you’re into recasting a powerful woman as nothing more than a fashion icon?

  • KC

    What a shame that this type of trash piece has become a mainstay of the Macleans magazine. Really? I don’t debate that Mrs. Obama is beautiful, and picks her clothes out well, but you should have written a way different article. Rather than framing it that “Mrs. Obama has all these degrees, but let’s spend the whole article talking about her superficial offerings”, you could have EASILY made it that “she is a beautiful well-dressed woman, but let’s talk about her degrees, her potential intellectual impact on society, etc.”

    By emphasizing the superficial topic of LOOKS, you take away every REAL and hard-earned accomplishment this woman has worked for. You tell every little girl out there that it society doesn’t care about your grades or educational achievements, but only cares about what you’re wearing, and whether your triceps are toned.

    I canceled my subscription a couple of years ago, when Macleans because just another trash-rag like UsWeekly or People. From this article, I can see that I made the right decision.

    Shame on you Macleans, for writing this fluff piece.

  • J. Money

    Silly me, I just assumed this would be an analytical/critical piece about how the focus on her clothes is obscuring her real value to the new Administration, that is, her brains. Especially when it started out touting her academic and professional and familial accomplishments.

    Perhaps it’s telling that we have no glimpse at how Ms. Obama feels about being objectified this way. Sure it’s hard to get an interview her but given that, is the story viable?

    No, it’s not. Shame on you, Macleans for these reasons and those cited by the commentator before me.

    jm

  • Jane Buttery

    I was hoping to discover more about Michelle Obama’s abilities and personality so the article featuring clothes was a disappointment. With degrees from Harvard and Princeton as you pointed out, I expected a follow through about what she has done and may do. I would have been more interested in her attitude to child rearing than just fashion. I am sure she has views on many subjects so perhaps these could be addressed another time.
    Talking about wearing expensive clothes when so many people are suffering financial problems and unemployment seems out of place at present.

  • J. Seth

    As a woman of Caribbean ancestry, it was painful to have to ingest the predictable Black American women’s vulgar drivel about Mrs. Obama’s anatomy and questions of Black authenticity. One would scratch one’s head to find the relevance of Mr. Dion’s Gallic features, Mr. Mulroney’s emphatic jaw or the lipless faces of some journalists I could name, to any discussion of substance.

    Secondly, if one could step outside the sheer idiocy of American racist terminology, one could at least begin to understand that in the New World in particular, there are millions of people of mixed racial descent. Within colonial territories, there was no need for this tortuous hair-splitting that characterizes the American dialogue. I grew up with the terminology of “Colored” [as in South Africa] to denote my multiracial background. The words Metis or Mestizo similarly got to the point. Perhaps we can all just get used to simply using the word “Mixed” to define the myriad racial permutations that inhabit the New World and elsewhere and hopefully elevate the conversation, once and for all.

    After the disappointment of your run of Mark Steyn articles, I thought of cancelling my subscription. If Macleans cannot get past indulging such specious rubbish in an article concerning a capable and accomplished First Lady-to-Be, a decision on my part in overdue.

From Macleans