I am sure you are well-apprised of what I am going to call “The Michelle Obama feminism challenge.” But just in case, Mirror on America did a very nice post last week, outlining some of the most notable sites of contestation, particularly as they’ve been crystallized in Debra Dickerson’s recent article in Slate, and Maureen Dowd’s syndicated op-ed piece, reproduced here from the San Jose Mercury News. Racialicious also has a great post outlining the Dickerson and Dowd articles (amongst others). It’s redundant to rehearse the Racialicious and Mirror on America points, so check them out!

What I find interesting is the way Dickerson’s and Dowd’s pieces are in fact quite different from each other’s, but nonetheless show a striking similarity in the feelings of irritation each seems to elicit from people of color!

It has been my experience that many women of color find feminism immensely tiresome, tiresome in its disavowed self-interest and in its refusal to be held accountable for other -isms that it is not itself immune to. Reading Dowd and Dickerson, I felt the irritation; I felt the tiredness. And I teach feminism. I actually am a feminist. So what gives?

“Feminism,” as a political movement nascent in the suffrage movement and blossoming in the late sixties and early seventies, has a history of not being attuned to the specific concerns of women who are not white and/or not middle class. Out of this, in the eighties, came the notion of womanism, which seeks broaden the perspective and interests of feminism. (You can find a nice historicization of feminism and womanism here).

But it is important to note that feminists quite often disagree with being characterized as out of touch. To my mind, however, it’s the very insistence that they are in touch that signifies their out-of-touchness (like how I just unintentionally slipped into ‘us’ and ‘they’? I’m going to keep it for a while). The reason we so often think of feminism as ‘white,’ then, isn’t necessarily because all feminists are white, or because feminism necessarily excludes women of color– it’s because feminism just doesn’t know how to listen. How to pay attention to difference and to imagine women’s options accordingly. Historically, ‘not listening’ to others with less privelage translates to ‘being white.’ That is why The HNIC Report’s take on the matter resonates so well: “The White Lady Just Doesn’t Get It.”

This is one of the reasons why woc who might otherwise identify as feminists risk feeling shut out from feminism. And this is also why feminists must also remember that all things do not mean the same things to all people; that feminism might be more of a position than a movement; and that the work of looking out for women’s interests is ultimately ineffective if it misses or consistently misreads other elements that make up our social experiences of the world, like race, class, and religion.

My challenge to you, feminism? Think away from yourself. What I find so immensely irritating about both articles is my nagging sense that neither woman is particularly committed to making a point about Michelle Obama. Simultaneously released with big profiles on M’bama, I am suspicious that each article is simply taking an opportunity to “bring gender” to the table. No one really believes Obama is “giving up her career,” i.e. leaving the workforce. And I just don’t think anyone truly believes Mr. Obama is being henpecked out of the presidency. By claiming M’bama isn’t feminist enough (Dickerson), or that she is too much woman (Dowd), each writer manages to overlook anything specific to Obama, who she is and the kinds of decisions she is responsible for making. Kinda reminiscent of the whole “is Obama black enough” debate, no?

Both Dowd and Dickerson dropped the ball on Michelle Obama. And if I were reading this more fully in terms of race, I would even go so far as to say that to serve their own interests, as feminist and Democrat, they are actually bouncing said ball off M. Obama’s back. (Ouch! I think it nicked me.)

Sometimes it seems like America works on some kooky law of conservation, powered by a difference engine, adding and subtracting, adding and subtracting. In this instance, it seems that we might want to elevate a black man to the presidency, but we might be willing to use Michelle’s back to get him there.

And oh, by the way, Michelle Obama would likely never call herself a feminist. See, now I’m feeling all feministy again… My challenge to lady Obama? You can leave the word, but don’t leave the game.

Six minutes, Six minutes, Six minutes and Obama you’re on…

In his decision-making about which opportunities to take, he must confront the question many artists, particularly artists from marginalized backgrounds, often face: where is the limit between wanting to be known as an “artist of x,” and knowing that some of your success as an artist might also hinge on your deployment of your racial, sexual, melaninal specificity?

In the Voice article, Varnado frames his dilemma this way: “I want to be perceived as a person before I’m perceived as a black albino.” But as Westhoff points out, Varnado must of course also confront the fact that his condition has contributed to his success, and is at the center of much of his comedy, which you can catch here.

The article discusses much more than I have noted here, and you should definitely check it out. To end, this little excerpt:

“Race and racism is so arbitrary,” he says. “Sometimes people see me and they think I’m ‘acting black.’ Once, I was in a secondhand clothing store with one of my friends and commenting on the fashion, joking: ‘I need baggy pants and long T-shirts—what rappers might wear.’ And this white woman came up to me and said: ‘I really find what you’re saying offensive.’ And then I said, ‘I’m black,’ and she was like, ‘OK. It’s fine.’ Then she walked away.”

It would be like Miss USA wearing a dress showing images of the Ku Klux Klan in the Deep South. [...] A beauty contest is very far from being the right place to vent political and religious ideologies.

Oh my! Let’s have a look at this dress…

According to msnbc, this well-accessoried ensemble features a “billowing, hoop skirt adorned with sketches of Catholic rebels hanging from posts. Rosaries and scapulars hung from the bullet-studded, bandolier belt; a large crucifix necklace, black halter top and wide-brimmed sombrero completed the outfit.”

(I really like it when ladies remember their hats. Bullets, however, are often that one thing too much that bogs down the look.)

The msnbc and BBC articles each do a good job pointing out some of what is at stake in this choice for representing Mexico to the world. There is also an article in La Jornada* that is particularly good at reading the dress as a signifier of contemporary Mexico’s political moment, which Melissa has also pointed out to us to in her response to JL’s post on the new abortion laws in Mexico City.

Further, as all of the articles point out, there is something troubling about this fetishization of the violent Cristero War, which hinged on Catholic rebellion against the secularization of the Mexican state. And for some, the images, which include Roman Catholic rebels hanging from posts and a man facing a firing squad (maybe Blessed Miguel Pro, SJ.?) also have an uncomfortable resonance with the pervasive public violence brought on by the escalating drug war in Mexico.

Hey Princess Propaganda and Princess Production, what do you think of this sticky uber-princess situation?

[*By the way, the Jornada article is in Spanish though, since it is a newspaper, you might only need to dredge up your sixth-grade Spanish! I suggest taking a look. If you get stuck, feed the article's URL into Babel Fish.]

At the article site, you’ll also find an audio interview with the article’s author, and a slideshow.