Some of my women friends on Facebook have been promoting “Michelle Obama Dropped Some Wisdom Every Young Girl Should Hear,” a story in which America’s First Lady gives the following advice:
If I had worried about who liked me and who thought I was cute when I was your age, I wouldn’t be married to the president of the United States today.
Is there a way to read this other than “Getting an education was primarily important because it enabled me to marry a richer and more powerful husband”? And, if not, why are women who style themselves as feminists (a version of feminism that is rather evolved from the 1970s “equality feminism” because many of those who liked this on Facebook have themselves chosen to marry high-income men and withdraw from the workforce) enthusiastic about this statement?
Related:
- section on modern ways to interpret “feminism” in our Rationale chapter
Must be one of those hoaxes like facebook posts about the Pope saying there’s no Hell and you don’t have to be religious to get to heaven?
She didn’t meet him in school, she met him at her law firm where she was assigned to mentor him, i.e. she was his boss of sorts.
As for delaying mating until you have access to the cream of a larger crop, rather than whatever losers happened to be in the same high school as you, that seems like eminently sensible advice.
Fazal: I was not offering an opinion on whether or not the advice was sensible… but the fact that she met her husband at a law firm rather than in school doesn’t materially change the situation, does it? “Getting an education was primarily important because it enabled me to marry a richer and more powerful husband” would then become “Getting an education and job was primarily important because it enabled me to marry a richer and more powerful husband”.
So we then circle back to my original question of why people who identify as “feminists” are excited about this…
Feminists must not be willing to admit that FLOTUS is acknowledging that she waited until she was working at a white shoe Chicago law firm to decide that her peers (in this case subordinates/mentees) were worthy husband material. I like Michelle’s candor. That said, I think her classmates at Princeton would have been in the running, had she gotten married earlier. Philip: I am reminded of your remark which your nephews took pretty seriously about a decade ago. You noted that women were interested in dating medical students, but “graduate students” got them nervous about future earnings potential (in reference to the men with whom you graduated from MIT). I believe in Milton Friedman’s “Permanent Income Hypothesis,” and apparently ambitious women do, too.
“And, if not, why are women who style themselves as feminists…enthusiastic about this statement?”
Because if high status First Lady Obama donked off her career to be a SAHM, then it means they made the right decision.
Also, most women aren’t feminists. They just say that because they’re supposed to be feminists. Related, Oscar winning actress has no time for feminism: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/29/marion-cotillard-feminism-film-industry?CMP=twt_gu
Another reminder that politicians aren’t saints, but women my age tended go from cuteness in their teens to very focused on men of power in their 20’s to 30’s, to being more focused on cuteness again in their 40’s. Each phase had different requirements based on the financial needs of childrearing, but marriage is still based on 1 guy meeting the needs of all 3 phases.
I think what she meant was that focusing on growing intellectually, rather on being cute and attractive to dumb guys, enabled her to become so powerful herself that any guy in her circle of influence would automatically increase his chances of eventually becoming president of the United States significantly.
Women bet on men like men bet on horses. The hope is that she chooses a good enough man that she can ride until the finish line (eg. house, kids, safe retirement). The biggest worry for her is not so much not getting to be first place (although first place would be best, since women are into hypergamy) but in not reaching the finish line at all. Women are not romantic, that is a lie. Women are practical, it is men that are romantic.
These days, rather than pulling that yoke, a man is better off visiting high-end brothels on a weekly basis. For 200 bucks a week a German man can sleep with a model. Business is booming here. I don’t don’t blame them, have you seen their women? She-mans and ball-crushers.
Actually, you know really the solution to all of men’s woes? Reduce the population of men. Start another war. The Chinese had it all wrong, they should have gotten rid of the males. You know what happened to Paraguay in 1864 to 1870? During the Paraguayan war against the Triple Alliance of Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay, 70% of the male population was destroyed. In the following years, to be a man in Paraguay was to be in high demand (in some regions, women outnumbered men 20 to 1 !). Informal polygamy became the norm and having a man – any man – was a status symbol.
Phil, the answer to your question is “yes”. There are several other ways to read that, of which “focus on growing as a person and your life will probably turn out alright” is one of the more straightforward.
You are assuming that she believes that marrying the president was the outcome of her education, her winning raffle ticket.
I would interpret her as saying that making Obama president was a project of them both, and that is a direct consequence of both their educations and the life they achieved subsequently.