Problem Chylde: Learning & Writing

¿Cara a cara con el enemigo de qué valen mis palabras? –Gloria Anzaldúa

Carved Up: Black Women and Bodily Integrity

with 5 comments

I have to spell this out for my fellow commentators in the United States.  I hate speaking to people as if they are children; but I guess after the Don Imus situation the lesson did not take.

Do not, do not, do NOT reduce a black woman to her body parts.  We are no longer on the auction block.  We are no longer museum exhibits.  If you deign to respect a black woman as a full human being, do not celebrate her accomplishments by pointing out the nappiness of her hair or the fullness of her booty.

I should have known better to expect something intelligent and proactive from Salon.com.  Salon has disappointed me in the past with its commentaries on women’s bodies and its subtle alliances with misogyny.  But Erin Aubry Kaplan’s ode to Michelle Obama’s backside has hit the rock bottom of the barrel.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I will be very proud to call Michelle Obama the First Lady of the United States in January.  I envy the little black girls who will grow up with the reality of seeing a sister in the White House.  I believe her when she says she will be an active advocate for the local D.C. community.  I believe her when she says she will make sure that Sasha and Malia receive the best while President-elect Obama leads as Chief Executive.

I even understand the appreciation of a role model like Michelle Obama having a body type common to African-American women.  I get that.

But it’s one thing to evaluate Michelle Obama and the sum of her accomplishments.   Undergraduate degree from Princeton University, law degree from Harvard University.  Work at a top law firm before committing herself to a prominent fundraising and leadership position in a community hospital.  Raising two beautiful daughters in what is, for all appearances, a loving marriage. Having a great sense of style and poise that many people admire.  This woman, respectable as she is outside of the First Lady status, will join that legacy.  It’s exciting.

It’s another to reduce that accomplishment to her backside.  “Ooh, she has a booty like me!”  Are we high?  Well, I know I’m not; let me rephrase that.  Are you high?

Actually, it took me and a lot of other similarly configured black women by surprise. So anxious and indignant were we about Michelle getting attacked for saying anything about America that conservatives could turn into mud, we hardly looked south of her neck. I noted her business suits and the fact she hardly ever wore pants (unlike Hillary). As I gradually relaxed, as Michelle strode onto more stages and people started focusing on her clothes and presence instead of her patriotism, it dawned on me — good God, she has a butt! “Obama’s baby (mama) got back,” wrote one feminist blogger. “OMG, her butt is humongous!” went a typical comment on one African-American online forum, and while it isn’t humongous, per se, it is a solid, round, black, class-A boo-tay.

First of all, black women do not own stock in ass.  That’s a stereotype.  Sir Mix-a-Lot was a pig then, and he’s a pig now.  A woman’s value does not rest in her ass, no matter how much ass she has.

Second of all, on what planet is this sexist racist bullshit okay?  Why do you think it is advantageous now to buy into it?  And what gives you the right to carve up any woman’s body for “analysis,” if you can call this tripe analysis without being HIIIIIIGH on that stuff?

Thanks to Michelle, looking professional and provocative in a distinctly black way will become not only acceptable but also part of a whole presidential look that’s more, well, inclusive. Now we’ll all be able to wear leggings to board meetings; we’ll sport pencil skirts sans the long jackets meant to cover the offending rear at big conferences where we have to make a good impression.

Let’s examine the irony. You reduce a brilliant black woman to her ass because asses have traditionally been hypersexualized… and you now feel confident to have your ass out in the open because… it is magically desexualized in professional environments …by a brilliant black woman?

Sorry. When you, Ms. Kaplan, opt to let it all hang out, your CEO is gonna send around a company memo about the new VP of Affairs’ “butt [that] would not be denied.” And how long and strong the CEO’s wanted to put a hurtin’ on it.

Ms. Kaplan moves beyond admiration of another woman’s figure to placing her body up on the block for inspection. Reducing a brilliant woman to her “unprecedented” physicality is trafficking in age-old stereotypes of a black woman’s purpose in the world. In short: she’s not a damned mule, and if she really felt perturbed about people describing Michelle Obama as a horse or a giant ape, I don’t understand her motivation to shrink Mrs. O to a rump roast and a pressed coif.

Written by M P

November 18, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I haven’t read the Salon piece pero I don’t feel the need to either. The shit that really gets to me, besides the obvious is the double standard that still gets used in terms of how women of color are looked at. because Michelle Obama is a black woman, looking at her through her “bootyliciousness” becomes acceptable. This would never be acceptable for thank all that is holy first lady McCain. To me it just shows just how far we still have to go.

    Maegan la Mala

    November 19, 2008 at 9:13 am

  2. Exactly. No one talked about Palin’s tetas, even as they raved about how much of a MILF she is, etc. There was still some weird cordon of respect not to reduce her to her thigh. She was a complete woman.

    It seems like every woman of color gets relegated to her best (or worst) feature and then browbeaten with it. No matter how accomplished she is, no matter what role she’s called on to portray, she’s just another bootylicious chick for people to ogle for similarities or differences.

    Sylvia/M

    November 19, 2008 at 9:38 am

  3. mhm. I just read the whole thing. I tried to have empathy for her argument. I think I see where she’s coming from,what argument she’s trying to make. I’m not feeling it tho. The part where she talked about Michelle being physically strong? That part especially was really hard for me to be sympathetic to. that’s where I felt your auction block analysis so strongly it was making me sick. for real? not only does she have a sexual ass that looks great but she can work real hard too? good god.

    The most telling thing in this entire essay, I think was that the author seemed to find something *good* about the fact that people stopped talking about Michelle’s patriotism and focused on her looks! Hooray now we can all relax!

    bfp

    November 19, 2008 at 10:36 am

  4. I’m so glad you wrote this – I came across that article yesterday or so and just felt like banging my head against the desk. I, too, understand what she was trying to do and where she was going with it, but… man.

    And, of course, it’s Salon… home of “uppity Senator Obama” and Debra “never met a Black person I didn’t want to stereotype” Dickerson and who knows what else. Sigh.

    Nanette

    November 19, 2008 at 6:09 pm

  5. It was really hard to swallow. Because I do think there needs to be more representations of attractive bodies, more representations of “monstrous” beauty (to borrow from little light’s conception of it from yesteryear) in society. But this route is not the route to do that. It’s like she’s trying to sell Michelle Obama’s womanhood to politics, and she lacks the tools to do that beyond isolation on “features” like you would for a car.

    Sylvia/M

    November 20, 2008 at 1:56 pm


Leave a Reply