Read the Women Blog!
Read the Women Blog
July 16, 2008
You can also read the Women blog on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° website. 
Michelle Obama: Armed and dangerous
Last week my daughter Felicia and I attended the Essence Music Festival in New Orleans. As usual, Chris Rock brought his profound comedic talent to sharply insightful social commentary. “It’s going to be hard for a sister to be first lady … because a black woman can’t play the back role of a relationship,” he said.
Mr. Rock alluded to the common racial stereotype that burdens African-American women: by virtue of our well documented historical role as the strength of the family, we’re characterized as domineering and aggressive. The latest cruelty, extreme even for political satire, was cast in a cartoon of a kinky-haired, armed and dangerous Michelle Obama, on the cover of The New Yorker.
Mrs. Obama, a Princeton and Harvard educated health care executive, who may become the nation’s first African-American First Lady, has shown nothing in her character to justify an insult of this magnitude. While all women are denigrated by the New Yorker’s cover, the attack on Mrs. Obama resonates even more deeply with African-American women.
Even in such ascendancy, the candidate’s wife can’t escape the place African-American women continue to occupy whether in the media or in the doctor’s office; at the bottom of the image totem pole; a spot not even the most accomplished among us can avoid. African-American women face wage disparities reflective of the race and gender gap, earning 15 percent lower than white women and 10 percent lower than African-American men. We’re the recipients of 54 percent of the nation’s subprime loans. AIDS is the leading cause of death among black women between the ages of 25 and 44, and the rate of unintended pregnancies is twice that of our white counterparts. Yet, one in five African-American women doesn’t have medical insurance.
The New Yorker attempted to explain the cover as exposing the issues of scare politics in this year’s presidential election and only an example of the magazine’s legendary satire. This rationale fails to measure the impact of the visual absorption of a magazine that will be on display at most news stands and supermarket checkout counters throughout the country for those who don’t get the point and accept the messages consciously or subconsciously at face value. No explanation of the intent behind the denigrating cartoon will prevent the damage caused by reinforcing stereotypes that African-American women’s “intimidating presence” is to be feared, rather than being given the credit for playing a crucial role, through strength, fortitude and nurturing to advance the aspirations of our race.
We will survive racist satire. For those who thought the debate over the intersection of race and gender, in this year’s election, was over with Sen. Barack Obama’s call for a post-racist society and Sen. Hillary Clinton’s demise, the news is that Michelle Obama is her proxy. The atmosphere is turning over the cover of our ugliest social tensions: women and race.
Hargrove says
The image “spoke” to me about the Obamas as outsiders, aligned with black interests that are hostile to this country, and foreign interests, that are intent on doing Americans harm. Hating America, evidenced by the burning flag, and smugly saluting each other, presumably for winning the presidential election, and an opportunity to put in play, what the symbols around them suggest - namely, bring this nation down —
Also, there is reason to think the Clintons are behind this.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/257469
Lisa N Dixon says
We have to let stuff like this fuel our fire. I feel like its NOW or NEVER. Everyone should be reaching out to people with the facts. No matter how unimportant you may feel you are as a person you can make a difference. Hit the streets and reach out!
Jane says
While I think the New Yorker’s cover was inappropriate, given the political context (which they are fully aware of), I think this in many ways helps Obama through garnering sympathies from supporters who are becoming disillusioned with his right wing rhetorical shift. Similar to what happened to Hillary Clinton.
Moreover, this cover helps portray the Obamas as radicals or liberals, when they are basically conservatives like everyone else in the political establishment. And as Wattleton mentioned Ms. Obama is a health care executive, whose job as we all know is to keep costs down at the risk of death to millions of Americans. The false idea that the Obamas are some secretly progressive Trojan horses is given fuel here.
I think Ms. Wattleton goes a little far though in knee jerk anti-racist/sexist position, and therefore is off in the analysis. I agree with her general analysis that media do portray black women in a negative sense like this. And by the way, Chris Rock is usually pretty much a misogynist, so i don’t get her blanket props to him. So her critique seems formulaic. The NYer editors were clearly playing off the black liberationist Angela Davis figure, an image of a strong political black woman i totally dig. And which is not bad at all. I think the Muslim baiting of Obama is worse on many counts. No word from Ms. Wattleton on the continued trashing of that group of people.
By the way, the Obama
Carlotta Kramer says
the cover satirically expresses what ignorant Americans believe about the Obamas. and if we cannot express ourselves through satire in this country, then we are really screwed.
satire applies to ALL races, men, women, the transgendered, all sexual orientations, all regions of the US, all religions, all jobs, all leaders, all economic brackets, and all countries. the last time i checked, some of those categories consisted of black people.(see: satire; then check PC guidelines to see if it is ok to respond with a smirk to that line. then reread definition of satire to see if i am screwing with you; contemplate.)
the cover brilliantly depicts the collective stupidity of Americans who believe such things about the Obamas. the artist exaggerated every stupid rumor about this couple since the campaign started. i travel on research and someone actually told me that Barack’s father wants his son in office so he can commit a “jihad” on us. i did not have the heart to tell him that Barack’s Dad has been dead 100 years, let alone broach the “jihad threat”. the cover addresses such ignorance perfectly and it is shameful that THE NEW YORKER must defend itself against charges of prejudice when it only wants to show the absurdity of those rumors.
“his rationale fails to measure the impact of the visual absorption of a magazine that will be on display at most news stands and supermarket checkout counters throughout the country for those who don’t get the point and accept the messages consciously or subconsciously at face value.”
Americans consistently dumbs down things; this flaw contributes to our lack of culture and our lack of understanding about the rest of the world. maybe Americans should study more art, theatre, and literature so as to understand the purpose of satire rather than jump to allegations of prejudice. perhaps the Obamas should come up with a satirical response if the cover offends them so much.
and before someone labels me “conservative”, Cynthia McKinney gets my vote in November.
Lisa N Dixon says
Carlotta
Ignorant White Americans put Bush in office.
Shame on you for not having the heart to discredit a lie.
Americans should study more art, theatre, and literature. That comes at a price alot of folks can’t even go to the doctors office.
I speak for the folks who don’t have PC’s, healthcare, and have lost their jobs.
I am one white waitress.
kara says
The NYer editors were clearly playing off the black liberationist Angela Davis figure, an image of a strong political black woman i totally dig. And which is not bad at all.
It amazes me how so many of our “allies” are so willfully clueless to how black women have been denigrated in America. This goes beyond satire and the “Angela Davis” caricature is a stand-in for the “scary” “intimidating” stereotype that saddles ALL black women regardless of temperament.
Faye Wattleton is correct about how we have been painted with this broad brush “characterized as domineering and aggressive.” It is also true that too many people are blind to this and just believe it’s entirely true.