Comments on: Christmas at the White House: A Role for the 1st Lady

By: lambdaphage

lambdaphage — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 22:15:00 +0000

Could you flesh out your explanation of how Michelle Obama is being exploited by…(whom? Barack Obama? the federal government? US society at large?) If her current activities are not the best use of her time as she conceives of it, why doesn’t she return to law practice or full-time activism or whatever else she wants to do?
When you have the sort of wealth, income and varied forms of social capital that the Obamas have, is it so implausible that the thing you would most prefer to do is to engage in national-scale advocacy for causes you consider neglected, even if that means taking a pay cut? (Especially when your standard of living is such that the marginal utility of an extra dollar is practically 0?) If my spouse became President, I hope I would continue doing what I’m doing now, but I happen to like my job and shun the thought of world-celebrity. Not everyone feels the same way I do about work and fame. Stipulate if you want to that supervising the White House is a full-time job, but why should the person best qualified for that position also happen to be the spouse of the President? Given the two radical proposals ((1) pay the First Lady or (2) outsource whatever household management the First Lady performs to a paid position in the federal bureaucracy), which strikes you as more reasonable?

By: Medusa

Medusa — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:05:00 +0000

Are you being serious with the senator comparison? The PRESIDENT gets his/her job by election.

By: Lunad

Lunad — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:01:00 +0000

just because she got the role by marriage, rather than by interview process, doesn’t mean it isn’t a job. You wouldn’t argue that senators shouldn’t be paid because they got the job by election by vote rather than being appointed by the senate president, right? How she got the job is irrelevant to whether she is doing the job. Of course, if the first lady was a paid position, there may be more scrutiny of her qualifications during the election process – as it stands though, her schedule is almost as full of affairs of state as the president, but it is just assumed that she will do it without pay.

By: Medusa

Medusa — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:26:00 +0000

Because she’s only there because of who she happens to be married to, not because it’s her JOB.

By: snuhfoo

snuhfoo — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:31:00 +0000

Yes women seem to usually get more excited about traditions like these, but there is more going on than you seem to realize. I’m going to use myself as an example here- I’m not a particularly traditional person. I’ve stopped doing cards and little things like that. But every time someone feels snubbed that I didn’t send a thank you card or accidently left them off an invite list (even though I heavily rely on word of mouth for any type of invite to anything) you bet I’ll hear about it. To date my husband has heard these complaints a total of zero times. Yes these types of traditions can be fun, but there is usually also a sense of obligation that comes with these traditions. I’ll bet that if you ask these women in your life what would happen if they don’t do this, you’ll start to see that obligation is as much of a motivating factor as fun is.

By: Lunad

Lunad — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:12:00 +0000

that’s all well and good, but WHY? is it because if people didn’t receive cards, they might think something was wrong or they were being snubbed? These family traditions ultimately hold families together, and women are expected to maintain the traditions. Not that they never enjoy it, but that women, in general, are much more aware of how the traditions are the glue that binds kin together. (as an aside, traditions can be religious or secular – it’s a matter of presence and repetition)

By: Lunad

Lunad — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:07:00 +0000

that is not why the first lady should get a salary. She should get a salary because acting as first “hostess” is a full time job, in addition to all the advocacy work, speaking engagements to promote healthy eating, etc. There are many white house staffers who are paid to do various pieces of all of the tasks that the first lady is expected to take on these days – why shouldn’t she, as a manager, also be paid for her service?

By: Medusa

Medusa — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:41:00 +0000

I entirely disagree that the first spouse should be paid. I’ve seen this before on feminist websites. You don’t get a salary just because you’re married to someone who does a certain job.

By: Basiorana

Basiorana — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:45:00 +0000

The primary role of the first spouse is to maintain the household of the President and serve as a host/ess to the White House. It was not until very recently that the first spouse also took on a role of a political activist, and quite honestly it’s always been more like how Miss America or a Hollywood celebrity takes on political activism than how an elected official does. That said, the role of host/ess is actually not something to scoff at– it is such a large job that we really do need someone doing it, and if there is no spouse availiable some other family member of the President steps up. The White House is a symbol of the US that we present to visiting dignitaries and it’s superficial appearance is actually very relevant. There is a lot of message hidden in the decoration of the White House for Christmas, and Mrs. Obama has to carefully craft her decoration scheme to portray just the right image of America (Christian, but secular at the same time; wealthy and powerful but not compensating for something, etc etc)

That said, the First Spouse should be paid.

By: Mr. S

Mr. S — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:37:00 +0000

In my own anecdotal experience, women seem much more likely to care about traditions like these. I would be fine to not mail Christmas cards or hang ornaments on a tree, but my wife and the other women in my family would be saddened if that happened.

On a side note, my wedding was the same way. I think the key element is the enthusiasm for these traditions, which is generally more prevalent in women that it is in men.

By: Lunad

Lunad — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:49:00 +0000

on a household level: absolutely. Doing kinship work, preparing for the holidays, decorating, making sure that no one is slighted – all are essential. On a national level? Making sure that the white house is properly decorated is not that important.

By: Eleanorkr

Eleanorkr — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:15:00 +0000

Work associated with the feminine domain IS important work. This post seems a little sexist to me?