Maligning Media: Michelle Obama & Marie Antoinette Edition
August 7, 2010
by Anna Belle Pfau
|I was very surprised earlier this week to see the New York Daily News headline about Michelle Obama blaring around the Internet. The article, written by Andrea Tantaros, was headlined: Material Girl Michelle Obama is a Modern-Day Marie Antoinette on a Glitzy Spanish Vacation. Of course it was an eye-catching approach, a mix of metaphors all around insulting and sexist, invoking both Madonna and Marie Antoinette, branding Mrs. Obama as both decadent and apathetic in the click of a few keyboard keys. Ms. Tantaros deft verbal skills, however, betray her ignorance of history and illuminate her cheap exploitation of our cultural tendency to judge wealthy women differently than we do wealthy men.
It takes some unpacking to understand why the story deserves pushback. One can’t be too careful absorbing these stories during these dog days of summer, when the news cycle slows to a crawl and everyone in the media competes for the attentions of fewer consumers. The controversy centers around a trip Michelle and Sasha Obama are undertaking to Spain. According to Tantaros’ article, Mrs. Obama is staying at the posh Hotel Villa Padierno with her youngest daughter and “40 of her ‘closest friends.’” Tantaros makes sure to include the cost of a room for the night—up to $2,500—and includes that the transportation will be Air Force Two, leaving readers to perhaps assume that all 40 of the guests will accompany the Obamas at taxpayer expense.
The sloppy, partial picture Tantaros paints is filled in by this article from The Chicago Sun-Times, written by Lynn Sweet. Turns out that Michelle Obama was formally invited by the Queen and King of Spain, and turned a state visit into a twofer vacation by inviting her friends to join her—at their own expense. Their own expenses, according to Sweet, included transportation. So, no, taxpayers did not pay for Michelle Obama to fly her friends to Spain, where they could party down at who knows whose expense. The factual information of the royal invitation and state-business aspect of the trip is completely left out of Tantaros’ article, which might have helped some readers understand why Air Force Two was used.
All of this makes Tantaros ignorance and cynical exploitation of sexism in the form of a double standard all the more troubling, and worthy of pushback. Her biggest error was her unfamiliarity with the true history of Marie Antoinette, which caused her to reach for the traditional and false image of an apathetic and dancing queen who didn’t care that her people starved. But that is not the true story, and ironically Tantaros maligns Michelle Obama in the same way Marie Antoinette’s memory has been maligned. As I wrote in March:
Most of what you’ve been taught about Marie Antoinette may be wrong. In childhood and in history classes through college we are taught that she was the dancing, laughing aristocrat so out of touch with her starving people that she once callously uttered the phrase, “Let them eat cake.” Put that story out of your mind; it didn’t happen. It was a popular story told about many princesses of many realms, a feudal legend akin to our own urban legends.
It’s not like the First Lady of the United States has any more political power than Marie Antoinette had. It is the same cultural tendency that vilified Marie Antoinette that drives people to continue to exploit our harsh judgments of women who display their wealth. We’ve seen it employed recently in the campaign rhetoric over Meg Whitman’s wealth, even as numerous other male billionaires pour their own wealth into campaigns with nary a peep from the media. We’ve also seen it in the characterization of Sarah Palin as a money chaser only interested in fame and fortune.
Americans are entitled to their own opinions about how the Obama administration spends taxpayer money. My argument is not designed to convince anyone that because of the sexist tone of Tantaros’ article, they should dismiss their concerns with how our collective money is spent. I simply want people to be aware of how media and culture use verbal shorthand and mythological (as opposed to historical) memory to invoke latent sexist thinking. It’s an insidious cycle that ends up hurting us all. Not only do we lose out on understanding real history, we also perpetuate the double standard into the future.
this is deplorable sexism and what is even more deplorable is the fact, and it really is testable fact, that sometimes it’s because the person simply cannot name a famous female other than Madonna and Marie Antoinette. I was even havin ga conversation about a female feminist and the man I attempted to have a conversation with changed the topic to a male; in fact he didn’t know any female feminists, so he tried in desperation to fit male philosophers into the mold; he only knew men’s names.
thanks for writing this AnnaBelle. the article on Michelle Obama had reminded me of your post on Marie Antoinette
s heart. I also read that Laura Bush had a vacation with a safari included per foreign government invitation. we know that the president’s office comes with some glitzy representational functions. although discussing these expenses will not make a dent in our trillion sized deficit, a discussion on toning down expenses during a recession may provide an example to give credibility when asking execs to give back their bonuses.
in regard to political lack of power of Marie Antoinette and Michelle Obama. there is even during the darkest medieval time an example of a queen with power Joanna the first from Naples, Sicily and jerusalem. A recent book “the Lady Queen” by Nancy Goldstone gives a really good glimpse into that time and her story.
I may not like her, but I like subjecting her to this garbage less. I resent like all hell the constant implication that some woman who think she’s all that has too much money.
Every single time I see a focus on what someone is worth like that, with that Little Missy Is Getting Above Herself tinge to it, it’s about a woman. The only biography I saw on a musician that kept focusing on net worth with cute little ka-ching noises and dollar sign graphics was a bio of Madonna, who has worked her everloving ass off for every penny and deserves it. The shows on David Bowie, Van Halen, and other male performers and bands? No cutesy little “someone got money!” bullshit. Courtney Love got it, Cher got it, and no one says a word about “Lookie how much money he has!” when it’s Elvis Presley, Paul Simon, or Stevie Wonder. It’s the same thing when people talk about Sarah Palin and her speaking fees — she’s asking exactly what they are willing to pay, and goddamned good on her for it.
And can I get one example of a woman who inherited her money and spends it like water who is raked over the coals for it? No, it’s always women who earned their money who get crap for spending it. Excuse me?
Like I said, I may not like Michelle Obama, but she got a goddamned good paycheck when she worked, and I resent the focus on female dollars and cents. She spends money in her position. How much of my money has her husband blown by handing it over to Goldman Sachs and the rest of their crooked ilk? I’d rather see a focus on that, thanks. I’ll bet whatever he spent on the bank bailout has three, four, or five zeros more than what she spent on her vacation.
I take your point about the misrepresentation of Marie Antoinette that persists to this day. It reminds me of the character assassination that was perpetrated against one of the greatest rulers Russia ever had – Catherine the Great. TO THIS DAY the first thing that comes to many people’s minds when they hear Catherine’s name is a sick and salacious rumor/lie (about her sexuality of course) that was spread to discredit and publically humiliate her.
Sorta like chess, don’t you think? When you can’t go after the king, you go after the queen. I always assumed that you would be able to tell when the President’s popularity was starting to wane because the press would go after MO before BO.
Wow, great comments. Marille, thanks for the tip on the book. I’ll have to check that out. I’am also glad you mentioned that you thought of my Marie Antoinette article when you saw the headline. That’s exactly why I wrote it! Plant a little seed and something blooms at just the right moment. It helps negate the power of the short-handed image.
Janis, you’re damn right on all of that!
Although, I would point out Paris Hilton as that example you asked for. It’s the same story there too. The next question is, where are the males who inherited getting dragged through the tabloids? I can’t name one.
Paci-Cali, I don’t know much about C the G, except the negative stuff used to fuel her image. I’ll have to check out more about her story.
Great piece AB. Reading your piece on Marie A was an eye opener for me as well this past spring!
American Culture and Corporate Media aren’t the same thing. All people participate in culture and only a very narrow group have a voice in Corporate Media which does not reflect our culture. I noticed this story in the background noise but didn’t really pay attention to it because it seems so ridiculous. Sometimes it shocks me the type of story people who are in the writing professions are willing to put their name on.
Speaking of rich women that the Male Powers That Be took offense at and tried to put in jail, remember Oprah and Martha Stewart, two media women who have brands that are credible and authentic to women consumers and who own their own shows. With Martha they succeeded, she was scapegoated so all the creeps on Wall Street could continue on with their shady games.
I’m sorry, but her husband is telling us that we need to cut back and tighten out belts and she is taking a half a million dollar vacation on our dime. That’s ridiculous. I can’t take my kids to Disney because we can’t afford it, but I can pay her Secret Service detail, her fuel costs, and her staff to jet-set off to Europe?
I’m sorry, but her husband is telling us that we need to cut back and tighten out belts and she is taking a half a million dollar vacation on our dime. That’s ridiculous. I can’t take my kids to Disney because we can’t afford it, but I can pay her Secret Service detail, her fuel costs, and her staff to jet-set off to Europe?
With the First Lady, any First Lady, it’s not about power – specific political power, anyway – as some here are intimating, it’s about image and impressions, inside and outside the country. The First Lady, the First Hostess or the First Spouse has always been seen as someone standing at the President’s side for the performance of the function of head of State, even when not literally at the President’s side. Contrary to popular belief, being the head of State is an extremely important part of the President’s role for the morale of the country. It always has been. And it’s a 24/7 job. For both of them.
As such, they lead by example and when they don’t, it’s not necessarily racist or sexist for people to make observations about their behavior.
Now, having said all that, it’s also always good to put things in historical context about the people they might be compared to, just so we’re clear on the points that are actually being made.
This wouldn’t have happened if Palin were in power. Did any of these people vote the Palin ticket?
I’m sorry, but her husband is telling us that we need to cut back and tighten out belts and she is taking a half a million dollar vacation on our dime. That’s ridiculous. I can’t take my kids to Disney because we can’t afford it, but I can pay her Secret Service detail, her fuel costs, and her staff to jet-set off to Europe?
I agree … but what’s wrong with saying exactly that instead of all the snide “material girl” comments comparing her unfavorably to two other hot-button women, natch in a very junior-high sort of way? It’s like Palin, Clinton, and any other woman — disagreement is fine, but the “little miss thang” comments are just not necessary and have sexism beneath them.
Nice article, but I would like to note Mrs. Obama has been known to make policy, speak before Congress to obtain 4.2 billion of the taxpayers dollars for her food desert program. She has also managed to get Congress to cut 4.2 billion dollars from the food stamp program toward that end. The small people who will suffer will be children in the grip of poverty. I find that somewhat more appalling then setting the record straight for a glitzy trip to Spain. I certainly think the taxpayers have every right to question how our money is spent by all members of the political class. The forementioned taxpayers will be contributing $100,000 per day for the “invitation” to lunch, multiply that by five days and that is quite a chunk of money. I sincerely hope Spain will benefit by her stay, too bad she hasn’t done anything to benefit the US.
Would you also consider the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Bush vacations sexist? He also earned his fortune.
If Michelle has any real wealth, it is from her marriage, and her husband’s book sales. For a Harvard Law Grad, who in fact, surrendered her license rather abruptly, she was earning a rather low salary. Her salary jumped up after her husband became a legislator. Therefore, while she certainly does have no problem displaying wealth, it is not wealth earned by her own efforts.
Seems to me, she is trying to have it both ways, injecting herself into public policy, while not being elected to anything, and expecting respect and agreement, with a pretty unimpressive personal resume..
I think she is basically a ‘much ado about nothing’ pop icon. Not exactly what one hopes for in a First Lady. But then we have a former SNL comedian as a new Senator, so I guess we are now living in Oz, where nothing works once the figure behind the curtain is revealed.
Were snide comments made comparing him to Marie Antoinette?
Again, I’m not defending her against the allegations, I’m saying that there are constructive and destructive ways of making them.
The problem is, Michelle Obama is not the problem. Marie Antoinette was also not the problem. These women were not the root of all evil, responsible for the current economic problems in their respective countries. Far too often, women are scape goats, designated targets, who don’t really hold much power, but they get all of the blame. People are not jobless because Michelle is vacationing in Spain. That blame falls on congress and the administration.
It is definitely stretching things to suggest that somehow Michelle O is the victim here, or any kind of victim, ever.
A self-made woman? Hardly — she made her money from (1) her appointment to a part-time job at a Chicago hospital (2) at a highly inflated salary, both of which she received entirely because of her husband being in the Illinois legislature. (And I won’t go into the incredibly sexist saga that put him there, in which she was an active partner.) What little “work” she performed consisted of cutting neighborhood health service programs for the poor; the majority of those affected adversely by her actions were women and children.
I have been struck repeatedly by the First Couple’s seeming dedication to living as extravagantly as possible (MOST of this at taxpayer expense) throughout the past 2 years when the majority of Americans are going through difficult times, and a significant percentage — 20%? 30%? even more than that? — are actually physically suffering from lack of food, housing and other basics of life.
I say, good for ANYONE in the media willing to call them on their outrageous callousness. IMO Tantaros got it exactly right. The Marie Antoinette characterization is a legitimate description of self-satisfied “royalty” living large while ignoring the desperate plight of the very people who pay for their extravagances. There is nothing sexist about it whatsoever.
BTW it is absurd to suggest that Michelle O has no political power; of course she does. But even more importantly, as First Lady she has real leadership responsibilities, and like her husband seems incapable of taking her responsibilities seriously.
With all of the real issues facing women in or seeking leadership position, I find this bizarre defense of the indefensible Michelle O truly unworthy of TNA.
As I said, image is everything and besides, who needs to bring up Marie Antoinette to make the point?
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.c.....ies-5.html
Is it sexist to point out that she could’ve vacationed on the Gulf in a political cartoon?
And that’s just one instance where their image has taken a hit over the last couple of years. There are actually many. Want me to find them?
JB et al,
Point taken. TNA is not taking a stand on the monies spent and defending MO on this. AB’s article speaks to how women are characterized around money and power. Marie A. is falsely recorded in history and AB’s piece links to another article that she wrote about this notion. That is the takeaway from what we posted.
Amy, I understand that Marie Antoinette may have been misunderstood historically. I’m just not sure how whether or not she was affects whether using her in something like this is sexism.
And there’s a very specific reason why I question it.
In my “other” life, I talk about popular culture and iconic figures all the time, both current and historical, real and fictinal. Stuff can be made up about male icons just as much as they can be about female ones. Sure, there aren’t necessarily as many female ones and so many of them are negative… however, and it’s a big however, all that really means is that there are very few truly big positive female historical icons for people to collectively latch onto.
Are what we know about those figures sometimes incorrect, downright incomplete and/or historically inaccurate?
Sure.
Doesn’t change the fact that they’ve become part of our collective conciousness and culture and many times part of our language in dealing with and describing what we recognize and respond to in the patterns of behavior we see in others.
But still, yeah, if I thought people were actually talking about Marie Antioinette as an individual woman that they might’ve totally screwed up the history of, it might upset me on behalf of another female. What I’m hearing that when her name comes up isn’t any different from someone saying “This is a job for Superman.”
Call it metaphor. Call it mythology. Call it whatever you want but they ain’t talking about a woman. They’re talking about patterns of behavior. By a heck of a lot of people. It just so happens that someone keeps bringing the focus onto themselves in a very big way, which only serves to remind people of the idea again and again. You’d think somebody would get the message and do their jobs as advisors.
But that’s neither here nor there to this discussion. Now if someone wants to try to change Marie A’s PR and turn around the fact that she became famous (infamous?) for losing her head as The Queen during a time of rebellion and revolts by the peasants and people starving on the streets, then all I can say is that they should go for it. I tend to believe it’s going to be an uphill struggle, though. Established legends, particularly really good ones, may never disappear either simply because the images themselves are too powerful.
Too, um, meaningful.
Which is part of the problem right now.
What’s wrong with finding new ways of saying things? Why the hell are we so entrenched against finding sexist ways to attack someone for doing something we dislike? Can’t we just goddamned say what Jen said above:
” … her husband is telling us that we need to cut back and tighten out belts and she is taking a half a million dollar vacation on our dime. That’s ridiculous. I can’t take my kids to Disney because we can’t afford it, but I can pay her Secret Service detail, her fuel costs, and her staff to jet-set off to Europe?”
and freakin leave it at that?! Why the snark, insults, and SEXIST comparisons to happy little “meaningful” icons of “so little missy thinks she’s all that” junk?
Aunt Jemima was a useful meaningful icon for a while, too. We lost that one, no matter how useful it was for a while. Let’s bury this crap.
and freakin leave it at that?! Why the snark, insults, and SEXIST comparisons to happy little “meaningful” icons of “so little missy thinks she’s all that” junk?
Hmmm. And are we going to manage to do away with political cartoons and comedy while we’re at it? You know those cariatures that have long been a part of the free press and media which make use of exaggerating body parts, facial features and whatever else might be seen as significant about the individual or their positions?
Because with women entering the political sphere at the top levels, it’s only going to get worse in how they’re portrayed and not better with regards to those in particular. You think the last two years with Hillary and Palin have been rough? You think having Mrs. Obama compared to Marie A is over the top?
This is politics, people. Do you honestly believe anyone cares about a little snark or insults? Of course, it can always get worse.
Bev,
I’m not sure I understand your point, since I didn’t advocate gutting the first amendment in this piece. I merely pointed out a ridiculous and sexist article about Michelle Obama. That’s also how media works. Someone says something; someone else pushes back. You seem to be impatient with the fact that I had an opinion.
You seem to be impatient with the fact that I had an opinion.
Not at all. What comes more to mind to me is picking the right battle and time and place. Put it this way, considering I just saw this headline quoted:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....ry-people/
…I’m seriously wondering just how many people right now, left, right or in-between, would be convinced to forget about the similarities between their preconceptions between what they think they know about Marie A and what they’re seeing right in front of their face.
See, I’m not disagreeing with your about Marie A or that she should be defended, just that it might be a losing battle when current day reality fits narrative of the “myth” better than anything you want people to start to believe, Anna Belle. I’m simply suggesting that it might be better to wait for a time when they’re more receptive to the message because the “myth” isn’t so convenient. Right or wrong, people’s brains work better when they’re less emotionally focused and there is a huge reason why the Marie A story is a powerful one.
Well, sigh. These things need grammar- and spell-checkers. Pfft.
So, let me try this again and try to be much more to the point. Basically, it just seems to me that it doesn’t matter much whether what everyone believes about Marie A is inaccurate or not as long as SOMEONE is running around acting like what everyone and their grandma’s image of her is… because as long as that’s going on, most are going to be too fixated to want to listen to any other version.
“And are we going to manage to do away with political cartoons and comedy while we’re at it?”
Do they show lynching and uncle-tom cartoons in them? Can we not even conceive of criticizing a woman without getting sexist? Are we that far gone that even witty criticisms are inconceivable without getting sexist about it?
Jesus, we can’t even IMAGINE what it sounds like to disagree with or criticize a woman, even snarkily, without being sexist. I can criticize the living shit Obama with a metric buttload of snark without making “dis sho am good” comments, so it is possible.
Christ, we are so far gone that we cannot even imagine what it means to dislike a woman without teleporting back to junior high. Heaven help us all.
BevWKY, it’s not just a metaphor or mythology. It is a sexist metaphor/mythology that misrepresents a female historical figure using sexist memes, where wealthy women are viewed with greater hatred and contempt than wealthy men. Are you OK with this double standard because it is directed against wealthy women? Anna Belle is pointing out this sexist double standard, and the perpetuation of this sexist double standard by a) the continued misrepresentation of wealthy women (note that Tantaros’ article contains several misleading half-truths) and b) the use of sexist lies and memes regarding historical women.
Unfortunately, double standards are the most difficult type of sexism to recognize and eliminate. Most people focus on individual events and people, so don’t notice the overall patterns of double standards. The argument goes something like this: “She behaved badly, so what is wrong with criticising her? Wasn’t so-and-so, a man, also criticised?” What is ignored or not recognized is the difference in the likelihood/frequency of men being criticized/ridiculed for the same offense as committed by the women, and the quality of the criticism (more vicious, demeaning, personal, and reliant on sexist memes when directed against women).
it doesn’t matter much whether what everyone believes about Marie A is inaccurate or not as long as SOMEONE is running around acting like what everyone and their grandma’s image of her is…
As long as someone can be shoved into the box of a sexist meme, no one should bother pointing out that the historical basis of that sexist meme is a lie?
As long as someone can be shoved into the box of a sexist meme, no one should bother pointing out that the historical basis of that sexist meme is a lie?
If that’s truly all that’s been gotten out of what I’ve said, is there any point in saying more? Seriously.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...