Grimarse in hindsight, what they are saying is for the First Lady to be great, she has to be sexual.......Has this always been the case though, even recently? Previous first ladies did not suffer this (as far as I am aware, but I am a Brit
Probably the way I phrased it may not have made sense. Before Michelle becoming First Lady, the previous FLOTUS where all white. (I think there might have been one mixed race ). The sexuality of the females would not have been questioned. Reason being, they would've looked like their mother, sister or cousin in regards to race and what constitute standard beauty. This would fall into the category of who they would see themselves dating, having children and hanging out with. America has a history of demonising black women's beauty and morals. The media also considers the Melania look as drawn above to fall into the 1930-50s Classic Hollywood heyday look. They always refer to it as when actresses dressed with class. Long dresses, gloves, diamonds and fur coats. Marylyn becoming the a ultimate beauty for all women to aspires to.
Olivia In all seriousness, my worry is that things as mundane and trivial as this bad cartoon is, are far more plentiful than actual real wrongdoing related to gender and race. So when “racism” or 'sexism' is applied to innocuous crap such as this, it actually gets more and more difficult for people in the outside world (that is everyday people without gender/social studies degrees) to consider that racism really does exist.
To me this not mundane or trivial and I do not think of my self as tackling innocuous crap as you have mentioned above. Everyday, a black woman is put down in one way or another. If a white feminist cannot see the problem am trying to fight, I don't see how a white male would have the slightest understanding the same way he might struggle with what a white female would go through. The best way of solving issues is to point it out. Am willing to hear other people's plight and understand where they are coming from. I also expect similar reactions in return. This would come in form of free speech but with respect between all parties. That is how people and society grow and become better.
Silencing, dismissal and refusing to listen to a point of view by shutting it down does not equal free speech. It's oppressive, degrading and dictating what other people can say, think or should express themselves as long as it agrees with what your free speech is. Overall, that is not free speech but inserting your dominance because the cause does not affect you and you have the upper hand.
Let's go back to Michelle and what bugs me with the imagery. When Harriet turban was announced she would be on the $20 bill, quite a few comments came through Loud and clear that she was not beautiful enough to be on an American money. Without pointing out her accolades (which is why she is on the money, not her looks ), to black people, she is like many black mothers, grandmothers and any black persons ancestor. Why should people be ashamed of what she looked like?