Michelle single handedly destroys British/American alliance.

May I point out that Chancellor Merkel´s husband was amongst all the wifes.
I am tired of Michelle´s cloth, the other women probably were wearing things just as interesting - I looked at the lady from Japan, one woman was in a wheel-chair, others dressed in their "national outfits". I am sure that of all the 30-1= 29 women several are just as interesting as Michelle Obama.

Because of riots I don´t think they got to the hospital at all.

Hospitals do have make up courses for cancer patients. There is a big difference in using make up when you are well and when you have lost eyebrows and eyelashes, when you are pale and maybe miscoloured.
It is a special technic to put make up on then.
As far as I know it is specialists in make up who give these courses and I doubt very much that these ladies including Michelle could do it. Not that they cannot put on make up on themselves, but they don´t know about the tricks for a cancer patient.

Sorry to hear that Osso.

Mame, yes.
Like I said before, to say there is something 'wrong' with a 'girly day' is indeed a sexism.
The media coverage of Mrs Obama is different in the UK to the US I presume.

Thanks, PQ; I did recover; I just remember feeling badly in many ways.

I don't want to talk you out of what you think - but I do see visiting the sick as usually an act of charity, and to me this present case could be taken as promoting the consideration of the sick.
On the clothes fascination, I'll agree it can be looked at as a trivial aspect of our lives, but some of us enjoy it. I follow a couple of street-photography blogs, two of them primarily about people's style (as opposed to architectural style, which also interests me). Again, you're not interested and that's fine. Being amused by the clothes people choose to wear doesn't automatically make one a ditz, or lagging in feminist credentials.

Fully appreciating that whether or not a woman is considered attractive, let alone beautiful, has very little to do with her effectiveness in most roles, it would be naive to suggest it has nothing to do with her effectiveness in any role.

There are not many leading woman actors who are less than attractive.

There are plenty of women sales reps who are attractive precisely because it makes them more effective, and you don't see very many of them quitting because they have come to the sudden realization that their looks are being exploited.

Same with network and local female anchors and even reporters.

Let's face it, the role of First Lady (whether here or abroad) is ceremonial. As the "leader's" spouse their impact may be far more significant, but not only is that not the public role, it's a role most are not real comfortable with.

A ceremonial role is more effective if the person playing it is, in one way or the other, attractive.

Having said this and acknowledging that appearance is not a measure of intrinsic human worth, how anyone can consider Michelle Obama "beautiful" is well beyond me.

Perhaps she is "beautiful" in the sense that Eleanor Roosevelt was "beautiful" (although I would strongly argue she is not), but she sure isn't better looking than Carla Bruni, Cindy McCain or even Laura Bush.

She has a lower jaw that reminds one of an English Bulldog, and a figure that reminds one of a Bartlett pear.

Fashion sense?

Did you see the black widow dress she wore when her husband won the election?

Bare arms? In this we can truly see the vacuous nature of "fashion."

It really doesn't matter what she looks like unless she and her husband buy into and attempt to exploit the "Michelle is beautiful" nonsense.

And it has nothing to do with politics.

I can't stand Nancy Pelosi but she's a handsome women who I'm sure was quite hot when she was young.

There are plenty of good looking women of the Right and of the Left. Unfortunately the MSM tends to consider hot women on the Right as bimbos or trophy wives, while only average looks on the Left equate with "beauty."

It's fine that Michelle O is sporting smart clothes and that people are impressed with it...I'm impressed with her work, her confidence, her views (well, most of them).

But this annoys me - "When people ask Michelle Obama to describe herself, she doesn't hesitate. First and foremost, she is Malia and Sasha's mom."
Somehow, I'd like to respect her for what she is..not just because she is someone's mom.

And this is what she has to say about Hillary...""She is smart and gracious and everything she appears to be in public-someone who's managed to raise what appears to be a solid, grounded child."

Disappointing.

I can agree with sakhi's qualms, re the editing of real opinion that must, must, go on in these circumstances.

Michelle O in London: This is a nice article, describing the Obama effect

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/apr/05/michelle-obama-school-london

It's sad that an educated and forthright woman like her (even for political reasons or whatever circumstances) subscribes to the view that a woman needs to be a mother ("a good one", at that), first and foremost.

If you have taken on the role of mother, it's probably good that you enjoy it and put it first.
That of course doesn't mean that any woman needs to be a mother - but if you've had kids - I think it's wonderful if you love them and put them first.
Maybe Michelle Obama is one of those women for whom being with children is what she finds most rewarding, despite everything else she does and accomplishes.
I know I've always had the most fun with children - my own and others.
She seems like a fun-loving gal - children can really enhance and enliven that sort of person's life with their own sense of fun and adventure. Her daughters seem absolutely charming - I'd have a hard time not wanting to be with them first and foremost.
What would people say if she said, 'Well, my job as first lady is all consuming and the kids will just have to cope for the next eight years...I'm sure they'll be fine.' (I'm assuming he'll be reelected).

The fact that she feels that way of course does not mean that every woman should or does first and foremost consider herself a mother - even if she has kids. In fact a lot of people don't.

Of course I agree with you that it's wonderful to put kids first (yes, and it's hard not to). I've had a wonderful time with others kids and hope to with my own, in the future.

However, if I met you, aidan, I certainly wouldn't be thinking - "Oh, she's the mother of those wonderful kids"...I mean, I wouldn't like you/judge you on the basis of your being a ("successful") mother.

Or it's like saying that you'd dislike me , say, once you knew i have a son (hypothetical of course) who was trying to recover in a alcohol rehab and isn't really a well-adjusted teen.

Michelle seems to be doing that for herself and for Hillary too.... It's a different thing to say "I love spending time with my kids the most" and to say "I admire her because she has raised a good child".

And what about the fathers?
If Hillary had become the president, would you expect Bill Clinton to put up on the WhiteHouse web page that "he was now first and foremost a Dad to Chelsea because his wife was the president".
Do we judge Gandhi on the basis of his strained relationship with his son?...






Well, maybe I'm taking this a bit too seriously.
I thought I admired this lady till this thing really annoyed me...

Oddly, that's exactly how I think of my next door neighbor.

Beauty is surely in the eye of the beholder.
I remember similar critiques to Finn's about Michelle Obama being leveled against the Williams sisters (of tennis fame) when they first gained national attention.
It didn't stop some from finding their lithe athleticism extremely attractive and, well, beautiful.

Some would tell you Anne Coulter is a beauty, and I think she is a haggard looking troll of a person.

And I think Michelle is certainly hotter than Laura Bush.

In any case, IMO sensible people wouldn't try to ascribe some absolute measure to something so subjective.

Oh, I disagree! Both my husband and I are "educated and forthright" people, and we both feel that we are parents first and foremost. Jobs and even careers may come and go. Family definitely comes first. We made that top priority when we decided to have a child.

It's not the product that's judged by people - it's the process. Of course people can have children who stray off the path, and I'd hope they'd not be judged on what their children did or didn't do- but rather how they parented that child through the hard times.
I do consider myself a mother first and foremost. I do judge myself first and foremost on how I know I parent my kids. When I mess up in one way or another parenting - which I do and which all parents do at one time or another, I feel a lot worse about it than if I miss a deadline at my job or something.

When I became a mother, nothing else mattered as much anymore. Nothing else brought me more pride or joy, nothing else ever made me feel as vulnerable and aware of the potential of devastating loss if anything were to happen to either of my children.
I think Michelle Obama is that sort of mother. I think if her kids got sick or needed her full attention in some way, I think she'd say, 'Screw the job' and take care of them.
And I'd respect her less as a person if she didn't.


Just as important in my estimation

If t he question you're asking is, 'Do you think Bill Clinton would trade Chelsea's happiness for the White House?' I don't know. But as a father, I think he should be willing to.
I think my father would have for meI don't judge anyone on personal relationships I'm not privy to, but I bet if Ghandi had a strained relationship with his son - that was probably one of the great sadnesses of his life and probably made it difficult to fully enjoy all that he did accomplish.
We wouldn't have to judge him - he probably judged himself.

I think being a good parent is the most important job in the world, and I don't think it demeans anyone - no matter what their position - to recognize that.

Basically I agree with you, Eva. I don't consider myself a mother and wife first, but family is very important, of course. There are things you'd do, sacrifice, and accept from family that you wouldn't for and of others. I just consider myself as Mame, a mom, cook, girlfriend, sister, etc. I don't think raising kids is the most important thing I've done or could do; it's just one of many. So, my children have always been a (BGI) part of my life instead of my raison d'etre.

That's interesting because I don't seem to recall anyone suggesting a link between political ideology and effusive praise for the Williams sisters.

Personally, I did and still do find them attractive - much more so than Mrs Obama.

Of course who we each find to be attractive is a subjective affair.

Obviously Barrack finds Michelle attractive, and while I don't see it at all, I'm sure many more do too. I would find claims that Ann Coulter or Laura Bush are great beauties just as laughable though.

My point is that there is an utterly silly wave of effusive bedazzlement rolling over the Michelle watchers that is in keeping with the utterly silly infatuation the same folks have for her husband.

To a large extent they are becoming or have become the first media created characters to occupy the White House - that they are Democrats should not be surprising.

I think there's a huge difference in the definitions of 'attractive' and 'beautiful' and 'pretty'.

I don't think Michelle Obama is beautiful or pretty; same as you Finn, I find her features to be a little too strong, heavy, masculine...whatever, for me to find her pretty or beautiful by my definition.
But she is certainly attractive - nice hair and skin and she keeps herself well put together and she does wear clothes well- because of her height I think, despite the fact that yes, she is a little bottom heavy.
And despite having voted for Obama, I do think both Ann Coulter and Laura Bush could be considered pretty, if not beautiful. And despite what comes out of her mouth, Ann Coulter does have amazing hair - I have to give her that.

I don't know why there has to be any emphasis at all on physical appearance though, which is the point PQ first made. And how one could link that propensity in society and our media solely to Democrats is beyond me. What if McCain and Sarah Palin had been elected? Are you saying there'd be less bedazzlement and obsessive attention to her hairstyle and outfits by the hocky moms or panting old men who'd have put her in office? Apparently everyone thought she was quite the dish (she obviously did herself - I mean you don't enter beauty contests if you think you're ugly do you?), and I'm sure we'd have had to have daily updates on her weight gain and loss and new glasses frames.

I don't get it myself. When I read that Barack Obama is handsome - I'm like, WHAT? He's kind of goofy looking- not handsome - although attractive. Again, he carries himself well and wears clothes well. And he has a certain charisma - just like Bill Clinton who is certainly not typically handsome, but I have to give him attractive. I even thought W was sort of attractive from certain angles in the beginning. Not handsome, again, but anyone who's clean and well put together is attractive in my book- which the President and his wife will almost certainly always be - so why do we have to read about it at all?

By the time they're elected - we all know what they look like.

Yeah but look at the competition.

There is an emphasis on physical appearance because it is extremely important to us.

The global fashion industry is about $200 billion in size

The global health & beauty industry is about $50 billion in size

American women spend about $7 billion a year on cosmetics.

In 2007, American women spent $5.3 billion for breast augmentation ($1.5 billion alone), liposuction, eye lid surgery, tummy tucks, and breast reductions. During this year there were 11.7 million cosmetic procedures performed.

It's certainly possible that American women spend more on the pursuit of beauty than their sisters elsewhere in the world, but I doubt that from a relative standpoint the difference is significant.

And this is not some phenomenon restricted to the recent path. The concept of fashion has been with us for millennia, and men and women have been taking pains to "enhance" their appearance since the dawn of modern man.

It's also worth noting that interest in one's own appearance is by no means limited to women.

As indicated previously, I do think that personal appearance is a factor in how well people in certain professions perform their jobs, and so I think it’s a bit naive for us to suggest that appearance has nothing to do with how well we perform our roles and functions.

It certainly impacts how very many of us feel about ourselves and we know that our sense of self-worth impacts how well we perform whether at our jobs or in our personal relationships.

Does someone need to be beautiful or even pretty to be a good worker, a good parent or a good person? Absolutely not, but this doesn't mean that we, as a species, do not or even should not emphasize personal appearance.

There also seems to be a logical relationship between the importance of one's appearance and the importance of one's role. The perfect examples of this, I think, are fashion models. Their role in society is just about meaningless, but the importance of their appearance is, obviously, all encompassing.

The First Lady's is one of these roles.

Again, she may have a very important impact on us by virtue of her influence over POTUS, her husband, but clearly that is not how we define her role. In fact most of us don't really want to acknowledge that influence --- "What do Michelle Obama’s opinions have to do with her husband's campaign for president? We're electing him, not her!"

Bemoaning our emphasis on personal appearance is something like bemoaning mankind's propensity for violence.

I guess it would be nice if we could just wish away these aspects of humanity, but then we really have no idea of what the human condition would be like without them. Maybe it wouldn't improve.

In any case we can't wish them away and they are going to be with us for a very long time to come.



Me too, but then I didn't attempt to make the link.

Liberals are no more or less concerned with their appearance than conservatives, and appearance doesn't automatically become more or less important to the media when there is a Democrat rather than a Republican in the White House. (Remember the rather big deal made at the start of W's first term about the fact that he wore blue ties instead of red?) However, how the media perceives the folks in the White House does make a big difference on how they focus on their appearance, and for the most part, members of the media perceive Democrats more positively than Republicans.

So no matter who we think is better looking, Laura Bush or Michelle Obama, most rational people will not suggest that the difference in their looks is like night and day, and yet there is an undeniable emphasis on Mrs. Obama's looks and widespread use of the term "beautiful" to describe her, while Mrs. Bush's looks were generally ignored.

Google hit surveys hardly represent scientific proof but sometimes they can underscore a point. Google "Laura Bush beauty," and you will find less than 2 million hits, but Google "Michelle Obama beauty" and you will find more than 21 million hits.

Contrast the media's take on Michelle Obama's looks with their take on the looks of two Republican women who are, arguably, better looking than her

Sarah Palin
Jeri Kehn (Mrs Fred Thompson)

Both are roughly as or more accomplished in their professional lives than Mrs Obama, and yet neither received anything like the same positive attention from the media as did she. In fact, their good looks were often a source of a perverse derision, labeling them as a "bimbo," or "trophy wife."

Mrs. Palin and Mrs. Thompson are, like Mrs. Obama, big girls and I'm sure they both appreciate that criticism of one sort or the other comes with being in the public eye. However, the disparate treatment afforded these women on something as superficial as their looks is just another example of what I consider to be a dangerous political bias on the part of the majority of our media sources.

Amazingly, liberals will still argue that no such bias exists, and even, with nearly unbelievable audacity, that if a bias exists it favors conservatives.

If you wish to see evidence of how this bias operated in the recent election, you might try and find a copy of the documentary "Media Malpractice" by John Ziegler.

You may also want to take a look at the poll results that are a key element of the documentary's message and can be found here:

http://howobamagotelected.com/research-zogby.asp

http://howobamagotelected.com/research-wilson.asp

Our elections are far too heavily influenced by the economics of the media, but at least that influence is lathered equally on both sides: both Republicans and Democrats can be telegenic, talented with sound bites, and as elusive as jack rabbits when someone tries to pin them down on an issue. A bias that praises one group for the very same behaviors for which it condemns the others, and reveals itself even at the superficial level of personal appearance

I said:

PQ said: