I Am Not An Angry Black Woman, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #259
January 23, 2012 Mike Gold 8 Comments
Last week, FLOTUS announced she was not an angry black woman. Well, I’m not either, but were I her, I certainly would be.
Now before somebody looks at my photo on ComicMix.com and says “you don’t know what an angry black woman is truly like,” trust me, I do. Let’s move on from that.
If anybody has a right to be angry, it’s Michelle Obama. I appreciate that the term is hardly complimentary, and it was hung on her by her husband, POTUS Barack. Man, if she went all angry black woman on her hubby’s black ass over that one, I wouldn’t blame her.
Things didn’t get better. She became a major target of the hysterical right – forgive my redundancy – and was hammered for daring to suggest that we should teach positive eating lifestyles in children’s health classes. Oh, my lord, the right shouted. This woman is trying to brainwash our children into being healthy! That Commie bitch!
Most recently, FLOTUS got hammered for being a confident of her husband’s. Holy Hillary Clinton! Imagine a wife and a husband talking about what’s important in their lives! As if that’s unheard of in your typical right-wing marriage.
Wait a minute. Maybe it is. I really don’t know what a right-wing woman is like; not first-hand. But looking back, I don’t see much difference between Michelle Obama and Betty Ford or Nancy Reagan. For one thing, all three were in favor of anti-HIV programs and education – in the very schools that, today, are denying our children the option of unhealthy foods.
(Let me take a step back and note the degree of my angry black womanhood by pointing out that I am actually defending the food fascists. This is a first. Ever.)
We have an Office of the First Lady. It started unofficially with Martha Washington, which is as early as you can get. It started evolving into a big deal in 1901 with Edith Kermit Roosevelt, who was no relation to the frog. It was and remains an unpaid job (surprise, ladies!) and the office didn’t even have a budget until 1978. Most First Ladies adopted specific causes that went along with their other, more diplomatic chores: Florence Harding was an advocate for animal rights, Jackie Kennedy for the arts, Lady Bird Johnson for environmental beautification, Betty Ford for (actually, against) breast cancer, Hillary Clinton for health care reform, and most recently Barbara Bush for literacy… to name but a few.
Yet Michelle Obama is an angry black woman? The media give her dawn-to-dusk coverage; anything even vaguely resembling an angry black woman would launch a new reality series on Fox “News.”
Ever since Mamie Eisenhower, we have known who the First Lady is before we voted her husband into office. Republican or Democrat, there are no surprises here.
Well, that’s not quite true. There is one surprise. Why isn’t Michelle Obama an angry black woman?
—-
Media metaphysician Mike Gold performs the Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind rock’n’blues show, which streams four times a week on www.getthepointradio.com and is also available at that same venue On Demand. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com.
Mike Gold
January 28, 2012 - 8:01 am
Actually, John Edwards was my preference in 2008. Would I have supported him knowing what we know now?
I really don’t know. He didn’t handle the situation very well, and that speaks to his potential as Commander in Chief. There’s an aesthetic here that works strongly on my ample gut: there’s no difference between Edwards cheating on his dying wife and Gingrich doing the same thing. I can’t condemn one without condemning the other.
Of course, Edwards would have made a better president than Newt. But I’m reminded of a moral dilemma in an old Superman comic I read as a kid: Lex Luthor came up with a cure (while in prison) for cancer and was pardoned for all his crimes. He then went on to murder Superman. But he did come up with that cure for cancer, saving a lot of lives.
Higher level than screwing around on a dying spouse, but the point is essentially the same.
Reg
January 30, 2012 - 5:07 pm
The Gold man said…[…He didn’t handle the situation very well, and that speaks to his potential as Commander in Chief…}
As always, respect for that. Coz, that’s been exactly my point. For good purposes and for bad, the psychological impact of shame as it pertains to matters of sex remains stronger than most other factors. And that factor, especially when it impacts family can cause the most capable person (when it comes to being able to make rational decisions in the midst of multiple stressors)to run off the rails. So yeah…these things are important to know… especially with respect to political leaders in this modern era when NOTHING is off limits to the cameras and microphones. And when (in the case when men are the adulterers and freaky deakies), the female participants in this cases feel no longer bound to the gender restrictive social mores of the past and have People magazine and CNN on speed dial.
And to beat the dead horse named Newt once more, I just discovered that he was involved with his high school teacher when he was just sixteen. It occurred to me that the man very likely has a case bona fide case sexual addiction…with the condition very likely triggered by (if the genders were reversed) what we would call an act of sexual predation.
Should this cast him in the role of a victim? Possibly. It certainly sheds new light (at least for me) on his repeated instances of abandoning WIVES who were facing critical health issues that very likely prevented them from satisfying his sexual needs/demands.
Should this preclude him from seeking and possibly serving in the role of CiC? I think most of us (Libs and Cons)would have to think long and hard on voting for any candidate that gave evidence of being addicted to any debilitating substance or condition.
Rene
January 30, 2012 - 6:21 pm
I admit that abandoning a sick wife is something only an extreme asshole would do. Still, being an extreme asshole in their personal lives is NOT something that really impacts on someone’s effectiveness as a political leader, IMO.
And Reg, all this talk of how being a supposed sex addict makes Newt less fit for public office… I think that still smells of a puritan mindset.
As long as we’re talking psychological instability, let’s turn it around, shall we? Suppose a young politician has become impotent or is a very cold fish, that he or she is not able to sexually function, that he or she spends months without making love to their spouse.
Would you think that is a good reason for not voting for him or her? After all, being physically or psychologically unable to have sex could indicate instability that we don’t want in a leader, right?
Why is it that lots of people scream “unfit for leadership” when someone sleeps around too much, but nary a pip when someone is on the other extreme?
I think it’s still the old mindset that sex is basically evil, and is only redeemed by holy matrimony.
(And I don’t believe that I’m defending Newt. Again I must state that I think his hypocrisy would make me not vote for him, and not the fact that he sleeps around)
Reg
January 30, 2012 - 6:50 pm
Rene,
I appreciate your response and how you framed it, but I think that you may have overlooked a key word in my argument. And that being…addiction. Addiction (of any kind) serves to change and impact rational decision making capability. The degree of same can be and are different for each individual, but addiction DRIVES the car rather than the individual. And when pressure is added as a passenger, things can get really interesting, really fast.
And for the record, I’m definitely not one that thinks that sex is ‘basically evil.’ However, as I’ve gotten older, and hopefully wiser, I’ve come to recognize that just like any inherent human gift and instinct…it should be handled with care and with respect.
Rene
January 30, 2012 - 7:08 pm
Well, actually there is no consensus that sex addiction even exists. But even if we agree that it does, I’m not sure the list of sympthoms aplies to Newt. Just being a serial adulterer do not make one an addict.
I imagine an addict constantly skipping important professional meetings to pursue sexual liasons. Or engaging in sex so much and so often as to show up physically exhausted at work. I agree that THAT level of addiction would indicate a person that is out of control.
But there is no evidence that Newt or Clinton have this kind of problem, just because they’re married men that have sex often and with many different partners
I worry that we’re using the term “sexual addict” as a way to further stigmatize people who do not conform to our social mores regarding sex.
Reg
January 30, 2012 - 7:38 pm
Based on his engaging in an active sexual relationship with a much older authority figure female at the very impressionable (not to mention horny) age of sixteen, I’d say that it’s highly likely (though not certified as proof) that ol’ Newt’s motors were stuck in the ‘GO’ position from that point forward.
It’s my suspicion that this may be one of those known but not discussed character and leadership gaps that has the old guard of the GOP (McCain et.al) doing everything they can to ensure that Newt goes away.
Re: evidence… Yeah…I think there’s sufficient smoke in those woods that would warrant calling the FD. 😛