Feminist Rant, or We Don't Have to Look Like Supermodels to be Healthy

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.  I am fully aware of this fact.

Now, usually my approach to idiots is to ignore them.  I ran across this post about Limbaugh's latest comments about our amazing First Lady, and my first impulse was to roll my eyes.  He called her a hypocrite for eating ribs instead of "roots, berries, and tree bark."  Any logical thinking person would realize that healthy people sometimes indulge in their favorite foods (like a cupcake!), and that's all part of being healthy.  (And yes, I realize that he is just an old fat man who has no idea what "healthy" means).

That wasn't the thing that got me.  It was something else he said, directly attacking Michelle Obama, which I could not in good conscience ignore.

To quote:

"I'm trying to say our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or of a woman [Yankees star] Alex Rodriguez might date every six months, or what have you," Limbaugh concluded.

Ah, here we have it!  What is threatening about Michelle Obama is that she is a powerful, smart, educated black woman who is doing amazing things instead of sitting on the sidelines while her husband leads (ahem, Laura Bush).  So if you are an old, fat white man threatened by a powerful woman, what do you attack?  Her physical appearance, of course!

Limbaugh can't possibly see that how the First Lady (amazing arms and all) can be a model for healthy eating because she doesn't resemble the waif-like, airbrushed supermodels that he believes is the perfect female body.  Even those supermodels don't resemble the magazine covers.  Since she's not someone that Alex Rodriguez wants to f*&%, then she's not a good role model, nor is she someone we should listen do. And Limbaugh gets to sneer from his XXL chair that she's a hypocrite and belittle her appearance.

You notice no one goes around critiquing Sam Kass for eating ribs--no one really cares--yet he is a major player in the First Lady's healthy initiative.  Why not?  Because he's a man, so he is not required by any standards to look like a model.  Women, meanwhile, are constantly held to ridiculous standards, and idiots like Limbaugh think its perfectly acceptable to attack THE FIRST LADY of the United States for not looking like sexual object.

Here's the thing, Limbaugh--she is not a sexual object.  She is a woman, an intelligent, educated, powerful woman.  Her ability to do awesome things in the world is not directly related to her resemblance to a magazine cover or the sorts of women that Alex Rodriquez tends to date (if only he could be so lucky to score a babe like our First Lady).  Critiquing her initiative is one thing; attacking her for not living up to an impossible standard of beauty and for not existing to serve as a sexual object for your dirty, nasty gaze is something I will not stand for.

Michelle Obama is the perfect role model for healthy eating.  She is not a size 0, and that's why she's so awesome.  She has curves and muscles, and isn't afraid to bare her arms to the world.  Her husband certainly thinks she's beautiful, and I find her to be a damn classy lady, full of grace and confidence.  She is a healthy weight, she knows that part of enjoying life (while being healthy) requires one to eat a damn rib every now and then (or a cupcake), and that one should feel good in her own body.

This is precisely why she is the perfect model for women, young and old.  She projects the image of a woman who is comfortable in her skin, who isn't obsessed with attaining an impossible standard of beauty.  She isn't afraid to eat a rib every now and then, and she is someone women look to for what we should be.  We don't have to accept that our ability to do things in the world and our self-worth is tied to how we look.

And that, my friends, is why we should speak up, even when old, fat white men critique women's appearances.  We should speak up and shout them down and tell them we aren't taking any more of their impossible standards.  We (women AND men) should scream that we refuse to be reduced to our size or our weight.  And we refuse to be told that our self-worth is dependent on our ability to be a sexual object.

In Which Jenn Querulously Writes

I don't know if it's just that time of the semester (where we all need a break) or what, but I'm finding myself becoming crankier.  More cantankerous.  Querulous, even.  So today I shall discuss particular points of complaint.

One: students on campus.  Okay, so I know I work at a university and am a student, so I really shouldn't complain about this.  However, I'm looking specifically at how students move around on campus.  Since I'm on a bike, I'm hyper-aware of my setting (because I want to stay alive to bike another day), but I've noticed that most students don't pay attention to their surroundings.  I've almost run students down because they are too busy texting or looking at their feet to remember that they are surrounded by potential obstacles.  (FYI: they don't even hear my bike bell.) They also can't walk in a straight line, which makes biking around them surprisingly difficult.

But here is my main complaint: I usually ride on the sidewalk for a short bit, then switch to the roads that run through campus.  However, students don't even look before they cross those roads! And I'm not talking about using cross-walks--they just walk.  Wherever.  Everywhere.  And yes, cars do drive on these roads.  Today, I almost ran down three students who just randomly crossed in front of me without even looking up.  Normally, I would just roll my eyes, but today I scolded them loudly.

These kids seem so lost in their own little words (which I'm sure are infinitely fascinating) that they can't even observe the world around them.  This leads me to my next point: individualism is not all it's chalked up to be.  Bear with me a minute as I make the connection:  we as a nation are obsessed with the individual.  Thinking that one is a unique butterfly in a world of unique butterflies leads, in my thinking, to this inability to remember that one exists in spaces with other people.  Be considerate. Look around.  And watch out for angry girls on bikes.

In Feminist Theory, we keep hitting on this idea of the individual, which frustrates me because, yes, while, we are all individuals with individual experiences, we also exist within a social order, a society, a culture(s), structures, and institutions.  We are who we are because of our place in the world, not because of some unique individualism that is inherent to human nature.  We love, share, and communicate because we can understand other people: we have shared experiences, thoughts, ideologies, and perspectives.  Emphasizing individualism is detrimental to society because we all think we're entitled to step on other people to get to where we want to go instead of trying to work together to make the world a better place.  You are not a unique snowflake.  Deal with it, and remember that there are other people in the world besides you.

Indignantly Angry

My brother had the nerve to send me an e-mail entitled "In Obama's Own Words." I would post it, but I don't think I should. Instead, I'll quote the main message of it:

"We should all be very afraid. This man wants to be our President and control our government."

Ah, yes. Because (as we all should know) our government is in the control of one man. Silly me, I thought that we had three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. Whoops, that's right--Bush has everyone thinking that he's in control and that Congress needs to listen to his dictates...

Anyway, not the point. The e-mail then went on to give quotations (they're real!) from Obama's book Dreams From My Father (the e-mail didn't even get the title right, incidentally). These quotations were all taken out of context and meant to convey one thing: Obama is black; Obama doesn't share our white Christian ideals; Obama sympathizes with Muslims; don't trust Obama.

The quotations don't say anything bad. In context*, I'm sure they convey his struggle as the son of a biracial couple and his quest for identity. I would think that it was a difficult experience for him, yet ultimately a positive one. But out of their racism and bigotry, the originators of this e-mail want us to be afraid of Obama's race and his racial identity. They want us to believe that he'll ignore all the Christians and promote Islam. They're idiots, and I just couldn't stand it. So I sent a firm reply back to my brother (and my father, who sent the e-mail to my brother initially). Here's what I said:

I'm not sure what the message of this is supposed to convey, but the biggest sense is that it's racist, and that's not something I'd like to think of you as. Please do not send me stuff like this again. It makes me angry and a little upset.

I don't think selected quotations (taken out of their context, a context that could change the meaning of those sentences) is supposed to convince me that voting for Obama is the wrong choice for president. Nor are the insinuations (ungrounded, based on the fact that he's a Christian and raises his family as Christians) that he's Muslim. The final quotation could be taken to mean that if the political winds should shift in such a way as to target Muslims with prejudice and racism, that he would stand with them, as would I.

Not all of those quotations are negative either. He expresses admiration in one of those quotations for black men who represent intelligence and courage--DuBois, for example, was an intellectual writing around the time of the Civil War who spoke for freedom and equality for black and white. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

What we should be focusing on, when looking for a President, is not race, not that fact that he uses some of the best representations of men of color as role models, nor the fact that he struggled with his identity as the son of a biracial couple. We should look for a leader who is capable and strong, a person of intelligence and reason. I don't care who you vote for, just as long as you don't vote against someone just because they are of another race or believe that people of other faiths should be treated with respect. I see you as intelligent and rational, so please use intelligence and rationality before forwarding things of this nature. Don't support racism and bigotry.

And this is why digging beneath the surface matters. It's too easy to listen to the lies that others want you to believe. I'm sure my family will protest that its message is not racist; rather, it says that we shouldn't elect a person who doesn't have the same ideals as us**. But strip away the superfluous, thin veneer, and you can see what it really is: a promotion of continued racism.

*I'm going to go read that book so I can argue more about it. Uggh, family.
**White, Protestant. Everyone else doesn't count because they're going to Hell anyway. We gotta make sure that the minorities are trying to oppress us!