The Last First Lady: Transition from Society Balls, to Just Balls
May 6th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
We’ve seen our last First Lady of a certain kind. Genteel, always attempting to be background instead of foreground or middle ground. Laura Bush will likely be the last of a long line of smart women who stayed behind the scenes for the most part, or else led lives ‘out there’, like Eleanor Roosevelt who most of the time seemed as though she wasn’t married to the President, but rather to ideas.
We have seen the signs of the remarkable transition from genteel little lady with little to say, and certainly never anything controversial, to efforts to act as a fuller human being… for instance, First Lady Hillary Clinton. She had an idea and thought to bring it to the fore. But, she was bashed for carrying the notion that she should/could/ would dare to be involved in policy; health care. “You’re not a player, you’re just a figurehead; go put your hoop skirt back on and act right.’
Nancy Reagan was smarmed for ‘advising’ her husband; many thought she had ‘too much power’ over him and should just go back to pouring tea for be-medaled dignitaries. Mrs. Reagan’s bold interruption of Raisa Gorbachev who appeared to be hogging the camera during an interview of the Russian and US First Ladies, prompted Mrs. Reagan to intervene clearly and loudly. “I want to talk now,” said Mrs. Reagan. This breach of ‘ladylike’ protocol was hailed by many as a high-fiver for Nancy.
It used to be, and was vehemently expected by many in the electorate, that First Ladies, whether wives of Presidents or Governors, were supposed to remain like the curtains; be backdrop, to concern themselves only with ’safe, feminine’ interests (feminine as defined by softness and sweetness… forgetting that many women are also inventors, innovators and often, warriors ).
The short list below is not to trivialize, for First Ladies’ attendance on under-served populations and ideals that might never have more than a hoot and holler amongst male politicians, has been critical.
It used to be that First Ladies were to limit themselves to what were considered, by the powerful in charge, to be only ‘tame’ endeavors:
1. children’s issues, Head Start, rehabilitations of various kinds, especially concerning impoverished mothers and children, mental health issues, well baby issues, teen pregnancy prevention, elder care, education, et al.
2. low-level aesthetic issues, making things beautiful or prettier; remodeling white house chairs, china service, flower planting campaigns, arbor day, non-controversial environmental concerns.
Whatever the First Lady was involved in, her demeanor was to be somehow reminiscent of ‘loving hands at home,’ soft dulcet words, shyness even. Whoever was served by such amputations to womanliness, well, many have flown off the planet now. It is a new day.
I know it might sound odd to some, but Southern women have, to me, been some of the groups of women who best epitomize feminine grace and feminine fullness of person, albeit under duress. Iron fist in the velvet glove has long been their shining gift. They run everything, prop up this thing, sever that thing, pull life back from death’s maw, drive like sixty, cuss a blue streak out of hearing of others, and get the job done. And often with great tenderness and beauty.
First Ladies of our times are going to be more like that; an updated version of ‘iron fist/velvet glove’
way of thinking and acting publicly.
I think of the ‘iron fist/ velvet glove’ as ability to see trajectories, to foretell to the best of one’s ability, and to act in most effective ways… and to do it with heart. The difference in First Ladies in these times is going to only be this: the iron fist will no longer hidden.
But, don’t ditch the gloves and don’t ditch the hoop skirt too fast.
They may still have their uses.
In the bedroom.
We’re talking about full women here, right? Keeping all options open if they wish?
—————-
CODA
That writer can’t say that, can she say that? the bedroom part, I mean about First Ladies? How disrespectful, can you believe she said that? Aren’t there more important things to focus on? How unseemly, brash, that’s what she is, what has this world come to when women can write things like that and think it’s alright?…
No! Look, she’s downgrading women by talking about sex-shality, it would have been alright if she just stopped at how strong women are, but now look what she’s gone and done, made them into sex objects again, and just when we thought everyone was over that…
Move along folks, nothing to see here, move along, just some women being written about as mere whole persons with many gifts, nothing remarkable, move along folks…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Humor, Social Commentary, Gender, Endangered Species. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
