Working Mom-in-chief

Michelle Obama is making news -- and a few waves -- as she breaks eight years of silence from the office of the first lady by speaking out in support of her husband's policy. According to an article in the New York Times, "'Mom in Chief' Touches on Policy; Tongues Wag" , Michelle has used recent pubic appearances to tout President Obama's economic stimulus plan -- actions regarded by some as completely in character and by others as near scandalous.

It seems there is still some expectation -- renewed over the past eight years by Laura Bush's uber-traditional approach to her role -- that the wife of the president be little more than Official Hostess and Loyal-But-Silent Companion to the President. As one woman in the article put it: "She (Michelle) went to some lengths to say she was going to be first mom-in-chief. I don’t think we ever really imagined her edging toward public policy like this."

Why not? How does being mom-in-chief exclude her from publicly discussing the issues that the rest of the country can't stop talking about, issues that are of vital importance to moms everywhere? She never said she was going to be a stay-at-home-mom-in-chief. And I think mothers across the county are breathing a collective sigh of relief that we may have someone in the White House who is in a position to work to make it a little bit easier for us to have opinions and responsibilities that extend beyond the home. Perhaps we have someone in Washington who not only understands the needs of working mothers, but can help us out with real policies that don't economically and professionally penalize us for having children. That's how I interpreted her "mom-in-chief" comment.

However, it seems there are people who took that statement to mean we would be treated to an endless parade of warm and fuzzy featurettes of her being a mother, only a mother, and nothing but a mother. While that is certainly an important task in her life, it's not the only one, and it's frightening that so many people seem unable to accept that a woman can debate economic theory and brands of peanut butter with equal ease. Heck, we can do it at the same time!

In discussing Mrs. Obama's foray into public policy, the article said, "It is a notably different approach than the one embraced by the former first lady, Laura Bush, who like most others steered clear of discussing legislation." First of all, let me say "most other" first ladies didn't so much "steer clear" of talking about legislation as they were prohibited from it. In fact, the first 28 first ladies weren't even allowed to vote, so exactly what degree of respect were they likely to have been given on so-called "men's" issues? Later first ladies had a slew of interests that ranged from substance abuse to drugs to neighborhood beautification, and a few in the 60s and 70s were even known to publicly support the ERA.

Of course, all first ladies had the ear of their very public husbands in private, which was considered a far more acceptable place than a podium to express their intelligent and independent opinions, a tradition that should have gone the way of the corset by now. Which leads me to the comparison between Laura Bush and Michelle Obama: I can't help but wonder if Laura was so silent, and hence so "traditional" because she found it difficult to support her husband's policy. It's also worth noting that the Republican Party still likes to harken back to days of old when their definition of family values kept women in their place. Remember the embarrassingly archaic "cookie bake-off" between Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush in 1992, the supposed "Year of the Woman"? What better fodder for the "Mommy Wars" than a stunt designed to presumably draw a stark comparison between a traditional, caring grandmotherly type of first lady and the brash, independent, feminist that the Democrats were backing? It seems that no matter the year, no matter the woman, there is pressure to keep the most public woman in the country in the kitchen. And even strong-willed Hillary felt the need to bend to it by taking part in that very First Ladylike publicity stunt.

The bottom line is Michelle will be no more like Laura than Laura was like Hillary, than Hillary was like Barbara, than Barbara was like Nancy, and so on down the road. She is her own woman with her own plans for what she can do with her title. That fact that she sees her role as first lady from many angles with multiple agendas reflects how many women today feel about their dueling roles as women, mothers, professionals, students, and spouses. But I can't deny it's as nice to have a first lady willing to publicly address the problems facing the country as it is having a president able to deal with them.