"There's the old boys club again."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama: As A Woman, Michelle Had To Make Sacrifices I Didn't Have To, Huffington Post. Emphases mine.

President Barack Obama says his family is like a lot of others -- in which the men "need to be knocked across the head every once in a while" in order to see imbalances between the time moms and dads put into raising children.

"There's no doubt that our family, like a lot of families out there, were ones in which the men are still a little obtuse about this stuff," Obama said Wednesday in an interview with NBC.

He acknowledged things are different now for his wife, Michelle, and him given that they live in the White House with all its creature comforts and army of residence staff.

"Today's Obama family is obviously not typical," he said. "Five years ago, six years ago, though, we were having a lot of negotiations. Because Michelle was trying to figure out, OK, if the kids get sick why is it that she's the one who has to take time off of her job to go pick them up from school, as opposed to me? If, you know, the girls need to shop for clothes. You know, why is it that it's her burden and not mine."

The president said he tried to learn to be better -- "to be thoughtful enough and introspective enough that I wasn't always having to be told that things were unfair. That once in a while, I'd actually voluntarily say, 'You know what? Let me relieve this burden on you. Let me make some sacrifices, in terms of how I'm using my time.'"

He's the first to acknowledge his efforts weren't entirely successful.

"The truth is that Michelle still had to make sacrifices of the sort that I did not have to make," Obama said.

So let me get this straight. Just like in his book, The Audacity of Hope, President Obama acknowledged that there was a unfair division of household and child-rearing between him and his wife. Yet again, he decided to do nothing significant about it.

I resent the suggestion that someone needs to remind men to be functioning parents. No. Men should take care of the children that they decided to bring into the world in the first place. President Obama didn't accidentally have two children. He and the First Lady decided to have children together. And then he decided for some reason that raising the children was not his responsibility . . . because he was the one with the penis?

President Obama says that "Michelle still had to make sacrifices of the sort that [he] did not have to make", but he doesn't explain why his wife allegedly had to make them. Why did she have to be the one to disrupt her career to pick up the sick children and buy them clothes? If President Obama's children were sick, why wouldn't he pick them up from school? They are his children.

You don't deserve a medal for occasionally taking care of your own children. You can call it "obtuse"; I call it bleeping selfish. Add your own expletive, readers.

Obama also played down a recent basketball game with male members of his Cabinet and lawmakers. No women were listed as participants in the game, played on a White House court.

The president said it was a standing game among House members that simply relocated to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. He faced criticism for the all-guys game; Obama brushed it off and said it was nothing more than basketball.

"I think this is bunk," he said.

If you watch the video, the interviewer asks whether the game could have been seen as a networking opportunity with the President. However, President Obama does not buy into the notion that it was "something more than basketball."

Right. As if a group of politicians, who all happened to be men, showed up at the White House purely for the love of the game. No networking went on whatsoever. Just a bunch of grown men sweating it up together on a court.

Insert exaggerated eyeroll here.

.

She doesn't get paid?

Mad About Michelle, by Katha Pollitt, The Nation. Emphases mine.

Just after the election Rebecca Traister wrote a terrific piece in Salon lamenting the "momification" of Michelle Obama. Probably it was inevitable: "In part because of the legacy left her by Hillary and her detractors," Traister observed, "powerful couples must now tread as far as possible from the 'two for one' talk, lest the female half get smacked with a nutcracker." Besides, there was that Angry Black Woman image to banish. It might have been politically necessary, and for all I know Michelle Obama is having the time of her life--unlike most professional women who take (let's hope) eight years off, she doesn't have to worry about the cost to her career. Some days I think just being a highly visible admirable black woman is a social cause all by itself, given how little of that side of black life most white Americans see. Still, there's something depressing about the joy and relief with which the high-end media have greeted Michelle's makeover from accomplished professional and outspoken social critic to new-traditionalist homebody. They're not only not ready for Hillary Clinton, they're apparently not even ready for Eleanor Roosevelt.

In the American Prospect, Dana Goldstein recently argued that being first lady should be treated like the job it is and awarded a salary. Michelle is "a public face of the Obama administration," working behind the scenes to rally support for her husband's programs--and she endures a schedule of ceremonial duties and photo ops that would put most women on Prozac and that are not optional. She can't decide to skip dinner with the Democratic chairmen of Congressional committees and watch TV with the girls instead. If first ladies were paid--Goldstein suggests that the money could come from lowering the president's $400,000 salary--we might respect them more.

Meanwhile, we should be counting ourselves lucky that Michelle Obama is working for free and let her wear whatever she wants.

I don't think the First Lady's salary should come from cutting the President's salary. I'm sure our national budget could do with a few less $400 ashtrays. Michelle Obama's salary from her last job as head of community affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals was $273,618. That is equivalent to 685 ashtrays. Or half the cost of a Tomahawk missile.

It would be a bargain, considering that the First Lady probably does the jobs of at least ten people combined. At an average Washington, DC, salary of $72,000 (as of April 9 2009), the position of First Lady would be worth $720,000. That's new math for you. Plus, everyone at the White House--excluding the children, the dog, and Grandma--is on salary except for Michelle Obama. Yet she has one of the biggest jobs there. How far we have come.

.

The Receptionist and The First Lady

Will Michelle Obama Spark the Next 'Mommy Wars' Skirmish?, by PunditMom, BlogHer.

The momification of Michelle Obama, by Rebecca Traister, Salon.

The Associated Press wondered what kind of first lady Michelle will be, and concludes, "the kind of first lady this country has not seen in decades." You mean, the kind with a high-powered job? No, "the mother of young children." True enough, and the AP story did include the fact that Michelle is known to be her husband's closest advisor. But it made sure to emphasize the campaign's assertions that "she is not interested in shaping policy or reserving a seat for herself at her husband's decision-making table. She prefers, at least for now, to focus on easing the transition for Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7 -- getting them in new schools, settled and comfortable with a new way of life." Indeed, Michelle herself has been flogging the term "mom-in-chief" as the cheerily unthreatening title she'll assume when she gets to the White House . . .

. . . Prior to Hillary Clinton, we'd never had a first lady who had a post-graduate degree. Michelle Obama went to college at Princeton and law school at Harvard. She was a practicing lawyer at the Chicago firm Sidley Austin when she was assigned to mentor the summer associate who would become her husband. She was his mentor . . .

In one of the smartest pieces that has been written about the next first lady, Geraldine Brooks' profile of her in the October issue of More magazine, Brooks writes that while you can see Michelle's life as the quintessential modern woman's success story, the trajectory can also be read as a "depressingly retrograde narrative of stifling gender roles and frustrating trade-offs." In serious ways, Brooks writes, "it is her husband's career, his choices -- choices she has not always applauded -- that have shaped her life in the last decade."

I am so tired. I'm tired of women in my media regressing to roles befitting Leave it to Beaver or The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet or even I Dream of Jeannie. These women have powers far beyond those of their male partners. Yet these women choose to play down their powers as much as they can so as not to overshadow their men.

I didn't look hard enough to find similar articles about Pam on The Office, so I'll summarize the situation. (You can watch the latest episode, "Frame Toby", on the NBC website, until it is taken away.) Pam leaves her receptionist job in Scranton, PA, (yes, that Scranton) to attend art school in New York City for three months, where she can exercise her notable talent. At the end of three months, Pam fails a class and must decide whether to stay in New York to retake it. Instead of continuing to follow her dream, she returns to Scranton, to her receptionist job at a failing company, so that she can be with her fiancé Jim, who is stuck in a dead-end career at the same company. Jim then buys his parents' crumbling house--thereby acquiring major debt in a depreciating investment vehicle during a recession [look at my fancy book-learning!]--and "surprises" Pam with it. And Pam . . . loves it? Her exact words are, "You bought me a house!"

Yeah, no. I understand that the writers of The Office had to lock down Jim and Pam in Scranton so that the series could continue. However, the series has now passed the point of plausibility in many regards, including the Jim and Pam story. The writers have given no explanation for why Jim couldn't move to New York and accelerate his career at the corporate office; the corporate executives already want him to work there. That way Jim could be with Pam, and support Pam's dreams to work as a skilled artist in New York. But no, they are both back in Scranton. Why? So that they can be Ozzie and Harriet.

It leads me back to the First Lady and President-elect, and to what I was talking about in August, when the John Edwards scandal was a-buzzing. At the moment, I am working so hard in so many ways to make my career and my life successful. Yet the most prominently featured woman in the United States media has traded in her higher education to become Donna Reed. I hadn't thought about this before, but there is going to be someone in the White House who looks like me. That should be cause for celebration. I'm sure people think I'm jazzed about First Lady Michelle Obama. But I'm not. Because I see exactly what's going on. Michelle Obama is being painted as someone's wife/mom/decorator. Or, as in the case of The Stephanie Miller Show yesterday morning, she is categorized as a black woman with a large behind. And in many ways, Michelle Obama isn't challenging that characterization.

"The primary focus for the first year will be making sure that the kids make it through the transition," [Michelle Obama] said, sitting alongside her husband [on 60 Minutes]. "But there are many issues that I care deeply about." She cited two that she focused on during the campaign: Military families, and the work-family balance.

One part of these situations that irks me greatly is the complicity of the men involved. Rebecca Traister calls it "crucial (and heartening)". However, silence is acceptance, no matter how much Barack Obama acknowledges "that Michelle's challenges in these coming years may not be much fun for her." Don't sit there watching your wife's career and individual identity slip away from her; do something about it.

. . . In "The Audacity of Hope," he describes the gradual tipping of the professional scales in his relationship with Michelle, as she allows him to become a distraction, and then a date, and then a husband and a father, at the same time that he is becoming a politician. At first, he writes, they were both "working hard," he as a civil rights lawyer and a professor, she for the city and at Public Allies. Then they had Malia, and "the strains in our relationship began to show."

When he launched his congressional run, Barack writes, "Michelle put up no pretense of being happy with the decision. My failure to clean up the kitchen suddenly became less endearing. Leaning down to kiss Michelle good-bye in the morning, all I would get was a peck on the cheek. By the time Sasha was born ... my wife's anger toward me seemed barely contained."

Barack continues, "No matter how liberated I liked to see myself as -- no matter how much I told myself that Michelle and I were equal partners, and that her dreams and ambitions were as important as my own -- the fact was that when children showed up, it was Michelle and not I who was expected to make the necessary adjustments. Sure, I helped, but it was always on my terms, on my schedule. Meanwhile, she was the one who had to put her career on hold." Barack considers his dawning realization that in his wife, as in so many working women, there was a battle raging. "In her own mind, two visions of herself were at war with each other," he writes. "The desire to be the woman her mother had been, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids, and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she'd had on the very first day that we met."

What a touching story. He tried to help. It's so sad that Barack Obama hands were tied by his own naked ambition. I must dab the tears from my eyes.

.

Judge not,

unless you've never cheated on your cancer-stricken wife, like some people:

Edwards admits to affair he denied as candidate, by Pete Yost, AP via Yahoo! News.

This just in: Elizabeth Edwards standing by husband after affair, by Pete Yost, AP via Yahoo! News.

I have lots of thoughts about this situation. The first thought relates to women like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama (no, there is not a similar scandal a-brewing for Barack). How do these women do it? How do these women look at their multiple degrees and their own high potential for success, then decide, "I am going to dedicate my life to supporting my husband's dream of becoming the President of the United States"? Because that is what they did. These two women each got their law degree from the same school as their respective husbands did. Yet their husbands were the ones who decided to take the spotlight as US Senators and presidential candidates. Their husbands also decided to keep their last names.

My second thought is regarding any of you readers who are thinking to yourself, "Bianca would be a great first lady. I should marry her before I run for President." Before you call the caterers, ruminate on this: If my spouse cheated on me while I had cancer, I would not then "stand by" my spouse, in theory or in reality. I would not continue to support my spouse's campaign. I would tell my spouse to find another place to live. They could find their clothes to the left, if not out on the street. And if my spouse ever thought about running for any national office again, I would never let the mainstream news media outlets ever forget that my spouse cheated on me while I had cancer.

.