No shit the first lady feels she has imposter syndrome

[Rhea]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46434147

Michelle Obama talks about imposter syndrome. This is coming from a person who had all the attention of a president without actually being the president. And her audience expecting her to deliver, and she no doubt, trying to.

It's cruel to give the first lady attention. She didn't ask for it. She's not the president. She hasn't done the required prep work.

And what’s the justification for that expectation? If someone breaks into my house while I’m asleep and cooks me breakfast, there’s going to be people expecting I compensate them for serving me.

Well, to be frank, I expected her to deliver because she always appeared so damn competent and confident.
And she did deliver. I loved her.

 

[Rhea]

If she puts her personal career and ambitions aside to support her husband as president she's a bad role model for women. Isn't she? So deserves less attention. Don't get it

I agree with you on this, but with nuance. First, I acknowledge that much of America expects the woman to make the sacrifices. This bothers me and I agree with fighting back against it.

On the other hand, there are some jobs that require the couple to make a dual commitment. Like Military, or corporate moves. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband left a lucrative position to enable her career to grow. He didn't leave work entirely, but he left a senior partnership. Of course, the First Lady role didn't require Michelle Obama to pause her career, looking at Hillary Clinton's example. Though Hillary had to fight hard against misogyny about that. My understanding is that Obama left her job because it was the couple's joint decision on what they wanted to create for their kids and what she could do to serve the country as well.

But it is very hard for public women in America to have this conversation, unfortunately. We get hit pretty hard over it. I wish we had better parental leave and better daycare support for everyone's best interests.

My whole point is that the family shouldn't be in the spotlight. I remember 15 years ago when the Swedish prime minster was unfaithful and eventually left his wife for his mistress. Nobody gave a rats are. It was his private life so people respected his privacy. The mistress was the president of one of Sweden's biggest corporations. It had zero impact on her job. That's how it should be IMHO. Why is USA any different? Or why should USA be any different?

Again I agree that it should not be in the spotlight. But in America, it is. And so when you make a choice to do something that you know the public will excoriate you for, you're showing bad judgement. Maybe you can survive it. Men can - Bill Clinton did. But America is prudish about this right now. Sadly, IMHO.

 

[fast]

Again I agree that it should not be in the spotlight. But in America, it is. And so when you make a choice to do something that you know the public will excoriate you for, you're showing bad judgement. Maybe you can survive it. Men can - Bill Clinton did. But America is prudish about this right now. Sadly, IMHO.

Bad judgement? No, principled judgement!

 

[DrZoidberg]

If she puts her personal career and ambitions aside to support her husband as president she's a bad role model for women. Isn't she? So deserves less attention. Don't get it

I agree with you on this, but with nuance. First, I acknowledge that much of America expects the woman to make the sacrifices. This bothers me and I agree with fighting back against it.

On the other hand, there are some jobs that require the couple to make a dual commitment. Like Military, or corporate moves. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband left a lucrative position to enable her career to grow. He didn't leave work entirely, but he left a senior partnership. Of course, the First Lady role didn't require Michelle Obama to pause her career, looking at Hillary Clinton's example. Though Hillary had to fight hard against misogyny about that. My understanding is that Obama left her job because it was the couple's joint decision on what they wanted to create for their kids and what she could do to serve the country as well.

But it is very hard for public women in America to have this conversation, unfortunately. We get hit pretty hard over it. I wish we had better parental leave and better daycare support for everyone's best interests.

I think the president of United States can afford a nanny.

But my question is deeper than that. What I don't understand iu why anybody cared about Michelle Obama? At all. Nobody voted for her. There's zero pressure on her. Why put your life on hold for a non-job? It doesn't exactly look good if your wife is reduced to arm-candy.

But it is an interesting question. In Sweden the Swedish royal family gets similar attention as the president's family. Which makes no sense. The Swedish king is purely a ceremonial role. He has zero actual power. It's as if when watching TV all your focus is on the frame if the TV, and not in the actual show. I find it truly bizarre.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it goes back to the US's fascination with seeing itself as a monarchy and the President as the center of the country's social universe, with the President's wife in charge of that aspect. While not an official thing, it's a tradition that goes back a couple hundred years and everyone married to a Presidential candidate (those named Melania not included) have understood and accepted this role.

It's probably the same in other countries as well. For instance, the Canadian Prime Minister has a wife and she probably has a name and probably some social activities which she's in charge of when various dignitaries manage to trudge their way through the wolf-infested polar vortex and get into Ottawa. Since it's not such a celebrity obsessed culture, most people in the country would need to google the PM and click on whatever is listed in the Spouse section of his wiki page to find this out, however, and likely wouldn't consider it to be worth the bother.

 

[Toni]

I think it goes back to the US's fascination with seeing itself as a monarchy and the President as the center of the country's social universe, with the President's wife in charge of that aspect. While not an official thing, it's a tradition that goes back a couple hundred years and everyone married to a Presidential candidate (those named Melania not included) have understood and accepted this role.

It's probably the same in other countries as well. For instance, the Canadian Prime Minister has a wife and she probably has a name and probably some social activities which she's in charge of when various dignitaries manage to trudge their way through the wolf-infested polar vortex and get into Ottawa. Since it's not such a celebrity obsessed culture, most people in the country would need to google the PM and click on whatever is listed in the Spouse section of his wiki page to find this out, however, and likely wouldn't consider it to be worth the bother.

Actually, the US does not see itself as a monarchy. Washington DC is actually a pretty small town in many ways. The rest of the country sees NYC and LA as the cultural epicenters and every teguon’s largest city sees itself as the legitimate center of the world/nation or at least if its own little corner. At least in any way that is important in Real Life.

Presidents have often been married to intelligent, well educated and ambitious, talented women. Security concerns pretty much make it impossible for any first spouse to continue in whatever career they held prior to their spouse’s election.

Then it is absolutely true that many deals and much understanding is reached at dinner tables and that spouses often have profound influence on one another. The ladies often engage in ‘softer’ diplomacy.

Some First Ladies are more prominently featured. Who remembers anything about Laura Bush except that she killed a guy? Or Pat Nixon? Or Mamie Eisenhower? Barbara Bush? As for celebrity being associated with the White House, that really began with the Regans who were indeed celebrities. Hillary Clinton was obviously a very involved presidential spouse whose education and ambition helped expand her role. Michelle Obama’s prominence was more the fact that they were the first black family to occupy the White House. Of course, she’s extremely intelligent, articulate and well educated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Presidents have often been married to intelligent, well educated and ambitious, talented women.

I'll give you ambitious, since like tends to attract like. But the rest is just image and assumption. The rest of the world want to see them as intelligent and talented. Journalists will low ball questions to them, cut material to make them look as good as possible. It's what viewers and expect and will be angry if they don't get. It's a cooperative theatre we're all a participant in. We do the same with the Swedish king.

Security concerns pretty much make it impossible for any first spouse to continue in whatever career they held prior to their spouse’s election.

Such nonsense. What about the secret service? If they can keep the president alive, they can keep the presidents wife alive.

Then it is absolutely true that many deals and much understanding is reached at dinner tables and that spouses often have profound influence on one another. The ladies often engage in ‘softer’ diplomacy.

Again... pure assumption. JFK barely met Jackie other than in photo ops. When he wasn't working he was too busy feeding his sex addiction and banging hot ladies in his fuck room.

I think it's a safe assumption that all presidents marriages strain when they're in office. It's a tough job and their husbands won't have time for them.

Some First Ladies are more prominently featured. Who remembers anything about Laura Bush except that she killed a guy? Or Pat Nixon? Or Mamie Eisenhower? Barbara Bush? As for celebrity being associated with the White House, that really began with the Regans who were indeed celebrities. Hillary Clinton was obviously a very involved presidential spouse whose education and ambition helped expand her role. Michelle Obama’s prominence was more the fact that they were the first black family to occupy the White House. Of course, she’s extremely intelligent, articulate and well educated.

She had a team dedicated to make her look good. Obama couldn't afford Michelle talking off the top of her head and doing her own thing. She has to be, by necessity, an accessory to the president. She has to be treated like a pet and told what to say. So I'm sure she was. There's no way to include the presidents spouse into the president's public image and not turn it insidious. I think it's an evil practice. It'll hurt these women, and all women. As well as men.

The whole thing about presenting a wholesome perfect family at the head of the country is not good. It puts pressure on everybody to have a perfect family. Which is just made worse when everybody knows that the presidential image is a lie. Because it has to be. I honestly think it's an evil practice.

 

[Toni]

I'll give you ambitious, since like tends to attract like. But the rest is just image and assumption. The rest of the world want to see them as intelligent and talented. Journalists will low ball questions to them, cut material to make them look as good as possible. It's what viewers and expect and will be angry if they don't get. It's a cooperative theatre we're all a participant in. We do the same with the Swedish king.



Such nonsense. What about the secret service? If they can keep the president alive, they can keep the presidents wife alive.

Then it is absolutely true that many deals and much understanding is reached at dinner tables and that spouses often have profound influence on one another. The ladies often engage in ‘softer’ diplomacy.

Again... pure assumption. JFK barely met Jackie other than in photo ops. When he wasn't working he was too busy feeding his sex addiction and banging hot ladies in his fuck room.

I think it's a safe assumption that all presidents marriages strain when they're in office. It's a tough job and their husbands won't have time for them.

Some First Ladies are more prominently featured. Who remembers anything about Laura Bush except that she killed a guy? Or Pat Nixon? Or Mamie Eisenhower? Barbara Bush? As for celebrity being associated with the White House, that really began with the Regans who were indeed celebrities. Hillary Clinton was obviously a very involved presidential spouse whose education and ambition helped expand her role. Michelle Obama’s prominence was more the fact that they were the first black family to occupy the White House. Of course, she’s extremely intelligent, articulate and well educated.

She had a team dedicated to make her look good. Obama couldn't afford Michelle talking off the top of her head and doing her own thing. She has to be, by necessity, an accessory to the president. She has to be treated like a pet and told what to say. So I'm sure she was. There's no way to include the presidents spouse into the president's public image and not turn it insidious. I think it's an evil practice. It'll hurt these women, and all women. As well as men.

The whole thing about presenting a wholesome perfect family at the head of the country is not good. It puts pressure on everybody to have a perfect family. Which is just made worse when everybody knows that the presidential image is a lie. Because it has to be. I honestly think it's an evil practice.

I'm sorry but you have zero idea what you are talking about.

You simply do not.

I am not sure why you assume that the various women who have been married to men who became presidents were not as intelligent and as well educated as their spouses. It certainly cannot be because you have actually done sufficient research to support you claims.

I am not sure why you assume that Michelle Obama is less well educated than her husband or less talented or less intelligent. I'm not certain why you believe that Michelle Obama had a team to dedicated to making her look good vs what any other first lady has had or why Obama couldn't afford his wife to do her own thing. It would have been extraordinarily difficult for them to maintain their marriage and to raise their family if she had remained in Chicago while he spent 8 years in Washington DC.

I mean, I think I know the reasons you think that but I'm willing to give you a fair chance to support your position.

As for whether or not it is 'pure assumption' that deals and understandings are reached at dinner tables and that spouses often have profound influence over one another and that the ladies often engage in 'softer' diplomacy: that's not assumption on my part. I spent a lot of years living/working in Washington D.C. I actually know what I am talking about.

You've just picked a POV and are spouting things to 'support' it.