A story from the (Glasgow) Herald (2009) points out that Michelle Obama is not the tallest American first lady in history -- at 5'11", she's half an inch shorter than Eleanor Roosevelt -- but points out some studies that suggest that tall women tend to be more career-minded than their shorter counterparts. Research from an internet study conducted by Smith and Deady (2006) found that "the taller [a woman] was the less maternally driven she was likely to be". Judge and Cable (2004) suggest that height is related to career success (measured by income) for both men and women; although this effect is stronger in men, the difference is non-significant, even over a large sample (total n = 8,590).
I have to say that I was slightly disappointed to hear that Michelle Obama was giving up her career to be first lady, and slightly surprised. I wasn't as much as of a feminist back in 1993 when Hillary Clinton (5'8.5") became first lady, but I do remember thinking it was odd that she didn't continue her practice. Then again, I can't imagine it would be easy to juggle children, a career, and a secret service detail. I'm reminded of the Animaniacs song (Youtube video: first aired 1995), which listed the "Clintons: Bill and Hillary" as the current Presidents (apparently released in two versions, according to the Wikipedia article, with the revision toning down Hillary's status).
Related posts:
Dementia Risk & Height 5/8/08
Height & Jealousy 3/14/08
Height & Disease 9/26/07
Differences in effect of Height 5/10/07
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I guess I don't think of a first lady leaving her job as anti-feminist. The first lady HAS a job...though largely diplomatic. I suppose that someone could choose to, say, practice law, while their spouse was president...but why would you give up the once in a lifetime chance to serve the country instead (once you had committed to supporting your spouse in becoming prez)?
Seriously? I mean... There's nothing in the Constitution about the duties of the first lady, is there? It's not among the requirements to become president that one be married. The first lady typically has a pet cause, but I wouldn't call that a job.
The article at Wikipedia on the First Lady offers some interesting thoughts about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady_of_the_United_States
ukelele
2009-01-09 09:32 pm UTC
I'm of mixed feelings. Of couse I'm bothered when it's taken for granted that a woman will give up her high-powered job for her husband's. On the other hand, if I were moving to a new city so that my husband could take a job which was likely to require huge overtime, yeah, I'd want to take a break at least for a while to help my daughter adjust and get the family up and running -- someone has to! and everyone's going to be overwhelmed even so. It's also hard to see what sort of political/legal career M. Obama could maintain without enormous conflict of interest (and I am deeply uncomfortable with the Clintons' use of Hillary as if she too had an electoral mandate). But she does have a philanthropic background and there's a rich history of first ladies (notably Roosevelt!) using their organizational talents toward such ends, so I'm hoping we'll be hearing more from her.
differenceblog.com
2009-01-10 02:44 am UTC
@ukelele
Both the conflict of interest and family move arguments are sound, and I am definitely excited to see what Michelle does with her philanthropic stuff. I was also uncomfortable with Hillary having an actual appointed post.
I don't know. I'd like to see Michelle return to work eventually, but I can see the arguments for putting it off, especially with two young children. I believe we will eventually see a first spouse who continues to work, but I don't know what problems that will cause. I had sort of been hoping it would be Michelle, but I can wait.
[info]ukelele
2009-01-10 03:09 am UTC
(I also think it is really harsh for her that she can't just make a decision but has to be a lightning rod and a symbol and all her decisions are bigger than just her, but that won't stop me from being intrigued by them.)
****
[info]differenceblog.com
2009-01-10 03:45 pm UTC
Yeah. That's a fair point, too. I think that may be an unavoidable part of being part of the White House-hold, but it's not fair. She really isn't allowed to be her own person anymore (in some fairly important and real ways).
Post a Comment