Comments on: Does Michelle Obama as Glamour Cover Girl Say ‘Strong Role Model’ or ‘Shy Schoolgirl?’

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:57:01 +0000

Or others — would they pose Madeleine Albright this way? Or even Sarah Palin? Palin would have bitten their heads off (rightly so) if they had suggested it.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:42:11 +0000

One question: can you imagine George W. posed like this? Or even Hillary Clinton? There’s no way, and that answers your question. I agree with your take that Glamour picked this image to convey the shy schoolgirl.

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:37:48 +0000

I, too, have mixed feelings about seeing FLOTUS, or other powerful, accomplished women, on the cover of fashion magazines, but I wonder if there is something to be said for reaching an audience of women who might not otherwise be reached? But the whole demure girl pose does a disservice to what I think they’re trying to accomplish inside the magazine.

By: JessicaAPISS

JessicaAPISS — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:13:52 +0000

I agree with you. The staff pic is great, the cover would have been stronger with arms folded or just standing tall. Maybe it was necessary for getting all the side copy in. Maybe it had something to do with Glamour’s style of close-in pics, usually of bobbleheads that request extra retouching.

And of course getting every girl in America to further idolize the First Lady’s arms. (Thank goodness its getting cooler, I can’t stand the pressure anymore.)

And question – why Glamour? What used to be the Seventeen for co-eds is now so Cosmo-y. (I always was more into Sassy and Jane, and now sometimes pick up More, but I digress.)

Fab post.

By: Daisy

Daisy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:38:33 +0000

I wonder if the photographer(s) wasn’t accustomed to shooting a strong woman; if the photog was more of a “let’s coach the cute little grin” kind of person. Perhaps her ill-at-ease feeling came from being posed in an out-of-character type of pose.
Come on, Glamour, get with the times. We want to see real women. Women like us.

By: A Tired Wife

A Tired Wife — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:54:38 +0000

I have to wonder if she wasn’t posed that way. Even so, as First Lady, I would think that she’d have a say in the final posted picture and that she would have felt this was a bit too cutesy.

By: annie

annie — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:26:30 +0000

It is an ill at ease posture, but I am wondering if that might not be her genuine discomfort with the whole cover girl thing rather than something the magazine did on purpose.

I would prefer not to see the nation’s first lady anywhere near fashion mags. My husband, 24 year old daughter and myself where just discussing the whole “air-brushed perfection” thing last night. It’s disheartening enough without the First Lady submitting to the ridiculousness these magazines push at women.

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:17:43 +0000

On the magazine cover she’s not cut off — I just couldn’t get the image to appear properly!

By: Mary G

Mary G — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:15:13 +0000

You’re so right! Classic body language there with the hands clasped in front says ‘ill at ease’. Even though it does show off her arms. And the smile is not convincing. However, it is not a photo of her dancing in her husband’s arms in ruffles, so for small things be thankful.
I am rather sorry they cut off the top of her head, too. Diffuses the message that this is an American Black woman in the top spot.