Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
The Washington Post critic Philip Kennicott provides a lengthy analysis of a photo of the Obamas embracing. This photo -- of a married couple hugging each other -- is so revolutionary and breathtaking because, well, I'll let Kennicott explain it to you loveless rubes:
But out of what must surely be thousands of images of the two together, the president chose this photograph to tweet, disseminating an image that emphasizes neither the man’s power nor the woman’s beauty. The image that went viral, that clearly speaks to people, represents a more modern ideal of true equality in emotional relations.
That it went viral on the same night that voters in four states broke with decades of anti-gay-marriage voting patterns and endorsed equality for same-sex couples may not be entirely accidental. Opponents of same-sex marriage often speak of the necessity of “defining” marriage in traditional terms, and anxiety about gay marriage is frequently expressed as a broader fear of redefining long-standing gender norms and categories. Conservative authors have produced books that decry the feminization of the American male, describing men as an endangered species.
The Obama photograph shows another reality, what might be called the limitless possibilities of true mutuality, of marriage beyond strict definitions. The Obama marriage appeals to many people, because it seems so comfortable, as if no one is worried about who wears the pants in the house, which is the reality of many healthy marriages today. In a healthy marriage, the partners don’t simply step into ancient gender roles and enact a drama of fidelity and obedience, they invent their own roles in the manner that serves both people best. Marriage is improvisatory, and every marriage is unique. Variation flourishes, and people work it out.
Among the many things that will come with a broader societal acceptance of same-sex marriage — which won at the ballot box for the first time since it emerged as a wedge issue in the 2004 reelection of President George W. Bush — is an extraordinary boon for straight men. The strictures of masculinity will likely fade as the fear of homosexuality abates, leaving more room for individual men to define their own notions of masculinity. That this photo became so popular at this particular moment suggests that we may be parsing the broader cultural implications of this election for a long time to come.
Does it make elites feel better about themselves to believe that those with differing opinions don't embrace their spouses?
I don't know, but I do know that I laughed so hard while reading this that my 3-year-old thought I was crying. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
- If you wish to join the conversation on this post, we invite you to become a Ricochet Member. Enjoy great content and podcasts, get a year's subscription to National Review Digital, post your own opinions, converse with leading figures on the Right, and much more -- all for the cost of only one cup of coffee per month. Ricochet - The Right People. The Right Tone. The Right Place.
- Comment (64)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
All that analysis and the real story is some campaign staffer said, "Look I'm busy just tweet this one."
Oct '12
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Romney tweets same picture of him and Anne, headline: "Romney Picture Reinforces Dominant-male Stereotype." Exegesis points to Anne's face not being pictured, Romney's arms being lower than Anne's, and Romney's watch costing more money than average salary of auto worker.
It's called post-Modernism; it's a joke.
Edited on November 8, 2012 at 5:25pmOct '12
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
To wit, “The Photograph is an extended, loaded evidence — as if it caricatured not the figure of what it represents (quite the converse) but its very existence ... The Photograph then becomes a bizarre medium, a new form of hallucination: false on the level of perception, true on the level of time: a temporal hallucination, so to speak, a modest shared hallucination (on the one hand 'it is not there,' on the other 'but it has indeed been'): a mad image, chafed by reality.” -Roland Barthes
Apr '11
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
That's why liberal women need free bith control. All that hugging eventually leads to you-know-what!!
Sep '12
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
To quote: "Unlike many images of political marriage in which the man lays claim to his wife through a symbolically possessive gesture — touching her shoulder, raising her hand up or kissing — the embrace between these two people seems mutual."
[Although note the opening sentences: "The photograph...shows the president embracing his wife..."]
Let me quote Billy Madison:
Mar '11
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
The Limitless Possibilities of Mutuality sounds like a song by a self-parodying post-rock band.
Edited on November 8, 2012 at 5:45pmRe: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Until now, I thought Rorschach tests relied on inkblots. Mr Kennicott proves otherwise.
May '11
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
This is, indeed, how the masses worship their royals.
Mar '11
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Abigail Adams is rolling over in her grave.
Sep '10
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Caption:
"Thank you for picking up your socks. I'm flying to Spain."
Aug '10
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
I think a big reason the photo "went viral" is not because of what it says about the president, but because of what it says about the first lady.
Thanks largely to her campaign to dictate to Americans what they can and can't eat, and to forcibly "get them moving" like an ancient Roman rowing team (slaves, Roman rowers were slaves), as well as the abundant number of photos of her scowling like my cat when I don't clean his litterbox quickly enough, she has a bit of a reputation as a cold, humourless, sourpuss with ice-water for blood.
I don't think the photo is surprising because it shows the president in a warm embrace. It's surprising because it shows the first lady in a warm embrace.
Note, however, that we cannot see the first lady's face in this photo...
Mar '11
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Misthios! Dost mine eyes deceive me? Is that not thine olde avatar, returned to service!?
Ah. Um. Sorry that was totally off topic.....*buttons suit coat, adjusts tie, walks away quickly*
Nov '10
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
"The whole system of my politics is summed up in this one verse.
The times look awfully dark indeed; and as the clouds grow thicker
the stupidity of the nation seems proportionally to increase.
If the Lord had not a remnant here, I would have very formidable
apprehensions.
But He loves His children; some are sighing and mourning before Him,
and I am sure He hears their sighs, and sees their tears.
I trust there is mercy in store for us at the bottom; but I expect a shaking
time before things get into a right channel - - -before we are humbled,
and are taught to give Him the glory.
The state of the nation, the state of the church - - - both are deplorable!
Those who should be praying - - - are disputing and fighting among themselves!
Alas! how many professors are more concerned for the mistakes of
government - - - than for their own sins! "
Letters of John Newton 1725-1807 -- the author of Amazing Grace
The more things change the more they remain the same!
Dec '10
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
What absolute tripe.
Also, please tell me where, in the Constitution, is the position of 'First Lady' defined?
Edited on November 8, 2012 at 6:00pmAug '10
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
A picture is worth a 1000 words. No one said they couldn't be worthless ones.
Sep '12
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
I'm not bothered by the custom of "First Lady," but it grates on me to hear "First Family," "First Daughter," and "First Dog."
No. No, no, no! It's when it gets to that point that my republican hackles are raised.
Dec '10
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Tim H.
I'm not bothered by the custom of "First Lady," but it grates on me to hear "First Family," "First Daughter," and "First Dog."
No. No, no, no! It's when it gets to that point that my republican hackles are raised. · 0 minutes ago
It's the slippery slope. If there was no "First Lady," there wouldn't be a "First Family," "First Daughter" and "First Dog." I think you guys fought a revolution to get away from that sort of thing . . .
Oct '12
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
News to my wife.
I'm so tired of this nonsense.
Because I'm a Republican I'm a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. I'm the embodiment of evil to the people who re-elected Obama.
I'm a Cuban immigrant, with a black wife and a baby daughter, working middle class man.
The lie is winning over the truth.
Mar '11
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
Aw... now isn't that nice.
Jun '12
Re: Washington Post: In Conservative Marriages, There Are No Embraces
And we wonder why the English major is such a low-earning degree...