Low High Expectations
Like any major city, DC has its souvenir kitch: baseball caps for the local sports teams, t-shirts made of the worst fabrics known to mankind and some tchotchkes specific to our nation's capital.
On my way back from lunch today, I saw one that was really unsettling in its sexism: a "onesie" with "Future First Lady" on the front.
Now, that's (almost *) all find and dandy, to have such high aspirations for your daughter — that she will be married to the most powerful man in the world.
But why First Lady? Why not President?
Clearly, probability doesn't dissuade them, because there is only one First Lady.
Constitutionally, an American needs to be 35 years old to be President. In essence, the parents are saying that it's a foolish goal to have a female President by the 2040's.
I guess that's why they're called "conservative".
Or maybe they don't think that even their wonderful daughter, with her bright future, could possibly be able to lead our nation.
* It is a tad heteronormative, since they're assuming their girl is not only going to marry, but marry a man. I suppose they could also be very, very forward-thinking and be suggesting that their kid is going to be in a lesbian marriage with a gay, female President of the United States. Even with Hillary and Condoleeza making some noise, the odds of a betrothed Dyke-in-Chief seem infeasable.
But girls can't be president! They're too busy raising children and keeping house.
I mean, maybe the parents just see her exhibiting early tendencies towards behavior that would be useful for hosting dinners and entertaining heads of state, like excellent interpersonal skills and good fashion sense.
Posted by: Dara on April 10, 2006 2:44 PM | permalinkSee, there you go with your East Coast liberal snobbery.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on April 10, 2006 2:45 PM | permalinkIt's always amazing to think about how places such as Pakistan have or have had a female president/PM, but it seems unlikely to occur here.
Posted by: Od-ll on April 10, 2006 2:50 PM | permalinkJoe, I can't help it. I am (a) from the East Coast, (b) a liberal, and (c) a snob. I am obviously not cut out to be a future first lady.
Posted by: Dara on April 10, 2006 3:00 PM | permalinkO'dell:
Yeah, that is downright pitiful. I think Bangladesh has a female PM too.
Dara:
Umm ... and the last one wasn't? (No, she wasn't from Arkansas, despite the fake accent in 1992.)
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on April 10, 2006 3:56 PM | permalinkHillary was not cut from the typical first lady cloth. But she's not a real Northeasterner -- she's from the midwest. Illinois, to be specific.
And IMHO, she made a better first lady than she would a president.
Posted by: Dara on April 10, 2006 4:17 PM | permalink"[...] the odds of a betrothed Dyke-in-Chief seem infeasable."
By 2040? Really? Who's conservative, now? :-)
By 2040, I'm guessing we'll have a Hispanic-Alaskan Lesbian with Tourettes for President.
Dossy:
Work backwards 35 years ... the composition of the presidencies hasn't exactly taken a giant leap forward: Nixon / Ford / Carter / Reagan / Bush / Clinton / Bush isn't dramatically different from Roosevelt / Truman / Eisenhower / Kennedy / Johnson / Nixon.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on April 10, 2006 4:55 PM | permalinkI think the more disturbing part of it is the 'my daughter is going to marry success/money' connotations of it.
Perhaps I am overly cynical of our government, but that shirt doesn't seem far off from "Future Gold Digger" to me.
Do they also have "Future President" onesies in pink?
Posted by: Steve Meister on April 10, 2006 5:09 PM | permalinkOh, look -- so they do:
http://capitolshoppingmall.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CSM&Product_Code=KTFPO
I think you're reading too much into it. :)
Posted by: Steve Meister on April 10, 2006 5:11 PM | permalinkSteve:
But what kind of parent would choose the "Future First Lady" one over the "Future President" one? That's the point I'm trying to make. What the hell is wrong with the parents who would choose the former?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on April 10, 2006 5:12 PM | permalinkOn the other hand, it's the parents responsibility and right to raise their children the way THEY feel is important, to instill the morals and values they want their children to live by. Exposed to the world, children will learn and make their own decisions, and maybe those will be contrary to what their parents taught them. And while there are plenty of "moral standards" that you and I might disagree with, that doesn't take away those parents' rights to teach those standards to their children.
What kind of parents are they? My money's on "they didn't even think about it in terms of gender roles".
In addition, the baby can't even read, so I doubt she's going to know or care what's on her cute little tummy when she's 8 months old. :)
Joe: all true, but the whole point is a change in trend is never predicted by the trend itself.
No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.