Michelle Obama, a bad mother: The proof, according to Kidist

[lilah]

I thought the latest Obama family portrait was stunning, the family was impeccably dressed and the pose seemed to show a very affectionate family.

[thoughtful]

Kidist has so many blogs, unless her full name is a common one. In addition to Camera Lucida:

http://kpasrat.blogspot.com/

http://kidistphotography.blogspot.com/

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/aggregator/categories/6

The second and third of those seem to be just storage places for stuff from the camera lucida blog -- pictures in one, text in the other.

The first one looks like a place to see more of her, um, unique perspective.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

I can't even begin to imagine how much fucking EFFORT it takes to spend every waking moment looking for thing to hate on. I vacillate between telling myself that Kidist must be some kind of prank and feeling kind of sorry for her because she's so clearly unhinged. She's an offense collector of the highest order.

This. There are issues I am passionate about, but even then I try to see what the other side's reasoning is (most of the time). I don't have a temper, it takes a very long time to make me mad enough to loose it. I can't think of very many things or people that I HATE. Todd Akin maybe, but after a sentence or two rant on FJ I am happy to leave him to live his own sad life, I feel no need for a public thrashing on a blog. Life wears me out sometimes just living it - I can't imagine all the extra energy needed for targeted hatred and long public diatribes.

Is there anything is woman likes/is a fan of??

[fundiefan]

I think this Kidist chick is sick with jealousy at the success of the black Obama family. Jealous of everyone's success, actually, given how she insists on dedicating so much time and energy to picking apart everyone and everything. She needs a therapist.

[Shasta ODonegal]

http://cameraluc.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-resistance-that-consists-in-speaking.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FwbtZ+%28Camera+Lucida%29

I think this is the sickest thing she has written. It must suck to be her.

[Aisling]

She's one dozy bitch. I can't believe that she actually complains that

Young children these days appear much less rigid than in previous eras. It is normal for them to appear in this informal, very casual and emotive manner, whether posing for a family photograph or sitting at home watching television

Now, I'm just going to hazard a guess here, but could it be because people no longer feel the need to strap their kids to weird contraptions for ages, in order that they are standing nice and straight for the photograph? Has the 21st century even happened for this person? Digital photography? Not sticking your kids in nurseries til they're twelve and only seeing them for an hour a week?

You'd have to be pretty bored person to fix upon this as a problem.

[Emme]

the crazy is strong with this one...

also, I love the term "hateboner" so thank you for introducing me to that!!!

[SquirrelySquirrel]

You know how I can tell the Obamas are good parents? Aside from their daughters' names and ages, I know virtually nothing about them.

:clap: Seriously. We also know they still have to go to school when they're up late for their father's events. :lol:

Leave them alone, kidist, you rotten, rotten person. And get over your jealousy of the first lady. She has more class and charisma in her pinkie finger than you do in your entire body.

[Trynn]

She's a shop assistant with some family money behind her (though I suspect she is estranged from her family).

I think, whatever I may think of your President's politics, the Obamas are a beautiful family. That photo for me showed Malia letting out a more playful and little-girl side (as she's still very young) and showing her love and affection for her mum, who she's very like. When I saw the photo I couldn't resist to smile at it. Bourgeois sentimentality, but. :oops:

As for the picture of Malia with her mum's arm round her neck, she's tall and her mum was drawing her close maybe to tell her something quietly. There was nothing weird about it at all.

Kidist, you may wish to remember Malia is 14. FOURTEEN.

If there's a child on the planet that doesn't get mouthy with their mum at the age of 14 I want to meet them. I used to sulk in my room and play the most offensive punk music I could find at top volume, and I was like Kevin the Teenager "YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAAAAAAND ME" when I was forced to have the hated interactions with adults. As 100% of people do, I grew out of that. If Malia was rude to her mum (and knowing your general issues with black people, even though you are one, makes me think you're overanalysing here) I bet they made it up later. It's normal family dynamics.

Not that you'd know much about that.

I'd put the number at more like 90-99%. Some people just... never grow up. Example: Kidist.

[Dinorah]

I'm increasingly starting to think Kidist has some kind of mental illness. How can she deduce so much from looking at photos? Since when hugging family members is weird? If Michelle wasn't physically close to her daughters, wouldn't that her prove, in her mind, that she is "distant" too. And she basically dislikes pictures because she dislikes the politicians in question. I also don't get what's so "shameless" about Michelle's outfits, is she supposed to wear a chador in order not to look like a slut?

I'm also surprised that she says Malia is pretty and smart, I thought that was impossible by virtue of her being female and black.

[valsa]

I'm also surprised that she says Malia is pretty and smart, I thought that was impossible by virtue of her being female and black.

Pretty and smart, when compared to her mother (who is female, black, and in a position of prominence and influence) I bet if Kidist analyzed a picture of Malia interacting with some white girls, all bets would be off.

[emmiedahl]

Pretty and smart, when compared to her mother (who is female, black, and in a position of prominence and influence) I bet if Kidist analyzed a picture of Malia interacting with some white girls, all bets would be off.

Pretty and smart is itself an understatement. They are beautiful and very intelligent. Very poised for their ages, also. If the older daughter had a slightly rude moment, which is hard to tell from a photo, then I still consider her one of the better behaved 14 year old girls among those I know.

I read a lot into photos--remember the Bradrick one where the kids all have to go pee? Body language often says more than words. But all I can see here is a tired teenager.

[valsa]

Pretty and smart is itself an understatement. They are beautiful and very intelligent. Very poised for their ages, also. If the older daughter had a slightly rude moment, which is hard to tell from a photo, then I still consider her one of the better behaved 14 year old girls among those I know.

I read a lot into photos--remember the Bradrick one where the kids all have to go pee? Body language often says more than words. But all I can see here is a tired teenager.

I find it hilarious how Kidist reads so much (Michelle is a distant mother! Malia is desperate for attention and affection!) into Malia wrapping herself around her mother in the 2009 family portrait, but completely ignores that she does the same thing to her father in the 2006 Christmas picture (which is frankly so freakin' cute with Sasha curled up in her daddy's lap that it makes my ovaries throb) She hates Barack, of course, but seems to have extra special hatred for Michelle that goes above and beyond anything she feels for the president.

[Emme]

I find it hilarious how Kidist reads so much (Michelle is a distant mother! Malia is desperate for attention and affection!) into Malia wrapping herself around her mother in the 2009 family portrait, but completely ignores that she does the same thing to her father in the 2006 Christmas picture (which is frankly so freakin' cute with Sasha curled up in her daddy's lap that it makes my ovaries throb) She hates Barack, of course, but seems to have extra special hatred for Michelle that goes above and beyond anything she feels for the president.

I wonder how much of her hatred comes from the fact that Michelle is a strong, confident black woman who is comfortable in her skin. Because Kidist is clearly not comfortable in hers... dare I say.. jealousy?

[Jezebel]

Kidist has so many blogs, unless her full name is a common one. In addition to Camera Lucida:

http://kpasrat.blogspot.com/

http://kidistphotography.blogspot.com/

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/aggregator/categories/6

It looks like she sells stuff on CafePress as well. http://www.cafepress.com/cameralucesell.154725453

Is she independently wealthy? How does she have time to sit around whining about minorities?

I strongly suspect she's subsidized by her family. It's also possible she is living off a small inheritance, or income from a trust. It's not enough money to live a posh lifestyle--she lives in a small efficiency studio (one room with galley/kitchenette in the room) in an aggressively charm-free '70s/'80s building, and the rent is relatively cheap--but it's enough to allow her plenty of leisure time in which to dwell on how much she hates all gays and nonwhites, and most women (including white ones).

She has a part-time job at a clothing store in Eaton Centre--or at least I assume she still does; she hasn't mentioned it in a long time. I would not be surprised if someone tipped her manager off to her blog and got her hateful self fired, though.

[Jezebel]

Can I judge Nancy's lack of taste based on that furniture, at least?

True story from here in My Neck of the Woods: When Ronnie was Governor Nancy hated the governor's mansion, which is this enormous Victorian a few blocks from the capitol building. So she shook a cup at their supporters and got them to pony up for a ranch house on a cul-de-sac in a new money-ish sort of inner suburb. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is where that picture was taken.

I'm just appalled at the crime against good taste. Who on earth thinks moving out of a Victorian mansion full of antiques into a midcentury ranch with shag carpet and THOSE CHAIRS is a step up in the world?

I can't really defend Nancy Reagan, but at the time, Victorian architecture and antiques were considered ugly and passe. They were not considered "good taste." It wasn't really until the late '70s that all that gingerbready excess came to be seen as charming and beautiful again. San Francisco, for example, still has a lot of Victorian-era houses that had their facades stripped off and stuccoed over, or else covered in asbestos siding or fake stone, during the midcentury era. Part of that was because all that gingerbread is a huge pain in the ass to maintain, but a big part of it was also aesthetics. And that midcentury ranch house, the shag carpet, and THOSE CHAIRS were seen as sophisticated and luxurious at the time the Reagans were in office.

Short version: tastes change. All you have to do is look at the current resurgence of interest in midcentury architecture and furnishings. My grandmother's ugly shit from 1962 is all the rage on hipster design blogs, and I'm sure some of those people would be aghast if I told them about the castoffs she gave me in the '80s that were promptly given to Goodwill (such as the 4-foot-tall genie-bottle lamps with giant drum shades, glazed in drippy turquoise or flame red-orange). I still don't find 99% of that stuff beautiful, and while I do see midcentury houses I like, I wouldn't want to live in one. And I wouldn't want to live in a Victorian mansion full of antiques, either--all of that clutter...agh!

FWIW, house-wise, I automatically gravitate to Colonial-revival and Craftsman-lite houses and urban neighborhoods built between about 1910 and the early '20s--just before the the automobile changed domestic architecture and city planning for good. My favorite houses were considered "dowdy" after WWII, and the city lots they sit on were deemed too small, so everyone moved to the suburbs. But these days they (and their Craftsman neighbors) are considered attractive again, and the neighborhoods are desirable because you can actually walk to things.

[YPestis]

I'm kind of blah about first families in general because their job are to provide a background picture for the president. Their children live private lives and the first lady tends to non-controversial projects (literacy, obesity etc). There are some exceptions like Eleanor Roosevelt but it seems that most First Ladies prefer to be a supporting player in their husband's administration. I don't think we can tell anything about the First Families with their official photo ops and such. Only until the First Children write a tell-all book or give interviews as adults do we really get a glimpse of life with the prez, methinks.

I know the Bush girls got into some underage drinking and acted pretty spoiled in the early years but they showed maturity in later years and wrote a great letter to the Obama girls before their dad left the White House which, I think, showed their appreciation of being the First Children. I think the most revealing act that a First Child has done recently was Chelsea Clinton after her father's admission of the Monica affair. As the Clintons walked out to the White House lawn shortly after the admission, Bill tried to take Hillary's hands. Hillary, understandably, refused. Chelsea ran up to the couple and clasped both their hands as the family walked to their ride. That day, Chelsea held the family together among the world's cameras. I thought that showed incredibly maturity and poise. I hope the Obama girls never had to face something as damning as what Chelsea had to face, but if they do, I think any parent would want someone who can show such grace under fire. Honestly, aside from the Clinton daughter, I don't find much interest in other, recent First Children. Most are kept out of the limelight, and few speak to the media later. I chalk it up to wanting a private life and probably having a decent relationship with their parents. I'm not sure why people have to get political about their critique on the First Family at all. Democrat or Republican, most are also husbands and fathers who want to have a normal, private life.

[sparkles]

Nancy Regan did She also constantly bitched about the furnishings at the White House. OF all the first ladies in my lifetime she was the worst. Even her own children don't/didn't like her. Is she still alive?

No, she died a few years ago.

I think ole Nance might disagree. She's in her 90s and very frail (when Marco Rubio was rumored to be a potential running mate for Romney, there was a whole big thing about how he prevented her from falling when she lost her balance) but still alive and kicking.

I'm kind of blah about first families in general because their job are to provide a background picture for the president. Their children live private lives and the first lady tends to non-controversial projects (literacy, obesity etc). There are some exceptions like Eleanor Roosevelt but it seems that most First Ladies prefer to be a supporting player in their husband's administration. I don't think we can tell anything about the First Families with their official photo ops and such. Only until the First Children write a tell-all book or give interviews as adults do we really get a glimpse of life with the prez, methinks.

I know the Bush girls got into some underage drinking and acted pretty spoiled in the early years but they showed maturity in later years and wrote a great letter to the Obama girls before their dad left the White House which, I think, showed their appreciation of being the First Children. I think the most revealing act that a First Child has done recently was Chelsea Clinton after her father's admission of the Monica affair. As the Clintons walked out to the White House lawn shortly after the admission, Bill tried to take Hillary's hands. Hillary, understandably, refused. Chelsea ran up to the couple and clasped both their hands as the family walked to their ride. That day, Chelsea held the family together among the world's cameras. I thought that showed incredibly maturity and poise. I hope the Obama girls never had to face something as damning as what Chelsea had to face, but if they do, I think any parent would want someone who can show such grace under fire. Honestly, aside from the Clinton daughter, I don't find much interest in other, recent First Children. Most are kept out of the limelight, and few speak to the media later. I chalk it up to wanting a private life and probably having a decent relationship with their parents. I'm not sure why people have to get political about their critique on the First Family at all. Democrat or Republican, most are also husbands and fathers who want to have a normal, private life.

The Reagan's were actually some of poorest First Kid role models I can think of. During the administration it was crystal clear that they barely tolerated their parents and after you had Patty posing for Playboy and writing tell-alls, Michael mouthing off and so on. The Reagans were poster children for the dysfunctional family.

[valsa]

I wonder how much of her hatred comes from the fact that Michelle is a strong, confident black woman who is comfortable in her skin. Because Kidist is clearly not comfortable in hers... dare I say.. jealousy?

I think this is a huge part of it. Michelle has the unmitigated nerve (in Kidist's eyes) to dare to be a dark-skinned black woman who doesn't hate her skin color or feel ashamed of it. The wording Kidist uses is an eye opener:

I have sworn off writing about the arrogant, ugly and unstylish sense of fashion Michelle Obama insists on displaying periodically (does the woman have no shame?)

Seriously, just replace "sense of fashion" with "skin color" and you've got Kidist's motivation for hating Michelle in a nutshell.

There's also these gems:

But, there is a strange dynamic between mother and daughter, which we should have been spared had this been an ordinary woman (i.e., we wouldn't have these photos to look at)

Indeed, Michelle Obama is the sole reason these pictures are public. The family's spot in the public's view is based on Michelle and no one else in her family at all.

This family put itself (forced itself) onto our screens, and not only that, it keeps on insisting that we see its weirdness as well. In any case, other than feeling sorry for Malia, all I can say is that we have a strange one in the White House.

Why, when she says "we have a strange one in the White House", do I not think she's talking about the whole family? Kidist is all about claiming that Michelle is forcing people to view her apparently abhorrent family dynamics, liberal ideology, and horrific fashion sense, when I think Kidist is really just pissed that Michelle isn't so ashamed of the color of her skin that she hides away from public attention.

[RosyDaisy]

Kidist is just plain bat-shit crazy hateful person! Michelle Obama is the complete polar opposite. She's a wonderful person and a good mother. I would love to see her and Kidist face off. Michelle would win hands down.

[Jezebel]

She's one dozy bitch. I can't believe that she actually complains that

Now, I'm just going to hazard a guess here, but could it be because people no longer feel the need to strap their kids to weird contraptions for ages, in order that they are standing nice and straight for the photograph? Has the 21st century even happened for this person? Digital photography? Not sticking your kids in nurseries til they're twelve and only seeing them for an hour a week?

You'd have to be pretty bored person to fix upon this as a problem.

One other thing--she uses a naive Early American family portrait as a means of comparison:

At the top of this post is a nineteenth century painting of a family portrait. The affection between the family members is gently portrayed with the son's hand on his father's knee, who has a protective hand on his son's shoulder. The mother is more demonstrative, holding close her younger son. Although the family looks stern, the younger son is allowed a more carefree pose and is holding a hat (his hat?) filled with fruit. Even the sofa is formal and upright, unlike the cushiony seating in which the Broadwell family lounges. One gets the impression that this family has some decorum it maintains, even when not posing for portraits.

Families can be affectionate and demonstrative without jarringly uncouth body positions, and overtly affectionate poses. And they can sit for formal portraits and still bring out their individuality and humanity.

If she understood the first fucking thing about art and aesthetics, she wouldn't have chosen that painting to argue her point. In fact, she wouldn't have chosen a painting at all, or even a photograph from before the 20th century. She might as well use cave paintings from Lascaux to criticize photos of 4-H kids with their cattle at the state fair--it's that irrelevant to her argument.

The reason the family looks stern? They each had to sit motionless while the artist sketched and started painting their likenesses, which probably took about a hour per head (the bodies were not drawn from life, nor was the sofa--you couldn't possibly pose real human beings existing in three dimensions like that). And sitting there, not moving, with someone intensely scrutinizing your face and scowling in concentration for an hour? You'll look a bit stiff and solemn, too--especially when the artist is 19 years old and the only training he's received was from his father, another naive painter (Art School of the Dining Room Table, as it were).

So yes, it's normal for people to appear in relaxed, casual poses, even in "formal" portraits these days, because photography allows it. If photography--even at an 1880s level of technology--existed in 1804, we'd see a lot more casual poses in family photographs.

But, that said, the photograph of the Broadwells isn't even a formal portrait. I can practically hear the person behind the camera say, "Sit on the couch with the kids so I can get a picture of all of you." It's a completely informal photograph, taken in a moment, and only posed enough to get everyone in the frame. It was never intended to be a formal family photo, so holding it to those standards is ridiculous.

And the photo of the Obamas? If they're "letting [anything] all hang out," it's their closeness as a family. They're all on one level--no patriarchal father occupying the power spot, surrounded by his adoring wife and children. There's no hierarchy in this photo (though Malia does look a bit squished :lol:). I can see why this family portrait would disturb "traditionalists" like Kidist, even without the added factor of race thrown in--President Barack Obama's wife and daughters are on the exact same level as he is. They are, effectively, his equals. This is about as as egalitarian and anti-patriarchal a family portrait as you can get. And while I can't claim to know what the Obamas and the photographer's intentions were, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was fully intentional.

But here I am, imagining that Kidist might ever understand the idea of context. Who made the image? What technology did they use? Did any planning and preparation go into it, and if so, how much? What was the purpose of making it? Who was meant to see it, and what were they supposed to think of it?

These are important questions. If you're going to analyze an image and say something about it that's worth taking seriously, you have to ask them. But time and again on her blog, Kidist utterly fails to do that. She takes random photos at face value, projects her own warped thinking onto them, and offers it as truth. But the only truth she's telling is about her own darkness, cruelty, and lack of connection to other human beings.

[slickcat79]

Why, when she says "we have a strange one in the White House", do I not think she's talking about the whole family? Kidist is all about claiming that Michelle is forcing people to view her apparently abhorrent family dynamics, liberal ideology, and horrific fashion sense, when I think Kidist is really just pissed that Michelle isn't so ashamed of the color of her skin that she hides away from public attention.

What is this "we" she keeps talking about? She is Canadian, right? I mean, when it's not election season I can actually go days without seeing any pics of Obama's family or reading anything about them unless I seek it out. I know next to nothing about Canadian politics because they aren't widely discussed in the US unless, again, you make a point to go read about them. Kidist is just a miserable person.

[Jezebel]

I've always assumed Kidist was satire. Today, I performed a simple Google search of her name and came upon an article in the first few hits that was posted on another blog that lists a phone number for her "freelance" work. Has anyone ever tried calling her and asking her about her crazy?

NO.

Seriously, she's mentally ill. That she's functional enough to live on her own, get a job, and take care of her day-to-day existence does not make her any less mentally ill.

Her comments may be highly provoking, but this is not a rational, stable person who just happens to have shitty ideas. This is a woman with absolutely zero understanding of or empathy for other people. The views of GLBT individuals, non-whites, and Muslims she's expressed make it pretty clear that she doesn't even think of them as fully human. And she's grown progressively more paranoid and hateful over time.

Calling her up to discuss her ideas will do nothing to change her mind. And personally, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of playing, "Let's call up the crazy person!" This is a woman with a severe mental illness we're talking about--one that is probably untreatable. What would you hope to gain from the conversation? Convince her she's wrong? It's not going to happen. Get a few laughs by poking sticks at the crazy-lady? I can't speak for anyone else, but for what it's worth I'm going to think you're a shitty human being if you do.

[emmiedahl]

Because she is a minority woman saying these things with an apparent disconnect to the fact that she is the race and gender she so harshly criticizes, I also suspect she is mentally ill.

I guess there is no harm in opening up a debate or dialogue, but I personally would not fuck with her for sport. And calling her on telephone crosses some lines. Perhaps email or a comment on her page would be better if you really want a dialogue.

[klf7412]

Because she is a minority woman saying these things with an apparent disconnect to the fact that she is the race and gender she so harshly criticizes, I also suspect she is mentally ill.

I guess there is no harm in opening up a debate or dialogue, but I personally would not fuck with her for sport. And calling her on telephone crosses some lines. Perhaps email or a comment on her page would be better if you really want a dialogue.

I just wonder if she sounds so hateful in person/on the phone. Kendal's blog drives me nuts, and once I watched her videos on youtube.. I was so confused, because if I didn't know what she wrote about on her blog, I would have thought she was a nice woman (based on her vlogs)!