As I write this, former U.S. First Lady Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for U.S. president. Melania Trump, wife of Republican nominee for U.S. President Donald Trump, has monopolized national headlines for delivering a Republican National Convention speech that plagiarizes entire passages of a 2008 Democratic National Convention speech delivered by current U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama. And one of the most popular video clips making social media rounds features Mrs. Obama’s car karaoke with rapper Missy Elliott and talk-show host James Corden.
This is the state of the union, as filtered through the lens of the very complex institution of the U.S. first lady. It is a telling picture because, more than any other moment in history, few agree on what should be expected of a first lady. This is also telling because, more than any other moment in history, few agree on what should be expected of women in general. For that matter, few agree on what women should expect from the world.
Since World War II and the advent of a much more invasive media, the job requirements of a U.S. first lady have expanded exponentially. It is not an elected position (unless you regard marriage as an election of sorts), but it nonetheless entails serving as advisor, diplomat, political campaigner, inspirational speaker, hostess-with-the-mostess, domestic goddess, and style icon. It is of note that, although a first lady is not paid, she is expected to give up all other employment.
Previously earning $275,000 a year as a University of Chicago vice president, Michelle Obama earns no salary as first lady even as she’s led groundbreaking national campaigns about obesity and other health and lifestyle issues. Though Hillary Clinton was a partner in a highly respected Arkansas law firm, she also was forced to shelf her independent career when Bill assumed office, and was then roundly criticized for embracing the professional aspects of her first lady role – for spearheading a task force for national health care reform, 
for example. In effect, both women were forced to suspend their impressive careers to act as high-powered ladies who lunch, complete with cookie recipes and proper charity work.
Women working without compensation is a very old, very bad story. It is not one that should be modeled for the people of America.
Of course it is not as simple as that. The role of first lady is also notoriously elastic. In her excellent book, First Women: The Grace and Power of America’s Modern First Ladies, Kate Andersen Brower documents the wide range of twentieth-century U.S. first ladies. Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosalynn Carter embraced the political aspects of their positions, although never as publicly as Hillary, who actually took an office in the West Wing. (First ladies are usually stationed in the East Wing.) Lady Bird Johnson was touted for her environmental initiatives. Regal Jackie Kennedy chiefly concerned herself with the aesthetics of the White House. And with a maverick transparency about her addictions and breast cancer struggles, Betty Ford is now better and more widely remembered than her husband. Ditto for soft-spoken ex-librarian Laura Bush. But like Barbara Bush, both women interpreted their position conventionally, mostly keeping their beak out of international and even national public affairs to focus on the personal examples they could set. The same could be said of “Plastic Pat” Nixon and Nancy “Just Say No” Reagan, though in some camps these women were more loathed than their odious husbands.
The one common denominator of this diverse group of women can be distilled to that intensely problematic saying: “Men rule the world, women rule the men.” All of these first ladies have been expected to be positively influential–especially when it comes to making their husbands look good–yet have possessed no official power of their own. This is another very old, very bad story.
Essentially, when we elect a U.S. president, we expect their spouse’s only job will be to support that president without individual reward. We expect these women – thus far, they all have been women – to be wise, traditionally feminine, gracious, deeply informed, and even more deeply unobtrusive unless called upon to support an agenda of their husband’s administration. And while this gig has perks aplenty, a first lady’s job security is completely dependent on her romantic status with the person who, for all intents and purposes, is her employer as well as her spouse. If the relationship ends, she loses her position as well as her income and home.
In any other context, this would be deemed sexual harassment. God knows this would never fly in any divorce settlement. Yet this is how women are treated in the highest office of our land.
The profound sexism of the institution of first lady is evident in the discussion of how former U.S. President Bill Clinton will approach being “first partner” should he return to the White House as the new U.S. president’s spouse. Apart from jokes about Bill being the “First Laddie,” Brower reports that Hillary does not expect Bill to be a traditional first spouse. There will be no china pattern selections nor menu planning in his future, she says. Rather, he will be given a diplomatic role in a high-conflict area of the world. Can you imagine the outcry if a first lady was appointed to such a powerful position? For that matter, can you imagine any “first man” who would be expected to take on the more conventional duties of the first lady? If that’s not a clear indication of how the first lady role perpetuates toxically outdated gender coding, I don’t know what is.
This leads me back to today. From all reports, it seems clear that Melania Trump has committed a deplorable act. But in listening to the hatefully gendered language used in her censure, I feel sadly unsurprised that, once again, the position of first lady has revealed the misogyny still gripping our culture. I’m even less surprised that she is being hung out to dry with a vehemence the media has yet to adequately direct at her husband.
Wives – and, for that matter, husbands – should not have anything to do with their partner’s campaigns or elected positions. Treating a person as an extension of their partner is dangerously outdated – even dehumanizing.
I have mixed feelings about Hillary Clinton, but admire the fact that she called the bluff of the position of first lady. 
Not only did she approach its political demands overtly rather than covertly, she parlayed that experience into a career as an elected official. Brower reports this her DNC-endorsed campaign for Senator was a back-room bargain struck after Bill’s infidelities were exposed. (To be fair, historically, most political deals have taken place in backrooms.) It also is no surprise that Michelle Obama has disliked being first lady, though she may be the most adored since Jackie Kennedy. Why wouldn’t Michelle be resentful? While she has gone on record about not sharing her husband’s passion for politics, she nonetheless has been forced to channel all her talent and brilliance into representing the White House for free for nearly eight years. As she approaches the finish line, her relief seems palpable. (Cue that karaoke clip.)
Fundamentally, we expect first ladies to be everything for everybody while receiving no credit of their own. What does this tell us about the role women still play in American society? That we are expected to meet impossible, contradictory standards without receiving adequate compensation? Um, yes.
This was originally published on Signature.