home

President Obama Establishes White House Council On Women

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04:44:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This seems a very good initiative:

President Obama today signed an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families. The Council will be chaired by Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, and will include as members cabinet-level federal agencies. The Executive Director of the Council will be Tina Tchen, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House.

Giving this brief to Jarrett, who is very close to the President, gives this council a heft that it would not have otherwise. Kudos to the President.

Speaking for me only

< 2005 Fineman: Dems Can't Score Politically | Prosecutors To Focus On Financial Fraud >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    President Obama Establishes White House Council On Women | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Give'm credit; it's a start (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:42:27 PM EST
    BUT!

    I will reserve judgement until I see how they define, "womens' issues," and whether they approach this entity with an understanding just how huge the "problem" is.

    IMO they were timid to the point of endangering our economy with their bailout and/or stimulus programs.

    And, the fact that in the year 2009 women are valued at 3/4 of men illustrates just how entrenched and ingrained sexism is our country.

    Equal opportunity unemployment? (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:56:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Doubt it. Women are cheaper (none / 0) (#21)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:01:13 PM EST
    and besides...if you send 'the girl' to the unemployment line, who will transcribe the minutes and make the coffee?

    Kidding.  Kidding.

    Sort of.

    Parent

    NYT reports today Merce Cunningham (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:09:34 PM EST
    just announced he will not renew the contracts of his three "senior"  (we're talking modern dance here--they aren't that old!) dancers.  The oldest is female. Union agrees Cunningham has discretion to do so for artistic reasons.  

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    He is no Pina Bausch. His company is a bore, imo.

    Parent
    You know, every time I read something like this (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    I cringe. I have never had a job where the men were paid unequally to the women.

    Here's a quick list off the top of my head:

    House painter; equal based on experience
    Surveyor; equal pay based on experience
    Engineer; equal pay based on experience
    Union member; equal pay
    Waiter; women made more
    And, the last 20+ years of my life, outside sales; women valued at 1.5 - 2X men. Sometimes more.

    Now, I'm very aware of the various lawsuits and such, just sayin', as a male, I never saw it, never benefited by it, and don't really like essentially being put in the role of persecutor by virtue of my gender - not that I think that was your intent but that's what

    Make me part of your committee though, as Maryb says above, and I'll be your staunchest supporter!

    Parent

    Link for you :) (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 09:19:26 PM EST
    NY Times chart

    I've had a few jobs where there was unequal pay. Also unequal requirements for the jobs. Men needed less experience. Also tended to pull less weight in those situations. There's a reason my coworkers all have fur now  {grin}

    Parent

    nys, I was being personal as well as (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:09:07 AM EST
    metaphorical. For you, it's all about "us" vs. "them." Metaphorically, you're excluding the men - the actual people that need to buy into your goal for you to succeed - from your "committee."  I don't think that's the right approach, but, hey, what the hell do I know.

    Good luck!

    Parent

    The fun will start when somebody (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    brings up Title 9.

    Does Valerie have any daughters?

    One daughter. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    Should have done my research first.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by michitucky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    She has 1 daughter...Harvard Law student.

    Parent
    She gives having a daughter (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    credit for getting herself moving to move up and make a difference.  Per a quote by Jarrett in the Wikipedia entry on her (where I went to find a fast  answer to your good question).

    It also can matter is when daddies in power have daughters.  The "daddy factor" has been huge in women's history.  Men wanted their daughters to have rights, such as property rights (since it was daddy's property they inherited that then became the property of ne'er-do-well sons-in-law) and suffrage.  A century ago, many men wanted their daughters to have suffrage.  A lot of the same men just didn't want their wives to have suffrage.:-)

    There are many good daddies.  Obama appears to be one.  If so, such daddies can give us hope for all of our daughters -- and our sons, who deserve a break, as so many men do, from having all that responsibility to work so much harder to justify getting paid so much more.  Hey, women are  willing to share that responsibility.  Seriously, this also is for all the men and boys who want to be all that they can be, not restricted to what society says they also ought to be.

    Parent

    Don't know, Cream (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    Both Bush and Cheney have daughters.

    It takes dads with daughters and a wife who they admire and believe in. It takes moms who teach their sons the value of respect and equality. It takes brothers and sisters who support each other in all they venture to do.

    Mostly, it takes both men and women standing up for those who are being unfairly judged and trashed. Women are often the ones who make it the most difficult for themselves and other women. A fine example is in this afternoon's open thread.


    Parent

    Yeh, there are good men (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 10:57:27 PM EST
    who are daddies, and there are men who are good daddies . . . but not good men.

    It definitely takes good parents to raise good sons, too.  Or our daughters will not have good men as coworkers, good men as partners, good men as spouses.

    But as for the "women are often the ones who make it the most difficult for themselves and other women," I've had some of those as bosses and coworkers -- the ones who get co-opted.  But I've had far more problematic men as bosses and coworkers, probably just because I've been in fields with more men as bosses and coworkers.  Proportionately, I'd say that most women bosses and coworkers have been supportive -- and more and more so in recent years.  There has been change in how women treat each other, as more women in authority are less threatened, I think.

    Whatever, we have to keep the change going, so that our daughters and sons never will see some of what I and many others have seen.  Having a presidential council on this issue again may help.

     

    Parent

    You will love this.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    I heard on the radio while driving to work this morning that more and more women are now getting breast implants as a way to give themselves an edge in job seeking. They feel this enhancement will gain them an advantage over the competition.  Unfortunately, since it was radio, I have no link to share.

    After 2008, I don't think this task force of women is going to have an easy time of it.


    Parent

    Good for him (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    Raised by a single mother, with two half-sisters, I applaud this and hope it leads to greather things.

    And OT, we need an open thread, Tent, so I can properly link to this article that should be both absurd and infuriating (especially knowing how many soldiers are in need of real care and re-training that costs money).

    I tihnk this is a great idea, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    and will be keeping my fingers crossed that it has some muscle behind it, as well as real commitment; a bonus would be Valerie Jarrett being able to keep the Obama administration honest on this issue - making sure that this is lived within the inner circle of the administration and does not just become window dressing or lip service.

    As the mother of two daughters in their 20's, I have a decided interest in furthering the essential truth that women have no reason to ever believe that their gender makes them less of a person, and in bringing men to a place where they can believe and know that there is more to be gained by accepting that truth than in avoiding it or working to perpetuate old stereotypes out of fear.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 07:17:50 AM EST
    It's a start, but right now, this group is really a task-force with no full-time staff, no meeting schedule, and no Cabinet-level leader.  I'll keep my fingers crossed that this task force can do some good and will not just be "window dressing."

    Parent
    In my heart of hearts, I am not (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 08:18:54 AM EST
    persuaded that this council will amount to much, other than to be something for Obama to point to in the next campaign to "prove" his commitment to women.  I might feel differently about it if I hadn't seen instance after instance of very anti-woman behavior and language by the Obama campaign; someone who had a real commitment to women's rights and women's concerns, and someone who himself is a member of a group that has experienced discrimination, would not have deliberately injected so much animosity towards women into his campaign, or tolerated it from anyone associated with the campaign.

    In other words, as much as I hope it will make a difference, I cannot blindly trust that it will.

    There's a part of me that sometimes cannot believe that we are still fighting to be seen as equal and treated with respect for the skills and strengths we bring to the table, and that have nothing - nothing - to do with our gender.  

    Yes, I know there are differences - and thank God for them - but we are long past the time when we should be holding up those differences as proof that we are better than or worse than someone else just because of our gender.

    I'm willing to wait and see what happens next, and whether this new council will help move us to the next level of equality, an evolution that really should not be taking so long.


    Parent

    Anne, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 08:46:59 AM EST
    My guess is, we won't hear much from this group now that the big announcement and fanfare is over.  I predict we'll hear something soon that this task force is undertaking a project that we find promising.  After that, they will disappear into the wood work, and may only pop up come election time for those Dems who need help with the women's vote.

    Parent
    Hope there is video of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    making the announcement of this council.  Just to be sure that, while announcing it, he didn't get that urge again to scratch his face. . . .

    Parent
    Funny you mention that, Cream (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    They addressed that very issue on new TV show on CBS called "Lie to Me" where:

    Tim Roth plays Dr. Cal Lightman, a deception consultant and expert. But Lightman doesn't rely on some futuristic mind-reading tricks cooked up by TV writers. Instead, his character is based on clinical psychologist Paul Ekman, a leading expert on lie detection

    Link

    They actually did an episode where they were evaluating tapes of real people "scratching their faces" (Obama and Rumsfeld) and were talking about that that means exactly what we think it means - they are flipping someone off! They do not have an itchy nose! I almost fell off my couch laughing when I saw that episode!

    Now, I know it's a TV show, but the show's consultant (and the basis for it) is a noted psychologist, Dr. Paul Eckman,so the science behind the show is good science.  Couldn't believe they put it on network TV and it was so blatant.

    Parent

    Funny I dont remember (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    anybody ever talking about a face scratch being a flick off until the lated belated primaries. Of course, many of us knew right along that the mere act of opposing HRC had to have been motivated by nothing but a latent hostility towards all women, so the scratch interpretation would certainly follow.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    Many people knew in the 5th or 6th grade that when someone scratches their face or nose with their middle finger, they're really flipping you off.  Because that's when it was "cool" and "funny".  Not so much when a grown adult does it, multiple times.

    Parent
    Maybe it would be simpler (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    if he just had it amputated to avoid irreperably hurt feelings, misunderstandings and unconscious attacks on all women in the future.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    just not engage in juvenile behavior.  Would be easier and less painful.

    Parent
    Another juvenile phenomena (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    is dwelling on imaginary slights to people you dont know for months on end.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:38:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Priceless :) (none / 0) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 02:58:18 PM EST
    Made my day, Cream!!

    Parent
    Sick (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 03:43:45 PM EST
    Dreams and fantasies that Obama is a secret misogynist makes your day. Wow that is pretty sick, imo.

    Parent
    There it goes again (none / 0) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    just making up it's own interpretation of a simple comment. squeaky, you are a bully. I'll bet the folks at the lunch table scatter when you walk in the room.


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    I have followed all the nonsense by Cream City's fantasy about Obama's secretly flicking the bird at Hillary. Not much room for interpretation here of what Cream City and you meant. Cream City et al have been explicit regarding this particular moment.

    Next fantasy: Obama does the same horrendous gesture while announcing the formation of his Council on Women and Girls?

    And that makes your day? Sick.

    Seems like you may want to join in with your friends over at Jacob Freeze diary. They are calling for Obama and Michele to be hogtied. Oh, I see you have already joined the barbecue.

    Parent

    Yawn..... (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 05:38:13 PM EST


    Parent
    You remain a bully (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    and an incompetent when it comes to analyzing the thoughts and words of others. He scratched his cheek at McCain, as well.

    Have another drink.
     

    Parent

    OK (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    So it will make your day if he secretly flips the bird at the Council for Women and Girls?

    Why's that?

    Parent

    Crickets (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    Any reason why it would make your day to see Obama flip off the Council for Women and Girls?

    No? Though so. Lots of bluster.

    Parent

    Downrating? (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    Good answer. Clears up the case of crickets.

    Makes your day to fantasize that Obama hates Women and Girls. Obviously a sickness. Would you also like to see the President and First Lady hogtied too?


    Parent

    Could be good. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:40:29 AM EST
    What can you say?  Beating the first viable female candidate for the Presidency makes what comes after, in terms of gender, a little more difficult.

    I hope this group is a high profile one and accomplishes quite a bit.

    As a side note, all that Michelle Obama has done recently has really impressed me.  I think it makes a big difference, esp. in these times, to read headlines about the First Lady helping out in food shelters.  The Obamas, and Michelle, have done this many times.  I am sure they will continue...and that is a good thing.

    No kudos until (none / 0) (#1)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    it actually does something.  Otherwise it's just window dressing.    

    You have an extra "r" in "President".

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04:57:33 PM EST
    Kudos to the President for forming the council and for putting Jarrett in charge of it. At the least, we know she has influence in the White House. there will be time for brickbats on this should they become necessary.

    BTW, I have not forgotten the preemption post. It should be up in the next few days.

    Parent

    It is a good sign (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    that he put Jarrett in charge of it because she has the president's ear.

    But you know what is going to be important?  Who those cabinet level offices appoint to be on the committee.  

    We'll know how seriously they are taking it by whether the committee ends up being diverse or if it ends up being all women.  This may sound counterintuitive, but a committee on women made up of all women is a waste of time; in my experience it never works any real change.

    So, we'll see.

    Parent

    Interesting point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:24:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Why do you think that is? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:38:12 PM EST
    a committee on women made up of all women is a waste of time; in my experience it never works any real change.


    Parent
    Because when you are trying to (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:52:16 PM EST
    change a culture, for example a workplace culture, you have to get key members of the culture to work the change with you. They set the example simply by fact of being a key member.  You'll never get all of them and some will fight you tooth and nail.  But you have to get onto your side whatever number is necessary to hit the the tipping point.  

    And for better or worse a large number of key people in most American institutions are men, so you have to get men to recognize the problem AND most importantly to be invested in the solution.  

    And it's hard for anyone to be invested in a solution that is dictated to them.  It is much easier when they are included in the process.  

    Parent

    Excellent. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:54:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Good points. (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:57:48 PM EST
    I was wondering where you were coming from. I've also found that promotion of change regarding women's issues in the workplace carries a lot more weight when coming from men than women. If it's only women talking about it, they tend to just be perceived as troublemakers. That's why I always prod my well-meaning male colleagues to speak up and act up for women's issues more.

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 07:14:00 PM EST
    That's why I always prod my well-meaning male colleagues to speak up and act up for women's issues more.

    is so essential.  

    I'm fortunate in my male colleagues.  But they do need prompting.

    Parent

    Makes Sense (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    It turns the 'us against them' into an us. Which in reality it is, because in the end everyone benefits by losing gender based stereotypes.

    Parent
    A reason why NOW (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    meant National Organization for Women, not of women -- the founders knew, as the suffragists did (not suffragettes, which meant only women), that women cannot effect change alone.

    For women's lives to change, men's lives have to change.  We share a culture.  We just need to keep moving toward sharing equally in all of it.

    Parent

    My question exactly. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:39:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Diverse (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:11:45 AM EST
    We'll know how seriously they are taking it by whether the committee ends up being diverse or if it ends up being all women.  

    The council, which will be led by senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett and which will include most members of the president's Cabinet, will be charged with ensuring that all governmental agencies take the needs of women into account.


    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:12:20 AM EST
    Here

    Parent
    The last one, in 1963 (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:03:30 PM EST
    helped to get JFK support to get the Equal Pay Act, which still took a while to mean something (and then was gutted), but that commission still took a while to lead to something.

    JFK did well in having it led by Eleanor Roosevelt -- and staffed by other great women from around the country (not by women already in the administration, and I can see pros and cons to that).  But the assassination, of course, put that Commission on the back burner under LBJ, etc.

    Still, the very bringing together of great women from around the country, leading their state commissions in coming up with appalling data on the (lack of) status of women, led some of them to finally act for more than more data.

    At the third annual meeting of the Commission -- of the state commissions -- they founded NOW.  Of course, after last year, we know that now we need a new NOW.  Let's hope for change. :-)

    Parent

    Thanks CC (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:04:23 PM EST
    Good info.

    Parent
    Cream City, you are clearly a (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    "bigger person" than moi.  (I'm thinking:  Favreau, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.; yes, I know the primaries are over.)

    Parent
    Well, I had the honor (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    of meeting, as a girl, some of the great women who founded NOW from my state:  labor organizer Catherine Conroy, the first to toss in some bucks and challenge others, so she served as the first treasurer :-) . . . Kay Clarenbach, one of the women who first revolutionized college education for women at U of Wisconsin and then was the first president of NOW, and then was an organizer of the amazing UN Year of Women, including the 1977 Houston Conference that changed this country forever . . . Joel Reed, who also revolutionized college education for women and then all of us with her assessment model . . . and many other great women from my state, the state with the most founding members of NOW.

    Most are gone but not forgotten by many of us who know how change really happens.  

    We need a new generation to step up -- and the first step is always to get them together in one place, talking . . . and listening.  Let's see who talks, let's see whether they listen -- as those women made sure to do -- to all sorts of women.  And, as always in women's history, to a few good men.:-)  

    Then we'll see whether good men and women listen to Jarrett and the others.  Or, if they don't get the ear of those in power, some may split off on their own as happened before.  Whatever works.  It's a start.  

    Parent

    I try to not think about Fauvreau (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    and the fact that he's working in the White House and being paid by me.  He ought to be gone.  I don't think he is, as we say, educable.

    Parent
    Axelrod says Favreau is "Mozart." (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:02:02 PM EST


    Parent
    In Amadeus (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:11:53 PM EST
    Mozart was portrayed as an immature, ambitious, juvenile, gifted, sophomoric, talented jerk.

    Maybe that's what Axerod means?


    Parent

    Fabian - hilarious. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:22:31 PM EST


    Parent
    why is everyone here always talking about (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 07:05:18 AM EST
    that washed up Green Bay quarterback Brent F ?

    I don't get it.

    Signed,
    Not a Cheesehead

    Parent

    Kdog? (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04:58:58 PM EST


    huh? (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    Why kdog? Did I miss something?

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    what did I do this time?...:)

    Parent
    Seems Like A Really Good Thing (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    Despite the fact that it may serve him well come next election. AFAIC this is good pandering, no doubt it will have an effect on raising awareness.

    I'm disappointed in Obama (none / 0) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 10:17:08 PM EST
    Under Clinton this issue was handled at the Presidential level.

    Uh huh. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 10:20:23 PM EST


    Parent
    We'll See (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    It is not exactly what an aspiring second-term President and self- proclaimed advancer of the cause of women wants to hear. Six months before an election in which the female vote will be vital to his fate, up pops a former female aide to denounce Bill Clinton's enlightened gender politics as a sham. Forget the pious talk, says Dee Dee Myers. In the White House itself, at the very heart of his administration, women face the same old barriers, the same old glass ceiling operates. A Democrat may have taken over from a Republican, an empathising baby boomer may have replaced a country-club patrician. But in reality, a mafia of white boys still runs the show. Only the names have been changed.

    From the very moment he was elected, this President has cultivated the female vote. As he named his Cabinet, he promised an administration that "looks like America", featuring women and minorities as none before it. And he delivered - though not without denouncing as "bean-counters" certain women's groups who complained he was still not doing enough. Today, the White House operates a busy "women's outreach section". Legislation, speeches and public appearances are all crafted to appeal to women. The strategy is paying off.

    [snip]

    Still, women are more in evidence than in any previous White House, even if they haven't yet been promoted to the praetorian guard.

    IHT


    Parent

    My friend (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    Please don't make me explain the joke.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 11:49:08 PM EST
    slow...

    Parent
    Classic. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:10:41 AM EST


    Parent
    President Obama Establishes White House Council On Women | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment