Womens Groups worry Will men dominate Obama administration?

[Thrill]

Early indications that men might dominate the hierarchy of Obama administration have women’s groups worried, even as a growing chorus of advisers reportedly pushes Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state.

“There’s definitely been a reaction to the few groups that have been named so far,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. “I agree with those who are concerned that it would have been nice to see more women.”

Women’s rights advocates acknowledge it’s still early in the transition process, but they say early staff picks and the lists of rumored Cabinet nominees send the wrong signal.

“It’s appropriate that Obama’s vetting Clinton, but she’s one women,” said Amy Siskind, co-founder of The New Agenda, a nonpartisan women's rights group founded by former Clinton supporters. “We want to see parity in the representation of women in the Cabinet.”

Some women’s rights advocates believe the new administration is conducting a broad search across a diverse pool of candidates.

The Obama transition team asked NOW to send suggestions of qualified female candidates, according to Gandy.

“The transition team is going to take the time to look at and vet the people they don’t know,” she said. “Because frankly, the people who are already well-known in Washington tend to be men and tend to be white.”

The early teams released by the Obama administration have tended to be male-dominated. On Wednesday, four women and eight men were named to Obama’s transition advisory board. His agency review team is headed by seven women and thirteen men. And last week, Obama met with his key economic advisers — four women and 13 men.

So far, Obama has named four members of his top White House staff. Three are men – chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, press secretary Robert Gibbs and chief congressional liaison Phil Schiliro. And one is a woman – senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15635.html

I don't understand this concern. He hasn't named one cabinet position. And Hillary and Napolitano are rumored for two of the biggest high profile positions.

[Colobo]

1. These people need to relax.

[1corona4u]

138. "These people"?

:eyes:

[FreakinDJ]

2. So NOW comes whimppering back

Don't forget they jumper COMPLETELY in bed with the Bush administration

[Jackeens]

3. FFS, let's just trust him to pick the RIGHT people!

[fortyfeetunder]

90. I agree with you.

I can't get too excited about this topic...

[RazBerryBeret]

4. I would vastly prefer

men who are pro women's rights/issues to women who are against women's rights and issues.
this election should have taught many of us that just because you are a woman, doesn't mean you are pro-women's rights. ie--Sarah Palin. I'm now blind to a person's gender, I'd prefer to choose them based on their platforms/record.

[cali]

5. Oh, shut the fuck up and wait to whine.

And sorry, but Obama has also named Valerie Jarrett as a Senior White House Advisor. Try and keep up.

[ensho]

6. there are more women in the US then men. more women voted for him

they would be wise to remember that.

[ErinBerin84]

7. oh god.

The rumors of cabinet members send the wrong message? I think that they should just be patient.

[noamnety]

8. This made me laugh:

"The early teams released by the Obama administration have tended to be male-dominated. On Wednesday, four women and eight men were named to Obama’s transition advisory board. His agency review team is headed by seven women and thirteen men. And last week, Obama met with his key economic advisers — four women and 13 men.

So far, Obama has named four members of his top White House staff. Three are men – chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, press secretary Robert Gibbs and chief congressional liaison Phil Schiliro. And one is a woman – senior adviser Valerie Jarrett."

followed by this (posted by someone named brent): "I don't understand this concern."

[CTyankee]

25. I'm beginning to wonder about this thread. Do you sense a real backlash against

affirmative action for women here? Wow, and on DU...

[noamnety]

27. I see a backlash against all groups -

not just women.

Liberals in general don't seem to get the concept of affirmative action. I think they are stuck in colorblind mode - for gender AND race. They have the belief that if they personally treat everyone equally, the result will be equitable.

They are incapable of seeing that the inputs are unequal, people come to the table with the experiences of being an oppressed minority, with all that implies about opportunities leading up to that point. So there is a big push in some threads to explain that cabinet positions should be assigned in part based on favors owed - as if everyone had an equal chance to be in that sort of position to influence the election in some way, as if everyone has had an equal shot at a position in power.

So we look at people who are my parents' age, and think well we will just put the person with the longest resume and most achievements in a cabinet position, and that's being "fair." Well, no, because women my mom's age had to drop out of school because they got married and forfeited their scholarships as a result. Married women don't need college educations.

Same with race. People are angry that someone suggested Obama should ideally be replaced with another black senator. God forbid, you know, that we should have ONE black senator; for some reason that concept alarms them greatly. All the white men who got there because they were given privileges for being white (access to better housing that increased in value so they could use that equity to afford college, the ability to retain scholarships even though they were married, access to male-only networking opportunities), all that isn't considered "affirmative action" for white men. White male privilege isn't affirmative action - it's just the default, and all the other groups who didn't get it, they need to be treated "equally" to the people who did get those advantages, as if the advantages never happened, I guess.

I am also annoyed that any mention of affirmative action for women is attributed to being a bitter Clinton supporter. I never supported Clinton, I probably never spoke in her defense during the primaries unless she was the target of sexist attacks. I think people here are having a hard time grasping the concept that a person could support affirmative action as a matter of ethics, regardless of personal candidates they agreed with on key issues.

[CTyankee]

28. Do you think it is because as we draw more men into the Dem party,

the value and power that women had in the party is being diminished? I think I am seeing that come very alive on this post!

We women had a key part in the success of the Democratic party. Now more men are "moving in" and taking over and dissing our importance. I think this is a horrid development. We -- women and men who support women here at DU -- need to speak out about it.

[NashVegas]

31. I Think Most Liberal White Men Vocally Support Affirmative Action

Until a person of color or a woman gets the job the guy thought he was better qualified for.

[EffieBlack]

123. I wish women were as interested in affirmative action when it involves race . . .

Perhaps such measures as the Michigan anti-affirmative action intiative - which passed with the support of 52% of women voters - would have been defeated.

[dsc]

40. I guess it isn't only gay men who aren't welcome to affimative action

It would be very discouraging if those numbers end up holding up for his administration as would a lack of even one openly gay cabinet member.

[noamnety]

56. Yes

and I apologize for not including the GLBT community in my post above when I referenced race and gender.

[CTyankee]

94. And I can think of several that come to mind right now. However,

they would be lost to their current constituencies who treasure having them and don't want to give them up. But more needs to be done and I am not sure that all of the talent in the gay/lesbian community want to come forward in a very public way. Still, they have gifts and a perspective on things that we need very much in our new administration. A bit of a quandary...

[Runcible Spoon]

66. excellent points. the postrace/postgender post/what have you mentality is dangerous

even more dangerous when embraced by liberals

[Renegade08]

83. These complaints are completely unjustified and reek of primary resentment.

First, let me state that I support affirmative action. But, what these people are arguing for is not affirmative action.

These people "concerned" about male domination of Obama's administration have just bought into the fabricated meme that Obama is sexist that HRC dead-enders obsessed about during the primaries. He hasn't even picked a single cabinet member yet and they're already trashing Obama's motives and integrity????

Obama asked NOW for a list of female candidates for cabinet positions. What more do they want right now? I repeat - HE HASN'T PICKED ANYONE YET. Right now, he's doing exactly what he should do - actively seeking out qualified candidates for serious consideration.

As for the complaint that Obama's economic advisors are 8 men, 4 women - are you kidding me???? That's proof that Obama is sexist? Because he doesn't have 6 men and 6 women economic advisors? This is not affirmative action. This is just a gendered form of nepotism and cronyism. It's a political faction in the democratic party wanting some "payback" for helping Obama get elected, especially after he defeated their chosen candidate.

[CTyankee]

97. I for one am not in that group that you have just pulled out of your head.

I didn't like the imbalance that we have seen but it is certainly not a done deal yet and I certainly give Obama credit and have faith in him. It is NOW's business to talk about women having more than a third of the places at the table if they are qualified for the jobs. But who is deciding the criteria of "qualified"? That is the gist of my argument. Nowhere do I say or believe that women should get an office as "payback." That is insulting to every talented woman seeking a place in Obama's administration. It is astonishing to hear that argument made by a so-called Democrat!

Even tho I supported Hillary in the primary, I had been an Edwards supporter (altho I liked her health care program best). Edwards dropped out before my primary and it was actually my feminist husband who lobbied me to vote for Hillary. After the primary it seemed obvious to me that she had not shown the skills that Obama had and I acknowledged that: Obama had the better campaign operation and his message was "right" for the times and the country. I won't bore you with a discourse on my thinking but it had to do with Hillary's "baggage" and poorer administrative skills. But she certainly did her homework and is an extremely well informed and thoughtful politician. Those skills will serve Obama's administration well.

[Renegade08]

99. Political payback isn't about qualified or not qualified.

I have a different understanding of qualified. I think there are millions of qualified people to be in the administration, if you go just by objective factors (experience, skill-sets, etc.).

The question is, how do you pick someone from a large pool of qualified candidates?

Same thing with Supreme Court nominees. There are many, many people out there who are qualified and "deserve" to be a Supreme Court justice. It's a shame, for example, that Laurence Tribe never got serious consideration. He "deserves" to be a justice, but I would not want Obama to consider him as a candidate. Tribe's time has passed, due to bad timing. Other factors, besides objective individual qualifications, then, will end up being the decisive factors. The question is, what should be the most important decisive factors? I think diversity should be considered, but, it shouldn't be the main factor, and we shouldn't rely solely on "bean counting" to conclude, one way or another, that Obama seriously opened up his process to ensure that women and minorities were given serious consideration.

[CTyankee]

107. You said that other factors ... will end up being decisive and this is true.

If candidate A and candidate B have the same objective qualifications, how is the choice made? Especially since we don't have the option of a symphony orchestra auditioning a violinist playing behind a screen so that the decision makers don't know the gender of the player, to give an actual example. A lot of it, like it or not, comes back to social conditioning. I like candidate A better than B because A looks more like "me." Or, I know candidate A better than B because A shares my socio-economical background and B doesn't. This is where the diversity factor can and does make a difference. I may be more "comfortable" with A (if I am the decision maker)but who is to say that B might not offer something better, even though I may have no idea what that is like. People who are not like me and everyone around me for all of my life may scare me, but my discomfort could deny me the better choice. This is precisely why the choice of Obama made so many white people fearful. At a certain point the walls have to come down and more diversity must come into play, if we are to get the best and the brightest. When the single genus of the white potato in Ireland was blighted the people starved. When the Incans cultivated and planted diverse kinds of potatoes in Peru the people never starved, since the entire crop was never wiped out. Diversity, then, can be seen as a gift of nature, a way of survival. "All hands on deck" might be a good slogan for us going forward...

[always_saturday]

75. Yep. Sure do.

[NashVegas]

29. This Gave Me a Chuck

The Obama transition team asked NOW to send suggestions of qualified female candidates, according to Gandy.

I guess they don't know any, themselves.

[MadBadger]

101. Your rudeness is noted.

[Uzybone]

9. This is the annoying part of having a big tent

Everyone one starts screaming for their piece of the pie.

It would also have been nice if NOW had not thrown all its eggs with Hillary Clinton. Maybe now they'd have more influence.

[ensho]

10. women are a majority, they deserve a big piece of pie

nt

[alwysdrunk]

11. In politics?

Honest question. Isn't it true that most of the people who do\want to do this type of work are male?

I mean is "parity" really a realistic goal when looking for diversity in government?

[Captain Hilts]

21. In Washington, women outnumber men significantly. But not at higher ranks. nt

[CTyankee]

24. Do you have actual statistics to back up your statement?

There are LOTS of women in government but generally not as many in the top tier as their number overall. So you have all these women stuck in the low/mid level and very few making it to the top. They can't all be less qualified than the men.

[ensho]

76. you jest

nt

[1corona4u]

109. Yeah well, they did endorse Obama, remember?

[IndianaGreen]

12. These are the same folks that unduly burdened Bill Clinton with their demands for a "quota."

This is not an issue of "quotas." Putting bourgeois women in key positions in an Obama Administration will do little to address the oppression that all women (and men) face. As Frederick Engels wrote in his essay The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State there is a direct correlation between class and gender oppression. Women are oppressed by the same -isms used by the patriarchy to keep the working class confused and divided: racism, heterosexism, ageism, fundamentalism, etc. We must recognize and respect the differences in oppression suffered by members of our society, including LGBTs (many of which are women). It is only through revolutionary social change, with women at its vanguard, that we can free the working class from the chains of capitalist slavery.

The exploitation of women hasn't changed that much since the days of Marx when he described the industrial utilization of women and children in England, in what he described as the conversion of "human beings into mere machines for the fabrication of surplus-value":

Married women, who work in gangs along with boys and girls, are, for a stipulated sum of money, placed at the disposal of the farmer, by a man called the “undertaker,” who contracts for the whole gang. “These gangs will sometimes travel many miles from their own village.

Karl Marx. Capital Volume One

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S3

Marx also understood that without women in the vanguard of revolution, social justice was impossible:

(V)ery great progress was demonstrated at the last congress of the American ‘Labor Union’, inter alia, by the fact that it treated the women workers with full parity; by contrast, the English, and to an even greater extent the gallant French, are displaying a marked narrowness of spirit in this respect. Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex.

Karl Marx. Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_12.htm

[Occam Bandage]

13. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe Obama will be consulting Karl Marx. nt

[IndianaGreen]

15. Is Obama opposed to the 8-hour work day? Does Obama favor child labour?

So many of Marx's ideas have become mainstream American values that you wouldn't know it were we to rely on an educational system being designed to turn our youth into automaton consumers.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Karl Marx is not the only person on Earth to have ever believed in labor rights.

That aside, I didn't say Karl Marx was always wrong about everything he ever thought; I simply said that it is unlikely that Obama will be consulting his writings.

[IndianaGreen]

19. And when did the Democrats come around to the idea of women's right to vote

an idea for which reds and anarchists fought and died for in the streets of our cities? How about black's right to vote?

[SteveM]

17. Maybe Groucho?

[LittleBlue]

14. I worry about whether or not the best people will be in charge

not about color or gender. :(

[Egnever]

18. me too!

:yourock:

[CTyankee]

22. That is ALWAYS said but who gets to say what constitutes "best qualified?"

Women have been battering at that glass ceiling now for YEARS, going into professions, getting advanced degrees, working hard and STILL we're not at parity? Doesn't that tell you something is wrong?

That fact is that there have always been qualified women around but they are not picked for these top jobs in the same numbers as the men. Something is not right...

[ClarkUSA]

20. Special interest groups need to STFU and let Team O handle it. No quotas for sex/race, please.

Only the best people for the job need apply. I trust Team O to decide who's right for the job.

[CTyankee]

30. So now being for women's rights is being a "special" interest group?

Women have been a mainstay of the Democratic Party. It is an outrage to try to marginalize women as if their interests do not coincide with what you feel is the best interest in our society.

"Only the best people for the job need apply." Indeed. So when did that exclude that part of half the population who were the "best"? I trust Obama too and I think he will appoint more women but so far his record isn't "half."

[ClarkUSA]

35. I never said that, did I? Get over yourself.

I'm sick of people playing gender card headgames around here; you're twisting my words into an freakin' rant befitting
that idiot head of NY NARAL during the primaries.

I stand by what I said. In a nutshell: Race and/or gender should not be a litmus test to filling a cabinet position.

[CTyankee]

37. Yeah, as long as it is YOUR race and YOUR gender that is included.

Please, your reference to NOW as a "special interest" group is in your tag line, so don't try to disguise it. Aren't you acquainted with Democratic politics? Democrats, where I live, are strongly for affirmative action for women and minorities. When did that change? Did you just sign up to be a Democrat in this election? Where have you been in Democratic politics all these years?

Bizarro Outrage World indeed...

[ClarkUSA]

39. I'm curious... just what do you think my race and gender is?

Your presumption is arrogant and patronizing, to say the least.

I repeat, I stand by what I believe: Race, religion, and/or gender should not be a litmus test for a cabinet position.
Like President-Elect Obama, I am not interested in refighting the culture wars of the 60's with you or anyone. Been
there, done that during the primaries and general election and it reminded me of something that definitely needed
to be changed in government. I could care less what the makeup of the government looks like, as long as they are
the best people for the job, as determined by the brilliant Team O transition team.

[CTyankee]

41. Well, of course you have never been there, never done that and here you are

saying it should all be a meritocracy as long as "we" vet the candidates for the office.

Nobody is "refighting the culture wars of the 60s". We are fighting the wars for women's equality that have been fought for generations. Have you forgotten that women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920?

I have granddaughters who are age 7, 10, and 13 and I'LL BE DAMNED IF I LET THEM BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS WOMEN WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Did you get that?

[ClarkUSA]

42. Again, what do you think my race and gender is, Know It All?

Guess you can't admit how foolish you are to presume to know who I am and where I'm from when you haven't got a clue. However,
your over-the-top hysterically accusatory LARGE CASE ranting is evidence enough of the loose cannon/angry polemic approach of
many like you who are still storming the Bastille after the Revolution is over, which is exactly why we need a change from the culture
wars of the 60's as President-Elect Obama builds a post-identity political bridge into the 21st century.

[CTyankee]

44. Ok, fine. I will be happy to hear about your ethnic/gender etc make-up.

I loved the "hysterical" part. So typical of the anti-woman rant we have heard forever. Lovely...

[ClarkUSA]

52. No, you're the one that brought my race and gender in an accusatory way... as if you knew them.

If you don't want to be tagged as "hysterically accusatory," then don't type in screaming large case babbling nonsense
about your granddaughters being denied their rights -- which, by the way, has nothing, nada, zip to do with the OP
or my oft-stated belief that there should be no litmus test, gender or otherwise, in determining who is best qualified
for an Obama cabinet position.

This subthread is a classic case study as to why refighting/indulging/tolerating/enabling the exhausting and divisive
culture wars of the 60's to continue well into the 21st century will be astutely avoided in an Obama administration.
It's such a waste of time for those of us who are post-identity politics to quibble with those who are determined to
carry chips on their shoulders unto eternity.

[CTyankee]

53. And just how long have you been part of the progressive Democratic movement?

I've been here since 1960 when I cast my vote for JFK. Yep, I'm that old. And that durable.

I am long past anything qualifying hysterical. I have stood the test of time. I have been fighting this fight for a long time. I see what is going on and you don't. You should respect my long view and my long efforts for equality. I am very disappointed in you.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Okay, change the subject. So now you're pulling the "Age Confers Legitimacy" card on me?

Wow. Amazing. You want respect but you give none.

All I can say is... that chip on your shoulder must get real heavy.

[Renegade08]

89. Actually, CTyankee, your age shows your bias. You're a political dinosaur.

You grew up believing that interest group politics = justice and fairness. I.e., a group is "entitled" to political and economic goodies because of discrimination and under-representation. That's the kind of view expressed by those HRC supporters that claimed that HRC "deserved" to be the nominee, and that it was woman's turn, not a black person's turn in 2008, apparently.

People are going to have to realize that Obama is not a traditional entitlement and interest group liberal politician. His platform is NOT about giving out political favors and paybacks to democratic interest groups. Eugene Rivers said it best, even though he said it specifically about race. It also applies to other groups. He said, with Obama's win, "The era of racial grievance is now over." Eugene Rivers is a black activist minister who practices that evil "liberation theology." And what he is saying is absolutely true. And it's not just racial grievance that is over, but all identity-based grievances.

The politics of grievances and reparations are over.

[CTyankee]

92. Well, tyvm for telling me I am something I am not.

I voted for HRC in our primary because I felt she was qualified AND because she was a woman and I see nothing wrong with that. Your word "deserve" in quotes gives you away. We SHOULD elect people who we feel deserve the office because of their skill set, their beliefs and their track record. HRC's perspective as a woman does affect each of those areas. How else can we define "deserve"?

Beyond that, can we magically make mysogny just disappear? Achieving racial civil rights took this country's bloodiest war and another century of hard work and yes, even more blood shedding. Mysogny lives on in the incidences of rape, domestic violence and outright discrimination against women in the workplace. If you haven't been there, you'd best get yourself an imagination and bit of sensitivity.

And how about being a little bit less smug...

[Renegade08]

96. You voted for HRC? What a big surprise.

No one "deserves" to be president. No is "entitled" to be president. Being president is not some gold star you give out to "deserving" Americans. You vote for a candidate because you think she or he will be a successful president upon taking office. It's forward looking. "Desert," on the other hand, is a concept that looks to the past, to past accomplishments and experience to justify an appointment. It's like saying a professor with a distinguished record deserves to be given emeritus status upon retirement.

Also, knock off the lame attempt to equate criticizing NOW's interest group identity politics with condoning misogyny. If HRC becomes SOS, tell me, how that is going to reduce rape and domestic violence in the United States?

[CTyankee]

102. OK, let's say a person's attributes and accomplishments "merit" them

in consideration for the office. I never said gender alone, nor race alone, is the only thing. Never.

I wish you would go back and read women's history just to get a better idea of women had to do to even get the vote. When I was in college, there were still want ads in the paper listing "male" and "female" jobs separately. What does that tell you? Harvard Medical School did not admit women until 1945. What, were there no competent women? Examples are everywhere and women had to battle in the courts to achieve the status so many men just took for granted in their everyday lives. And yet women had and still do make up slightly more than half the population of this country. I don't see why their perspectives are not valuable to add to the governance of this country. Yet they get the education, get the high grades in college, obtain advance degrees and prove themselves on so many levels only to be told they aren't "qualified"! Go figure...

[Renegade08]

85. Are these women's interest groups also complaining about lack of black

representation among Obama's transition team? How many of Obama's economic advisors are black? Did NOW complain about that as well? Or, are they just concerned about women? That's interest group politics, period.

[mkultra]

139. equality is no longer the primary but rather a subordinate for a few

There are a few feminists who simply try to forward the position of women in America in the belief that this will result in equality. Other groups can worry about themselves.

If im not mistaken, true feminism was about the lack of equality and how to restore it.

[Whisp]

23. jesus, the lawn hasn't recovered from Grant park yet

and people are already whining about what they think they see in their crystal balls?

[4lbs]

26. Bush tried to select a woman to appease some possible quota and we got Harriet Myers.

Bush appointed Christine Todd Whitman as head of the EPA. She ended up being little more than a Bush "yes-girl", parroting Bush Administration themes on the environment, especially with regards to the air quality in New York after the 9/11 attack.

McCain tried to appease the opposite gender, get Hillary voters, and came up with Sarah Palin.

Maybe trying to appoint/select a woman just to appease a demographic or special interest isn't the best thing to do.

Get the best people in there and let them do their jobs. If these people happen to be women, great.

[CTyankee]

32. That's an insult to Democratic women. You are talking about REPUBLICANS.

There are, and have been historically, many qualified Democratic women who can ably and even greatly serve the country in appointments to federal agencies. Would you stick to what we're really talking about here? Women have been a strong part of the Democratic Party as long as I have been a Democrat (and that is a LONG time). I am really disappointed that you chose to characterize what NOW is saying by talking about the f***ing Republicans. We are talking about a DEMOCRATIC administration now, with good Democratic women. What the hell are you doing talking about Republicans.

Geez! I never thought I 'd see a thread like this on DU, of all places!
Whattsa matter guys, you don't have the guts to stand up and be FEMINISTS? My husband, son, and two sons in law are...

[Mass]

136. Harriet Myers, Todd Whitman, are the reflexion of the men that Bush chose.

He chose them the same way he chose the men he nominated, without care of competency. But this has nothing to do with them being women and it is an insult to women that you would state that.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[ZombieHorde]

34. As a Hungarian-American, I am disturbed by the lack of Hungarian choices.

They all seem so full.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. "Women’s rights advocates acknowledge it’s still early in the transition process"

So then why is this a story Politico? :eyes:

[Renegade08]

87. It's the same crap that happened during the primaries - MSM trying to stoke up

some party infighting for their entertainment value. Hey, at least this will give those PUMAs a chance for another 2 or 3 minutes of fame. They get to go on hardball again and whine about how this all proves Obama is sexist and how the primary was stolen from Hillary!!

[peaches2003]

38. Sick of the whining already

I'm a woman and am fed up with the whining. I trust Obama. Qualified women will be appointed, but if he goes to a quota system for any group he is making a big mistake. Doing that is obvious and you do not necessarily get the best person for the job because you are filling a quota not the job itself. I do remember Clinton's cabinet appointments- obviously he was picking some women for the sake of picking a woman and for the most part it was a disaster. How many nominations did he have to withdraw? Obama wants the best and the brightest; if that happens to be women or minorities fine, but affirmative action should NOT be his consideration.

[CTyankee]

43. Well, peaches honey, we have to do our share. Since you have not gotten up and put on your big girl

pants today, I'll do it for you. We will get there without you, peaches. We'll get some candidates that will be splendid for posts in Obama's government. If you want to whine about certain candidates in the past, please feel free to do so on freerepublic.com. That is where you will be most comfortable...

[peaches2003]

46. I've never had to rely on affirmative action as a woman

and I don't think capable women in government today need to either.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[happychatter]

74. that was completely unnecessary

[ensho]

77. you must be very young

nt

[mkultra]

104. yes, whine your way to success.

master plan.

[TheWraith]

45. DU is living proof you don't need facts in order to have a temper tantrum.

It's also true among activists (and PUMAs) in the outside world.

[CTyankee]

49. Really, how many men and how many women so far? Do the math, honey.

Got it now?

[Renegade08]

91. You are falsely equating equality with bean-counting.

If you want to play the bean-counting game, then let's talk about how HRC's campaign was sexist and dominated by men. Who ran her campaign? Mark "I'm a racist and sexist Rovian-wannabe Washington insider poser" Penn. Which scapegoat did HRC fire when her campaign imploded? Patti Doyle Solis. The same Patti Doyle Solis that was hired by the Obama campaign and is now being seriously considered for a position in Obama's administration.

Who was Hillary's press spokesMAN? The radical feminist Howard Wolfson. Who were some her top campaign advisors? Harold Ickes. Terry McCauliffe.

Oh, and let's not forget the "informal" campaign advisor for HRC, good ol' Bill Clinton.

So, let's count beans. During Hillary's campaign, her "braintrust" consisted of 5 men (Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, Terry, and Bill) and 1 woman (Solis). That's is, until Solis got the axe. So, it was 5 men, ZERO women. Oh, wait. Let's be more specific - 5 white male, long-time card carrying members of the old white boys' network.

Conclusion - Hillary is sexist. Just do the math.

[CTyankee]

93. And we saw how it worked out for her, didn't we?

Thank you. You proved my point eloquently!:rofl:

[Renegade08]

95. Obama's braintrust was mostly men, too. How come he didn't lose as well?

I mean, if HRC had the fortune of getting Plouffe, Axelrod, and Gibbs as her braintrust, she very well might have won the thing. Last time I checked, those guys are pasty white guys badly in need of some tanning.

If that is all you can respond with, then it's clear that you have no real basis to support bean-counting except raw, interest group identity politics.

[CTyankee]

98. He had the smarter ones. Plus Valerie and Michelle.

And much as I used to like Bill Clinton, he certainly didn't do her any favors during the primary. Talk about a ball and chain...

[Radical Activist]

47. He only named four people so far. This looks like a ploy for Hillary.

[noamnety]

58. Please don't do that.

People who support affirmative action do not all support hillary - believe it or not, she is not The Only Democratic Woman In Existence.

[Radical Activist]

108. Then aren't they jumping the gun?

If its not about Hillary then I don't understand the rationale for going on the attack when only four positions have been named. Are we already forming the circular firing squad of the left?

[noamnety]

111. I don't see it as jumping the gun.

I see it as voicing a concern now, rather than waiting until it's too late to do anything about it. When we object to a piece of proposed or rumored legislation, as activists, we don't wait until it has passed and THEN call our senators to let them know where we stood on it. We try to get our voices heard prior to the decisions being made.

In this case, women (and gays and people of color) are trying to make it very clear that we want equitable representation in our government. And they are expressing some concern because Obama has established a pattern of under-representing women - on his transition advisory board, his agency review team, his key economic advisers, and his named members of his white house staff.

"Appointing Hillary" does not resolve the concern about equitable representation any more than complaints that people of color are underrepresented in the senate are negated by saying "what's your problem, you got a black president now."

If we are saying that women are underrepresented and this is a symptom of institutionalized sexism that needs to be addressed, please do not trivialize and misrepresent that systemic problem as "the womenfolk are pissed hillary hasn't been appointed."

[adoraz]

50. These people seriously need to get lives

It's so early you can basically say the same for ANY group of people. This is just people being paranoid for no reason.

They have no legitimate reason to think Obama's cabinet will be male dominated.

sounds like they are just trying to stir up shit...

[CTyankee]

54. Look at the numbers so far. What do you see?

n/t

[blogslut]

51. Oh Joy

Now the Politico is promoting what Susan Faludi called "trend-journalism". Surprise. Surprise.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

57. Be it male or female, pick the "best and the brightest" for the job. n/t

[blue_onyx]

59. I'm sure Obama will have plenty of woman in his cabinet

We don't even know who he will pick. Everything we know currently is just gossip. Let's wait and see who he picks before we criticize him.

[NewJeffCT]

60. There have been 0 cabinet heads nominated so far

0 men and 0 women have been appointed. Just about equal so far.

[AZBlue]

61. DAMMIT! Selections should be made based upon ability & qualifications.

Not gender, not race, not height, not eye color, not religion, not hair color, or any other fully exterior and superficial trait.

As a woman and a feminist, this kind of bullshit PISSES ME OFF!

[ensho]

78. your not a feminist

nt

[mkultra]

105. i look down on anyone appointed with inadequate skills

male or female.

[CTyankee]

117. and who on this thread is advocating for someone with "inadequate skills"?

male or female?

Please. This is not the argument taking place here. WE are talking about qualified people....

[mkultra]

126. that would be

Anyone who suggests that anything but skill should be the primary selection criteria.
Take the best, irregardless. As democrats, we don't suffer the same ills as republicans in this regard. Unlink republicans, our candidate pool will be diverse and selection based solely on qualification will result in natural diversity. We don't have to force it by intentionally appointing a woman/black/gay.

[CTyankee]

128. what has impeded this "natural diversity" in the past, do you think?

Just wondering...

[mkultra]

133. conservative bigotry

[CTyankee]

140. Interesting, but that's not what I am seeing in this thread from other Democrats.

Some are saying it doesn't matter than guys predominate, they just want the "best qualified." But we've seen women go out, get the degrees, get the experience, do the hard work and meet all of the objective qualifications only to be told "Sorry, there's more than just 'objective qualifications' involved..." and there we go again. The women don't get hired. I've seen this happen again and again and it's insane. And the natural diversity is thwarted.

[AZBlue]

122. BULLSHIT.

[mkultra]

127. or your not.

selection based on true qualification is equality. Its only when "equality" is used as a mask to cover bigotry that affirmative action must be taken.

[TexasObserver]

62. Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton think it's probably NOT a problem.

It appears all three of those women will have key insider positions with Obama. I think he will name Rice his National Security Advisor, and if Hillary becomes SoS, that would put American's foreign policy in the hands of two women.

Jarrett is already announced as Obama's "counsel" on matters, and she has been a constant companion of him in his campaign.

Granholm is already mentioned for the first supreme court opening.

This complaint doesn't have any basis in fact. It's all whine, no cheese.

[CTyankee]

100. If your scenario takes place (and I hope it does) it would be wonderful.

NOW is an organization that makes this kind of commentary, a kind of "reminder." They have a right to start a discussion about this. Women make up slightly more than half of our population and were the majority of Obama voters. Women are not monolithic in their thinking but after so many eons of outright discrimination against them, shouldn't some thought be given to their consideration for the jobs they are best suited for?

[TexasObserver]

112. Hey, I understand it is really preemptory in nature, and it serves a purpose.

NOW is the time for all interest groups to push for their ideas and advocates. As I've said elsewhere, I believe that all Democratic coalition groups should be pushing for their points of view.

I expect everyone to get behind the ticket until the election is over, when I expect each to assert their immediate concerns.

I would distinguish between encouraging Obama to appoint women, and suggesting that Obama isn't going to do enough for women. It's early to make an allegation that doesn't appear to have much basis so far.

[CTyankee]

113. Every advocacy group pushes its agenda and it is understood that they do it

in the strongest terms possible. Maybe women's groups don't want to be seen as saying "PLease, may we?"

As you say, it is pre-emptive a bit, but hey that's the way it's played in Washington. Women have learned a few lessons in the School of Hard Knocks...

[CTyankee]

114. Every advocacy group pushes its agenda and it is understood that they do it

in the strongest terms possible. Maybe women's groups don't want to be seen as saying "PLease, may we?"

As you say, it is pre-emptive a bit, but hey that's the way it's played in Washington. Women have learned a few lessons in the School of Hard Knocks...

[vanderBeth]

63. Goddammit.

Gender shouldn't be litmus test for a position.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Like Their Nagging Is Going To Help The Situation. Obama Will Make The Right Choices And They

need to just stfu.

[Runcible Spoon]

67. you have dribbled more verbal diarrhea over DU than anyone I can think of

and you're telling people to stfu. priceless.

[noamnety]

69. oh dear!

most of the time when I see "ignored" it's just grovelbot. I had a very odd moment here before I realized you're probably responding to someone else.

It's quite shocking to think I'm seeing someone hurl "you have dribbled more verbal diarrhea over DU than anyone I can think of" at grovelbot. :D

[Runcible Spoon]

103. LOLZ

last time I checked grovelbot wasn't telling women's groups etc. to shut the fuck up. grovelbot may be a one trick pony but at least he doesn't spew sexism and anti-gay sentiments around DU!

[ensho]

79. agree

nt

[really annoyed]

115. Gee, that wasn't sexist

"nagging"

[Pithlet]

129. Nagging?

You know. I agree with with you that Obama will make the right choices. But, "nagging"?

Come on, OMC. Shame on you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

130. Yes, Nagging. It's Annoying.

nag⋅ging
   /ˈnægɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. continually faultfinding, complaining, or petulant: a nagging parent.
2. persistently recurring; unrelenting: a nagging backache.

[Pithlet]

134. You know better. Don't pretend.

Sorry, OMC. I thought you'd be the better person and apologize, because every once in awhile, when you're in a good mood, the decent side of you peeks through, and I thought maybe I'd catch a glimpse of that. But you're going to play to the worse side of your nature today and pretend you didn't deliberately use that word to inflame. So, have a nice day.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

135. I Know Better Than To Give In To PC Zealots.

Everything is sexist. Blah blah blah.

The way I read the article it sounds like they're nagging, so I said so. I'm not going to erase certain words in the English language from my memory simply because some people cry sexism every time they're used or get offended at the drop of a pin.

The word exists. The word as it's defined, was used within proper context. End of story.

[Every Man A King]

65. didn't NOW endorse Palin? n/t

[noamnety]

70. Wow, no.

"Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy on the Selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential Pick

Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.

Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.

The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No."

http://www.now.org/press/08-08/08-29.html

And here is their statement in support of affirmative action:

http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html

[Every Man A King]

120. Ah i guess theses local NOW statements confused me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnojw62Epr8
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/249498/NOW_s_New_York_Chapter_Blasts_Ted_Kennedy_for_Endorsing_Barack_Obama

Are these women still in NOW?

[noamnety]

121. Your post isn't making sense.

You asked if NOW supported Palin. I responded with a link showing the organization explicitly denounces her.

Why are you posting:

1) a link to a woman who says equally explicitly that she is NOT representing NOW in her personal endorsement of Palin, and
2) an article about Kennedy and Clinton which doesn't even mention Palin?

I'm sure you have some reason for wanting to push this meme, but I think you'd be better off moving to some other dead horse now.

[Mushroom]

68. Parity is so uncivilized

in a deity-controlled theocracy.

[ensho]

80. lol good one

nt

[Mushroom]

106. heh

:)

Thanks ensho dear.

[Indi Guy]

71. Obama needs to serve all who got him elected...

He will surely serve women well, in every way he can.

[marshall]

72. Aren't most of the interns females?

I'm sure things will even out when the total body count is considered.

[AllentownJake]

73. Vallerie Jarret

Senior Advisor to the President kind of got left out on this story

[nomaco-10]

84. An unfamiliar name, but a BIG position. I saw it this am. Thank you for posting it. n/t

[Uzybone]

88. Her appointment doesn't fit the divisive meme

so she will be ignored by the hand wringers.

[CTyankee]

118. Of course not! My dear, where have you been?

n//t

[Honeycombe8]

81. So far it's mainly white male Clintonites who are transitioning Obama & filling his staff positions.

Just sayin'.

[Nikki Stone1]

82. That seems to be the size of it.

Obama may have won the election, but it looks like the Clintons won the White House.

[Uzybone]

86. What a desperately misguided statement

Obama and his team are firmly in charge. Rahm is an Obama man, Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarrett etc. are all Obama people.

Because ex Clintonites are helping run the transition some are already in a tizzy. Who did you expect Obama would ask to help in the transition apart from people who had already worked in the WH? Once again, that god Obama doesn't listen to folks who post on websites.

[Mushroom]

116. P-E Obama would do himself good

by spending quality time in women's forums to expand his knowledge on women's health, care, medical terminology, and stats to once and for all banish RW propaganda like a demon killer. I'm sure he would agree that he has much to learn in that department and will learn from the finest, but he has to be strongly vocal about his findings. What makes Obama attractive as an archetype for healthy masculinity is his willingness to learn, grow and heal, and women's organizations are there to help him along with brilliant peoples - not just brilliant women - who truthfully represent our diverse America, not Joe the Plumber in top hat and tails being unshackled on stage to sing Putting on the Ritz.

There's no need to get in a tizzy about democratic women. We don't roam the countryside hunting down democratic men for their genitals to boil amazonian witchie-brews. As long as we're not messed with for shits and giggles, for the most part we can be quite lovely people and DU men know it. And even if we all weren't quite lovely people, there's no self-respecting reason to marginalize our numbers and experience with old-fashioned 1950s drivel.

People declared on November 4th that it's time to move in a new direction, yes we will, and women's organizations are saying okie-dokie let's seriously do it! What I don't understand is why many in this thread are being willfully defiant of core democratic values. What's that all about? We finally get somewhere as a party and some here debate with the skills of a soft-headed Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

[Nikki Stone1]

137. "desperately misguided"? LOL!!!!!

I just call'm like I see'm.

Rahm Emmanuel? I'd prefer to see some fresh faces. Where's Jesse Jackson Jr.?

[Peacetrain]

110. Just give us the best of the best.. who ever it is..

we have two wars, and an economic melt down that could rival the Great Depression...just the best of the best..

[Mz Pip]

119. Then they should have voted for McCain/Palin

I'm sure that would have worked out soooo much better for them.

[qwlauren35]

124. Yes - men will dominate. Get Over It.

Rome wasn't built in a day. If it's 1:2, that's still a respectable ratio compared to previous history.

[cap]

125. so when we will get 50-50 representation?

when will the large backlog of overqualified women get the positions that they merit? I think 50% is an easily attainable goal without getting poorly qualified candidates. Given the gender discrimination of the Bush administration, I don't think it is too hard to find suitable candidates. Why do we have good Democrats refusing to support EEOC? I'm all for abolishing quotas as long as the end goal of equality has been met. I just don't want to go through this administration with a mostly male team at the top. It's not so hard to find qualified women. It really isn't.

[fed_up_mother]

131. It's due to crap like this why women's groups aren't more relevant for more women

[BlooInBloo]

132. It's funny watching these people whine about errors that haven't been made yet.

[Vinca]

141. He's hardly named anyone yet . . . why worry about something that hasn't happened? nt

[windbreeze]

142. IMO....it's up to Obama as to whom he wants in his cabinet...

not NOW...not me, not you, not women in general, not AA's, not native Americans, not Asians, Germans, Frenchmen, Canadians or anyone else, it's HIS decision, and I trust HIS judgment...I, personally don't care who or how many of what are in HIS cabinet positions, as long as THEY, WHOMEVER they might be...work alongside our PRESIDENT..and DO HIS BIDDING...to straighten out this mess we have facing us....wb