And Kevin, during the sourcing and recruiting process is there any way for you to figure out what women might be supportive of other women, and use that as a criteria for recruitment?

I find that women who do not know that the Executive woman is not an advocate for women are still empowered by the symbol that the Executive women represents – so that it is positive.

However, I have seen these same Executive women in Board and Executive meetings downplay or specifically advocate that no special programs be developed to support women break the glass ceiling.

My experience has been that the non-support they show at these meetings overwhelms the positive symbol they send to lower level women because the programs and resources do not get allocated.

I have yet to see a US male who is a national leader who advocates for women.

But I am tempted to go along with the notion, that if a male feminist leader come along, it makes sense to vote for him than to vote for a female who is not a traditional women’s advocate.

Except that, I also think what if all we ever had were male presidents. Would I be okay with that if they did right by women, and if they were feminists?

Right now, my answer to that is no. I want the symbol of a female POTUS. Such a woman may not advocate for women but her presence in that role may just be the thing that gets other women who will advocate for women the self-confidence to pursue the goal of being POTUS.

Anyway, I have thought about this choice a lot.

So in your experience, when you sourced female business executives, and were surprised to find them not being advocates for other women, do you think that the symbolism of their role did not have any effect on the men and women around them?

We are square.

On December 3rd I said

“McCain/Palin where better for Jews and Women? There were also many McCain/Palin and HRC voters, or simply middle income, or poor whites who voted against Obama against their interests because he was Black”

in making the point that all the candidates, male and female, republican and democrat were using gender, race, and age code words. I said I thought all of it was vile. I did, however, wonder how McCain/Palin were better for Jewish voters, correct. You are right – I am agreeing with you here.

One point I want you to consider, it is very difficult not discussing politics when discussing women’s issues because being an advocate for women is more than just being an advocate for women in positions of power. It should also be about whether those women advocate for policies, practices and procedures that advance other women.

I speak from the experience of sourcing and recruiting Executive Women who turn out to be not advocates for the advancement of other women and do not believe it is their burden, or responsibility to advance other women.

My point: I want – more women in positions of power, and women who advocate for other women. But if I can only have one, I will take a man truly committed to advocating for women. I know the New Agenda, hopefully, is about both objectives which is why I logged on in the first place – that is my preference as well.

Are we square?

I am not aware of the together4us site and what partisan argument am I starting? I thought the New Agenda’s goal was to work towards parity in the government and in the workplace. I have been advocating for women not being marginalized on the new Economic and National Security Teams and breaking the glass ceiling in corporate America. Members of the web site have ganged up on me because I was critical of HRC, even though I began my dialogue by being upset that HRC did not obtain a Senate chairmanship.

I did not originally bring up McCain, or Palin but commented on the subject when someone did.

If these beliefs make me someone that should not visit or comment on this web site, please let me know.

Kevin

You are not “helping the cause” by starting partisan arguments that are completely irrelevant to the subject of this article. I intentionally don’t discuss politics here because it is divisive. There are a million websites that exist for that purpose but this is not one of them. I am beginning to find it difficult to believe that you don’t know exactly what you are doing and I think I even recognize your “style” from the together4us site. We need all the help we can get here, but intentionally provoking partisan arguments is not helpful and I think you know that. Please stop.

- – - – - – - -
I believe these are code words, or a phrase used by HRC:

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on … Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, White Americans, is weakening again, and how Whites in both States who had not completed college were supporting me.”
– - – - – - – - -

. . . he wasn’t reporting accurately

Hillary was CITING a statement made BY the Associated Press in an article.

= = = =
(excerpt)

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton CITED an Associated Press ARTICLE “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....view_N.htm
= = = =

There were many, many discussions by the media and various political pundits during the campaign about the “black vote” and the “white vote.”

There was nothing racist or “code” about what Hillary said or what the Associated Press had written.

I will not wear the rose colored glasses you wear considering HRC (just as a don’t for Obama). If the criteria for the New Agenda is all things HRC are great, all things Obama are bad and whenever women don’t win, sexism is at play, I am out.

I think I have made fair arguments but you simply want me to agree that HRC lost solely due to sexism and Obama is a sexism hack, I cannot do that but I can hope and work towards women being in positions of power and authority so they have an equal opportunity to succeed in this country. If that is not good enough, you will lose a lot of empathetic men who actually want to help the cause.