How hard are they looking for qualified women?
December 12, 2008
by Sheryl Lee
|
An editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune Nov. 20th addressed the question of a White House quota for women, saying it would be the wrong way to go.
The author reported that N.O.W. president Kim Gandy had said she would like Obama to appoint more women, and that Amy Siskind, co-founder of The New Agenda, wanted to see “parity in the representation of women in the Cabinet.”
The author took exception to the idea that a gender head-count ought to be the goal of Obama’s search team:
That sounds like a quota, and it would be the wrong way to go. There should not be a one-for-one matching of female applicants with male applicants. But we take the wider point that one can find qualified applicants with a variety of backgrounds, and that any administration would be foolish not to tap into that valuable diversity, provided it doesn’t come at the expense of qualifications.
The choice between diversity and quality is a false one, according to the author, and striving for one does not mean sacrificing the other.
What a relief! — because “Gender shouldn’t matter,” reported Politico earlier this month, based on the findings of a Lifetime survey conducted between Nov 20 and Nov 24, which revealed that among 600 women voters and non-voters, a majority want Obama to choose the best qualified candidates, rather than considering the candidates’ gender.
Nearly seven-in-ten (67%) of women said that President-elect Obama should not consider gender at all when appointing his Cabinet and should focus just on qualifications, while 27% said he should try to appoint an equal number of women and men.
So, our choice is that either Obama tries to balance women and men in cabinet, or he chooses the most qualified candidates? What would you say if you were asked that question?
As the editorial writer quoted above has already noted, it’s a false choice. “Gender parity” and “best qualified” are not mutually exclusive criteria, but to imply that they are in a survey and then to report the results the way Lifetime did appears to relieve Obama of responsibility for the gender breakdown of his cabinet: If he chooses a male candidate, it’s because that candidate was the best-qualified, and not because he was the easiest to find, or the most vocally self-promoting, or had the best connections. And if the cabinet ends up being 75% male, obviously it’s because men are more qualified than women at a rate of 3 to 1.
That’s ridiculous. And it gets worse:
In a New York Times Op-Ed yesterday, Thomas A. Schweich wrote about his own and other’s experience being interviewed for top-level posts in the Bush administration, when the staffers doing the screening were often kids in their 20’s who had been given their jobs not based on experience or merit, but because they were the sons and daughters of campaign supporters. “With few exceptions,” Schweich writes, “they had one thing in common: very little experience and a very big attitude.”
But the “next level of appointments”, according to Schweich — “assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries and ambassadors” — are just as important as Obama’s cabinet-level picks, and to get competent people, “we need experienced screeners, interviewers and decision-makers in the Office of Presidential Personnel.”
In Schweich’s experience (which he claims is typical), the 20-something personnel staffers would try to place unqualified friends in important jobs, and sometimes higher-ups would have to intervene.
In the worst cases, the “kids” — as many of us called them — would search for a candidate and eventually conclude, like Dick Cheney when he was the head of George W. Bush’s vice presidential search team, that they were the best candidates for the jobs.
Putting young people in White House personnel positions is not unique to the Bush administration, but if Obama continues this practice, what impact will their inexperience have on the selection of candidates for important posts, and what impact will it have on the gender distribution in the administration?
You have to wonder — if Obama ends up with a lot more men than women, how hard did he and his staff look for qualified women before giving the positions to men?
Maybe we already know the answer to that question: “Gender doesn’t matter.”
That is so frustrating.
If we don’t demand gender parity, women simply won’t get appointed. The standard for “qualified women” becomes a bar no human being can reach. Look at Hillary’s experience, it was reduced to nothing more then hosting tea parties at the white house.
Look at Governor Palin, whether you agree with her politics or not, she is a respected governor in her state who worked her way up from City Council, Mayor, to Governor. The media portrayed her as too stupid to walk and chew bubblegum. Ironically Palin is currently working to increase funding for children’s health care and headstart while hosting a holiday open house and visiting with children who have down’s syndrome. Obama’s own governor, the highly “experienced and qualified” Blagojevich is facing indictment. But in the public eye, in a culture full of misogyny, the media continues to remind us of how smart Blago is, while mocking Palin for her perceived stupidity. As MSNBC just pointed out to me, Blago may be a corrupt, but he’s not stupid. Based on what? His gender?
They wouldn’t say “race shouldn’t matter”, but they say “gender shouldn’t matter.” It matters because of the sexism, glass ceiling, misogyny, and the facts: there is no gender parity in Obama’s administration so far.
Seems to me that we need affirmative action for women. We need quotas because it’s not working any other way.
Go to the articles listed in Sheryl’s commentary and leave your opinions. Keep the pressure on!
Um, the UN rep they are counting as a “cabinet” member isn’t really. That slot was elevated to cabinet status (perhaps since the thought of just two women was even worse) just now.
I do not have an opinion of if the UN rep is or isn’t a cabinet job. Maybe this is the most forward-thinking concept in the history of democracy. I am willing to leave that judgment to others.
What worries me – maybe it is just a sham to give cover to a new Boyz Klub that had the sense to be embarrassed by the lack of female at the top. So she was thrust forward last minute and “counted” as a cabinet officer.
Parity is a great idea – work it. Who do I call? I am ready to be all over this.
OrlandoNan
If gender in public positions “doesn’t matter” why do men like Summers and Baumeister contend that men in public or prominent positions indicates their genetic superiority rather than discrimination? I wouldn’t mind discrimination so much if men didn’t turn around and use it to justify discrimination and sexism. Put qualified women in positions now!
There simply is no excuse for sexism in America
Could this actually be better than the usual alternative, giving jobs to one’s friends? Men are constantly bombarded with messages that no one would ever want to be friends with a woman. The “friend zone” is where you go when she’s rejected you for the only worthwhile thing she has to offer. Women don’t even want to be friends with each other because they’re so catty!
When you have a kid, at least there’s a 50 percent chance that you’ll end up with a girl.
this is an excellent post, taking the thorny subject of quotas and making it easy for readers to understand how anyone can slip into sophistry. we’ve added you to our sidebar–sorry so late to your excellent party!
Let me get this straight–in a nation of three hundred odd million where the number of women going to college and graduate school and graduating has outstripped men for years, they can not find qualitified women? The powers that be must be conducting the search with their eyes closed.
[...] How hard are they looking for qualified women? [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
May 8, 2012 at 11:30 am
May 8, 2012 at 9:56 am
May 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm
May 7, 2012 at 1:37 pm
May 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm
April 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm
April 11, 2012 at 4:39 pm
April 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...