The following letter will be submitted to the Obama Administration:
RE: Obama Administration – Director of the Women’s Bureau
To Whom It May Concern:
The New Agenda is a national non-partisan women’s rights group with members in 50 states.
We are writing to inform you that The New Agenda does NOT endorse Kim Gandy for the position of Director of the Women’s Bureau. The New Agenda believes that while serving as President of the National Organization for Women, Ms. Gandy did not represent the women whom she was elected to represent. The New Agenda believes that Ms. Gandy used her role primarily to advance her own career interests.
The New Agenda would endorse the following candidates for Director of the Women’s Bureau:
Anita Perez Ferguson, Former President Natl. Women’s Political Caucus
Mary Beth Maxwell, Founding executive director of American Rights at Work
Ellen Bravo, Former National Director of 9to5
Robin Leeds, Winning Strategies
These candidates have represented and worked for women’s rights as opposed to their own self-interest.
Sincerely Yours,
Amy Siskind
President, The New Agenda
===========================================
Other posts of reference:
http://unapologeticfeminist.com/2009/02/kim-gandy-and-now-have-lost-their-way/
http://heidilipotpourri.com/
http://madamab.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/kim-gandy-president-of-now-cashes-in-her-chips/
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/now-for-those-pieces-of-silver/
http://ladyboomernyc.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/kim-gandy-president-of-now-cashes-in-her-chips/
Because Ms. Gandy wants to continue working for women’s rights, you claim she is advancing her own career interests. You also claim that she is not representing women in her current role as president of NOW. But you offer no evidence to support your claims. Very weak.
SpunkyBug,
We decided to post our letter as opposed to the numerous ways that Ms. Gandy has used her position in order to sell out women.
See these blogs for examples of specific instances:
http://heidilipotpourri.com/
http://madamab.wordpress.com/2.....her-chips/
Amongst others….
Well I guess we NOW understand what the big election sell out was about. I have to say for all the times Gandy has failed to represent the interests of women this is the first time she was ever smart enough to sell out for something tangible and that something was not for all women but for herself. PUKE!
Oh yeah, lets install Gandy in team Obama and then we can all pretend like women’s issues and needs are being covered and the real men’s government can get on with the business of emptying the treasury into the pockets of their corporate sponsors. Maybe we can up the number of Michelle Os wardrobe and fashion stories to two a day from merely daily for all us gals!
Spunkybug,
There is plenty of evidence. See my blog post at:
http://tinyurl.com/aakgee
Jane
agree…no way, no how.
sheesh, and to think here I was counting the days until NOW’s spring election and the end of Gandy-rule.
Seems to me you’re just upset that NOW supported Obama and not Hillary. How anyone can say Gandy shouldn’t be in that post boggles my mind. I’m sure the others are qualified — and I am a long time fan of Ellen Bravo — but come on.
Besides, as we work in our jobs, aren’t we all out to, on some level, promote our work/life interests? That’s not your real beef.
PunditMom,
Personally, as a Ph.D. scientist, I was appalled when Kim Gandy endorsed Larry Summers. That man did an incredible amount of damage to women in the sciences and Gandy, as the representative of women in the mainstream media, said what he did wasn’t that big of a deal. Is Kim Gandy working in science? Does she have any clue about that? She totally sold out female scientists when she did that. And the female scientists I know are furious.
Where shall we email the letters of support for qualified women to hold this post?
Jane,
Do you have a cite on Gandy ‘endorsing’ Summers? Iirc she was mostly critical of him but said he had done some good things (though not specifically for women).
Here is something Summers said this weekend:
“There are crucial areas, support for higher education, that are things that are in the House bill that are very, very important to the president.
There’s no question — no question what we’ve got to do is go after support for education. And there are huge problems facing state and local governments, and that could lead to a vicious cycle of layoffs, falling home values, lower property taxes, more layoffs. And we’ve got to prevent that.”
h…w’s stuff
abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6830708&page=1
Jane,
As for the charges against Summers, here is a direct statement from him at the time:
Letter from President Summers on women and science
January 19, 2005
Dear Members of the Harvard Community:
[....] Despite reports to the contrary, I did not say, and I do not believe, that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science. As the careers of a great many distinguished women scientists make plain, the human potential to excel in science is not somehow the province of one gender or another. It is a capacity shared by girls and boys, by women and men, and we must do all we can to nurture, develop, and recognize it, along with other vital talents. That includes carefully avoiding stereotypes, being alert to forms of subtle discrimination, and doing everything we can to remove obstacles to success.
h stuff no w’s
pumaforsummers.blogspot.com/2008/12/summers-clarification-i-did-not-say-and.html
fsteele,
I recommend that you check out my blogpost on Larry Summers and read what he originally said and look at what happened to the number of women professors hired in the sciences during his tenure. What you are quoting is an incredible back-pedaling on his part to save face and his job. Harvard University found what he said to be harmful enough to vote no confidence in him. This no confidence vote was also echoed by many other elite Universities. Their no confidence vote was based on his original statements, not his back-pedaling.
Read my blog post detailing the Summers damage did:
http://tinyurl.com/6627vf
“The New Agenda believes that Ms. Gandy used her role primarily to advance her own career interests.”
Thank you to TNA for speaking the truth. Ms. Gandy is a disgrace and no friend to the women’s movement. She failed on numerous occassions to speak out during the primary and general election against a massive and accepted array of blantent sexism and, in fact, embraced those who used sexism to get ahead.
Let me add that I agree women should promote their own interests . . . in fact, I respect that; however, I will not support a women who does not stand up against sexism when THAT IS HER JOB. Her silence against sexism was her approval. And when she failed so miserably during the primary and general election to speak out and stand up for women, why would she be qualified as a Director of a WOMEN’S Bureau.
TNA
Thanks for this post. Thanks for speaking out and offering alternatives to Ms. Gandy.
What a sad state of affairs that the ED of NOW would prove to be such a weak advocate for women.
Anyone got any good news?
PS Amy, when you send out a letter like that, do you also tweak it and turn it into a press release and mail it out as such? If not, I would.
kitkat-
I couldn’t agree more. She didn’t do the job she had at NOW and so we give her one where she can not do a bigger and even more important job? No way!!
On Summers-
I read every word of the transcript of the Summers debacle and there is no way to defend him in my mind. He can go back and do damage control all he wants now, but that doesn’t change what he said. He only changed his tune after the outrage over his stupid comments got media attention.
The transcript has either been deleted from Harvard’s website, or they have moved it and I can’t find it. It used to be here…
http://www.president.harvard.e...../nber.html
Here is one link to an article about it.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505787
PPS While SpunkyBug’s point is one that doesn’t hold up in terms of evidence, the point is a good one in terms of what is or isn’t included in the letter. We all know the myriad ways that Gandy did not support women’s rights, but in a letter such as was sent to Obama’s admin, probably makes sense to back up your claims. In THAT sense, SpunkyBug’s got a good point.
Jane,
In haste…. Your link http://www.president.harvard.e...../nber.html
no longer works.
I have the original here, as main entry and as a comment to the main entry:
http://pumaforsummers.blogspot.....quote.html
Please note in the original that Summers attributed the disparity in Ivy League tenure to three factors: lifestyle issues, discrimination, and possible disparity in the very TOP END of the bell curve (balanced by a similar disparity at the LOW END which is not relevant to Ivy League tenure).
An outlander’s perspective:
This Gandy woman most likely is a Progressive who sees “women’s issues” as merely a component of her ideology. If so, she will be disposed to set this component aside when told that, in some way, it conflicts with or hampers the Progressive ideology.
With regard to this Director of the Women’s Bureau position. This position not doubt is similar to what the Secretary of State office was for George W. He had no intention of allowing State to do its job. In this case, I think that Obama has no intention of allow this Bureau to do its job either.
All of the above makes the appointment all the more important. It would be good to have a dedicated woman who would prioritize the Bureau’s agenda, actually fight for her agenda, and secure the support of millions of other women. It seems that TNA is obligated to speak up on this particular issue.
Anna—Here’s some good news. Jennifer Figge, a 56-year-old woman, just became the first women in recorded history to swim the Atlantic Ocean from the Cape Verde Islands of Africa to Trinidad. She did it in 24 days. Women are strong!!!!
The first man to do it, a Frenchman named Benoit LeComte did it in 78 days 10 years ago.
– first, a couple of points for Amy –
1. Specific recipients would be better than a general To Whom It May Concern. The new Secretary of the Dept of Labor should get a copy. A second copy could go to an address or forum used by NOW’s rank & file members. A third could go to the Secy of State, based on *her* stated goals of improving the lives of women across the world, which surely includes [ahem] the USA.
2. Amy, nothing really stops you from augmenting the letter, including its printed version, with a concise list of weblinks to news articles and persuasive commentaries that might settle the questions raised by SpunkyBug and PunditMom.
Jane already has lent a hand with her tinyurl ref to her current posting on Kim Gandy…
http://unapologeticfeminist.co.....their-way/
…which in turn points the way to her Nov 2008 article, with relevant links, on Larry Summers and the debate re. representation by women in science and engineering jobs.
– current *valid* links for Jane and all interested in that debate –
“Remarks at NBER Conference…” by Larry Summers, dated January 14, 2005
http://www.president.harvard.e.....5/nber.php
“Responses to Lawrence Summers on Women in Science”
from Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute
at University of Wisconsin College of Engineering
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/news/Summers.htm
Among the many print and Web sources linked by WISELI is a transcript of the Spelke-Pinker debate from 2005–
“The Science of Gender and Science – Pinker vs. Spelke: A Debate”
http://www.edge.org/3rd_cultur.....index.html
Last but not least… for direct relevance to *this* dicussion of Amy’s letter, nothing beats WISELI’s own archived PDF copy of a letter, dated January 20, 2005, by [ahem] none other than NOW–
“NOW Calls for Resignation of Harvard University’s President”
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/news/NOW.pdf
PDF contains original NOW link, still valid as of today:
http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html
Cynthia,
24 days vs 78 days? Maybe Mr. LeCompte should have asked directions.
Cynthia – Thanks. I saw that, sent the link to TNA and posted it in the Grassroots section. I need MORE good news! Got any? (No pressure!)
fsteele – LOL! (Btw, anyone know how old the guy was when he accomplished that feat?)
Jane,
My reply to your February 8th, 2009 2:54 pm is in moderation, presumably because it included two untrimmed links. I’ve posted it at my Summers blog as
insert h stuff no w’s
pumaforsummers.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-jane-three-factors-to-disparity.html
“Ms. Gandy did not represent the women whom she was elected to represent”
To put a finer point on it, she represented some women — those who shared a particular political viewpoint — and let ther rest of womankind rot. I was stunned during this election season by NOW’s subversion of the goal of respect & equal treatment of all women to the goal of advancing a particular candidate. How could anyone watch how women were treated in this election and stay silent about it? As a housewife, I couldn’t be silent. As the president of a nationally known and respected women’s organization, how could she be silent?
Here is the link with the change of course on Summers:
http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....php?page=2
Yet Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said her group’s research actually produced material that recommended him. “One good thing about Larry Summers,” she said, “is that he has written and spoken fairly extensively on the issue of women’s wage inequality and the impact that has on the country.”
fsteele,
“and possible disparity in the very TOP END of the bell curve (balanced by a similar disparity at the LOW END which is not relevant to Ivy League tenure).” That is the part that is so damning. There is an entire thought system within a field called “evolutionary pscyhology” that attributes the lack of women in the upper rankings to the lack of female top scorers in the upper bell curve of IQ and other standardized tests. I have repeatedly refuted this argument b/c the latest research on excellence shows that the greatest achievers in science often were not extraordinarily high IQ scorers.
The upper bell curve argument is the most heinous argument in science b/c it says that the reason there aren’t more female nobel laureates in science is b/c they aren’t in the upper bell curve of intelligence. This exact argument, with reference to Larry Summers, was made in The Economist several months ago. It is not based in fact and is another way to keep women down.
fsteele,
Thanks for the heads up about my link. I replaced it with an active one. Also, I don’t see your comment anywhere in my queue or spam list. Perhaps you should try posting it again?
Where’s the Line – Thank you for making that point. It’s right on target. (I wish you would comment here more often. Your comments always offer really great perspectives. Please jump in more. You have a lot to add to the conversation.)
Jane,
My post that was caught in moderation here has now appeared:
fsteele on February 8th, 2009 3:33 pm
I did not submit my post to the Unapologetic Feminist blog, but to the TNA blog, on this thread. Are you a moderator here at TNA also?
PunditMom said, “Seems to me you’re just upset that NOW supported Obama and not Hillary.”
‘Just upset’ is a belitting term. It suggests that NOW’s action on Hillary is not a legitimate issue. Imo their action calls into question their judgment and their comittment to advancing all women and all women’s issues.
PunditMom
I can’t stand blogs where it’s all about hearing the roar of the crowd and there is no room for differing perspectives. So, with that in mind, I welcome your post.
To respond, I agree with what fsteele has written. I would add to it by saying that when you state: “That’s not your real beef,” you are presuming to know beyond what is quite apparent on this site about some hidden agenda. While many of us here supported Clinton, some supported Obama, and some supported McCain. What is it that makes you assert “that’s not your real beef”? The statement has an air of psychoanalysis meets parent who knows better than the child (but I may be projecting here).
From what I’ve seen on this site for many weeks, if not months, is a steady and consistent message regarding the way the women’s movement in recent years morphed into something narrow, that reflected issues for certain women, with certain views. I’d say our beef concerns that, among other things, and as such, TNA has stepped up to the plate to be a broader coalition by welcoming women and men of all political persuasions.
As for the specific “beef” with Gandy, all one need do is a bit of research regarding NOW’s voice, or lack thereof, this past year, and I think the chips will all fall into place regarding your understanding. If not, then I suppose we just have different perspectives.
Jane said, ” There is an entire thought system within a field called “evolutionary pscyhology” that attributes the lack of women in the upper rankings to the lack of female top scorers in the upper bell curve of IQ and other standardized tests. I have repeatedly refuted this argument b/c the latest research on excellence shows that the greatest achievers in science often were not extraordinarily high IQ scorers.”
I certainly agree with you and with Summers that this sort of thing should be refuted. There is a logical disconnect between ‘lack of female top scorers’ and achievements in science. Summers was talking about granting of tenure at Ivy League schools, where undue importance given to such test scores may have hampered women all the way up the pipeline.
(And of course it is the same pipeline, though hopefully broader, that leads to the Nobel.)
fsteele,
I’m still very confused with what it is that you and Summers agree upon. Summers basically said that the reason there aren’t more women as tenured science professors at Ivy league Universities is because,as a group, they lack the extraordinary intelligence in the upper part of the bell curve that men, on the other hand, do exhibit. This is a classic evolutionary psychology argument that I have heard made over and over again in the sciences. That is equivalent to saying that women, as a group, have less intellectual ability in science and math.
Summers in no way said anything in support of women in the sciences. If you think that, you have misunderstood his comments.
And, No, I do not moderate on the TNA blog. I just moderate on my own blog.
As well, Summers has consistently worked poorly and been dismissive of women while working in public office. When we initially spoke out about Summers in November, we were literally contacted by scores of women (and some men) with horror stories of how this man mistreats and disrespects others in the work environment.
But Larry Summers is but a drop in the bucket here. We will be writing a full story for our blog in the next day or two.
I agree with the protests of this NOW “leader” – who is unable to grasp that a variety of women from a variety of views should be represented by NOW. The group fell into group think years ago – and I hate their endorsement of B.O.
Florida Lady – So great to see you! I hope a chapter can get going in your state that has had so much crazy political history of late leaving millions of Floridians disenfranchised. I look forward to more posts from you, including, perhaps, your take on the state of things in your state, politically speaking.
Actually Anna,
We do have a chapter starting in FL. I will be down there speaking next week to a group of Republican Women in Boca:
http://www.bocarepublicanwomen.com/
Two incredibly accomplished Republican feminists would like to start chapter for us in Southern FL!
there is also good info on the subject of Kim Ghandi’s interest at HeidiLipotpourri.com. and I learned about Mary Anderson who held this job from 1920 -1944.
A few facts for those who condemn without research.
1. The NOW political action committee endorsed Clinton for the Democratic primaries back in March 2007. Gandy herself made the announcement.
2. Gandy was speaking out against media sexism toward Clinton back in February 2008, months before The New Agenda even existed. Check out, for example, her biweekly column for NOW, “Ignorance and Venom: The Media’s Deeply Ingrained Sexism,” of Feb. 14, 2008.
3. Gandy made a special cause of Chris Matthews’s sexism against Clinton, to the point that she got him to apologize for some of his behavior.
Could someone explain how NOW acted *against* Clinton in any manner? How were they supportive of sexism against her? What part of endorsing her for the primary somehow comes across as not supporting her?
It seems like the real problem is that, NOW’s preferred candidate having lost the Democratic nomination, NOW was worried about the results of a win by the GOP — a GOP that imposed the global gag rule, that signed the “partial birth” abortion ban, that kept the Lilly Ledbetter Act from getting passed until this year — and the NOW decided that it was better to support Democratic male candidates than to be silent while McCain won.
The idea that NOW should have endorsed Palin simply because she was a woman is ludicrous. To take just one issue that supposedly is at the top of The New Agenda, Palin spoke against the Lilly Ledbetter Act, chanting the Republican party line that it was a giveaway to trial lawyers. Can anyone name one issue on which Palin was better for women than Obama-Biden? Does she support more vigorous enforcement of Title IX, or ensuring that women-owned businesses get a fair share of government contracts, or *anything* else that is on The New Agenda?
PunditMom said on February 8th, 2009 2:28 pm, “Seems to me you’re just upset that NOW supported Obama and not Hillary.”
PGofHSM said on February 9th, 2009 1:53 am “1. The NOW political action committee endorsed Clinton for the Democratic primaries back in March 2007. Gandy herself made the announcement.”
‘Just upset’ is a belittling term, in any case.
Thia,
I have also read every word of Summers’ ‘working lunch’ talk of January 14, 2005. I’m working on a marked up version to make the emphasis and structure more clear, at pumaforsummers.blogspot.com
The New Agenda: still PUMA Lite.
PGofHSM,
You make a powerful argument. I’m very interested to see if anyone here responds to your points. I’ve seen a tendency by many bloggers here to not only demonize Obama, but any woman who ever endorsed him at any point. At the same time, Palin who has never stood up for other women on any major issue, and looks like she’s endorsing a GOP man over a GOP woman for governor of Texas, gets supported, merely because she was in a position to “avenge” women in the 2008 election.
Now I see a continued downplaying of the GOP’s hostile attitude towards women’s rights, while every Obama “slight” is blown up to major proportions. That’s why there are actually precious few Obama voters joining TNA. And TNA will not reach it’s true potential (which I believe is great) until the members stop fighting the ’08 election.
PGofHSM, thank you for your post. You have good points, but I think you also miss one of the main points of the New Agenda. You say:
“The idea that NOW should have endorsed Palin simply because she was a woman is ludicrous.”
I don’t think this is what TNA is upset about. Okay, I’ll speak for myself: I am upset that Obama benefited from sexism and misogyny to beat Hillary and Sarah, and that NOW endorsed someone who benefited from something that is hurtful to all females, when NOW should be about supporting things/people that are good for females.
You say: “Can anyone name one issue on which Palin was better for women than Obama-Biden?”
Sure, how about representation of female power in the public eye?
I may disagree with Sarah Palin’s Republican stances of which some do not help women, but I also disagree with humiliating and denigrating any woman in the public eye because she is a woman, and blaming it on her political views. Sarah Palin did not deserve the disgusting treatment she got, no matter what her political views are, and that’s what I understand to be part of the mission of the New Agenda: To end this kind of treatment of any woman.
Thus it is hard to support a woman who supports a man who benefited from that disgusting treatment.
What evidence does anyone have that Ms. Gandy “used her role primarily to advance her own career interests”? Heidi Li Feldman claims that there is a rumor to that effect, but she provides no evidence of it whatsoever. And she’s not exactly the most disinterested source on the planet.
On the other hand, Ms. Gandy provided an extensive rationale for her decision to endorse Obama. You may disagree with her reasoning, and that’s your right. But it seems scurrilous (if not near libelous) for a so-called non-partisan group that purports to broadly serve women’s interests to accuse Gandy of selling women out on such flimsy evidence.
fsteele- No offense, and I’m sure you have the best of intentions, but I don’t need anything to “make emphasis and structure more clear.” I understood what I read, I really did, and it was crystal clear to me exactly what he was saying. Spin in any form only hurts the argument. Just let everyone read it for themselves without any spin and they can come to their own conclusions.
You and I will continue to agree to disagree I’m afraid.
Betty,
Maybe you didn’t have time yet, but if you’ll read the posts above yours, there have been plenty of reasons listed.
No, Thia, I read it all. I don’t consider armchair psychologizing by PUMAs compelling evidence of anything. PGof HSM laid it out pretty clearly, and Anne-Marie was honest enough to acknowledge that her animus, at any rate, is motivated by lingering resentment at the outcome of the Democratic primary. That’s what I figured. And it’s why I find it impossible to think of The New Agenda as anything but PUMA-Lite.
It seems to me that the main reason for TNA’s objection to Kim Gandy becoming the director of the Women’s Bureau is that her organization’s PAC endorsed Obama once he had secured the Dem nomination (NOW PAC did endorse Hillary Clinton in the primary).
So, it seems just a bit odd to be writing to the Obama administration urging them not to hire a woman because she offered them support, which supposedly indicates her willingness to sell out women.
This is the reason why TNA does not provide rationale in its letter to the administration. You can’t tell someone: I disapprove of you and, by extension, those who support you, so please don’t hire those who support you. Why should Obama even listen to such a letter?
Despair not Betty Cracker and SpunkyBug – we will post our rationale shortly.
We do have members who are PUMA’s yes. We also have members who are Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Libertarian etc. We are a big tent and there is a place for every person at The New Agenda. This might be a bit different than what you are used to? We are inclusive.
Thanks for stopping by.
Just for the record, I am not a PUMA and have never been a PUMA, although it escapes me why being a PUMA would be a bad thing? I should admit that I have on occasion spoken to a PUMA (gasp) and have been known to blog where one or two of them might show up. (gasp again) It’s starting to feel a little weird the way the word is being used, and I can’t imagine how it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Here is one thing about NOW that just blows me away. They seem to just want to talk at people. In this day and age of interactive web sites can you find anywhere on the NOW page to even contact them. When you do track down an address have you ever heard anything from them? Even just a “we got your comment thanks”. Young women are not interested in getting talked at they need to be part of the conversation. I need to be part of the conversation and I am old. During the last 10 years when women’s roles in media have gone backwards by a century have you seen NOW doing anything about it? Do they speak out for consumer rights so women don’t have to subsidize misogynist media content? Have they provided forums for women artists that have talent but are not 5’9″, blue eyed blonds who want to hump a stripper pole while they “sing” in a bikini? Have they had anything to say about degrading rap lyrics or pervasive pornography that young girls and boys are exposed to? No. They just talk at people about abortion which has been settled law for decades. They have not even taken it upon themselves to sate by state improve reproductive law so Roe v Wade is not necessary. NOW is an old fashioned elitist bunch of do nothing women who put gay rights and race relations ahead of womens rights.
Spunky Bug, it doesn’t matter what any letter to Obama regarding Gandy says he will not listen to it. He is not interested in providing anything to women that is obvious by the misogynist campaign he ran. If the Democrats actually firm up reproductive rights laws then they will not have their favorite club to hold over the heads of women any longer. Do you actually think Democrat men are going to give up their favorite weapon against women? Gandy is the perfect do nothing to take up space and make it look like Obama is on top of womens issues. The fact that women do not feel represented by her is irrelevant to him. This appointment is nothing but a show made so much better for him by the fact that Gandy can’t and won’t accomplish anything. In fact she can apologize for the sexist crap that oozes out of DC.
Anne-Marie,
“Thus it is hard to support a woman who supports a man who benefited from that disgusting treatment.”
So you’re categorically refusing to support — and in Gandy’s case, actively opposing — any woman who supported Obama in the general election?
As someone noted above, if that is the case, why should Obama take your views seriously?
People in the privileged group (men relative to women, whites relative to people of color, Christians relative to atheists and religious minorities, Americans relative to foreigners) may benefit from how the lower-status group is treated, without *participating* in making that group one of lower status. I don’t resent my husband for being in the privileged groups while I am in the lower-status groups, even if he benefits from that privilege, because I know he does not believe that those groups should be of lower status.
To the extent that Obama participated in denigrating any woman for being a woman, he deserves condemnation and his supporters should make a calculation of whether his good points outweigh that bad one. But to the extent that Obama has taken positive action toward making women a group of equal status with men, that should be counted as one of the good points.
As someone noted above, Palin actually isn’t being good on the issue of representation of female power in the public eye — given the choice between Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Palin picked Perry. She went for the more rightwing Republican man over the moderate Republican woman, because she doesn’t care about other women’s having power; she cares about empowering her own views within the GOP (i.e. the more rightwing conservative viewpoint). This is rational self-interest, as she needs to ensure that the right wing of the party is the most dominant, if she is to obtain the 2012 GOP nomination, but it’s doing absolutely nothing for other women’s political power.
I am sure many here will disagree with me on this, but I *didn’t* see Palin as a good representation of women with power in the public eye. Frankly, she strikes me as opposite to Hillary Clinton, in this sense, as two human beings who are both white, female, Christian, married with offspring, middle to upper-middle class college-educated politicians can be.
Clinton is known for her extraordinary command of the issues; Palin frequently seemed confused about what issue was being addressed in a question to her.
Clinton is self-confident about her intellect; Palin misconstrued a question about the publications that influence her thinking, into some attack on all Alaskans’ access to newspapers and magazines.
Clinton behaves professionally at all times; Palin was winking at the audience during the vice-presidential debate.
To see Palin as a great representative of female power in the public eye seems, in my opinion, to be satisfied with *any* representation of female power in the public eye — regardless of whether the woman in question exemplifies how intelligent, confident and professional American women are.
Agree Cynthia. I was also not part of the PUMA group but I do admire the hard work of that group. They are entitled to their POV.
I notice that whenever a group does not agree with a statement that TNA makes, they like to classify us as “PUMAs” or “Republicans”. Well, I am proud that almost roughly half of our members are Republicans, because roughly half the women are – you guessed it – Republican. And TNA is a big tent and we are inclusive.
We also welcome members who are PUMAs – what does that mean – it means they are/were Democrats that did not agree with the way the party handled itself during the election. What is wrong with having that POV?
So basically what Betty Crocker is insinuating is that unless: 1) you are a Democrat and 2) you are not upset with the way that the party conducted itself during the primary, then you are not a legitimate voice. That is dismissive of the majority of women in this country and plain hogwash.
I’ve joined the New Agenda and I’m not a PUMA, though I agree with Thia–there’s nothing bad about being a PUMA. PUMAs are patriotic Americans.
Even putting the matter of endorsements aside, NOW had so many opportunities to speak out against the sexism running rampant throughout the 2008 campaign and said little. NOW stood by as a prominent woman was hung in effigy all in the name of good halloween fun and said nothing. Statements could have been issued decrying the numerous sexist attacks without any endorsement implied–New Agenda does it all the time.
When I first read about New Agenda my initial thought was to hope that they would be rapid responders, and it was NOW’s lack of rapid response (or oftentimes lack of any response at all) that led me to that thought. I look forward to reading Amy’s rationale for the blog entry/letter to the Obama administration and feel really confident it will be well-founded.
PG,
Read this story posted on our blog Saturday which proves your argument wrong:
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....r-pay-act/
The women of the Senate, regardless of party, worked together to get this bill passed.
Amy Siskind,
I read it when it was posted, and have commented on it noting that it appears EVERY Republican woman in the House opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. fsteele responded with surprise that women in the House, who due to gerrymandering will have safer seats for general elections than women in the Senate, would not have felt able to make a vote for women.
Could you explain how the post proves my argument (about Palin’s failure to support any of The New Agenda) wrong? I’m afraid it’s not self-evident to me. Palin isn’t a Republican senator, and so far as I know, has not repudiated her campaign opposition to the Ledbetter Act.
PG,
You are missing the point.
The New Agenda did not endorse Gov. Palin in 2008, but we did do this – we spoke out about the horrific sexism and misogyny that was directed at this woman. NOW was silent. As they were for the vast majority of the sexism directed at SOS Clinton (remember Ludacris, Favreau – those ring a bell?).
In any case, this is just a small part of the overall argument which we will spell out on our blog.
You are of course, welcome to your POV. And if you support Gandy, we respect that.
“So basically what Betty Crocker [sic] is insinuating is that unless: 1) you are a Democrat and 2) you are not upset with the way that the party conducted itself during the primary, then you are not a legitimate voice. That is dismissive of the majority of women in this country and plain hogwash.–Amy Siskind
That’s not true at all — my problem is with ulterior motives and hidden agendas, not differing opinions.
PUMAs are entitled to their opinions (as Stormfront is to theirs), but it doesn’t mean their opinions are respectable. They’ve completely discredited themselves via a variety of means, including giving a bullhorn to irrational kooks and bald-faced liars and tolerating and even encouraging rampant racism, gender-based hatred and calls for violence.
I don’t just mean random posts by anonymous nutcases either — I mean the main PUMA blogs (The Confluence and PUMA PAC) and posts by respected front-pagers and regulars. I can provide copious documentation of these charges if anyone is interested.
PUMAs hardly qualify as feminist stalwarts. If you need evidence of that, look at the front page post by PUMA PAC leader Darragh Murphy that is on her site right now, in which she insinuates that the only reason Pulitzer Prize winner, Harvard professor and world-renowned genocide expert Samantha Power got an NSC post is because she married a friend of Obama’s. That’s feminist thinking? If Chris Matthews said such a thing about Hillary Clinton, you’d rightly jump down his throat.
http://pumapac.org/2009/02/09/facing-the-music/
The New Agenda founders –wisely–made a concerted effort to distance themselves from prominent PUMA leaders like Murphy and Bower early on because you knew an association with them would undercut your credibility with the media. (I can provide evidence of this conscious distancing if you’d like.)
But as far as I can tell, you’re still animated by the same old PUMA grievances. And you’re networking with the same old PUMA bloggers to sandbag a woman like Gandy, whose only crime appears to have been to endorse Obama AFTER the primary was over. Sure, your coalition includes Republicans — they hate Obama too! You have that much in common, anyway.
Hmmm PG,
Just took a drive by your website:
http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com/
Interesting…..
This has nothing to do with Kim Gandy now does it?
When Obama does things that benefit the women of this country, we will be front and center to congratulate him. Not much to congratulate so far.
We are about promoting women and women’s rights. We hope that you can all find an element of what we do that resonates with your interests.
Betty,
I’m sorry, but this rabid PUMA is simpling out in giggles because I’m one of the most moderate posters at this blog.
Some great points in this passionate discussion.
PGofHSM (are you the same as plain “PG”?) and others (the thread is too long to keep scrolling up, so I’m just going to stick with the gyst of some of what has been said)….
This first is to PGofHSM – You’ve raised points worthy of note. I do get extremely concerned when any org and/or blog starts to mix facts with emotions with assumptions with determination to paint things a certain way until it comes out as less than 100% solid and credible. I know I’ve fallen victim to that way of thinking and speaking and have seen it on several blogs, including TNA.
In responding to what I think was your first post in this thread where you laid out many examples of how NOW supported Clinton, there is no argument from me there and I must acknowledge the facts as they stand and thank you for putting them out there on the table.
And, I do agree that has been posted elsewhere on the blog, that we MUST be careful not to create a double standard for Republicans than for Democrats. I saw this trend building last year on several Just Say No Deal sites as anger mounted toward the Dems (among Dems, of course, and I am one) and the Republicans became somewhat idealized. I think some of this continues today. (It is one area where I feel Heidi Li maintained an enormous amount of personal integrity.)
For me, in a nutshells, as far as NOW is concerned, here’s where I get hung up: They didn’t go to bat for Clinton in the relentless way that, like them or not, PUMA’s did. This includes how superdelegates were being pressured, how the Democratic convention unfolded, how the media and the DNC fawned over Obama and started calling from Clinton to drop out of the race after Iowa. PUMA’s and others (just ordinary concerned citizens acting on their own) didn’t have the kind of name recognition that NOW (or the Women’s Media Center, as another example) had/have to gain media coverage, to have their case heard, etc. So, while NOW supported Clinton, I think that for me (and likely others as well), the support expressed itself in ways that were less robust than we felt the situation deserved. And, I also agree with a few other bloggers here that NOW’s voice remained earmarked for liberal women only and that seems wrong. I genuinely believe that one of the strongest parts of TNA’s vision is inclusiveness regarding the need to defend women, period, not just liberals, when they have been treated in a sexist manner. Where’s was NOW’s voice when Terry Tate made a video where he socked an stand in for Palin to the ground rendering her unconscious, at best, or perhaps, dead? On things like this, they should have spoken out.
I see a woman’s rights org as having two basic missions: 1) Speak out against sexism wherever it rears its head, and 2) support candidates who will advance women’s rights. Sometimes, that may mean speaking out against sexist treatment of a female candidate that one doesn’t support politically. (I realize many at TNA have a different view on this if they support the idea of voting for women irrespective of political views or values, a camp I am not in.)
As for the notion that TNA hate all things Obama-related, I feel an undercurrent of that at times. I struggle with it myself, trying to balance the anger I feel regarding how things unfolded last year (the way he wasn’t vetted, the caucus fraud, the media’s abandonment of their jobs as unbiased journalists, etc) and the reality of him as our President and what they means in terms of policy issues. Thus far, unfortunately, he hasn’t exactly made it easy for me to get on board, though I know that despite all of my misgivings, he is surely the better bet compared to what a President McCain would have been for women, though not a better bet on national security, which is a HUGE concern for me.
I could likely share some more ideas, but this will be a very long post as it is….Will check back in later to see where the discussion is heading.
Thank you, again, for your post. I do believe that the kind of exchange that is going on right now on this thread is vital to ensure that an organization continues to take an honest look at itself, hone what needs to be honed, defend what needs to be defeneded, and in so doing, become ever more clear and credible in the public eye.
– Anne-Marie points out to PGofHSM –
“I am upset that Obama benefited from sexism and misogyny, and that NOW endorsed someone who benefited from something that is hurtful to all females”
Funnily enough Anne-Marie, you’re being generous to a fault toward Obama.
He was NOT merely a lucky beneficiary of the bigotry and hate, as if he were some sort of innocent bystander standing around, mute and numb, passively observing the scene of a crime or an accident.
Obama actually INITIATED many of the attacks, through his very own statements, gestures and actions, including the policies and people in his campaign. And in answer to TB’s claim that we are still “fighting the ‘08 election” and trying to “demonize” him, Obama’s bigotry against women remains an ongoing problem, for today and tomorrow, as he turns the Oval Office into a tropical resort where he can enjoy luxuries at our expense.
Women cannot afford Obama. Women cannot afford Kim Gandy. The first is a liar, the latter is a fool.
In my earlier comment here, I provided some fresh, valid weblinks because the pages re. Summers and NOW because after 4 years, the new URLs [web addresses] were causing some confusion. I figured, OK, I’ll follow in Jane’s giant footsteps by posting further links, making the ‘evidence’ too easy, quick and convenient to be ignored.
I suggested to Amy Siskind that she do the same with her letter by adding such links to it. Amy seems to have started in that general direction….
What about the rest of yaz?
The whole Web abounds with links to sites with news and opinions about bigotry in Obama’s campaign and presidency. Anybody who doesn’t already have ‘em, can find those sources by going to one of many search engines, typing a relevant keyphrase, and sitting still for a moment to read and absorb the woman-hating behaviours of Obama, Jesse Jackson Jr, David Axelrod, Rick Warren, Jeremiah Wright, Rahm Emmanuel, John Favreau and many others in that circle.
{Or, maybe it’s more comfy to keep wearing the blinders and earplugs, and find consolation in the excuse that Obama can’t ever be as bad as Palin and McCain. Never mind that accepting the “lesser of two evils” still leaves us all in a bloody pact with the devil.}
In their copious spare time, of course….
If someone is going to do an information page about NOW, I’d love to see it widened into a spreadsheet format with a column for each major organization — NOW, NARAL, etc — showing exactly when they supported and/or switched support from Hillary to Obama.
And, for that matter, I might fantasize about columns for major Hillary supporters (Rangell, Paterson, etc) showing when they switched. I don’t like seeing someone who hung in through May, being vilified (elsewhere) for switching after Hillary herself switched.
I’ve compiled hundreds of examples of sexism in the campaign, against Clinton and Palin, but also against Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain. How many of these did NOW speak out against? If anybody wants to see the list, look under “contents” and then “footnotes” at the website where the PowerPoint presentation is: http://wherestheline.home.comc.....estheline/
Though some of the sections are incomplete, all of the media examples are well documented with citations of source and date, etc.
Wheres The Line – I hope all of what you’ve painstakingly put together will become part of a data base or resource center that TNA organizes down the road. It is so important for all of us to have ready access to core pieces of info and evidence to back up our claims and our arguments.
fsteele
“I don’t like seeing someone who hung in through May, being vilified (elsewhere) for switching after Hillary herself switched.”
I so appreciate your integrity and your ability and willingness to be fair-minded. You have such integrity in the way that you think. Much appreciated.
Amy,
Good points distinguishing Gandy herself from NOW as a whole. If, while criticizing Gandy, we singled out some of her opponents in NOW for praise, would that help their faction in NOW?
Absolutely. NOW is a very important organization. Under the right leadership this could be a wonderful ally – just as NOW NY was in our work on Monserrate together.
Amy,
Iirc some local NOW person in California supported Palin for VP, and another in Nevada.
– Where’s The Line? offers –
“I’ve compiled hundreds of examples of sexism in the campaign [...] If anybody wants to see the list…the PowerPoint presentation is [link]”
Your site acknowledges that Mac users cannot open the PPT file. The accessibility problem is actually bigger, yet also needless.
Many people like me are either unwilling or unable to use Windows, and never use MSFT’s Office Suite, which is the only sure key, albeit a broken one, to unlocking their closed proprietary PPT format.
So you’ve made a wonderful offer…
… that I would love to accept… but, after your hard work to compile such a list, it’ll be a cryin’ shame if you don’t share it by exporting or converting it to one of the open standards that everybody can access on & off the Web.
If you’d like to put it in a database format, as Anna mentions, then MySQL would be a good choice. The open SQL standard is well established, popular all over the Web, and numerous database as well as spreadsheet applications can import/open a SQL file, regardless of platform or system. You could say goodbye to problems for users of OS/2, Linux, OSX, and XP & Vista for that matter.
Without being able to see your compilation, I can’t specify other formats beyond the above suggestion. The good rule of thumb is that we have an open standard for every purpose, whether to create video, music, spreadsheets, presentations….
MPEG
MNG
MP3
SGML
HTML
CSV (also tab-separated, quote-delimited ASCII)
SQL
etc.
Is the Director of the Women’s Bureau supposed to be an advocate? If so, why would someone in that post who believes that the President is a world class Feminist and that the Party in power is Picture Perfect bother to act as an advocate? Actually, to do so would be offensive to this world class Feminist and her peers in the Democratic Party, would it not?
Better to have an advocate that is dissatisfied with the status quo and is willing to push the people in power. No doubt, she will still be respectful and professional in her approach, but still, she would be in a position to advocate change and improvement.
T.I.
Just to clarify, the list of citations is posted as web pages viewable from any computer (as far as I know). Just select “contents” and then “footnotes” and go from there. Viewing the list does not require any downloading.
I would love to make the PPT file more accessible and will pass along your suggestions to the person who helps me with computer issues. Thanks for the input.
John Horning- That is an excellent point. In fact, I’ll give you two points for that one.
The whole idea of this Woman’s bureau is BS. What exactly are they supposed to do? Kiss the administrations ass, make excuses for them which we all know liberal women are good at but, sorry I have tired of listening to them? Make it look like team Obama is doing something for women when they aren’t, give team Obama a new office to release their Camelot first lady fashion and wardrobe news items through? This is just more bureaucracy we need to actually get some things accomplished. I want representation in the real government not some new bureau to ghettoize women’s issues. I want parity in Congress and Judges and that is all I want because it is clear that men can not run governments, religions or corporate America with out us and take our needs and interests to heart. However if you insist on creating a do nothing bureau you couldn’t find a better do nothing to be head of it than Kim Gandy.
one of the things that always surprises me in these discussions is how it all, always, comes around to President Obama. I still say that you can take him out of the equation entirely and what it’s really about is representation of women, good and bad.
the sexist attacks began long before anyone could have guessed who’d win the presidency, and NOW was either a weak responder, a late responder, or a total non-responder. I can’t count the number of times I sat in front of my tv or computer, looking at incredible displays of sexism, and thought “where’s NOW?”
like others here, I also believe and hope NOW can be a great organization again, but they need new leadership. what women do not need is the person who flew NOW into the side of the building getting the equivalent of a promotion and even greater stature.
– John Horning asked –
“Is the Director of the Women’s Bureau supposed to be an advocate? If so, why would someone in that post who believes that the President is a world class Feminist and that the Party in power is Picture Perfect bother to act as an advocate? [...] Better to have an advocate… willing to push the people in power.”
The Bureau job was not meant for a genuine advocate of women’s rights and of “speaking Truth to Power” with all necessary pushes. It’s really the picture-perfect position for a gatekeeper, selling out her countrywomen by kissing rather than kicking Barry’s backside.
Should we expect Truth from a corrupt administration?
– a relevant, *not* OT, tech note to Where’s The Line? –
I should clarify too. The PPT can’t be made more [quasi]accessible beyond what you’ve already been able to do with it, e.g. providing a viewer. Full accessibility requires an entirely different format, e.g. SQL or similar open standard.
Before I posted earlier re. your use of PPT, I had read much of your Web-accessible content, including btw your great discussion questions, and yes, even & especially your tech notes re. installation and system reqs, etcetera. I’m a geek by choice, and FOR choice, including the tech sense of open standards giving us real choice through compatibility and accessibility.
Example:
The New Agenda’s own WordPress blog! Nearly every blog [and BBS, or Bulletin Board System, which is a more powerful type of discussion forum] uses a database, in one form or another. It could be a CSV type of flat file, or more likely, a full-poweredl database format– namely, MySQL. So most people reading blog postings like this are actually using SQL already.
On-line shopping and catalog sites likewise use SQL databases, along with PHP, which WordPress also runs on.
Constance – Great point you raised. I e-mailed folks at NOW, as well as the Women’s Media Center throughout the year and never, ever, ever did I receive a response. I don’t expect the Executive Director to get back to me, but geez, I would think someone would respond. If they don’t intend to, they should make it clear on their web site that the communcation is a one-way street. I found it pretty odd…
PG quoted me as saying “Thus it is hard to support a woman who supports a man who benefited from that disgusting treatment.”
And then asked:
“So you’re categorically refusing to support — and in Gandy’s case, actively opposing — any woman who supported Obama in the general election? ”
My comment was in context–who would be fit to be the woman who would run the Women’s Bureau?
My dissatisfaction with the leader of NOW has been expressed by others here–the lack of action in standing up against the sexism coming from the Obama campaign. I kept wondering–maybe these women’s organizations that haven’t come down hard on Obama know something I don’t. Maybe they know it’s just a game, and no one really means what they say in politics. Well, whether it’s a game or not, I believe it’s wrong not to speak up against disrespectful and disparaging behavior towards women, period.
I love The New Agenda because it speaks up, and quickly. Have I thanked you lately? You are a ray of light!
So back to Kim Gandy: if she was a private citizen, who wasn’t in charge of the most well known women’s rights organization in the US, then her political actions and choices would not be symbolic, and it wouldn’t matter that she forgot and forgave and got behind a man who benefited from/instigated sexist/misogynistic attitudes about women.
I guess it makes sense for Obama to want to give her this position, because she proved that she doesn’t mind the slaps in the face, so he can work with that.
– Anne-Marie sums it up –
“I guess it makes sense for Obama to want to give her this position, because she proved that she doesn’t mind the slaps in the face, so he can work with that.”
Yup. He can exploit the name recognition and public reputation of Gandy and NOW to “prove” he’s a “feminist” without having to give her anything else, ever. What does that make her?
Rebecca West may give us an answer, from 1913!
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.“
-from Rebecca West’s essay, “Mr Chesterton in Hysterics: A Study in Prejudice”
in the 14 November 1913 issue of The Clarion
Hmm. It’s like separating the wheat from the chaff, with Feminists on one hand, and doormats and prostitutes on the other. I wonder if Kim Gandy thinks that 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Amy said on February 8th, 2009 5:46 pm:
Here is the link with the change of course on Summers:
http://www.iht.com/articles/20…..php?page=2
Yet Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said her group’s research actually produced material that recommended him. “One good thing about Larry Summers,” she said, “is that he has written and spoken fairly extensively on the issue of women’s wage inequality and the impact that has on the country.”
————————–
That link goes to an iht/nyt story with only the one short quote from Gandy. Does anyone have a link to Gandy’s complete statement? I’m too tired to explore NOW’s website.
Leaving aside for the moment some confusing Words that Summers spoke c. 48 months ago at a “working lunch” (and has had much cause to re-think ever since), what evidence do we have of other Actions he has since then been taking one way or another on women’s concerns?
– fsteele requests link to full Gandy statement –
I checked the (free) search engines and found several MSM quotes of Gandy’s criticisms from post-election 2008, but that brief compliment of him is a lone exception. Such praise of Summers is odd enough to be inconsistent, if not hypocritical. Maybe it is the only positive comment she ever made about him, or, is the odd tidbit allowed to remain on NOW’s website.
Gandy certainly knows how to release full public statements through NOW’s site and/or MSM announcements. If no such link can be found, then she probably made a strategic decision to limit herself to the above 1-line quote, and is not likely to make such a full statement at this point.
Just in case you had scrolled past my early posting here, I provided a valid link to Harvard’s webpage with Summers’ own notes on his NBER remarks:
“Remarks at NBER Conference…” by Larry Summers, dated January 14, 2005
president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php
I also gave you a pair of links for both HTML and PDF versions of a press statement by NOW from January 2005, which is chock full of Kim Gandy’s criticisms of Larry Summers–
“NOW Calls for Resignation of Harvard University’s President”
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/news/NOW.pdf
PDF contains original NOW link, still valid as of today
http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html
Among the 5 direct quotes of Gandy was a question that she, herself, now should be required to answer before she can accept any job in our government:
“The women of Harvard– professors, students and alums–
merit more than a belated and defensive ‘I’m sorry,’” said
Gandy. “How can they trust that Summers is committed to
equality for women when he doesn’t seem to believe that
discrimination exists?”
Let’s recap. In Nov 2008, Gandy credits Summers with a lot of speechifying about women’s wage inequality. Does such speechifying add up to qualifying for a job in our government– especially in light of Gandy’s own question about the lack of trust and committment? Neither Summers nor Gandy seem to have the right qualifications.
Betty Crocker said that the PUMA movement encouraged racism yet I am an African American PUMA. I was a PUMA from the first day. PUMA grew out of anger at how the Democrats ran the Primary.
You do African Americans a real disservice when you catorigize anyone who disagrees with Obama as racist because when you do that you minimize the ulgy stain of real racism. Perhaps you have white guilt and that is why you voted for him but to assume that just because the PUMA movement opposed Obama that they are racist. I oppose Obama does that make me racist?
NOW failed to support Sarah Palin and instead of defending Sarah against sexism they began to use it against her. I am sorry but because NOW forgot who it is they represent then I will no longer support them.
I feel the same way about the NAACP when they back a white Democrat over a black Republican.
Also Bet
T.I.,
Thank you very much for the links; I have added them to my notes. My interest is less in Gandy’s, or NOW’s, view of Summers, than in Summers himself. Gandy said that Summers “has written and spoken fairly extensively on the issue of women’s wage inequality and the impact that has on the country.” I’d like to find what he has been saying and doing about women’s issues lately.
As to your quote of Gandy saying that Summers “doesn’t seem to believe that discrimination exists”, she could scarcely have been basing that on Summers’ infamous 1/14/05 “working lunch” talk in which he discussed three factors in disparity in tenure etc, one of them being discrimination. In response he received many accounts of discrimination, leading him to give it added importance. (I don’t have that cite handy; he said this in an informal statement to faculty between the 14th and the 19th.)
http://pumaforsummers.blogspot.....under.html
To what extent is there overt discrimination? Surely there is some. Much more tellingly, to what extent are there pervasive patterns of passive discrimination and stereotyping in which people like to choose people like themselves, and the people in the previous group are disproportionately white male, and so they choose people who are like themselves, who are disproportionately white male. No one who’s been in a university department or who has been involved in personnel processes can deny that this kind of taste does go on, and it is something that happens, and it is something that absolutely, vigorously needs to be combated. On the other hand, I think before regarding it as pervasive, and as the dominant explanation of the patterns we observe, there are two points that should make one hesitate.
http://pumaforsummers.blogspot.....under.html
Summers is concerned about all inequalities. Musn’t lose perspective. Afterall, there aren’t many Jews as farmers, or Catholics in investment banking.
fSteele you’re beginning to be embarrassing.
Sis
Re: your comment:
“…there aren’t many Jews as farmers, or Catholics in investment banking.”
Is there a subtext to your message, or is it just my imagination? You made two rather specific choices and I trust my red flag when it goes up.
By the way, make sure you know from what you speak before buying into stereotypes. There have been, and are indeed, many Jewish farmers. And, as you must know, throughout history including not so long ago, Jews were prohibited from participating in a multitude of professions/jobs, leaving Jewish communities with a tiny handful of choices as to what they were allowed to do to earn money.
I will end my post here.
fsteele asks,
“I’d like to find what he has been saying
and doing about women’s issues lately.”
I’ll resist the temptation to dig up more links [been there, done it, seen it] and try instead to wrap up my pov on Summers in one more posting here.
Btw Anna, put your dukes down. Sis is citing Summers himself when she witticizes,
“Summers is concerned about all inequalities.
Musn’t lose perspective. Afterall, there
aren’t many Jews as farmers…”
I get a kick out of Summers’ use of language; his words are such bright reflections of his archaic assumptions. He denigrates social sciences as “soft” and suggests women can’t or won’t meet the long, grueling schedules that men are expected to handle for a tenured position. He even extends his assumption to women & jobs in a more general sense.
I’m a city hick who has lived amid the “green acres” of the country’s hills and valleys, so I’ve seen dairy, fruit and vegetable farmers hangin’ on, through 15-hour and longer workdays, while their husbands [think about it] contributed a second income as everything from truckers and carpenters to musicians and engineers.
I daresay, I’ve known some Jews and Muslims too among those great women who have worked so hard to feed their families and the rest of us.
But my own concern– warning, this might sound like something Lisa Douglas would say– is that I can’t see many farmers as farmers. Only a couple of hundred thousand real farmers are farming today. Most agricultural land is owned by Tyson, Cargill, ADM and their many subsidiaries and partners. Their religion is Corporatism and their favourite school of economics is the “Supply Side” kind, of which Larry Summers is a chief proponent.
Now you have yet another old school tie that binds Obama to Reagan.
Sis continues quoting Summers,
“… or Catholics in investment banking.”
Whuht, the Vatican Bank doesn’t count!? That’s not what Pope John Paul *the 1st* said, before he must’ve noticed that funny taste in his mouth, right before he collapsed…. Oops, that would be an OT rant.
Sigh. One more brief comment. Summers cited farming and investment banking as cases we might learn from, not as areas of concern.
Of course many low-brow jobs have grueling schedules; people take those because they need to live. People do not choose to become cardiac surgeons to keep warm.
T.I. Dukes are down. Your elucidation on the matter has been duly noted. (Sorry, Sis, if you’re around.)
fsteele – Your last statement is so brilliant, poetic, chilling…it sounds like it could be the start of a great book (hint).
– fsteele suggests –
“Summers cited farming and investment
banking as cases we might learn from,
not as areas of concern.”
Problem 1: Granted that farming and banking really are not his fields of expertise and interest, but the underlying problem is that his conclusions are predicated on incorrect examples and assumptions. He is the one who has not learned.
Problem 2: WRT concerns, I’ve tried to carefully express my own, along with examples. Again, his *lack* of concern is a major problem.
“Of course many low-brow jobs have
grueling schedules; people take those
because they need to live. People do
not choose to become cardiac surgeons
to keep warm.”
Ugh and Ouch in response to your sigh.
“Low-brow” jobs!?” Good thing all of us wit’ low-brow jobs dont have nuff time and no munny to spend blawgging at no damn wimmen’s agenda internetsites. Dont have big enuff forheads to becum millionaires like your “cardiac surgeons” choose to.
OK. Basta! Enough!
Farming is NOT a menial or [your term] “low-brow” job nor is it performed without considerable knowledge of both [Summers\' terms] “soft” and “hard” science. Farmers are [here\'s my short list] a Liberal Arts Blend of accountants, investors, biologists, zoologists, technicians, mechanics, engineers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, doctors and psychologists all rolled into one.
Summers’ illogical point was that women can’t hack the grueling hours/schedules of a tenure-track position. He also tried to extrapolate to other, non-academic fields. I easily proved him wrong with a single yet crucial example. Nurses provide a similar case, as well as quite a contrast to your surgeons.
Nurses put in the hours. Nurses save lives. Nurses have extensive academic training. Yet they are underpaid and underappreciated. Why? It isn’t about low-brow this or how-brow that. It’s not about the frontal lobes of the brain.
Even Kim Gandy would get this one.
In Summers’ “working lunch” talk Jan 14, 2005, he listed three possible causes for the disparity in Ivy League tenure and similar positions.
“The largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power and high intensity.” Speaking of “high-powered professions” inside and outside academia, Summers said: “[T]he relatively few women who are in the highest ranking places are disproportionately either unmarried or without children.” [Even among white American males] “it surprisingly hard to get Americans rather than immigrants or the children of immigrants to be cardiac surgeons. Cardiac surgeon is about prestigious, certain kind of prestige as you can be, fact is that people want control of their lifestyles, people want flexibility, they don’t want to do it, and it’s disproportionately [first generation] immigrants that want to do some of the careers that are most demanding in terms of time and most interfering with your lifestyle”
“The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search.”
“And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.”
Within a few days, information received in response to this talk led Summers to give ‘discrimination’ more importance.
Here’s more detail on Summers’ “largest phenomenon, by far”, ie the lifestyle/childcare issue, from the Question session at the end of his “working lunch” talk.
” We would like to believe that you can take a year off, or two years off, or three years off, or be half-time for five years, and it affects your productivity during the time, but that it really doesn’t have any fundamental effect on the career path. [However] in fields where the average papers cited had been written nine months ago, women had a much harder time than in fields where the average thing cited had been written ten years ago. “
fsteele, you seem to be bending over backward to avoid seeing the reality in front of you.
You’re only repeating your quotations of Summers instead of responding directly to my analysis and examples. His conclusions are wrong because he fails to grasp basic facts about the very jobs, people, and institutions that he is trying to use for his arguments. I already cited such instances.
Now I’d like to get past the repetitions by at least finishing with a couple of fresh observations.
Summers himself is one of those employers to whom he ascribes “a desire for high power and high intensity” in his staff. Typical of a supply-side corporatist– and reminiscent also of Barack Obama’s pretense at being a blameless bystander instead of the active participant in bigotry against women– he makes excuses for his own discriminatory leadership decisions by deflecting causation, in an ever so pragmatic tone, onto “lifestyle” choices of everybody else, except of course Summers and the elites in his circle.
It’s bad enough that in the Corporatist-Militaristic-Theocratic Peckerarchy, pregnancy is defined as a disability for purposes of company medical coverage and days off. Summers seems to define Womanhood as a disability too!
Some mention also should be made of a big flaw in the arguments by Summers as well as the aforementioned Steven Pinker [OK, I\'ll give the link again]…
“The Science of Gender and Science – Pinker vs. Spelke: A Debate”
http://www.edge.org/3rd_cultur.....index.html
… which is their virtual addiction to standardized tests, or more precisely, the scores.
Though Summers claims to be [ahem] concerned about the quality of education at Harvard and other U.S. universities, he again is overlooking this major factor directly under his eyes and control. Standardized testing is a sham and a scam. Testing is a big money-maker for some but costs the rest of society billions of dollars yearly and far more in terms of educating future generations to make their vital contributions to our country.
Originally, standardized tests were supposedly intended to create a fair and level playing field where students of any Race and Class (though excluding Gender) could demonstrate their knowledge. Then tests such as the SAT, LSAT, GRE, ACT etc. were promoted as must-have tools for predicting how a senior-year student might perform at the next undergrad or graduate level.
But the standardized tests have failed on both counts. As predictors of performance, they simply don’t measure up to the consistently high scores of more reliable and flexible tools– a student’s grades, class papers, research, school and community volunteer activities, independent projects, application essay and recommendation letters.
Besides Gender and Race, standardized tests do function as predictors of income above all other variables. But a quick glance at a student’s financial records would give that kind of info anyway, especially if rich students were the ones desired by the university.
If Summers had been truly dedicated to reforming and improving Harvard, he could have looked past his nose for a second and brought real hope & change by exposing the tests for the fraud they are. Such a bold decision would have been a slap in the face to Harvard’s presumed rival, Princeton University. Ah, but maybe the real rivalry is between entirely different groups, and the only changes will be in the same old bad directions.
No surprise today that the Gender Income Gap is increasing. If & when somebody ever gets around to clearing up and correcting the distorted Media Income tables devised during the Dubya regime, maybe we’ll see that the median income for women is half that of men– slightly better [i.e. maybe 51 or 52%] for women in the gov’s so-called Asian category, somewhat worse [maybe 48%] for African American women. The oft-quoted “70-something percent” average for women-vs-men is a fraud. I seethe ‘n’ spit each time I see that simple-average-factoid so I grabbed this chance to at least take a stab at it.
See yaz.
No, Summers did not say that by grueling labor women could invent the internet from Palin’s bedroom. It is not a matter of women being weak. It is a matter of demands that preclude a normal family life for anyone, man or woman. Summers was not insulting women on the lifestyle matter, but suggesting that the system’s demands be changed. Starting with the sort of ideas that feminists have been pushing for a long time: better maternity leave, childcare, etc etc.
The trouble with my engaging such posts even this far, is that it may draw claims that Summers banned books in the Harvard Library, shoots undergrads from helicopters, and has a tattoo. I should not have bit on the farmers and investment bankers.