Don’t Break out the Champagne Quite Yet….
March 17, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|
Last night on Ophelia we had a good old fashioned venting session – and wow, was it fun! There is something so cathartic about getting it out in the open and off your chest.
This morning, I opened my email to find a blog piece written by Allison Stevens of Women’s eNews titled Cabinet Disappoints; Other Obama Moves Win Raves. In her piece, Allison writes about how some women’s group (ahem – that would be The New Agenda) took offense to Obama’s pick of Larry Summers and the fact that only 7 members of Obama’s cabinet are women (actually it’s 6 out of 24 picks so far).
But, Allison continues:
Overall, women’s rights groups are pleased with Obama’s performance and cite as evidence of his commitment to improving the lives of women the first bill he signed into law: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, reversing a Supreme Court decision that made it harder for women to sue for wage bias.
Well, not so fast. All he did was sign a bill that was put on his desk. This after a long and hard battle fought primarily by women in the Congress and Senate. As we know, all four of the female Republicans crossed party lines to vote for the Fair Pay Act – that to me means something. Not signing a bill that comes on your desk after months of hard work by others (including SOS Clinton who was one of the original sponsors of the Act while she was in the Senate).
In my opinion, President Obama had done nothing to deserve any praise from the women of this country until last week. At that point, finally, our voices were heard and a White House Women’s Council was created. It is nirvana? Heck, no. But, it is a start. In President Obama’s speech introducing the notion of the Women’s Council, he cited three issues that need to be addressed:
Obama cited statistic to back up his case: Women earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make; 1 in 4 women still experiences domestic violence; women are 49 percent of the work force but only 3 percent of Fortune 500 chiefs.
Please note that all three of these items are listed as Goals for The New Agenda.
So why did President Obama create the Women’s Council? I am sure we all have our theories. My personal belief is that he is getting crushed in the opinion polls due to his administation’s handling of the economy as support for the stimulus package slips. As demonstrated today, President Obama wants to speak about anything other than the economy as he frantically tries to change the subject.
But whatever the reason, President Obama realizes that he needs women’s support. After all, 56% of women voted for him in 2008 and there is little in the stimulus package in its current form that does much of anything to help the women of this country. So he threw us a bone, yes. And should be grateful – I say yes. We need to use the stick AND the carrot.
But is it time to pop the cork on that champagne bottle? Heck no!
Okay, I know I am always the counter argument but this post really assumes the negative.
* Obama did not have to sign the Act as soon as he did; I doubtful that McCain would have signed the act (I need to look up his voting record)
* Obama did not have to re-instituted the Council as soon as he did (Bush disbanded it)
* Obama had many talent women on his campaign team and many within his administration – to assume he didn’t want progress regarding women’s issue doesn’t fit this pattern
* Obama has appointed more minority women to cabinet level positions right out the box than any President in history
* Obama is one or two women short of appointing more women to cabinet level positions right out the box than any President in history. As it stands, 6 out of 21 cabinet level position is at least on part with prior administrations.
* Obama has budgeted for significant increases in the budgets of HHS, Labor and Civil Rights which will impact the enforcement of laws that protect, promote pay equity and institute the kind of health care changes that will benefit working women
However,
Obama has played it safe – a great disappointment.
- He could have easily appointed 2 or 3 other women, particularly majority women, to reach the number of 8 or 9. He did not win the majority women vote (while overwhelmingly winning the minority women vote). I hope he is not rewarding one group and penalizing the other.
- He could have made the Council a cabinet level position (which in and of itself would have given him 7). He also appointed two minority women to lead the initiative.
- He has not appointed any high-powered business-women (Whitman, Farina level caliber) to any post; he should have done this with the Commerce job
- He choose Geithner and Summers, one of these jobs should have gone to a women with expertise in finance
What I worry about Obama is not that he is a sexist, or doesn’t believe that women’s rights are important but that he does not value women’s rights enough to take some political risks. He wants advancement on the cheap – this simply is not good enough!
The administration has a long way to go before it can call itself feminist. For a Dem president, this is disapointing to say the least. He can do more, but as Kevin says, he plays it safe.
So far he is a big step backwards from President Clinton. And I must say overall a big disappointment.
Amy,
I will have to check Bill’s legacy regarding women’s rights and investigate what his Women’s Council accomplished but given his extra-marital affairs, it is hard for me to see him as a role model in this issue.
With all due respect, creating a women’s counsel is nothing more than optics. And he does not get to take credit for signing something that hits his desk when he didn’t lift a finger to champion it. My goodness, so many people are cheering Obama for doing, what?, his job? If only I had it so easy.
As for appointments and the ‘Council on Women’, whatever the current ratio in appointments, pls note that they are all by definition members of the ‘Council’ — which makes a male-dominated Council!
Does the Council on Woman and Girls have a budget? An office? A staff beyond the cabinet members who will allegedly attend meetings? Speaking of meetings, how often are they scheduled?
Until these questions are answered all I have is a press release.
Obama has a lot to make up for! His sexist, and in some cases misogynistic campaign tactics set women and girls back 40 years, including his own daughters. I think that any gesture on his part to move women forward is nothing more than redeeming himself from the misogyny his campaign and cohorts unleashed on the women of this country.
I’m a liberal democrat and NOT a republican, but the way the women who ran against him were treated by the so called liberal media and his campaign is unforgivable. The damage it cost our progress will continue for decades to come.
I am not convinced that Obama gives a rats ass about women. So, he’s not McCain or Bush! Frankly, I expect more from the party who claims to stand for equality for all.
And frankly, I see no difference between Obama and the democrats lining the pockets of the bankers at the expense of the American people, and Bush and the republicans lining the pockets of the oil companies and the construction contractors at the expense of the American people. Their fear tactics are identical and the results of robbing the American public is the same. While the banks are using the TARP money to hand out multi–million dollar bonuses (or retention incentives) to other bankers, people in Ohio and Michigan are loosing their homes and jobs, and are standing in bread lines to feed their families.
78 cents on the dollar is not parity. One in four women “experiencing domestic violence” is not acceptable, parity would be better but still not acceptable. Finally, 3 percent leadership positions representing 49 percent of the workforce is not parity either.
So, now that some of the problems have been acknowledged, when are we going to find out what action the Women’s Council is going to take to actually change one or more of these things?
78 cents on the dollar is not parity. One in four women “experiencing domestic violence” is not acceptable, parity would be better but still not acceptable. Finally, 3 percent leadership positions representing 49 percent of the workforce is not parity either.
So, now that some of the problems have been acknowledged, when are we going to find out what action the Women’s Council is going to take to actually change one or more of these things?
Is it time to talk about quotas, yet? Forgive my unreliable memory, John, but I think we talked about this before, and — correct me if I’m wrong — you weren’t prepared to entertain the idea? Quotas seem sort of anti-American, I expect, but I think it’s the only way we’re going to get the kind of movement we need on these issues. I’m just waiting for everyone else to get there.
KendallJ,
I agree with a lot of your post except “His sexist, and in some cases misogynistic campaign tactics set women and girls back 40 years, including his own daughters.”
How exactly did Obama set women and girls back 40 years. By what measure is this statement validated?
Am I being unreasonable because I was expecting Jarrett to put out a press release, or give an interview, or make an announcement about something (ANYthing?)
This strategy on race has parallels to Obama’s strategy on gender http://www.politico.com/news/s.....20156.html
However, while he serves as the best role model and example of racial advancement and focus, he hasn’t appointed enough women to high level positions so that they serve as roles models or examples of gender advancement and focus. And the women he has appointed – HRC, Janet, Kathleen, Hilda, Susan, Lisa, Christina and Valarie – don’t appear to be getting any spotlight.
Michelle Obama and HRC appear to be the only women really getting any press push/coverage and their charge isn’t fostering women’s rights.
One thing Ms. Jarrett could do is issue a press release on the specific policies of the various departments that impact women’s rights that she will work with the Council to implement. She said on NPR this strategy would be her first step.
Sheryl –
On a personal level, I have no problem with quotas, including for racial minorities as well. It has been my observation that quotas not only generate resistance but some actual “blow back” here in our society.
FYI: This Kathleen Parker woman that has a column in the Washington Post has a clearly anti-woman column in today’s paper. I think it is wise for people who support gender equality to post comments when such things appear, it anyone is interested. I did so, but I use an anonymous posting name at the Post and the Times.
Yes, Ms. Parker’s article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....inionsbox1
mixes and co-mingles two different goals: 1) the advancement of women and 2) the plight of young boys and makes it an “or,” “win-lose” argument as opposed to an “and,” “win-win” advocacy.
Ms. Parker is correct in lamenting the situation of young boys but unfair in implying a focus on women’s advancement worsens this situation. She sets up a false battle between boys and girls.
Ms. Parker is correct in stating the inaccuracy of the 78% pay inequity argument. She is right, pay equity cannot be generalized but examined on a case-by-case, job category-by-category basis. However, she grossly underestimates the impact and significant of the few number of women in executive offices and does not raise the treat to America’s financial health that young women are drastically underrepresented in some industries (e.g., engineers and sciences, etc.) .
Very poor and biased article; does help boys or girls in a positive way.
Kendall – I also called myself a liberal Dem. for decades – no more. I am changing my voter ID to independent.
Obama’s sexist ‘tude is too much for me, and the deafening silence when he says things like HRC is “likable” enough or puts a lot of women in window-dressing slots while controlling power for men (Summers, Axelrod, Geithner, etc.)
People tiptoe around Obama due to racial issues. I feel no need to pander and call what I see.
Flora,
I am still waiting for anyone who comments to make the case that Obama is sexist, saying “sweetie,” or “letting the claws come out,” or “likable” enough simply do not amount to promoting sexism in a country where people were creating nutcracker dolls, there is internet porn and there is hooters establishments. Moreover, each campaign engage in this “ism” language.
kevin,
Don’t you mean
“Very poor and biased article; doe NOT help boys or girls in a positive way.”
Flora,
Yes, thank you!
Kevin,
People often say “Bill Clinton” when we mean the Clinton two-fer, Bill and Hillary, during their term in the White House in the 90s. It is not to distinguish Bill from Hillary, but to distinguish the 90s from now.
Florida Lady — I have really been at the Independent Party level of thinking for awhile. What if we had a Women’s Party and backed and supported our own candidates?
Flora,
So point out what you believe where the Clinton administration’s successes with respect to women’s right. Moreover, what were the accomplishments of his Council? My understanding is that Clinton also had a an interagency effort on women which was headed by Madeleine Albright. In fact, the Council’s goals under Clinton were less aggressive:
“President Clinton has established the Commission to consider how best to acknowledge and celebrate the roles and accomplishments of women in American History.”
I am not lauding Obama but I am neither looking at the Clinton administration through rose colored glasses nor making Obama out to be the monster many believe he is.
Kevin,
Here’s a starting point: http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Ac.....ional.html
Iirc, one of the tasks of the Clintons’ ‘council’ was to coordinate with women’s groups and bring their suggestions to the White House.
Flora,
I think this is a very good tactic and could be rightfully added to the current Council’s agenda
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_.....and-Girls/
But know ask yourself: “how prominent do women’s rights seem on this list of accomplishments?” It appears that this Council was tasked to work with external women’s groups but there does not seem to be a lot of accomplishments the Clinton administration feels were significant enough to incorporate in the list of their achievements.
I am not downing the Clinton Administration – I voted for Bill both times – I just think we need to objectively look at what Clinton really accomplished in 8 years such that we can fairly hold Obama to accede these achievements since 8-16 years have intervened since the Clintons.
Kevin, I read that you understand the nutcracker selling as sexist, but not the sweetie comment. well, everybody will acknowledge that some very extreme examples are sexist such as the forcing girls in foreign countries into prostitution, if you read Nickolas Krystof’s articles like the the one Times “The face behind the smile”. The point is to recognize the powerful but subtle everyday overwhelming signs of sexism. obama”s white house page on women showing as goal “decrease in domestic violence”. if he were a feminist the goal would be 0 tolerance like “people aren’t for beating”, 0 tolerance to rape.
to your sweetie comment. this is a great example and not soft. think as the addressed woman as accomplished as yourself, she is there and has something to say. what would you think if you were addressed as sweetie by an political candidate. this is the level of “”pass the sugar’ but don’t open your mouth. the sweetie comment produces associations like “men have balls, women something to snuggle on”. I tell you in the political fight nobody wants to be a sweetie. this is more than condescending. try it out for one day and imagine people all around you would address you as sweetie. probably within the hour you’ll have an anger management problem. and i am sure that was the intention of obama and his campaign. make these Hillary women mad and they will be the laughstock of the nation. remember we were supposed to be bitter. and we have every reason to be bitter whenever the name O. is mentioned.
MMarille,
I do believe “sweetie” is sexist in the wrong context. I was inarticulately making the point that these statements, however, pale in comparison to the rabid sexism in America promoted within the media, the Internet and everyday life. For example, just two days ago a FOX News woman reported talked about getting into a catfight with Meghan McCain. I do not believe these statements wholly define Obama – his successful marriage, the role model his wife projects, the intelligent and hardworking women who serve as his advisors and his legislative actions and voting record as Senator also define him.
Some comments are projecting HRC’s loss, sexism in the media and the actions of the DNC solely on Obama and portraying him as an individual that fosters misogyny. I believe the facts of his life do not back up this charge. As I said earlier, I give Obama a c+/b grade so far on promoting women’s rights. He is playing it much to safe.
Kevin, tell me one public situation where you want to be called sweetie.
Kevin, with your praise of Obama’s role model, how can you explain the goal of DECREASING domestic violence. just think of it, would anybody have thought of a goal of DECREASING lynching as progressive?
Marille,
My wife and I have called each other sweetie in public – that is what I meant. I don’t think Obama’s use of the term was appropriate. However, again, this one statement does not define him. Just like some of HRC’s misstatements do not define her:
“Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.”
I do not know how one can be outraged at Obam’s statement as sexist and not accept that many people would see HRC’s statement as race baiting. I, however, do not think it defines her and do not believe it suggests she is a racist.
I am assuming you are implying that the goal should be “eliminating” domestic violence, as opposed to “decreasing.” I would agree with this statement. But, I have also heard women advocates talk about the need to “decrease” domestic violence; I am sure, however, they would prefer “eliminating” domestic violence.
As I have said countless times, I give Obama a c+/b grade so far on promoting women’s rights. He is playing it much to safe. I reserve the D and F grades to McCain for his dismal voting record on women’s issues and Bush for disbanding the Council, not pushing for the Ledbetter Act and underfunding the Civil Rights division and Department of Labor.
I do believe, HRC would have been more aggressive on women’s rights if she had been elected President.
Kevin,
Calling women “sweetie” is the equivalent of calling Obama “boy”.
Marille, The women’s issue aside — I don’t really think guys mind women calling them sweetie, so that is probably not a good comparison.
samanthasmom,
I agree with you, calling a women “sweetie” can be very inappropriate. Asking my wife and other women, it depends on who is saying it, when they are saying it and in what context they are saying it.
I cannot think of the context where calling a grown African American male a “boy” unless it is my father, grandfather or an elder. “Boy” is a term with roots to slavery and Jim Crow.
I understand the point you are making but the comparison is bad. I would say calling a women a “B” is the equivalent to calling Obama a “boy.”
I think that is a good comparison, Kevin. It reminds me of the “girl” issue. My white female friends “girl” each other all the time. “Hey, girl!” “Girl! You don’t mean it!” etc. And some of my black friends do the same. But some black women are extremely offended by the use of that term. It’s hard to censor yourself from saying something that you use alot when there are no disrespectful intentions.
Kevin,
Calling a woman “sweetie” is demeaning. It implies that we are infantile little girls, incapable of assuming adult roles – the same attitude that was behind calling an African-American male a “boy”. The attitude behind the word “sweetie” harks back to a time when women were treated like children. Days when women were their husband’s property and not allowed to own property of their own. Many men like “sweeties” because they “know their place” – just like African-American “boys” were supposed to know theirs. I wouldn’t use the term “sweetie” even when I address a small female child. Calling a woman a bitch implies that she is strong, maybe nasty, and uncontrollable. Hardly the same thing as calling Obama a “boy”. “Bastard” would be the male equivalent to “bitch”.
Are all terms of endearment demeaning?
Carolyn, Obama did not endear the lady at the rally.
Women who go to political rallies do not want to be endeared.
adressing in public a woman as “sweetie” belittles everything she has to say and is appearantly such a subtle way of shutting women up and excluding them from any discourse , that not even some new agenda fans can see it. that is the style Obama chose.
Samanthasmom nailed it, when she reminded you of the status women had not so long ago (19th century). they could not open a bank account (I heard that is happening in the south in some states to this day), were not allowed to keep custody of their children, they could not own property and not keep the money they earned, if the husband send them to work. if they were unlucky and had a drunkard husband, they had to go work and give all the money earned to the drinking husband. that is why some of the first women’s movement also worked for the temperance movement fighting for prohibition. the beginnings of the fight against violence against women, which brought on the alcohol lobby financing the antiwomen vote organization.
so women faught along with freed slaves for their rights because they saw their situation as very similar. and you can read this in letters between the early suffragists. all three famous suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B Anthony and Alice Paul were also abolishionists and were raised as Quakers and had experienced in their homes more egalitarian behavior between women and men in contrast to the outside society. The demeaning and cutting women completely out of an abolishionist conference in London by the organiziers sparked Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott to call for the womens conference in Seneca Falls in 1848.
Carolyn, this is an interesting question: “are all forms of endearment demeaning?”
in public meetings women are often adressed with niceties, such as how good they are looking, compliments on clothes, looks, the looks and dresses of their children, if they are allowed. This is the sweet way of excluding us. not curtains and walls anymore to sit behind as it was at the abolishionist conference in London mid 19th century. the effect is the same. we are allowed but only for decoration.
just like in sport the action and power is with the male actives, the decoration and support by the cheerleading girls.
“sweeties on rallies” are like chearleaders in sports. they are not the ones who will have to say anything.
if you compliment somebody in a private meeting that is of course different and what kind of language would be demeaning also depends on taste. I for example would show distaste when called sweetie.
I hope that helps. i think this is an important discussion. there is so much insensitivity for sexism in contrast to racism.
The woman he addressed as “sweetie” was a reporter asking him a question that he found irritating. Some people endearingly call men from the American south “bubba” (Bill Clinton comes to mind) but in the context of a male reporter with a southern accent asking Barack an uncomfortable question, addressing the reporter as “bubba” while using dismissive tone and body language, it would be very clear what the intent was — to dismiss the person based on a characteristic about them that some people use as an insult.
The intent of calling the reporter “sweetie” was to remind her, there in that room full of men and in front of her camera, that she was “different” and didn’t belong and Obama had the power because he was a man in a room full of men, so she better mind her place, plain and simple.
Oh no, I agree on the Obama issue. It was just that several posts suggested that any use of the term EVER was demeaning and I felt that is more a personal preference.
This also does not apply to what Obama said, but for what it’s worth, some things are regional. Here in the deep south we honey, baby, sweetie, darling, sugar, etc. people to death all the time. You want to squeeze past someone in the grocery store, “excuse me honey.” I think it is our way of softening a demand.
I am curious carolyn, you really honey, baby, sweetie, darling sugar epople including men to death.
funny, yesterday at the MVA in Maryland, I was called honey and did everything not to show my distaste. after all, I needed a waver for a fine which I got.
Yes — in fact the women do it a lot more than the men. I happened to be at a meeting last night and mentioned, that apparently a lot of people find this very offensive. Everyone was rather bemused. The one lady in our group who is not southern said when she moved here she found it “quaint” but not offensive.
“Sweetie” can be offensive to both men and women. I work with a woman who calls everyone “sweetie” and it really annoys my male co-worker to no end. Some people consider it a nicety and others take offense. With that in mind, it’s probably best to reserve it for close friends and family.
IMO, Obama loves the (not so) subtle put down and that’s exactly what his “sweetie” comment was. And he’s not from the South so he can’t use that excuse.
Kevin,
If what you say is true then how to explain the popularity of Estelle’s hit song “American Boy.” It seems to me that “sweetie” just like “boy” can be used as either a term of endearment or an insult. It all depends on who says it, when they say it and how they say it.
For those who missed the news last week, both chambers are moving ahead with plans to bring Maryland into compliance with the federal Real ID law but with a key difference: The Senate wants to require proof of legal residence for all new licenses and renewals. The House wants to grandfather in illegal immigrants who now have licenses and create a two-tier system, so that their licenses would be labeled “not federally compliant” for the purposes of getting into federal buildings, boarding airplanes, etc. Gov. O’Malley says he’ll sign either bill but prefers the House approach.
mva maryland
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
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...