CHRISTINA ROMER RESIGNS: The Obama Boys’ Club — Does the White House Economic Team Have a Woman Problem?
August 6, 2010
by Amy Siskind
|The following op-ed by The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind was originally featured on the front page of The Huffington Post on July 20, 2010. The piece was featured again today with Christina Romer’s sudden resignation.
When FDR devised the policies which led our country out of the Great Depression, he had a secret weapon – his wife, Eleanor. Regrettably, as we struggle our way out of the worse economic crisis since then, Treasury Secretary Geithner is attempting to silence one of the few female voices in leading us out: Elizabeth Warren. This despite ample evidence that having more women in financial leadership, ala Lehman Brothers and Lehman Sisters, is optimal for balancing risk in our financial system.
The two men leading our country’s economic policy, Geithner and Larry Summers, seem unwilling and perhaps incapable of working with women. That is why President Obama should not only nomination Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, but also proactively seek to add gender balance to his economic inner circle.
Geithner’s opposition to Warren is not his first clash with women in power. One of his first acts in the role of Treasury Secretary was to attempt to push out FDIC Chairwoman Shelia Bair. As Rep Barney Frank observed: “I think part of the problem now, to be honest, is Sheila Bair has annoyed the ‘old boys’ club…we have several regulators up in the tree house with a ‘no girls allowed’ sign...”
Geithner’s inability to respectfully interact with women in positions of power was further in evidence when he was questioned in April by the Congressional Oversight Panel. Warren rightfully asked Geithner about AIG’s funneling billions of taxpayers dollars to Goldman Sachs: Do you know where the money went? Geithner could barely conceal his disdain: watch his angry, condescending response here.
Of course, Warren was correct. Taxpayers did not need to pay Goldman Sachs one hundred cents on the dollar, resulting in Goldman booking a $6 billion dollar gain. Geithner should well know. Also in 2009 under his watch, our government strong-armed creditors of Chrysler into taking massive discounts to their original investments!
Like Geithner, Larry Summers has a well documented pattern of not being able to work with and silencing women. In fact, our current economic crisis could have been adverted if Summers had paid attention to Brooksley Born, then chairwoman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
In 1998, Born issued an unequivocal warning to Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Summers of the risks inherent in not regulating derivatives. Summers was one to silence Born: … Summers called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis. Michael Greenberger, a senior director at the commission at the time, noted: Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.
Likewise, in 2002, derivatives whiz Iris Mack voiced concerns to Summers about Harvard Endowment Company’s use of risky derivatives. A few months late, Mack was fired. Another woman silenced: another warning of risk unheeded.
The problem goes deeper still. President Obama’s economic inner circle includes only one woman: Christina Romer. And of course, it is hardly a secret that tensions are high for Ms. Romer and her all male colleagues, including Larry Summers: Mrs. Romer was joking, she said in an interview, adding, “There are only a few times that I felt like smacking Larry.” Yet few laughed in the president’s presence.
One can only imagine. Romer is girl trying to operate in a boys’ club.
Which is why it’s time for President Obama to knock the door off of the boys’ club and let more women into his inner economic circle. We can hardly afford to lose another immensely qualified woman. The opportunity cost to our economic prosperity is simply too great.
Thanks for writing this, Amy. As usual, you are right on target…
I think Obama and the boys figure Valerie Jarrett over at the White House Commission on Women and Girls is THE woman in the administration and she is undoubtedly free to talk about our economy at that commissions gatherings, of course that is if she can get a word into the apparently packed schedule of women and girls events that commission handles.
And of course there is the Michelle Obama fashion parade to encourage fashion spending among women and girls. You know women and girls have advanced so much that we now have a fully qualified lawyer First Lady to represent our fashion interest not just some housewife or teacher in the position.
So I am sure they feel they have the womans position pretty well covered over at the White House.
No, the White House has a woman problem across the board. Nearly twenty years out from the Clinton Administration, there are fewer women in Cabinet and sub Cabinet level postions. What happened? More women have graduate degrees, more woment have pertient experince, and yet there are fewer women in high level postions. What do you expect? The First Dude calls women “dear,” and then tries to downplay it by claiming he calls a lot of people “dear.” Yeah, babe, I’d like a list of the men you call “dear.”
I expect the President to come out and say if he is questioned about the lack of women in the administration that: a) he couldn’t find enough qualified women and b) some of his best friends are women but he wouldn’t want his daughters to marry one.
And I wish Michelle would stop channeling the Stepford wives and be herself.
Time to appoint Warren or start looking for some good excuses. But there aren’t any.
The economic team? Let’s just say the White House and espicially it’s misogynist-in-chief have a women problem. I have not forgotten Obama underpaid female staff, his comments about Hillary feeling down and the claws coming out, and his referencing a female reporter as “sweetie.”
He threw women under the bus for health care and he has been lukewarm to women’s issues ever since he got into office. Is that a problem? Yeah.
I vaguely remember a debate between Elizabeth Warren and Sheila Bair. Dr. Warren was advocating government oversight, Sheila Bair keeping banks small and resisting the fusions and buy ups. if we can avoid to create these too big to fail institutions the market will work. from everywhere I look I am not impressed by government oversight results recently. small players in an open market looks good. how this could be done is beyond my expertise. since the government oversight seems to be a done deal definitely Dr. Warren who has advocated for the creation of the institution
should get the job.
CNN just has an article citing Christoffer Dodd, that Elizabeth Warren is not confirmable. Sounds like an excuse to me. She probably has just too much integrity to fit into the wrotten economic boy’s club.
Now I am hearing in the rumor mill that Romer’s replacement will be a guy? As if there are no other qualified women out there who understand economics!? I guess only male opinions regarding economic policy and trends are superior. /snark
Their detestation of and discomfort around women is so all-powerful that they would rather send the entire planet into the shit chute than risk getting cooties by sitting next to a girl in the meetings.
Besides, no matter how bad the economy gets, do you think any of those assholes will be suffering? Suffering is for little people.
“…they would rather send the entire planet into the shit chute than risk getting cooties by sitting next to a girl..”
Isn’t that the darn truth? I have watched businesses go bankrupt simply because they are too bloody stubborn and misogynistic to access resources and talents from the other half of the human race. It’s maddening.
As to the white house having a woman problem, oh yeah, they sure do. They view women as separate from half the human race so “womens issues” becomes something assigned to the Council on Women and Girls which probably meets in some basement a couple of times a year. As far as this white house is concerned they’ve already made their token nod to women and no farther effort is required.
I have watched businesses go bankrupt simply because they are too bloody stubborn and misogynistic to access resources and talents from the other half of the human race. It’s maddening.
And they prefer it. They would consider treating women with respect and dignity a horrific downside of living in paradise. It’s not paradise unless they get to crap on women.
I have to keep gritting my teeth and saying “HILLARY GOT MORE VOTES HILLARY GOT MORE VOTES HILLARY GODDAMN WON” in order to remind myself that a goodly number of them are not so mentally damaged that they would sooner starve to death in a pool of filth than endure the horror of respecting a woman.
Isn’t it amazing how predictable they are? They cannot help to act in the manner in which it was predicted they would act, because misogynist attitudes are dismissed…they are not afraid to marginalize women. There are no consequences (well, there are, we all suffer the consequences of the lack of women’s perspective, as Amy so eloquently discusses), for them.
The most important thing is to make this behavior evident for what it is (misogynism), and to demand no more “pictures” without women in them by actively nominating and demanding/calling on women to be placed in key positions, such as in the council of Economic advisers.
Send a message to the White House.
Didn’t little Timmy have a sign on his door when he was working for the Fed that said “No Girls Allowed?”
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...