Grazing Sheeple

nugacity at its finest
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 1:30PM

Bullshit Wedge Issue or An Alternate Point of View?

Rate: 20 Flag

 Previously titled: Promise Parity in the Cabinet or Obama will not win

Dr Long

Today I had a friend send me a link to a blog by Dr. Lynette Long - a life long democrat who is now actively campaigning for McCain.  I spent the last week at a hospital bereft of cable news and decent internet, so if you have heard of her already, my apologies.

What Dr Long has to say concerning the Obama campaign's take on gender equity is disturbing and if true, indicates a serious failing on the part of the Democratic nominee.  This obtuseness to the desire for equity will carry McCain to victory.

Please read Long's entire post before ranting about wizened old crones who support Hillary or vagina voters or dessicated PUMAs or any of that other sexist crap.  I've cut and pasted it below to save you the clicking.  All of the bolding is mine.

***************** 

BY DR. LYNETTE LONG: Gloria Steinem, in her September 4th editorial in the Los Angeles Times, came out strongly against Governor Palin claiming the only thing women have in common with Palin is an X chromosome.  I respectfully disagree. 

Governor Palin knows what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister - things the two men on the Democratic ticket can never fully understand.  She knows what it is like to grow up invisible in an incredibly sexist society, to be stared at, groped, and sexually harassed.  She knows what it is like to be smaller in stature than men and physically vulnerable. She knows what it’s like to worry that you are pregnant when you don’t want to be or that you are not pregnant when you want to be. 

Sarah Palin knows what it is to experience the joys and sorrows of motherhood, to nurse a baby while holding down a job, to leave for work in the morning with a toddler tugging at your pant leg, or to have your children calling you at work to diffuse squabbles or ask for help with homework.  She knows that once you get to work you have to speak twice as loud and twice as often to be heard and work twice a hard to go half as far.  She knows what it is to be a member of the second sex.

Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic.  The first comment made when a child is born is either, “It’s a girl” or “It’s a boy.”  From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. From the nursery room to the board room, boys and girls are given different messages about their respective roles in the world.  

At the hospital they are given different types of names and wrapped in different colored blankets. Once home, baby girls and boys wear fundamentally different clothes and play with different toys.  This differentiation extends through school where girls are given less attention, picked less frequently to answer questions and placed less often in advanced science and math classes.  Once in the workforce, women are steered into lower-paying careers, paid less for the same work, and forced to juggle the responsibilities of work and home.  You can’t learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can’t have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what’s best for women.  You can’t legislate for women, without women. 

After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear, Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, myself, and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain and Carly Fiorina. 

I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet are underrepresented in every branch of government. I asked him loudly and clearly to choose a woman for the VP slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court.  Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Representatives of The New Agenda also met with Carly Fiorina as well as members of the Obama campaign to make similar requests.

After the Democratic Primary, I was personally in contact with a member of Obama’s Finance Committee.  He left several messages on my office phone, “urging” me to support Senator Obama.  We had numerous contentious conversations and I finally told him I would be happy to vote for Senator Obama and rally other Hillary supporters to vote for Obama but in return I wanted Obama to pledge gender parity in the cabinet. 

I foolishly thought equal representation in government was a reasonable request.  “What if there aren’t qualified women you still expect us to appoint half women to the cabinet?” he replied.  I was confused. “There are 300 million people in this country; you’re telling me you can’t find ten qualified women?”  He responded, “You can’t have that.” We had no further conversations.  There was nothing more to say.

Weeks later I approached a training session for DNC canvassers at a park in my neighborhood.  Eager to practice their new skills, they all ran up to me, “Do you support Senator Obama? Do you want to donate money to the DNC?”  After explaining that I was a Hillary supporter, I again made my request.  I will support Senator Obama if he will pick a woman as his running mate and promise gender parity in the cabinet.  The men in the group openly laughed at me and found my request ridiculous.  I looked at the horrified faces of the newly minted female canvassers.  “They’re laughing at you too,” I muttered.

Not one to give up, I contacted a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama.  She assured me Obama was a good guy, so I posed my request to her.  She generously responded, “I’ll ask him.”

When I did not hear back from her in a few days, I shot her another email.  She told me how disappointed she was in me for making such a stupid request.  Obama was on the “right” side of the issues.  Why did it matter whether men or women legislated those issues?  I guess the answer from Obama was No. 

What saddened me was her mother was one of this nation’s greatest champions of Title Nine, educational equity and gender parity.  Her mother and I counted the number of pictures of boys and girls in text books, male and female cartoon characters, and documented the underrepresentation of girls in math classes in our nation’s schools.

Yes, policy is important but who decides and delivers that policy is even more important.  As Marshall McLuhan profoundly noted, “The medium is the message.”  Children incorporate many of their perceptions about gender by age five.  Little girls won’t understand if Sarah Palin is pro-life or pro-choice, believes in gun control or is a member of the NRA, but they will know the Vice-President of the United States of America is a girl and that alone will alter their perceptions of themselves.

I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades.  My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. 

My party refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other candidate in history. 

My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the mainstream media. 

My party was mute while the main stream media repeatedly called Clinton a bitch and symbolically called me and every other woman in this country a bitch. 

My party was disturbingly silent when the main stream media commented on Hillary’s body or the shrillness of her voice, reminding me and every other woman the fundamental disrespect we endure on a daily basis. 

My party’s candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. 

My party’s candidate was silent when the rapper Ludicrous released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. 

My party and its candidate gave their tacit approval for the attacks on Senator Hillary Clinton and consequently women in general.

I have a choice.  I can vote for my party and its candidates which have demonstrated a blatant disrespect for women and a fundamental lack of integrity or I can vote for the Republican ticket which has heard our concerns and put a woman on the ticket but with whom I fundamentally don’t agree on most issues. 

If Democratic women wait for the perfect woman to come along, we will never elect a woman.  We have to seize opportunity where it presents itself.   Besides, the Democratic Party is no longer my home.  I have no home, but this election I will make my bed somewhere else. 

I respect Gloria Steinem’s right to support the presidential ticket of her choice but she is openly trying to derail Sarah Palin’s historic candidacy.  As Madeleine Albright said, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”  

I will vote for McCain-Palin.  I urge other women to do the same.  I might not personally agree with Palin on every issue and I promise to the first person knocking on her door, if Roe v. Wade, or any other legislation that goes against the rights of women is threatened.

But in Governor Palin I find a woman of integrity, who not only talks the talk but walks the walk.  I can work with that.  I will work with that.  When I walk down the street, I don’t have Democrat printed on my forehead, but my gender is obvious to everyone and impacts every interaction in my life.

Since my country is far from gender neutral, right now for me gender trumps everything else.  I urge other women to join me in this fight for equality.  Sometimes opportunities occur where you least expect them. 

*****************

Again -- you may not agree with Dr. Long, but perhaps you should attempt to understand her point of view. 

WaPo published a profile of her in Sunday's paper:  A Real McCain Supporter?  Or Just a Clintonite on the Rebound?

It is incomprehensible to me that Obama cannot find ten qualified women for his cabinet.  Isn't it time for the Democratic Party to do more for women than kick them in the teeth?  

I leave you with this photo of Spain's Defense Minister:

Defense Minister reviewing troops

If you find it disturbing or unnatural, you are part of the problem.

Update:

At about six and a half minutes in President Clinton addresses voting and mentions Dr. Long.  Not by name, but in reference to her stance on gender voting.    He says some interesting things about why people vote as they do -- even at times against their economic interests.

 

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I've read it and I still disagree. For me, it doesn't come down to any woman is better than no woman. But Long's is a valid opinion and this is an interesting post (rated).
Biblio, I also do not agree with Dr. Long on Palin.

Dr. Long has a line from another blog post I found telling: "The Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee has never been a woman. How can I support a party that is primarily composed of women but run by men?"

She has a point.
Our nation faces SERIOUS problems in terms of its economic survival and in terms of global warming. If there are qualified women who can address those issues, let's consider them. I'd even accept it as a tie-breaker in the case of two equally qualified candidates. But to say that the primary qualification must be womanhood, and not qualification for doing the job they're appointed for, is ridiculous. Would you select surgeons this way? Jobs at this level are as much life-and-death as that.

Ms. Palin, for example, is not qualified for office and it has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with her lack of foreign policy experience, her unwillingness to interact with the press, her attitude on policies related to the core freedoms of women, and many other things that would be problems even if she were a man. And McCain is showing himself increasingly to be not just going in a direction I don't like but outright unqualified, not just because of his choice of Palin, but because of the way he's stumbling around and shooting from the hip about the fiscal crisis.

To vote for McCain/Palin merely because of chromosome count will make a mockery of the notion of any real equality, and will risk setting freedoms back dozens of years, possibly compromising the health and safety of many women. The author may be sincere in taking her stance, and that's fine, but I am sincere in saying that I don't see the stance as adequately supporting the women in my life (and almost without exception those women concur with me on that point). So I'm going to hold my head high and vote Obama.

I'm going to "rate" this too so there isn't any possibility of claim that such opinions are failing only because don't get daylight. Besides, it doesn't hurt us to have some respectful opposition going on here.
Kent, I don't think Dr Long thinks unqualified women should be appointed to Cabinet positions. (In regards to Palin, I hesitate to criticize her qualifications in light of the paucity of Obama's. Both of their resumes are pretty thin if you put partisanship aside and are honest.)

I won't be voting for McCain in November either, but can't fathom Obama not being able to find ten women who can serve in his Cabinet or his being unwilling to entertain even the thought of gender parity in appointments.
Sure, cut off your nose to spite your face. That always works.
Ironman, did you bother to read what Dr. Long wrote?
interesting post.

My first reaction - Dr. Long assumes a whole lot.

Governor Palin knows what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister - things the two men on the Democratic ticket can never fully understand. She knows what it is like to grow up invisible in an incredibly sexist society, to be stared at, groped, and sexually harassed. She knows what it is like to be smaller in stature than men and physically vulnerable. She knows what it’s like to worry that you are pregnant when you don’t want to be or that you are not pregnant when you want to be.

Sarah Palin knows what it is to experience the joys and sorrows of motherhood, to nurse a baby while holding down a job, to leave for work in the morning with a toddler tugging at your pant leg, or to have your children calling you at work to diffuse squabbles or ask for help with homework. She knows that once you get to work you have to speak twice as loud and twice as often to be heard and work twice a hard to go half as far. She knows what it is to be a member of the second sex.


I think Joe Biden, while not a woman, raised his children on his own for several years. He knows what it is like to raise children and work.

I don't really have any evidence that Sarah Palin knows any of those things. She certainly hasn't done much more than give lip service to the issues I care about as a mother. And from my reading of her actual work record, she seems to have actually worked a whole lot less than most of us. She also seems to have had much fewer restrictions on her in her workplace than most women. Ask around - there aren't many who can bring their babies in to nurse; we're lucky to get a private place to pump (and that's in a Fortune 500 organization).

Feminism for most of us is about much more than gender parity. I am sure there are 10 qualified women for the Cabinet, but to appoint them just because they are women seems to undermine the whole cause and set us back lightyears.

Little girls won’t understand if Sarah Palin is pro-life or pro-choice, believes in gun control or is a member of the NRA, but they will know the Vice-President of the United States of America is a girl and that alone will alter their perceptions of themselves.

Well, maybe I don't want my not-so-little girl to think it's okay that the VP shoots defenseless animals, would disallow access to an abortion if she were raped, does not believe global warming is man-made or a priority, is clueless about foreign policy, why we went to war, or the economic mess we're in, etc.

When my very bright girl asks me, "Mom, how did she get to be VP?" I don't want to have to say, "because she's a girl, that's why. and pretty much the only reason."

I'm thinking Clarence Thomas.
LT, qualification goes to more than resume. It goes even to judgment. I've seen tons of examples of good judgement by Barack. I'm hard-pressed to see much of anything in Sarah Palin that I recognize as good judgment.
Lpsrocks, Yes... Dr. Long does have some interesting thoughts.

Perhaps the Democrats have underestimated a certain sector of the female population's longing for a woman on the ticket. 24 years is a long time.

Regarding the cabinet posts, aren't you just a little disquieted by the refusal to entertain parity. It is pretty ludicrous to think there aren't hundreds if not thousands of women qualified to serve.

I do like the paragraph were you mention your not so little girl. You criticize Palin on issues, not gender garbage and that is refreshing and effective.
Has McCain pledged to fill half his Cabinet with women?

Of course, Obama would not make that promise. It would amount to pandering. I believe he's against racial quotas. Why would he then be for gender quotas?

Most of the post, I respectfully disagree. But the part I found utterly laughable: "I promise to the first person knocking on her door, if Roe v. Wade, or any other legislation that goes against the rights of women is threatened."
(1) I think she'll find herself out knocking real quickly. Just wait until the first Supreme Court vacancy occurs in a McCain administration. Or let's see if McCain would sign any pay equity legislation? How about contraceptive equity? Is McCain going to allow Congress to lift the Global Gag Rule? Will McCain continue the proposed Bush regulation that would restrict the dispension of birth control? Would McCain continue the current practice of denying servicewomen access to abortion, requiring them if overseas to fly back to the U.S. and obtain the abortion outside of U.S. military facilities? Would McCain support a domestic gag rule prohibiting Title X funding to clinics that make abortion referals (like Planned Parenthood), a measure he voted for in the Senate? Will McCain sign CIANA, a bill he has voted for that would make it a crime for any non-parent, including a grandparent, adult sibling, or religious counselor from accompanying a minor across a state line for an abortion? (Many women already have to cross state lines to obtain abortion services.) Will McCain seek to remove or weaken the Freedom to Access Clinical Entrances Act (FACE), which he voted against during the middle of the Operation Rescue violence in the early 90s? Will McCain continue to support the non-funding of the UNFPA, denying millions of women around the world access to life saving family planning services? Will McCain continue the Bush policy, which he has supported, of not including CONDOMS in AIDS/HIV prevention funding in places like Africa, a policy that puts women in danger of contracting the disease?
(2) When McCain is in the White House, political organizing against all the damaging things he will be undertaking will be key, but on most fights the real decision was made in November 2008. It's fine and dandy that she'd be knocking on doors when women's rights are threatened, but it won't matter much if you have McCain in the White House and a couple more Alito clones on the Supreme Court.
Kent, the devil's advocate in me has to bring up FISA, VP selection, and advocating more troops in Afghanistan as judgment failures on Obama's part.

I don't know enough about Palin to question her judgment.

What do you think about having half the cabinet be women?
Skeptic, watch McCain do just that or something similar in the near future. I could see him saying it. He'd probably even pledge to make them bipartisan women.

Regarding abortion, I don't think Dr. Long is worried about Roe. From what I read on her blog in other posts and at PUMA sites, some first and second wave feminists resent younger female disengagement from feminism and are willing to let Roe go.

You and I have talked about this in the past. Roe is not going to be an effective stick to beat these women back into their place. The democratic party needs to do better.

What is so terrible about pandering to women if it wins the election?
If McCain made a promise to make his Cabinet half women, I'd eat my shorts. I can't see that happening. And I think that because of that Long is holding McCain and Obama to different standards.

Well, we don't have to go into Roe quite yet. If Long isn't concerned about Roe, then her promise to go doorknocking to protect it is disingenuous.

The Democrats to win will need to talk about the issues that are the forefront of both female and male voters. But we can't attribute any past electoral failings to Democrats' focus on Roe, because they've generally been too afraid to talk about the freedom of choice during elections.

"What is so terrible about pandering to women if it wins the election?" One expects a certain degree of pandering, but you can't go overboard. Promising a quota on your Cabinet is even more obvious pandering to women than picking an underqualified woman as your running mate. Voters would be turned off by a promise to look at gender first and then qualifications in making important Cabinet decisions. Are there enough qualified women to fill half the Cabinet? I have no doubt there are enough qualified women to fill the entire Cabinet. But each position should be decided on its own merits.

Bill Clinton didn't say he'd use racial or gender ratios for his Cabinet, and yet he created the most diverse administration in history. I don't think you can look at Obama's reluctance to commit to a ratio as not being committed to diversity or women.
What do I think of half the cabinet being women? I mostly think it's a terrible question. If it works out, it's great. Let me double that: If it works out that it's all women, that's great, too. I've worked with and for women at work many times, and it's worked great. I had a woman commander in JROTC. In principle, I see them as my absolute equal, except that just as with men, for any given issue there might be some things I'm better at and some things they're better at. It depends on the situation. An instruction to someone picking candidates to get a healthy mix of women into the selection process? Great. A gender-blind on-paper filtering process? Great. But if in the end it's all men or all women, I don't care. What I want is the best qualified people doing the jobs. The jobs are too important to have anything less.
LT, I like seeing this kind of stuff and I applaud you for posting it, but your one argument in defense of Dr. Long’s position hinges on the “if its true” statement in your preface.

Dr. Long gives us two highly questionable, low-level, anonymous Obama “campaign sources.” They are listed as “a member of Obama’s Finance Committee” and “a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama”

Come on. Seriously? She met directly with McCain, but gives us only a friend of a friend as her Obama contact? I suspect that she never got close to Obama’s real people. Gender equality in the cabinet is a worthwhile cause. I seriously doubt that Obama himself--who consistently shows outstanding pragmatic judgment and is married to a powerful woman and has two young daughters--would actually be opposed to such an idea.

Dr. Long has legitimate reasons to be angry about how both parties and our society treats women. But her endorsement of Palin is ridiculous. If her column endorsed Cynthia McKinney, I’d take her much more seriously (of course she wouldn’t be getting MSM attention if that were the case).

And someone ought to remind Dr. Long that it was the democrats who last placed a woman on the high court. Someone needs to remind Dr. Long about how the republicans handled O’Conner’s request that her replacement be a woman. About how the republicans trotted out Harriet Miers (aka Sarah Palin sans the photogenic family) and tossed her under a train—thereby securing another young anti-woman, anti-abortion justice on the bench.
OMG I can't believe that a supposedly feminst woman would hlod any candidate to a percentage of women in his cabinet. Clearly she has not made the same demand on McCain. How can this be considered credible?

As to finding Palin "a woman of integrity" she has not been reading what is true.

I admit I do not know who this woman is, tho I think Bill Clinton referenced some of her work the other day. This is pure bullshit ; it's just pure BS.

OMG accepting Palin as a substitute for what we've strived for all these years is just ... what? Senility?
I must say, I didn't think it was just a question of whether a person is qualified for a job or not. Any position - including a cabinet one - can have many, many applicants. Surely the right thing to do is appoint the _most_ qualified one, not just the most qualified _female_ one.

I also think that the "member of Obama's finance committee" sounds like a straw man or a bit of a dimwit. It's not a question of whether there is a qualified woman out there, it's a question of whether that woman is the best candidate to serve the nation in that capacity.

What if the best candidates for fifteen cabinet posts were women? Would you still want to have parity and appoint some less qualified men?

Or am I out of my tree again?
Turtle, yes, I agree the remark about electing her and then knocking on her door in anger if she votes the way she's told us she'll vote is really weird. I had been drafting some thoughts on this all week and this (the blog post and your comment) pushed me over the edge to finish a blog post of my own on this topic.
Dr. Lynette Long has made herself rediculous. She has turned herself into the "tatooed woman." She is a sideshow and did it to herself. Being for A WOMAN is not the same is being for ALL WOMEN. It doesn't follow any kind of logic.

Has she counted the number or women governors? Doe she know how many women mayors there are in our country? How many women sit on city councils? This is just cutting ones nose off to spite ones face.

We are facing the most serious economic challenges of our lifetime and are on the verge of an historic election. Pulling this crap is histrionic and unworthy.
Oh, I read it. I just don't respect the person's position. To me, she is a sexist whose position is that gender trumps any other consideration. I'm sorry her feelings are hurt, but if she thinks McCain and Palin are a viable choice than I have no time for her. And she's wrong to say that her party was silent regarding Rev. Wright, Ludicrous and so on. That rhetoric was denounced by Obama and his party. Whatever is true in her opinion is drowned out by the falsehoods...not unlike, say, McCain and Palin.
Susanne: "Has she counted the number or women governors? Doe she know how many women mayors there are in our country? How many women sit on city councils? This is just cutting ones nose off to spite ones face."

According to the Economist:

"They make up less than 20% of governors and members of Congress. The number of women on the Supreme Court has recently fallen by half, from two to one, thanks to Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement."

I honestly think it is fair to say that this falls short of where it should be. But clearly there are much bigger impediments to reaching high office than gender, and much better bases for appointing or electing someone, too.
Kent, The current Spanish Prime Minister pledged to make his administration equitable for the sexes and it seems to be working out just fine. Are Spanish women more qualified for Cabinet level positions than American women?

Turtle, I would hate for you to have to eat your shorts, but I really wouldn't be surprised if McCain announced a plan to bring unprecedented numbers of women into his administration. He actually employees more women overall and in higher positions of authority in his Senate staff than Obama. He pays them more fairly as well.

Pay inequity on the part of Obama toward his female senate staff has been another troubling issue. Obama pays his male staff about six thousand dollars a year more on average for similar work, while McCain's staff is paid about the same across gender lines with a slight advantage to women.

Not all women are pro-choice, but I don't know many who think getting paid less for the same work is right.
KellyLark, Thank you for reminding me about President Clinton. I will attempt to find the YouTube and post it. He did indeed reference Dr. Long in his answer about voting patterns and gender. If I recall, it was as an authority.

Turtle, I thought a little more about your shorts. Remember back when conventional wisdom was McCain would never pick a female VP? Our frat bro is no idiot and he is seeing the worth of a good pander in the polls. Do not be surprised if he pulls out the pander to women stops.

AA, I think you hit the nail on the head with your statistics. Women haven't really made much political progress for quite some time and Dr Long wants to see a female president before she dies.

ironman, thanks for returning and clarifying.
AA, I've been reading more on Dr. Long this morning and ran across a paragraph she wrote in an email after Clinton withdrew from the race. It makes clear she is aware how few women are in office:

Underneath that rage is sadness, sadness that we are second class citizens in a country where we are the majority. What’s especially disquieting to me is that many young women are blind to the sexist nature of the world in which we live. It’s our job, each and every one of us, to educate them. Economically, women earn seventy-seven cents on the dollar for the same work compared to men. Women are in significantly fewer managerial positions, are less likely to own a business and more likely to live in poverty. Politically, women comprise fifty-two percent of the population and an even larger share of the voting public yet only sixteen of the current one hundred Untied States Senators are women. Similarly, only sixteen percent of the current members of the House of Representatives are women. There is only one female Supreme Court Justice on a nine member court and most remarkably America has never had a female president or presidential nominee. Women did not get the right to vote in the United States until 1920. The glass ceiling is real on both economical and political fronts. Men want parity for their daughters and granddaughters but not for the women sitting beside them. They are not going to give us the power that should be ours, we have to take it. Are we ready?
LtBohica: "AA, I think you hit the nail on the head with your statistics. Women haven't really made much political progress for quite some time and Dr Long wants to see a female president before she dies."

In that case the next bit of the Economist article I quoted might interest you:

"Some of the most culturally conservative states in the country, such as Kansas and Michigan, have female governors. In 1998 women won the top five elected offices in Arizona. Mrs O’Connor was arguably the most powerful voice on the Supreme Court for decades.

Women are also winning the most important of all gender wars—the war for educational qualifications. They earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 59% of master’s degrees and half of doctorates. And they are doing better all the time. In terms of higher education, women drew equal with men in 1980. By the early 1990s six women graduated from college for every five men. Projections show that by 2017 three women will graduate for every two men. The meritocracy is inexorably turning into a matriarchy, and visibly so on many campuses: the heads of Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Brown and the National Defence University are all women.

Boys, meanwhile, are more likely to drop out of high school than girls. They are also more likely to be consigned to special education classes or prescribed mood-managing drugs. Men are more likely to commit crimes, end up in prison, kill themselves or be murdered. Even their sperm count is headed south. The long-term result seems unavoidable: men are becoming ever more marginalised, while women are taking over the commanding heights of wealth and power."

I think it is an area that is more complex than a lot of people would allow. If I had to voice a single main gripe with feminism as it is usually practised, it would be this: feminist women who are already unimaginably privileged by comparison with the vast majority of the world's population are more preoccupied with becoming still more privileged than they are with improving the lot of women who are poor, oppressed, downtrodden, or even enslaved all over the world.

That is a generalisation, to be sure, but it certainly fits the kind of mindset quoted in the original post.

Which is the more central feminist issue - that there aren't as many women in Cabinet, or that 13% of American women are living in poverty? Or that 30% of the world's women cannot read?

As far as I am concerned the Presidency or a Cabinet post are plainly out of reach for nearly every American citizen, whether they could do the job or not. Class trumps gender. Anyone who is in a position to be affected by discrimination as to whether they should get a Cabinet post or not are already so well off compared to the rest of humanity that they should be ashamed of complaining about their status.

Just my thoughts.
AA - I have to cry a little bullshit about the premise in your last comment. You essentially told American women to stop complaining about political and economic inequality because they aren't starving.

That is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken.

Injustice and inequality should not be acceptable because American women eat regular.

You may not have meant it this way, but it sure is implied.
I find Lynette Long's article disturbingly abstract and symbolic in its approach to politics. I say "abstract" because it's deductive. Sarah Palin is a woman; therefore a whole set of conclusions must follow about her experience and understanding. Maybe your experience is that simple, but mine isn't. You cannot suppose anything much about anybody based on minimal facts about them, like gender. I say symbolic, because she writes as if the key issue were the symbolic issue of who stands at the top of the structure, as if politics were not about actual decision-making. Well, if that's what you want, my American friends, forget the republic thing and get yourselves a monarch. The head of state of Canada, Queen Elizabeth, is, well, female, and she's the only monarch I've ever known in my lifetime. The more immediate head of state, Michaelle Jean, is a French-speaking black woman. The previous head of state, Adrienne Clarkson, was also a woman, and half Chinese. You may object that these women have no power. Sure. But it this article were about power, it would be about who would make the right decisions. In the end, why should anyone care whether a male president, in the depths of his soul, understands women, as long as he enacts policies that are good for women in society?

I have to disagree with the Biblio Files. This is not a valid opinion, because it leaves the politics out of of politics.
That's not exactly what I meant. What I meant is that the only women for whom these things are an issue are already indisputably among the most privileged human beings ever to walk the planet. If the lot of women is their concern, then I think cabinet post equity should probably be low on the priority list.

If that sounds silly, it's not really my fault. It stems from the fact that it is absurd to lump all women together as if the issues they faced were even similar. A well-off 21st Century Western woman has *much* more in common with a well-off man 21st Century Western than with nearly every other woman who ever lived, including less educated or less well off women in her own country.

It is more than fair for high office to go to those who are best qualified, in a gender-blind way. As far as the energies of feminists go, is ensuring that the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful the best place to direct them? How about making a change so that some women's lousy lives out there become a good lives instead, rather than working so that some already very, very good lives become slightly-more-very-good.

Or is the symbolism more important? I'm sorry but I just can't seriously accept that "parity" of numbers in cabinet actually makes a genuine difference to political and economic inequality, or helps even slightly with the serious problems that are being faced by women who really have no hope of ever being overlooked for anything like a cabinet post.
Sorry I left a word out above. I should have written:

"A well-off 21st Century Western woman has *much* more in common with a well-off man 21st Century Western MAN than with nearly every other woman who ever lived, including less educated or less well off women in her own country."
AA and Matthew, did you watch what President Clinton had to say concerning voters like Dr. Long? (Gender and racial identity voters)

I ask not to change the subject, but because what he said was surprising to me.
Have you got a link on the passage you're talking about?
Matthew, it is the YouTube at the bottom of the post.
There is so much to take issue with in Dr. Long's post. Her very first paragraph states Palin knows what it's like to be stared at -- well duh, the woman entered a beauty pageant, voluntarily I assume, so I doubt if she really minded being stared at. Palin knows what it is like to be sexually harrassed, we are told. Really? And how, exactly, does Dr. Long know this? Or are we to assume every woman is a victim of sexual harrassment?

But those are minor details. This is the statement I take offense to:

"You can’t have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what’s best for women. You can’t legislate for women, without women. "

I would much rather have a government that knows, and does, what is best for ALL Americans, one that legislates for ALL Americans.

This writer implies women are a monolithic interest group that shares the same values, the same vision for our country. Nothing could be further than the truth. If Dr. Long is really the liberal Clinton supporter she claims to be, I seriously doubt she shares the same values and vision as Sarah Palin. I know Hillary Clinton doesn't.
LT, I don't think it is a fair conclusion to take the pay equity of Obama's Senate staff to mean anything. In a Senate office where the jobs and authority differ greatly, a couple of men on the higher scale of the positions and/or a couple more women in lower paying positions can throw the numbers off dramatically. Pay equity as I understand it is equal pay for the same work. Would it be great if Obama had more women on his staff and in positions of authority? Yes. But it's hard to make the handful of Senate staff hiring decisions to mean much about his commitment. I wonder if anyone knows how McCain and Obama fair on their much larger campaign staffs.

Secondly, I'll keep my pledge to eat my shorts if McCain goes all the way to the end of the Pander Road. I wasn't among those who didn't think McCain would not pick a woman. I predicted that Pawlenty was the most likely, but I thought a couple women were possible too. I just thought it'd be Kay Bailey Hutchinson, not Sarah Palin. I'll go another step further, if McCain made such a pledge, it will be stupid pandering and it WILL HURT him in the election.

Americans don't like gender or racial ratios. The Europeans seemed to have some success with ratios, but it is unpopular here. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

And if Obama is elected, my guess is there will be a lot of women on his Cabinet. If they are a minority of any significance, I'll eat my shorts in that instance too.
Skeptic, the pay issue is a bigger deal than you think.

It is based on data provided by the Secretary of the Senate from McCain, Obama and Clinton. The gap is real and to me a damning thing. Unequal pay is a huge injustice.

To quote: The average pay for women who worked on the Senate staff of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois was at least $6,000 below the average pay for men working on Obama's staff. This held true whether the average pay was calculated for all of Obama's staff, only for his non-intern staff, or only for his staff making more than $23,000 on an annual basis. Obama employed slightly more males than females.

Check out the source if you wish - McCain, Clinton Pay Women Better than Obama
Apparently, a "little bullshit" is acceptable in your commentary vocabulary, well I detected more than a little bullshit in both your lead-in and your exemplar's harangue. Kellylark, Matthew DeCourcey, AA and the others have already made substantive points that gut your "arguments". (I especially liked Matthew's use of "abstract...deductive...symbolic"..... psst, LT, I think that's just his way of telling you "Bullshit".) So, I will just do a brief close textual reading of your piece (probably much more Matthew's domain) and give you a rating on my BS meter scale of 0 to 5. As you might guess, 5 stands for stinks like Karl Rove's vomit mixed with the Lee Atwater's putrefied bile.

4. Dr. Lynette Long. BS meter starts to go into the red zone when Doctor is used by people who are not physicians or academics. Doubly so when such people attempt to assert authority outside their field. ( See Matthew DeC. on "symbolic".) Long bio never says doctor of what or degree from what mill. BS meter reacts same way to Rev., pegging out when they happen to be adulterers, defalcators, child molesters -- most Republicans know the drill.

4.5: life long democrat: Unless she was one from the moment of conception, clearly an outright lie. No pre - 2008 history in Dem. politics adduced or claimed. Once again symbolic in attempting to fortify her authority and the power of her conversion. Note the small d in democrat.

5. This obtuseness to the desire for equity will carry McCain to victory Voilà! The dog finally barked. (Btw, a terrible sentence syntactically and gramatically. Could even be misinterpreted as OMG, McCain's obtuseness...and you woulna want that now, wouldya? ) Where previously this dubious authority's reductive (also euphemism for BS) rant was modified by "if true" now the fig leaf is removed, the gloves are off, we are off to the races.

This is so bad at so many levels, dunno where to start. First, it's an assertion. Who says? Second, it's a prediction? By whom? The amazing Kresskin? Assertions can often be tested by substitution e.g. "This (McCain's) blindness to economic reality will carry Obama to victory" or "M's pecuniary peccadilloes...." or "M's notorious skirt-chasing....". But you get my point.

This is way too easy, and I'm not even getting any credit for this in
my lit crit class. LT, you've been prone to being too dismissive of OSers as "snobbish", "clannish" and what not. Perhaps, that's because there are many here that have even more finely calibrated BS meters than you currently seem to possess.

Your stuff is what it is. A propaganda piece to attempt to create a wedge issue (see further on same) out of this straw man/woman with Doctor Lynn as a stalking horse's a**.

WOOF.
Dog,

I tend to respond in kind. Just so you don't miss the gist of this comment, I'll say it up front: Don't you bother your little canine mind with contrary views. Feel free to keep your nose stuffed up Obama's ass. I bet it tastes great.

But in detail...

As an indie voting for McKinney, I have no skin in the Rep/Dem game. I'll never need an abortion and so don't give a crap personally about Roe. If someone I give a damn about does need an abortion, I can afford to pay the air fare to California or New York where abortion will be legal just like it was before Roe. I've got the best universal health care this country can offer in the form of Tri-Care prime. Yeah my buddies are getting creamed overseas -- but you know what? Obama just wants to shift them from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama and McCain both suck. They are owned by the same masters and neither will do a damn bit of good for women, universal health care or ending the war on terror/drugs. I may be privileged, but I'm not stupid.

You can believe I have a wedge agenda all you want - but the truth is as I wrote. I was sent a link to Dr. Long's post and found it interesting. She writes well and has a bone she's been gnawing for a while. I think there is a strong case to be made for more action on the part of Obama to keep women in his column. (ie, pandering)

There is nothing wrong or bullshit about checking out what people are saying. Dr. Long's editorial was also published in the Baltimore Sun on September 14th: In this election, putting gender first

President Clinton referred to it on the View when he discussed gender and racial identity voting. I'll admit I was surprised when I watched the clip and heard him say both types of voting made sense and he didn't have a problem with them.

So whether you like it or not, Dr. Long's bullshit is getting an airing.

But if you'd rather sniff Obama ass and not consider other views -- go right on ahead. Again, you're so far up his ass your tasting nothing but bullshit.

PS -- Feel free to tell Ph.d. types their degrees are crap as well. I'm not that sort of academic snob.

PPS -- If other commenters here want to say I'm a jackass full of bullshit then they are more than welcome -- but your sorry self coming over and putting the words in their mouth really takes the cake. Fuck off.
LT, no response? Echoing CCC’s bullshit comment, allow me to put forth my points one more time (I feel that they remain valid):

Dr. Long gives us two highly questionable, low-level, anonymous Obama “campaign sources.” They are listed as “a member of Obama’s Finance Committee” and “a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama.” If this were still 2002, Dr. Long could have a job at the New York Times with sources like that.

Come on. Seriously? She met directly with McCain, but gives us only a friend of a friend as her Obama contact? I suspect that she never got close to Obama’s real people. Gender equality in the cabinet is a worthwhile cause. I seriously doubt that Obama himself--who consistently shows outstanding pragmatic judgment and is married to a powerful woman and has two young daughters--would actually be opposed to such an idea.

Dr. Long has legitimate reasons to be angry about how both parties and our society treats women. But her endorsement of Palin is ridiculous. If her column endorsed Cynthia McKinney, I’d take her much more seriously—OF COURSE SHE WOULDN’T BE GETTING MEDIA ATTENTION IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
Edgar -- sorry if I missed you.

Now that Dr. Long is getting all that press - perhaps she will name some names.

Note that I did write "if true." (

Despite what that dog commented, I don't buy absolutely everything I get in my email box or I'd be wiring money to Kenya right now. However, having poked about the internet on Dr. Long, I suspect there may be something to her tale as it did get published in the Baltimore Sun...

Last I checked you newspaper types did fact check what you publish, yes?

Would the Sun have done that without any verification at all?
Edgar, I did not know Dr. Long's writing had been in a newspaper -- let alone the Baltimore Sun -- until I watched the View YouTube again and heard President Clinton describe it as an editorial.

My precise process:

The email I got had a direct link to her blog and I just figured it was a run of the mill blog posting for her.

I googled Dr. Long and found the WaPo article, but that initial search did not turn up the Sun.

After KelleyLark tipped me to President Clinton's reference, I got curious and searched more.
No one can say that Clinton is less than shrewd. Last night Campbell Brown said the following on CNN, which ought to give pause to all those who think they want to vote for McCain:

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment," said Brown. "This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

On another note, McCain has been in Washington 26 years. That means that more people on his staff have seniority in pay. Pay is made in grades and in steps. Longevity often trumps the pay of a newer worker. For instance, when I was working at the Securities & Exchange Commission I worked in an office that had some folks on staff who had been in the office more than ten years and I had been hired two years before. Even though I was superior in grade, two of them made more money because of longevity and the number of pay steps in their lower grade. That is what is at work in what you are describing in Obama's office. Obama hired Tom Daschle's former Chief of Staff. It was a prudent choice and had nothing to do with anything other than being dedicated to doing his best.
Freeborn, I appreciate what you are saying, but I don't think you read the article that looked into the pay disparity. They compared pay of similar situated employees -- so Tom Daschle's former Chief O Staff wouldn't have skewed their numbers. The comparison was amongst each staff and also between staffs. Again, the six thousand dollar gap was amongst Obama's employees with similar responsibilities.

As you have experience of that sort, please read the article and let me know what you think.

Also, I went to law school with hill staffers and my impression was their pay was set by the Senator -- not by grades like you experienced at the SEC. Please let me know if this is incorrect as I have always been curious.
Thanks for the response LT, and like I said before, I like seeing this kind of stuff and I applaud you for posting it.

As far as fact checking goes... my local daily is by no means the Baltimore Sun, but newspapers are held much more accountable for their own staff than for outside opinions. Letters to the editor and guest columns are not likely held to the same fact checking standards as real news stories. It is also safe to assume that Dr. Long shopped around this letter to the editor/guest op-ed column. The fact that only one major market newspaper picked it up is telling (The Sun even has 11 sister papers all under the same ownership: The Tribune Company).

And I also think that Dr. Long’s refusal to endorse McKinney tells us all we need to know about her motivations.
LT, I did check the source before I commented on the Senate office data and I wrote nothing to dispute the numbers. I respect your point of view on that matter and I would NEVER disagree with the statement that "Unequal pay is a huge injustice."

Unequal pay is a real problem today. But I am unconvinced that Obama is paying his Senate staff unequal pay for equal work without having a detailed understanding of the pay, gender, job description, and hours worked of each staff member. I DO agree that the data suggests Obama could do a better job hiring women into positions of authority in his Senate office, but the ratio isn't so far off that I could conclude that Obama treats women hires less favorably than men hires. It begs the question, but we can't make any clear conclusions.
Actually I did read it on September 11th. I note that the writer Deroy Murdock, who was responsible for the report I read, is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, which is a conservative public policy think tank. Columnists are not reporters and are not bound by any doctrine of fairness. I am thinking his conservatism may skew his interpretation of the facts he was viewing because there was no mention of longevity in the piece, which statistically wouldn’t amount to much without those facts also being considered.
Thanks, LT. I often wonder where conservative thinking comes from and appreciate the chance to see it.

She is right about our lack of gender parity in government and that other nations do much better in this regard. What she may not know is that those good statistics were purchased with gender quotas. Any kind of affirmative action has never been a conservative value, so I doubt she would support that.

The fact that she is choosing to jump on the bandwagon at this late date when the Republicans choose a woman VP candidate is suspect.

Work towards the goal of gender parity should not be a short-cut of installing a woman VP, especially when this particular candidate harbors anti-woman sentiments and records. Rather, we need to work across all scales of society to lift up all those underrepresented persons.

Biology is not destiny.
I response to the title, I vote "bullshit wedge issue."

I'll also add two words: Margaret Thatcher.

And two more words: Condi Rice.

And I hope I never have to add the words "Sarah Palin."
I respectfully disagree with Dr. Long's choice. Most of the issues she raises are valid to consider, and it is every citizen's right to nail an Obama administration on these issues, even/especially if said citizen voted for him.

But here's the thing: she states
"Since my country is far from gender neutral, right now for me gender trumps everything else."

Yes, this country is far from gender neutral. It's also far from race neutral, far from choice neutral, far from sex preference neutral, far from civil rights neutral, far from environment neutral, far from class neutral, etc. It's far from perfect. And if everyone allows their particular valid grievance to "trump everything" what is left?
I agree with the posters who point out that the idea that being a woman automatically qualifies you to know more about how to best serve women is a false pretense. I know lots of women who I would NEVER trust to advocate on my behalf when it comes to women's issues.

I also take exception to Dr. Long's demand that Obama pledge to staff half of his cabinet positions with women, as if gender is the only relevant characteristic that matters. Wouldn't you be offended if a man had told you he'd support Hillary only if she pledged to have half her cabinet be male, because he was concerned that women couldn't POSSIBLY advocate for men's issues?

If I had supported Hillary Clinton (and believe me, I was on the fence), it would have been because she was a good candidate, not because her womanhood made her somehow more able to understand me. Trust me - we're nothing alike and she wouldn't get me at all as a person. That's fine. I just want a particular economic and foreign policy from my candidate.
Exactly right Marco. Well said!
Lt Bohica writes: "It is based on data provided by the Secretary of the Senate from McCain, Obama and Clinton. The gap is real and to me a damning thing. Unequal pay is a huge injustice."

Why is it an injustice? How could one possibly make that determination without looking at all the many relevant factors -- experience, previous pay history, job responsibilities, performance, etc.

Let's say you and I are both offered jobs in the same company doing identical jobs. Let's further say that we both have identical experience and pay history. I'm am offered $40K to start; I accept the offer. You are offered $40K to start; you reply that you want $42K. Your offer is accepted. Poof! Unequal pay. So what? You negotiated; I didn't. Too bad for me.

The mere fact of unequal pay is in itself evidence neither of discrimination nor of injustice.

LT Bohica: "It is incomprehensible to me that Obama cannot find ten qualified women for his cabinet. Isn't it time for the Democratic Party to do more for women than kick them in the teeth?"

Well, Long seems to have done Ok. She has a Ph.D. She has taught at various universities. She has published a number of books. My guess is that she probably has a pretty good bank account. If that's getting kicked in the teeth, I wish the Democrats had given me a few kicks too. Is there way I can sign up for that?
Mishima, dismissing Dr. Long's desire for gender equity because she is educated and financially better off than you is the same flawed thinking AA initially used.

I'll repeat what I wrote to him: It is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken.

Feel free to tell me one thing the Democratic Party has done for women (or men or anyone) lately? They've rubber stamped Bu$h policies since the beginning and will likely do the same on the bailout bill.

Regarding the staff pay inequity, I don't think you people can read.

I linked to the source article that analyzed the data. Let me just cut and paste again for you who are having such trouble:

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.

As noted, female staffers were paid less than men on average in Obama's office no matter which measure was used. Female staffers in McCain's office were paid more than men on average no matter which measure was used. Clinton provided an almost identical average pay to males and females paid over $23,000 per year, but paid proportionally more to males than females, when averages were calculated for her entire payroll.


I don't want a kick in the teeth like you do, but an extra 6k a year is something no one would turn down.
MT, Marco and freeborn, I hate agreeing with BBE - but President Clinton endorsed the gender identity voting you deplore. He also endorsed black voters voting for Obama because he is black.

Is President Clinton wrong?

Watch what he said to the women on the View. My jaw dropped when I heard it initially. (The YouTube is at the end of the post)

Regarding pandering being wrong or bad... why is it that affirmative action for racial minorities is ok, but the thought of the same principle applied to corrects hundreds of years of political inequity for women is verboten?

I'd applaud Obama if he not only pledged gender equity in his appointments -- cabinet, judicial, administrative, etc. -- but I would actually stand up and clap if he promised the same to racial and sexual orientation minorities as well.

But then I am more liberal than even the so called liberals of the Democratic party -- which is why I am voting for McKinney.

To those who think voters will see through such promises -- get real. It has been about bread and circuses for thousands of years.

Edgar - do you seriously think the Sun would have published Dr. Long's piece without at least asking her for names?
Bullshit wedge issue, definitely!

I am a pretty cynical person, so I naturally wonder if there is something going on behind the scenes. Sure, it's possible that Long is so disgruntled that Clinton didn't win that she actually believes it is more important to defeat Obama than it is to score a victory for the issues that women care about. However, I'm intrigued by the amount of press this woman's choice is getting and the close collaboration between Long and the McCain camp. Could there be a quid pro quo involved?

The entire idea of gender parity is bizarre. It reduces women to their biologic functions and implies that their brains are controlled by their reproductive organs. Women have been fighting against this kind of essentialism for years. Why would any woman want to promote it?
stephanie, I didn't know a damn thing about Dr. Long until yesterday, despite that dog's accusations that I am posting this a some sort of anti-Obama effort.

But what I have found since is that she was a Hillary supporter. She says she has voted Dem for 24 years. She advocates a gender revolution to get women their seat at the table.

I thought she wrote well and had something to say and so I posted it. I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to draw fire for putting it up, but I tire of nice nice posts on which everyone agrees.

Thank you for stopping by. Biology is definitely not destiny.
I don't think "BS wedge issue" and "alternate point of view" are mutually exclusive terms. In fact, I think they are inseparable. Something that can be parsed as an alternate point of view that enough people think is being ignored or spurned is at the root of every wedge issue. That being said, I don't know enough about Long to say whether or not she was being sincere or just playing politics. This being politics I'm going to assume that she was making a self-serving power play.

"I would be happy to vote for Senator Obama and rally other Hillary supporters to vote for Obama but in return I wanted Obama to pledge gender parity in the cabinet."

After the difficult primary process I don't think Obama's considerable ego could have stomached granting that request. And she knew that. Which is why I think she is playing politics and engaging in self-aggrandizement. Obama's refusal was more of the same. In fairness to Obama though, he has probably reached out to several people re: potential Cabintet appointments and may not have wanted to pour cold water on all of those relationships to appease Hillary and her supporters. Or maybe he didn't want to kowtow to Long, who knows?

The faith I had in McCain self-destructed when he chose Palin. If a self-professed "life-long Democrat" lines up behing that Punch and Judy show.... I don't even have words...
Hello Doctor Tuteur, I think she has struck a deal with McCain. I'd wager her price is a hefty slug of women in the Cabinet. I mean she spells out as much in her article. Watch McCain start announcing the female picks in interviews and press conferences as the election draws closer. He won't come out and say he is pandering to women, but when you add up the numbers... viola! look at all dem skirts! At which point I expect a YouTube of Skeptic eating shorts.

Regarding if quotas are bad or good for women, they seem to work in Scandinavian countries and I seem to recall we mandated a certain percentage of female elected reps in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Goose/gander?
LT Bohica:

"Regarding if quotas are bad or good for women"

They're not necessary. That's one of the main claims of feminism. Women don't need extra help. They just want to be judged on their own merits and not held back by prejudice against them.

I doubt that McCain made political promises to Long. How would he benefit from making secret promises to an intermediary when public promises to all women would get him much more favorable publicity? I am wondering about personal promises to Long herself.
KHB, good point about it not being mutually exclusive. I don't think Dr. Long is alone in her defection. I go round and round with my mother. She was hard for Hillary and now she would vote for a skunk before Obama. The primary sexism soured her beyond sweetening. Now I fear she will vote for McCain. I'm trying to persuade her to vote third party instead.

Doctor, I think McCain might have actually agreed to more female appointments for the same reason he picked Palin. He saw what happened to Clinton and is looking to cash in on the anger of women like Dr. Long. As far as what Dr. Long expects... perhaps ambassador to Denmark? Maybe a position in the Department of Health and Human Services? Who can say. Devious of you to have thought of personal reward.

With the quota thing, I ask again - why did we mandate them in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Also -- just because I can't help it, what do you think of Ph.d. types who use the title Dr?
LT writes: "Regarding pandering being wrong or bad... why is it that affirmative action for racial minorities is ok, but the thought of the same principle applied to corrects hundreds of years of political inequity for women is verboten?"

There's a big difference between affirmative action and outright quotas. The latter actually held as being unconstitutional for federally funded institutions. I doubt that legally applies to presidential appointees, but I don't think the former constitutional professor is going to adopt quotas that would be illegal in other settings. Plus, as I wrote before, it'd be politically stupid.

You can have affirmative action without quotas.
To clarify, so you don't expect me to eat shorts when I wasn't going to, I wrote:
"If McCain made a promise to make his Cabinet half women, I'd eat my shorts. I can't see that happening."

I would NOT be surprised if McCain actually makes half his Cabinet women. In fact, I rather expect that there would be close gender parity in a McCain Cabinet. I believe the same about an Obama Cabinet. But I doubt if either one would promise that result from the outset.

If McCain, before the election, expressly promises gender parity in his Cabinet, I'll eat my shorts.
Skeptic, I don't really expect you to eat your shorts no matter what happens (of course) -- but I am surprised you think both McCain and Obama would have close gender equity.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the loaded term "quota."

I just remain convinced that Obama is blowing it with women like Dr. Long due to his unwillingness to pander. KHB mentioned ego as a possible problem, but I wonder if he is just that tone deaf?
LT B, You didn't bring up quota as a term, that comes directly from Long. She asked the Obama campaign to promise a gender quota in the Cabinet. She did not request that from McCain.

I believe there are 15 members of the Cabinet. I'll eat my shorts (OK, I'll let that go soon) if either Obama/McCain select less than 6 women. My guess is that there will be at least 6 women (40%), but more likely 7 or 8 in either administration's Cabinet. It's going to happen that way, but neither candidate will tell us that's because they set out to have gender parity.
LT Bohica writes: "It is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken."

How exactly has Dr. Long suffered? I'd like to know. She claims she's a "second class citizen." If so, where can I sign up? If that's the result of second class citizenship, I must be in the cargo hold.

LT Bohica: "Regarding the staff pay inequity, I don't think you people can read."

Ever since I done got me book learnin' I can read. Cipher too. And having spent the the last two decades analyzing medical, financial, and demographic data I can tell you that the numbers you cite are uesless -- literally useless.

Since you are so good at getting and reading information, perhaps you can do a little more:

1) what exactly do all of these people do on McCain's and Obama's staff, and what is the market rate for people in those positions?

2) what are their backgrounds -- education and experience?

3) what are their salary histories?

4) to what extent did they negotiate their own salaries?

5) how are salary ranges computed in each campaign?

6) what was the hiring process in each campaign?

And finally, what is the specific remedy that Obama should implement? How does he make the situation "right?" And for future reference, how does he make sure that his salaries aren't "unequal?" Maybe futz around with positions and pay ranges and personnel to make sure that, no matter what, the God of Equality is satisfied?
Mishima,

Are you denying there is a pay gap for women or that sexism exists in our society? Or is it only educated, reasonably well off women who should just put up with gendered bullshit because they have an education and money? You're beginning to sound rather classist. Do you secretly resent women who are more successful than you? Do you see sexism as karmic retribution on them for their success?

Regarding Obama not paying the women on his Senate staff fairly -- I just love it when folks come here to my blog and tell me to go do their research for them. It really makes me laugh at the chutzpah.

Buzz off.

I am not your intern to task.

I provided you with a link to an article that crunched the numbers made available by the Senate. They crunched them several ways. They even made a pretty chart out of them.

It is nice that you don't like their lies, lies and damn statistics, but as the article states -- the numbers were run past each senator's office and all three responded that they were correct.

I don't exist to run about the internet and find information for you. Especially on an ancillary issue that only came up in a comment thread. Like I imagine you do, I hang out here because it amuses me.

If you seriously want me to do research for you, then you'll have to pay me. However -- my hourly is steep and after all the crying you've been doing about Dr. Long being too well off to bitch in comparison to your sad economic lot in life, you've left me with severe doubts that you can afford me.

There -- was I classist enough in return for you?

Go do your own damn research and prove the good folks who compiled the numbers on McCain, Clinton and Obama wrong, Spider. I am not your fly.

Oh -- and as a hard atheist, I firmly state there is no god.
OK, LT, I've watched the clip. Bill Clinton is recognizing reality. People vote irrationally. He insists on respecting people's right to vote irrationally. He is so consistent about this position that he says more or less directly that we should respect the choice of a racist who would never vote for a black man.

I think he is essentially concerned with what is politically expedient, and is wrapping up this concern in pretty words about respecting people's choices.

But that is still different from advocating irrational voting, as Long does. Politics is about choices made in government, about the exercise of power. If you make it into a game of symbols, you're like those strange people in Northern Ireland who really believe the essential issue is whether a parade can go down a particular street.

If Long's article were merely an explanation of the reasons why she is making a particular personal choice, that would be fair. But she is campaigning here, and justifying her decision to campaign for McCain ticket for reasons that I cannot respect. She is encouraging a mode of voter choice that corrupts the polity.
LT, I appreciate the rigor of your thinking and your attempt at nuanced dialogue. I simply think that it's sexist to vote for a woman because she's a woman. I can't get past that. I also think Long is projecting when she assumes that any woman has experienced all those bad things, like feeling invisible, being harrassed, having doubts about working, having to work twice as hard, whatever.

I'm a woman and most of that negative stuff simply does not belong in my bio. Given Long's argument about the critical nature of gender, I think my own gender is important to the discussion. How does Long address the issue that many, many women have supported Barack Obama from the beginning. Are we all misguided fools? I wonder if the personal history, then, isn't part of this. I wonder if those who've suffered more from sexism aren't more likely to support the woman candidate simply because she's a woman? Or at least more likely to have supported Hillary over Barack? It's interesting to me. I don't have any answers, but I think that may explain the difference to some degree. And neither is really right or wrong, do you agree?

One thing that is almost never addressed regarding feminism is the power of motherhood--that whole idea of transmitting values to offspring. It's rarely discussed. But I am someone who believes almost everything humans do is for evolutionary purposes, so I find women's lives extremely powerful when it comes to shaping the next generation. Much of it comes without pay, and I am certainly not suggesting we all give up the good fight for equal pay, etc.! Just that there are sources of power beyond money, and time with and influence on offspring are two of them.

Thanks for this scintillating post.
Matthew, you have an elegant way of expressing yourself. Tidy and thoughtful.

I take your point on President Clinton being expedient, but am not sure I buy that Dr. Long is behaving irrationally. Her inclination to vote her gender is perfectly rational when you consider how few chances Dr. Long has had to do so.

Yes, the argument has been made (over and over again) that "saving" Roe or some other issue the Democrats dangle in front of women like her is rational reason to not vote for McCain. That feminist women considering a vote for McCain are crazy. never mind that crazy is such a loaded word in feminist circles.

But as President Clinton said, people vote against their (economic) interests all the time. He mentioned identifying with the candidate as one reason to do so. Perhaps Dr. Long trusts McCain more than Obama. McCain did after all meet with her and appear to listen to what she had to say -- where as she perceives Obama as ignoring her concerns.

Hard to say. But having read even more of Dr. Long's writing today, I think she is making a rational decision based on her values and beliefs.

I also checked out the comments to her article at the Baltimore Sun. I read ten or twelve pages to sample the over three hundred posted and found more commenters agreed with her than not. It is anecdotal and proves nothing, but I certainly did not expect so many to support her.
My work is muckraking dross of the lowest order compared to the many fine bloggers of OS, but I appreciate the praise.

You raise an interesting point about women who have faced sexism vs those who have not been impacted or do not realize yet how they have been impacted. I agree that there is no way of knowing for sure how that shakes out. If you just want my opinion based on nothing but gut -- then yes, I think you are probably right.

I always fall back on my mom as an example of an older white middle class lady who came through first wave feminism. Mom put up with a lot of shit in her life from men. Despite having spent a decade in the "we hate Hillary" club, as soon as Mom saw the nightly sexism parade -- she tore up her card and even started contributing to Clinton's campaign. Those primary attacks reminded her of incidents she had dealt with in her professional and personal past.

Now she loathes Obama for many of the same reason's Dr. Long wrote in her article and as I said before, would vote for a skunk before him.
LT wrote: "Mishima, dismissing Dr. Long's desire for gender equity because she is educated and financially better off than you is the same flawed thinking AA initially used.

I'll repeat what I wrote to him: It is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken."

I don't think that is a good analogy. Women who could realistically be considered candidates for a Cabinet position are not exactly beaten down.

It is more akin to telling someone with 2 million dollars in the bank to stop complaining that they don't have 2.1 million dollars in the bank. I simply think that if the pampered elite are concerned about injustice then they should look further afield than their own careers for ways to act on their concern.

I did watch the Clinton interview you posted. He's good. However, I only semi-agree with his idea that "you can't tell someone else that the ground on which they make their voting decision is irrational." I *do* agree you can't *tell* someone that, because it's bad manners. But it is clearly true that for some people, "the ground on which they make their voting decision" is indeed irrational. Voting for McCain because you believe Vice President Palin will be good for women may not be irrational but it's certainly on the road!
cheney has a daughter who is a lesbian. is he an advocate for gays? bush knows what it is like to be an addict. is he an advocate for drug addicts? it is similarly as ridiculous to assume that palin would be an advocate for mothers, and even for women.

secretary madeline albright after all, who according to dr. long is a woman who is supposed to understand the miracle of baby making and babies, told an interviewer in 1996 that the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children caused by US policies was "worth it."

is clarence thomas an advocate for blacks? is condi an advocate for women, after all?
LT the charts are gone from your links. By the way Cybercast News Service was originally know as the Conservative News Service, dedicated to finding "liberal bias in the news". It is owned by Brent Bozell noted Conservative activist.

Also using an "average" is about the worst stat you can come up with. Since the charts are gone can you at least tell us what the median salary for men and women was? You need all the info before you start using statistics to prove an argument.

Also am I reading you right, you actually think McCain promised a total non entity a political appointment and lots of female cabinet members for her endorsement?
LT Bohica writes: "Are you denying there is a pay gap for women or that sexism exists in our society?"

There is a pay gap and there is sexism. The causes of the pay gap are complex and cannot be reduced to simple sexism.

LT: "Or is it only educated, reasonably well off women who should just put up with gendered bullshit because they have an education and money? You're beginning to sound rather classist. Do you secretly resent women who are more successful than you?"

I don't care if a woman is more successful than I am. (Frankly, that's not hard to do.) I just have a hard time listening to someone who is highly successful laying down the "life is so hard" rap. Yeah, life is hard. There's a lot of that going around, and it's hard for all sorts of people, men too. I'm not anti-woman; I'm pro-people, regardless of gender.

LT: "I just love it when folks come here to my blog and tell me to go do their research for them. It really makes me laugh at the chutzpah."

Well, you're the one who thinks he has an argument. But no problem, I did some research for you. Here's the detailed list of salaries for Obama's staff. Check it out. If you find a smoking gun let us know, if it's not too much trouble.

http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/37/salary_title_id/asc.html
Sorry, the last part of the link should be
salary_title_id/asc.html
Thanks Mishima, trying to average those salaries is even worse than I thought it would be. It's obvious that a lot of these people are part time and work who knows how many hours. No way of telling anything by looking at this list.
Mishima, I always do folks the courtesy of at least looking at the link they direct me to. Nice raw data source. I don't have the time to put together a spread sheet and crunch the numbers myself -- but I did click around briefly and found someone who had. It is rather long -- and I realize you will criticize this guy's analysis as well -- but here it is:

Obama: Pay Equity For Thee, But Not For Me
by Deroy Murdock (more by this author)
Posted 09/12/2008 ET


“Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: “I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”

Obama’s campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading “Fighting for Pay Equity,” the women’s issues page laments that, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…”

Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. “We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible,” its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm’s official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

The most recent statistics are for the half-year from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Excluding interns focuses attention on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last February 29, extrapolating up to six months’ service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year’s worth of Senate employees’ paychecks should look.

Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women in Obama’s highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

Again, on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1.00. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

Obama responded August 31 to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin “seems like a very engaging person,” Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. “But I’ve got to say, she’s opposed — like John McCain is — to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Obama’s criticism notwithstanding, McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.

How could this be?

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain’s highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women — much more than men — for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

If anyone on McCain’s Senate staff is unhappy, McCain’s male staffers might complain that they seem to get a slightly raw deal.

In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama — at the expense of the women who work for him — quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.

Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.


You can find the original post here: Obama: Pay Equity For Thee, But Not For Me

Now on to the class issue. I realize it may seem strange to argue for women who have all that privilege. But if you don't let the broken arm comparison, I'll try something new.

I readily concede Dr. Long is probably one of the elite. Hell, I am as well. But why should female elite put up with sexist crap that male elite don't? Why should male elite earn a cool million while the female elite peer only takes home 770k?

I realize that 770k is astronomical compared to what normal folks earn in ten years even, but why should female elite not get justice and equal treatment?

I think an argument can be made that getting equity for elite women might help get equity for less elite women. But perhaps not.

Ultimately, discriminating against any woman -- no matter what her class -- due to her gender is wrong.
Twillobe, I just put up a response to mishima that might help with what you asked on the numbers -- which is just a thing that came up in comments and I am surprised has taken up so much of this thread. Sorry the chart has disappeared. I ran across that particular article a couple months back and gandered the charts then. I did not think to click over today to see if they were still there after I found the article again through a google.

About what I think McCain "promised." I am not psychic and I do not think he pledged to Dr. Long his solemn word and blood oath to be equitable in his appointments just because Dr. Long asked him pretty please. I don't think Dr. Long has that kind of pull. I just heard of the lady yesterday.

However, I can imagine him telling her he had planned on being equitable anyway and so he had no problem with her wanting a cabinet full of women.

Hell.

He came out a few days ago and publicly declared he'd put Democrats in his cabinet. If he'll let dirty ol' dems in then I guess he'd let in skunks and ladies as well.

Of course this is all speculation with no basis in fact. It just seems like Dr. Long implies she got the assurances she wanted from McCain in her article. I'll read a little more of Dr. Long's blog and see what turns up -- but to be honest, this post bored me hours ago. I have an incredibly short attention span.
kristinab, I think your point is a good one. Individuals don't always display loyalty to their group no matter their political persuasion.

Thanks for stopping through -- I like what you are posting over at your page about your experiences as a case worker for loans or whatever the euphemism was.

AA -- I totally understand why you think it is absurd for elites to quibble about sexist treatment, but female elites don't think it is absurd.

Your point about helping humanity is a good one. I have been lucky to travel a good deal and I have seen what real poverty looks like up close. To assuage my rich american guilt, I donate a healthy bit of my privilege to build schools in Central Asia, support women in Afghanistan while they get training for self support, feed the hungry in my area of Texas, provide wind power to isolated communities in Central and South America, buy Play pumps for water in Africa, Mosquito nets to prevent malaria, solar powered reading lights for school kids in Nepal, and provide micro-finance loans all over the world -- just as for examples. (Yes, I have lots of guilt for being born in the richest country on earth) I guess like most people I could do more, but I don't see the logic in not fighting sexism at all levels of society. Elite women shouldn't be discriminated against due to their gender.

And with that I quit my own post. Things to do. Places to go.

I'm surprised ya'll kept coming back considering what a raging asshole I am.
I meant to write -- I guess I could do more, but at the same time... in other words -- both help out the rest of the world and work to eliminate sexism.

Also -- when I wrote two comments above that this post bored me hours ago -- I meant my post. My Blog. My words.

Not all the your comments which have not been boring. They've delivered up some new concepts. I'm always looking to shift a paradigm. I am also interested in seeing what comes of the Obama office pay stats. It seems more folks are onto it now than that conservative news organization.
LT B,

While the Murdoch piece you quote is factual, it's generally not a strong argument to quote someone who writes for Human Events.

I'll again say that looking at the individual staff members AND that article, it's hard to say Obama pays women less than men by thousands of dollars for equal work. One CAN say that Obama could do a better job hiring women for the top positions in his Senate office.
LT Bohica: " . . . why should female elite not get justice and equal treatment?"

Sure, you're correct. It's just that I don't lose a lot of sleep over that. But let me give you another situation (that you probably remember).

Sheri Klouda was hired as a professor of Hebrew at a Southern Baptist university. After hiring her - and after she moved her family there and bought a home -- the university president decided that it was not appropriate to have a woman teaching men. She was denied tenure and eventually forced to leave the university. Here's a link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16828466/

Not to minimize the difficulties of women in more elite positions, I suggest that THIS is the kind of overt discrimination over which people really should go to the barricades. This is not a quibble over average salary or glass ceilings, but an attack on this woman's ability to work, have a career, and put food on the table, especially since her husband is disabled and cannot work. This story is about a year old, but it would have made for a hell of an OS post.

Skeptic Turtle writes: "One CAN say that Obama could do a better job hiring women for the top positions in his Senate office."

Yeah, after looking at the details that's pretty much what I came away with too.
The pay differential issue on Obama's staff looks like it could be a red herring to me. You can average out the salaries, but it doesn't mean the jobs are all the same. If the men on Obama's staff are, on average, more educated than the women (not saying they are or aren't, but it seems possible), then they merrit a higher average salary. The issue, I think, is does Obama pay men who have a certain amount of education and a certain amount of responsibility and experience the same as women who are similarly qualified and asked to do similar work. Not knowing all the details of who he has working for him and what they are doing, I am reluctant to draw a firm conclusion. There is no such thing as the average. Show me a breakdown that says men and women who are equal in education and experience are treated differently, then there is an argument.
Yet ANOTHER in a very long line of bullshit wedge issues. Sarah Palin herself was chosen for that very reason.

Who cares? Obama's not sexist. This is ludicrous. Look if you have ten positions open at a company and you need to fill those positions with the top people, then fucking fill them with the top people. Period. If they better qualified candidates all happen to be women then hire them. If they all happen to be black? Hire them. If they all happen to be white men, then hire them all, too.

If you vote for a woman because she's a woman, regardless of her qualifications, not only are you sexist, you're an idiot. And the reverse is true, as well.

If Hilary supporters vote for Palin simply because she has a vagina then they will get what they deserve: An unqualified Vice President who can't seem to answer the most rudimentary questions and is clearly not very well informed about much of anything at all.

LT said it best, "To vote for McCain/Palin merely because of chromosome count will make a mockery of the notion of any real equality, and will risk setting freedoms back dozens of years, possibly compromising the health and safety of many women. "

I mean, c'mon, did you see her on Katie Couric last night? It was laughable.



Plain and really quite simple.
I'm moved by her thoughts on the matter and but troubled by the message. A couple of months ago, a friend asked me who I supported for president. He said I should vote Obama because he was the post-racial choice. "He's multi-racial," he said excitedly. "Like you!"

It didn't sound very "post-racial" to me. Actually, it sounded flagrantly racist. While I respect Palin for her choices and her ability to rise in an industry overrun by men, I would rather vote on candidates based on platform than something like gender or race.

And by platform I am speaking about more than just abortion issues. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is no different than voting for them because of their gender or race.
She makes some very interesting and valid points. While I still do not think Palin is the least bit qualified for the position, it now makes more sense to me why so many women are willing to vote for McCain now. And it's not about cutting off one's nose to spite their face. This is a very serious issue and it should be enough of a statement as to what is so very wrong that so many are willing to give up everything else just to put a woman in the office of VP.
I think it's also rather obvious, by reading the comments, who actually read your post in its entirety and who merely skimmed it and jumped to some very big conclusions with no basis.
Kent said, "But to say that the primary qualification must be womanhood, and not qualification for doing the job they're appointed for, is ridiculous."

But this isn't necessarily what Dr. Long is saying, as you will note in the quote below:

"I foolishly thought equal representation in government was a reasonable request. “What if there aren’t qualified women you still expect us to appoint half women to the cabinet?” he replied. I was confused. “There are 300 million people in this country; you’re telling me you can’t find ten qualified women?” He responded, “You can’t have that.” We had no further conversations. There was nothing more to say."

Yes, her choice to vote for Palin seems a bit misguided, but can you take a moment to see why an educated, thinking woman is making this choice? This is how serious an issue gender is and you're actually doing what most people (men especially) do regularly, you are down playing it's importance, which is doing far more harm than good.

Read the article for for the key points regarding gender and not as a vote for Palin. Really pay attention to the strength and validity of her comments.
lpsrocks, I don't know that I agree with this particular statement of yours:

"Feminism for most of us is about much more than gender parity. I am sure there are 10 qualified women for the Cabinet, but to appoint them just because they are women seems to undermine the whole cause and set us back lightyears."

If they are qualified and they are women, then why shouldn't they be put into those positions? Especially given that there are already plenty of men there...http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

Affirmative Action isn't about 'reverse discrimination', it is about giving specific groups of people a chances, who are qualified, who would not have otherwise even been considered.

LT Bohica's Favorites

  1. No relations made yet.