As I mentioned before, Obama created an incredible White House Council on Women and Girls that will normalize gender throughout top levels of government. Here he is delivering a great speech on why gender equality is so important to us all:
So now it’s up to us to carry that work forward, to ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have no limits on their dreams, no obstacles to their achievements — and that they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers and great grandmothers never dreamed of. That’s the purpose of this Council. Those are the priorities of my presidency. And I look forward to working with all of you to fulfill them in the months and years to come.
The White House Council will focus on the herculean task of tackling the following in its first year:
- * Improving women’s economic security by ensuring that each of the agencies is working to directly improve the economic status of women.
- * Working with each agency to ensure that the administration evaluates and develops policies that establish a balance between work and family.
- * Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women [May I suggest the accurate term “misogynistic violence” or “hate crimes” instead, which doesn’t confuse generic violence with bigoted violence? Also, include gender in hate crimes legislation] and other government officials to find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad.
- * Finally, the critical work of the Council will be to help build healthy families and improve women’s health care.
- Davidson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
This just seems weird to me.
Why a special department? Women and Girls? Is there any instance of Men and Boys referenced in the government? Maybe he should just get biological and say 'females.'
Also, why are family issues considered issues of Women and Girls? Males couldn't care less about their families, is that it? Men don't need work/life balance in their jobs?
If Obama is interested in economic security for women, why doesn't he just focus on the issue of equal pay for equal work? I seem to recall a recent effort at legislation...
Finally, the most glaringly obvious workplace with a gender imbalance is the US Congress. Maybe he could work within his own party to reduce discrimination there, eh? Nah, that would be far too effective. I'm thinking that's not really what he's after here.
Did you even bother to check out the video?
First, are you serious about a department for men and boys? Perhaps they should have just called it a council on gender instead, but honestly a department for males? What next, white history month? Also, calling women and girls "females" has a dehumanizing connotation to it. Second, he mentions in the video how both he and Michelle struggle with balancing work and family so where you think he assumes parenting is just a woman's issue is beyond me. He's talking about making sure all parents can be able to have careers and families, instead of (overwhelmingly women) having to choose between the two. Third, he recognizes you need more than just signing the Ledbetter Act (Is that what you were referring to?) to change the culture that results in women earning less money than men. Lastly, he specifically mentions the gender imbalance in Congress and how men will be involved.
To reduce discrimination amongst his own party (and beyond) he would have to tackle gender throughout government, including all members of his cabinet, and recognize how overwhelmingly women and girls suffer the consequences of our (misogynistic) culture and policies, but you have already judged that "weird."
Yes
when I saw that name, department of "women and girls" tells me that he knows very little about what and neither does good ol' friend Valarie Jarrett. What a jarring revelation!
Wonder if he refers to MO as "my woman" and the kids as "my girls"?
Does not have a clue or you're right, another way to triangulate.
What name would you like then?
n/t
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Is this pandering?
Yes, it is.
Women do not need special treatment. They just need equal treatment.
You need institutions
Canada has a department for the Status of Women. Historically, it was been very popular amongst feminists and equality-seeking organizations. It was also one of the first things for the Conservative
government in Canada to attack. You need institutions whose mandate it is to research and promote equality. It's hard to stress how important that is. It can't be done under the banner of some generic "equality".
It needs to be fostered in these institutions:
the family. Education.
I'm not sure how the government can foster that. Sorry. Other than laws (OMG!!!) that force people to play nice, misogyny remains, because after all, ya gotta have someone to blame when things don't go your way.
Not either/or
Of course you need those other things. But a research department and resource with access to government information and stats like Status of Women Canada proved to be an invaluable ally of nongovernmental equality-seeking organizations, who worked on matters relating to family and education (National Association for Women and the Law, Disabled Women's Network of Canada, etc.). Having someone on the inside was very useful and the MRA-influenced present government knew this very well when it shrunk its mandate and cut its (relatively small) funds.
The government definitely has a role in fostering that, even if it is only passive and research-oriented. It has access to statistics and resources that private groups do not. It's hard for me to emphasize the importance of this. It is access to stats and info organized specifically for women's equality measures that eg allow women's groups to combat the propaganda of antifeminist groups. If Obama wants to do this in the USA, it's a very good move.
Statistics and research
will not overcome emotion and irrational thinking.
It's hard for me to emphasize the truth of this.
Every little bit helps, but that's all it is. A little bit. And it's fairly amusing after witnessing the behavior of little boys during the primary.
But have at it. I hope you learn something.
This is a strange reversal...
...of our usual roles here, but in this case, I actually think it can and does. Statistics and research, I mean.
Amen, pie.
For those wondering, the name should have just stopped at 'Women.' Leave the girls and boys in the family part of the equation, not in the title.
Also, if it's about women, then let it be about women. Families are another entity altogether. Lots of women are single. There are other issues for women besides family. Family issues are not gender specific and shouldn't be lumped into the category of women's issues.
In case you hadn't noticed
Women start out as girls, and the issues women face begin when they are girls.
If you are going to end the culture of misogyny and lessen the influence of the partriarchy, you have to start when they are girls.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Yes.
Mothers, teachers, coaches, other role models that are directlyinvolved in their lives will have the biggest impact. If you look around, you'll see many people, women and men, who help girls learn how to survive in the real world. We raised our daughters to be strong and independent and assertive. Guess what? They are, and they know they can do anything they want, as long as they're willing to work for it.
It's not that I don't think this newly-formed council is some grand idea, but it smacks of pandering after the criticism he got during the primary. However, I'll reserve further judgment until I see just exactly what this council seriously attempts to do and what it actually accomplishes besides lip service.
Frankly, what's needed just as much is a council that performs a role in educating the male part of the population. This needs to be addressed on both sides.
I totally agree, pie
It is a total pander. He has to walk the walk, instead of talking the talk. But having the President speaking before the nation about the struggles women and girls face is important and that has an impact. An impact we must build on.
I am just really upset at the nitpickiness with some of the complaints, like the fact that girls is in the title. That's just totally huzzuh? to me. Naming it Women and families is more insulting, since it implies that all women have nuclear families and they don't. But a good majority of women start out as girls, and that's where the best promise of improving the future begins. And a greater focus needs to be put there, because a lot of people in direct contact with our daughters, aren't getting it right.
This has the potential to be something good, or something really bad. But to single out the name(which is a damn good one, if it were the Dept on Females, I'd be up in arms about the dehumanization) is just any stick to beat a dog. Women and girls is what we are.
The "Obama Can Do No Right" crowd is going to get as tiresome as the "Bush Can Do No Wrong" crowd.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
"Hope, but verify"
It would be nice if this worked about well. Maybe it will; maybe it won't.
We'll be able to tell because of their policy proposals -- given that a groveling appearance by Jon Favreau on, say, Rachel Maddow's show won't be on offer.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
This is like some KKK president organizing a civil rights office
Obama, you ran an overtly misogynist campaign and repeatedly, personally smeared one of the most accomplished women of our generation with overtly misogynistic rhetoric. You exposed your unfortunate daughters repeatedly to the misogynist rantings of Reverend Wright. Obama has no credibility on women's issues and never will. Living in the bluest district in Illinois, you couldn't be bothered to consistently vote pro-choice and then lied about your weasel votes during the course of this campaign claiming that it was a "strategy" to give cover to other Democrats to abstain from voting - yeah, right. as if not voting pro-choice in conservative districts needs cover.
This is bullshit move by a bullshit president - sorta like George Bush giving Karen Hughes the mid-east portfolio.
it's patheitic. it's not incredible. it's not even credible. No one who says that Hillary Clinton "periodically gets down" and "attacks" to "boost her appeal" has any concern about women's issues. Forget him.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Happy To See This
It's a shame that it's necessary and that the man announcing it is in the position to announce it in part because he was perfectly happy to leverage the very sexism he now claims he wants to fight. But I was happy to see it nonetheless. Maybe it will make it less likely that women will be the first thrown under the bus in the next round of negotiations with Blue Dogs and the GOP. Of course, maybe it won't and it's just cover so that they can continue to throw women under the bus. Wouldn't be the first time for Democrats. Still, on the whole, I'd say it's a good thing. And who knows, sometimes these things take on a life on their own. If Valerie Jarrett takes its work seriously, then some good may come of it despite the Democrats' history of caving on women's issues.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Sorry I'm late to the party
But, I don't entirely understand the negativity here. How can this be bad? I understand some of your skepticism, but this Council on Women and Girls is another means by which to advance your agendas. Use it! Write letters, organize lobbying campaigns, and then let's see how Jarrett runs the show. Make her make it effective.
On the topic of "Women and Girls:" again, I don't understand the high dudgeon. I think it signals that Jarrett and others in the White House recognize that some children's issues are feminist issues--and that feminism isn't just about adult issues. I am glad that "girls" aren't rhetorically enfolded into "women." This again seems to me all to the good--so people who are having problems with (for example) Title IX enforcement in their junior highs and high schools know this office is a place for them to go, people who work on the sex trafficking of minors (including that in FLDS communities) can get an audience, etc.
Sneaking suspicions
that this is window-dressing, and not indicative of any sort of commitment to equality, is the reason for the negativity. Given the leveraging Obama did during the campaigns of outright misogyny, we have heavy reasons to be suspicious. Also, I can't find that Jarett has any background that would give her experience or expertise in promoting equality for women and girls. Add to that one of her most noted qualities is her fierce loyalty to the person of Obama, rather than any core principles, and she could well be Obama's Harriet Meyers, except this post isn't important enough to raise any opposition.
A fake solution is worse than no solution.
Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen
We are activists, they are leaders
That is the reason for the apparent dichotomy in establishing this initiative, and I say “apparent” because there is in reality no dichotomy at all.
Activists can usefully advance causes through generalities. I’ve argued here before that the most productive approach to advancing feminist rights is to wrap them up in the blanket of human rights. Took a lot of flack for that then from the same people who are now castigating Obama for separating feminist issues out for programmatic purposes; seems like neither he nor I can win regardless of the approach we take. Seems like we be all bad, all the time.
Governments, in contradistinction to activists, can only be effective if they narrowly define their objectives. While “human rights” is a noble pursuit, it cannot be effective translated into policy and thence into actionable programs unless the rights to be pursued or protected are delineated. The addressing of this initiative to women’s and girl’s rights is such a narrowing, and out of it will come a list of yet more specific action items to be addressed individually.
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at the wording used by America’s currently most-revered feminist icon, Hillary Clinton.
Back in 1995, speaking in Beijing as a private citizen, Hillary told the Fourth World Conference on Women:
Fast forward to now, when she is speaking as a full-fledged member of the executive branch of government, and her words are those of someone focusing not on activist generalities but on specific actionable groups whose interests are to be specified and delineated.
Here, at her Secretary of State Confirmation hearing on January 13, 2009:
And from a speech at an Emily’s List conference on January 19, 2009:
That construct, now being used by Obama, of identifying feminist human rights as belonging to “women and girls” is the terminology being used by Hillary Clinton in her role as a government official. It is perfectly appropriate, indeed necessary, for government to be specific about its goals. The intent of this initiative is to establish a mechanism through which the wrongs done to women and girls can be redressed and that is a very worthwhile goal indeed.
On this matter I am very comfortable standing with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both on the objectives and the language. Those being critical bear the burden of their argument, and neither “I don’t trust Obama!” nor “Gasp! He said girls!” meets even the slimmest description of an argument.
Here are the “some” I’ve mentioned before, those benighted few who bash Obama no matter what he does. By doing so in this case, they obstruct Progressive advancement and their words should be condemned.
Useless
Ah, the unnamed "some" again -- one of Bush's favorite rhetorical tactics, bless his heart.
Surely, it would be more helpful -- and more useful to the progressive cause -- to locate the environs where the mysterious "some" are to be found, and call them out there? Otherwise, why waste the bits? I'll be looking forward to the links; I'm sure it will be fun.
Meanwhile, I'm with Valhalla:
Exactly.
Of course, the proof is in the pudding -- policies, actual accomplishments, and so forth.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi