Some women are disappointed that Obama only appointed five women to his cabinet

[jenmito]

Kim Gandy, President of NOW, feels there needs to be a lot more women's voices in the admin., Amy Suskind from "The New Agenda" accused Obama of taking "...shocking steps backward..." adding, "...this constituency does not matter to the President-Elect..."

Obama says he's picking people based on their skills-not pandering to special interests.

Are there people here who agree with these two women? (Donna Brazile doesn't agree with them. Nor dol I.) Should Obama have had a quota system instead of picking people he thought were the best for the positions or not?

(This was just reported on CNN.)

[firedupdem]

1. He has a very diverse cabinet in my opinion. We have work to

do and we need the best people. Other issues regarding women's issues are more important than the numbers in his cabinet. Jeez...take a look at the rotten economy!

[jenmito]

5. That's how I feel, too...

Keith Olbermann did a segment on how diverse his cabinet is. I guess some people will never be satisfied even though most people can't find much at ALL with his choices.

[NJmaverick]

2. I have said it before and I will say it again, identity politics are illogical and destructive

the idea that only someone of the same arbitrary subset can govern you, just doesn't make sense. Thankfully that sort of one of my own thinking wasn't in play for the millions of white and female voters, who voted for Obama.

[jenmito]

I agree...

I'd ask these women exactly how many women in the cabinet would satisfy them. He chose women for VERY high positions, including elevating Susan Rice to a cabinet position.

[Joe the Revelator]

13. The problem is groups like NOW won't be happy until

100% of the cabinet is female, which,of course,would be gender biased and discriminatory. Nomad is right. identity politics is a fools game.

[jenmito]

16. I think you're right.

She should look at how qualified the people in his cabinet are, not to mention look at his policies towards women.

[Phx_Dem]

NOW might be happy if there were no men on earth.

But it's debatable whether even that could make them happy.

[Scout]

138. you obviously know absolutely nothing about NOW n/t

[noamnety]

125. Why do you even post bullshit like this?

What could possibly be the benefit?

[Deja Q]

36. Agreed.

Some think identity politics is the only way.

Others just think.

[bluestateguy]

126. Interest group politics destroyed the Democrats in the 1970's and 1980's

Democrats became known as the "party of groups", rather than the party of America. Interest group politics (which is also practiced by white male heterosexuals who are union people or environmentalists or consumer activists) gave the Democrats Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis. Fact is that most Americans don't think of themselves as part of a "group". They first and foremost think of themselves as Americans.

[monmouth]

3. I don't agree with them either. Sections based on who's best for

the job outweighs all other considerations. This nitpicking is so counter-productive...sigh.

[jenmito]

10. Exactly.

How in the world can someone say Obama doesn't CARE about women because he didn't choose more for his cabinet? :eyes:

[WI_DEM]

4. Nonsense, he has appointed several women and to very important positions as well.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. Its simple, pick the best person of the job regardless of race,sex,sexual identity etc

End of story as far as i'm concerned.

[jenmito]

47. Exactly. I'M angry he didn't choose ANYONE with the first name "Jennifer." There

are a LOT of us. Why no representation of US?

[alwysdrunk]

7. "This consituency"? Women?

Far more women support Obama than support NOW. They need a reality check.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Kim Gandy is going to pick apart any and everything Obama says and does

Though I am pissed off at many of his appointments, he does have the most diverse and qualified cabinet in recent memory.

[Lilyeye]

9. As a female, I in no way agree with them.

[jenmito]

17. As a female myself, neither do I.

[GodlessBiker]

11. Well, there are roughly, what, two dozen cabinet-level positions?

If you were just thinking randomly, you would expect roughly half to go to women, let's say 12.

What. You say that women in general have not assumed senior enough positions to earn the qualifications for a cabinet post?

OK, drop 12 by 25%.....so 9.

It seems that based just on random chance, men have benefited from a quota system (which system has, historically, kept women out of jobs needed to get to senior levels of power).

It's good to be a man.

[jenmito]

19. I think they said there are 20. So you agree with them? You think he picked men just because

they're men and not because they're the most qualified? How many of the men are white? Did he UNDER-represent WHITE men? Come on-this is ridiculous.

[GodlessBiker]

32. He is, as are we all, a victim of a system that readily rewards male achievement,

but holds back on rewarding females who make the same contribution.

The only way you could justify PE Obama's cabinet choices and claim there was no discrimination, is to say that there were insufficient numbers of women who were qualified for the positions (because if there were, random chance indicates women would get half of them).

[jenmito]

38. I disagree 100% that he rewarded male achievement while ignoring women's achievements.

He obviously chose the people best-regarded for each position while appointing women to positions women never held before.

[GodlessBiker]

67. "Obviously"? Holder for AG. That was an obvious choice?

[jenmito]

114. Maybe not. I guess he should've chosen a WHITE guy.

[Joe the Revelator]

39. So what you're saying, but hiding behind unproven statistics, is that you're for quotas.

[GodlessBiker]

59. I must admit, I am for affirmative action.

[Joe the Revelator]

65. AA is not a quota system

[GodlessBiker]

72. I agree. But equality in law does not equate to equality in fact.

Treating groups, who have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, equally before the law, does not mean that they become equal in fact, or that they ever will.

This is the reason we have, for example, minority and women-owned small business incentives.

[nsd]

29. Obama has appointed 15 cabinet secretaries.

So, all things being equal, you'd expect 7 or 8 women on average. Even if there weren't any differences in the size of the pool of candidates, ending up with 5 women wouldn't be surprising or unusual, just based on chance.

ETA: If you also include "cabinet-level" appointees (who don't head executive departments), the numbers go to 20 total appointments of which 7 are women. Again, not that much off from what you might expect.

[cheri010353]

12. Maybe he should have included

Elizabeth Dole, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter - they're women.
:banghead:

[jenmito]

21. I guess he should've...

according to the women quoted. How ridiculous to slam him for his choices and not his policies.

[adoraz]

14. ugh NOW again?

weren't they stirring up shit during the primaries?

[Thrill]

15. This is totally unfair

He has also appointed several Women to Senior Positions in the WH. Too many to name here. A woman is the head of the entire WH Communications. Not to mention the women in the cabinet are leading 2 of the top three Departments.

Named the first woman to lead the SEC. Why didn't they praise him for this? Too busy complaining.
Named a woman to lead the SBA.

And is close to naming a woman Surgeon General.

wow just wow

[jenmito]

22. I guess they won't bw happy unless

he retracts his male choices and replaces them ALL with women.

[Fire1]

18. I am a woman and believe me, FIVE females ANYWHERE is more than enough.

[firedupdem]

35. Hello! n/t

[GarbagemanLB]

20. Where are the one-armed albinos?

[jenmito]

24. He obviously doesn't care about them-there's NONE in his cabinet.

[firedupdem]

25. okay...that made me lose it!

:rofl:

[jenmito]

28. How DARE you!

You are obviously a one-armed albinophobe! :D

[BuelahWitch]

52. And midgets!

There is absolutely NO midget representation in his cabinet!!!:mad: :crazy: :hide:

[Shiver]

71. As a person with heterochromia*

I am offended there are no heterochromes in his Cabinet!

Also, where the hell are the Discordians?


*Heterochromia is the condition that results in a person having eyes that are two different colours. :rofl:

[leftofcool]

23. NOW needs to shut up.

Obama has a fabulous cabinet. Stuff it, Kim.

[jenmito]

26. So does that group "The New Agenda." They're the ones who

made the ridiculous claims that he doesn't care about his women constituents and that it's a SHOCKING step backwards. :eyes:

[cap]

117. NOW are the real feminists; New Agenda is a plant group

that only wants to criticize Democrats and use sexism to split us. New Agenda's web site is registered by privacy post, an organization that is created to hide the identities of website owners.

[jenmito]

119. AH!. Thanks for the info...

I never heard of them before. I should've checked 'em out-like the MEDIA should. :hi:

[cap]

127. There are other feminist astroturf groups on the rise as well

there is the Independent Women's Forum with Lynne Cheney and Wendy Graham on board
http://www.iwf.org/board/

My concern is that there is no counter to these groups from leftist feminists. IWF is very successful on getting on cable TV

[jenmito]

130. Jeez...

Thanks for that info. I bet the media will never disclose who they REALLY are! :eyes:

[Yukari Yakumo]

134. Loose Translation

A small group of PUMAs and Repukes too afraid to show their faces.

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. No, they don't. They're promoting the interests of their membership.

Which may or may not be the interests of Obama's broader constituency.

Clarity comes when you realize that NOW is vigorously pursuing the interests of women. Other considerations are irrelevant.

[jenmito]

137. EVERYONE has "their interests." Why does NOW care about the NUMBER of women in this admin.,

and not the POLICIES of the admin.?

[Scout]

139. who said they DON'T care about the policies? you? n/t

[jenmito]

149. No-their complaints. As long as Obama's admin. has policies friendly to women, why does it matter

that there are 5 women (not caring, obviously, about the "firsts" for women to certain positions)?

[Phx_Dem]

27. NOW is a pain in the ass. This kind of stupid shit is why I would not

want to be associated with NOW. Pick your battles, ladies, don't just complain every chance you get.

For the record, I'm a woman.

[jenmito]

34. Same here.

Jeez-if he suddenly started talking about wanting Roe v. Wade overturned or something, THEN complain. THIS complaint is ridiculous.

[Scout]

140. i'm sure NOW is not upset that you aren't a member

they want feminist members, not just females. Just because someone is a woman, doesn't mean they aren't a *****.

But, yeah, those "ladies" should just quit complaining, and wait for equal rights to fall out of the sky :eyes:

[butterfly77]

30. SOME women need to..

shut their damn mouths,and stop complaining about everything Obama does. I have never heard this much complaining about presidental choices in my life.

[polichick]

31. Well, women make up more than half the population - I'd expect them to hold...

...slightly more than half the big jobs in ANY administration.

[alwysdrunk]

37. They don't make up half of career politicians

Which just about all of the cabinet is.

[polichick]

40. There are a lot of non-politician positions, some of which Barack...

...did fill with women.

[Joe the Revelator]

42. Thats not how it works

unless you're in favor of quotas.

[polichick]

43. LOL - of course it's not how it works when a man is in charge.

[Joe the Revelator]

45. What does that even mean?

[jenmito]

46. So you believe in quotas?

[polichick]

48. There are plenty of qualified women - imo it should naturally work out...

...to reflect the population ~ if we need quotas for the men to "naturally" get it, sure thing.

[adoraz]

51. then you clearly don't understand

that Obama wants to select the MOST QUALIFIED individuals, not pander to stupid shit like this.

There are a lot more qualified men, simply because men in general are involved more in politics are make it up faster to higher up positions than women.

[polichick]

54. imo you don't understand how it works - men in this country have NEVER...

...given up power to other groups (women, other races) without being forced to. Obama is more evolved than most, but his anti-woman Warren choice shows he still has a long way to go.

[adoraz]

55. So what do you suggest then?

He gives less qualified women jobs over more qualified men just to have an equal ratio in his cabinet?

Sounds like a really stupid idea.

[polichick]

56. I think it would have been pretty easy to find equally qualified women...

You're fooling yourself if you think those positions were ALL about qualification ~ a lot of politics went into it too.

[adoraz]

61. No. There were better qualified men for most positions, period.

Obama did not let gender play a role in his decisions, which is the way it should be.

[polichick]

69. What about other "politics"?? Even choosing Warren was about politics.

[adoraz]

80. I hate to tell you...

but we are discussing POLITICS here. There is a lot of corruption in politics, always has been and always will be.

I won't touch the Warren issue, as that is completely irrelevant.

You said Obama should choose an equal number of women JUST because they are women, no other reason.

I said a true statement, that there were a whole lot more qualified men who were better choices for his cabinet.

Now, why that is is a different issue, but one that Obama has nothing to do with. He can't control the low amount of US women senators, for example.

All he can do is choose the most qualified individuals for his cabinet, and I felt he did that.

I'm sorry, but your statements are absolutely absurd. Obama should not put someone in power just because of the color of their skin or their gender. He should choose purely based off of which individuals he feels will best represent our country.

These are cabinet positions for the President of the USA, for God's sake. It's serious buisness.

[GodlessBiker]

85. You don't think that what counts as a "qualification" can be judged through the lens of ...

discrimination? That built into the very system is a bias in favor of the things men have historically been allowed to do and women have been historically not allowed to do?

You seem to think that these selections have been a purely objective exercise and that nothing subjective at all can seep into the process - that the process is as objective as adding 2+2...

[adoraz]

88. uh.... so what exactly are you implying, then?

That Obama is sexist? That he is discriminating against women and not choosing them because of their gender?

Bullshit.

Just to be clear, this argument is about Barack Obama. Not anyone else.

[GodlessBiker]

94. People do it and they don't even realize they are doing it.

And I think you are a little bit naive if you don't think Barack thought about gender at all in making his choices.

[polichick]

97. Oh-oh - now you're going to be blasted. I suggested the same thing...

...and that poster went crazy.

[adoraz]

101. get a life

[Scout]

142. ooooooh what a witty comeback! n/t

[polichick]

86. And I said he could easily have found as many qualified women, but didn't...

You can pretend it's all about qualifications, but I'm not that naive.

[adoraz]

90. You are missing the point.....

yes, I am sure there are a lot of qualified women for all the cabinet positions, but Obama chose who he considered to be the MOST qualified individuals. Because there were a lot more qualified men in general, it makes perfect sense that more men would be chosen.

[polichick]

92. Discrimination isn't always done consciously.

[adoraz]

95. WOW. I seriously can't believe what I am reading.

Do you even support him? Do you have ANY basis to make such an ignorant statement?

Oh, I get it, all men discriminate against women, some just do it unconsciously. You can make general statements like that with absolutely NO evidence.

People like you are the absolute worst. Such hypocrites.

Sorry, but you really do sound like a man hater with some serious problems. You need to get a life.

[polichick]

98. LOL - quite an overreaction. Wonder why.

[adoraz]

102. wonder why....

you can't come up with a real rebuttal?

[polichick]

103. DUH - it's obvious why.

[adoraz]

104. Don't worry, I get it too.

:)

[Scout]

143. you lose! first one to call "man hater" loses!

you obviously haven't got any good arguments, so of course the other poster MUST be a man hater with no life and serious problems!

:rofl:

[adoraz]

150. don't worry, polichick understands I won the argument

It was settled the other day. :evilgrin:

Anyways, where did all these comments come from? I came into this thread and saw half a dozen comments to my posts from some random person not involved in the argument.

I would love to spend a while arguing with you, as all your points are flawed and extremely easy to rebuttal, but tomorrow is Christmas Eve and I have to pick up my Grandparents at the airport now.

If this thread is still alive after Christmas, however, hopefully I'll remember to come back. :)

[GodlessBiker]

75. Why were there better qualified men for most positions? Pure coincidence?

[adoraz]

82. irrelevant

Obama can't control that. It is a whole separate issue.

[GodlessBiker]

87. But men benefit from it.

[adoraz]

91. What are you implying, exactly?

And please, make it relevant to the original topic.

[GodlessBiker]

96. That NOW is not being unreasonable.

Men benefit from discrimination against women that has been going on for hundreds (thousands?) of years.

Has that benefit come to men justly or unjustly? If men have benefited unjustly, should we remedy the injustice?

How should we remedy the injustice?

Going out of your way to find qualified women, and to appreciate qualifications that do not fit the typical construction of qualifications which men have developed over the years, is one way to help remedy the injustice.

To say that there were no, none, zero qualified women to be AG is just ridiculous.

[adoraz]

99. ......

"To say that there were no, none, zero qualified women to be AG is just ridiculous."


Am I missing something here? Did I ever say that...?

[GodlessBiker]

107. Not at all. But if there are qualified women, why did he choose a man?

He certainly might not have thought there was a discriminatory bone in his body, and that he consistently does everything he can to counteract discrimination. I can even believe him in his statements.

But, it is very difficult to grow up in a society that discriminates and not have some residue of that discriminatory thinking inside.

Just look at it the other way. If he had only picked five men to be in his cabinet, do you think most people would say that he picked the best people for the job, or that he considered gender in his selection?

[adoraz]

109. I think Obama understands discrimination

Being the first black President and all.

To answer you question-

he chose a male because he felt he was the most qualified, period.

You are correct when you imply there were qualified women for every cabinet position.

It is just that there were BETTER qualified men for most position.

He chose the MOST qualified individuals for each position, and it just so happens a lot more men fit that description.

[Scout]

144. answer the question posed in post #107

"If he had only picked five men to be in his cabinet, do you think most people would say that he picked the best people for the job, or that he considered gender in his selection?"

[Scout]

141. work a little harder and find the women who are qualified

why do people always assume that women/minorities aren't qualified because some (white) man won't hire them?

[Joe the Revelator]

57. I know this is provacative, but its obvious that you are biased against men

and you imply that you are have bias towards white men in particular. Now i've see you all week long speaking out against bigotry and bias. How is yours any different?

[polichick]

58. That's ridiculous. I've just worked for civil rights causes long enough to know...

...that the ones in power don't give it up until they have to ~ it's just that men (especially white) have been the ones in power.

[Joe the Revelator]

60. If you've worked towards civil rights causes, I'd think that you'd be more careful not to paint

with such broad brushes.

Let me ask, Atlanta has a black female,Shirley Franklin, as a mayor. She has the power in the city. Would you then agree that white men running for that office are now at an unfair disadvantage?

[polichick]

64. You're just being reactionary now - white men have ruled this country...

...for a very long time ~ as a group they have fought everyone who threatened their top-of-the-mountain position. To deny it is silly.

[Joe the Revelator]

68. You didn't answer my question

If the person in power is neither white nor male, do white males have the same unfair disadvantage to getting back into power that you claim all other gender and races do when running against white males in power?

[polichick]

70. imo it will be a VERY LONG TIME before we need to worry about white men...

...getting their share of the pie ~ sweet potato or otherwise.

[Joe the Revelator]

73. And this is the attitude I'm talking about

Just to let you know, as a white male, I feel your bias and disregard for me just as strongly as you would feel if I were doing the same thing to you.

Just so you know.

[polichick]

74. Well, too bad. White guys have had a couple of hundred years on the rest of us...

When we all catch up with your entitled group re position, power and salaries, then you can whine.

[Joe the Revelator]

76. So you fight against bias unless it towards one paticular race/gender group

This never ceases to amaze me. Its such a backwards fucked up way of thinking. Have fun in your glass house, but those who think like you have zero credibility when it comes to "fighting" for equal rights, because you're not for that.

[polichick]

77. You'll have to read my posts from a less entitled point of view. :)

[Joe the Revelator]

79. What am I claiming to be entitled to?

Entitled to not be discriminated against while fighting discrimination against others? I just don't understand your mindset. I know A LOT of people feel like you, and in my opinion its just as disgusting as if I sat here and said everyone but black woman should be given equal rights.

[polichick]

81. Pssst...you white guys have had WAY MORE THAN EQUAL rights for centuries...

Think about it for a while instead of worrying about yourself so much ~ you might get it.

[Joe the Revelator]

112. I am not responsible for whatever my ancestors did or had

You also cannot discriminate against people because of what they may or may not have had in the past. Its a WEAK argument.

[cap]

129. but you are responsible for the here and now...

what have you done to remedy these ills. We are not where we need to be with women's rights by a long shot.

You can't argue that we just don't have sufficient qualified women and then say that history doesn't matter. History set the stage. We, the current actors, can choose to make it different.

If NOW isn't your cup of tea, and you don't like quotas, what are you doing to end tracking women into support, administrative roles?

[polichick]

83. Just to be clear...

I'm not saying that individual cases of discrimination against white males shouldn't be considered ~ I'm just not concerned with white males as a group not getting a fair shake. And I won't be until position, power and salary are equal.

[Joe the Revelator]

113. Like I said, I know a lot of people feel like you

I just don't understand it. How can you on one hand claim to be for equal rights for all, while picking and choosing who you fight for? I can't get away with that and you shouldn't be able to either.

[Scout]

147. white men DON'T NEED MORE RIGHTS

they already have more than their share of just about everything.

WTF is wrong with you?

[Scout]

146. the amount of "bias" against white men is statiscally insignificant n/t

[Scout]

145. poor baby, people just don't worship old white guys like they used to, huh? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. You're welcome to your expectations.

My expectation is that the new administration will select the individuals who are best able to perform the job.

[frogcycle]

33. Some women are just never satisfied

well, (bleep) them!

:)

[Deja Q]

41. Amazing. It's not "all about them" therefore "everyone must be against us".

They just don't get it and I doubt they ever will.

The way they act they can bugger off to some fascist country or, better yet, go and make their own. I bet they STILL won't be happy, even after all that.

[jenmito]

44. Yeah...

then they'd be arguing over WHICH woman to pick.

[Kahuna]

49. FCOL. I'm so sick and tired of everybody trying to micro-manage..

Obama. :banghead:

[Mass]

106. I am tired to see women cannot get their fair share. We are about 50 % of the country.

Though our very progressive cabinet does not think we need more that 10 to 20 % of representations. Why? Did you ask yourself the question?

[Liquorice]

108. I agree, but America has a long way to go in terms

of progressive philosophy towards women. A surprising number of US men and women are very behind other first world countries when it comes to supporting true gender parity.

[jenmito]

120. I think they said there are 20 cabinet positions. Women make up 25%.

Obama is the first Black president. I doubt he's discriminating against women or anyone else. He chose the people he felt were best for the job. He has elevated Susan Rice's job to a cabinet position. He has women in positions that were never held by women before.

[ecstatic]

50. Women are not yet 50% of the male dominated fields

So it will be harder to get his cabinet at 50% under the current circumstances. Give it another 10-20 years or so. For example, my university didn't even allow women in until a little over 50 years ago. I'm sure they know that though. Just more shrill complaining from ex Clinton supporters.

--Disgusted

[Pirate Smile]

53. This might be a good place to post this article:

A Few Good Women
Obama ushers in a feminist revolution in foreign policy and national security.

by A.J. Rossmiller
Post Date Wednesday, December 03, 2008


In the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama first distinguished himself in the area of foreign policy; criticizing an atrophied approach to international affairs in both parties, he promised a new approach to diplomacy and national security. As the country waits impatiently for inauguration day, his appointments in those areas indicate that change is indeed on the agenda: In a major adjustment for the realms of foreign policy and national security, his new approach will be led by women.

In fields long dominated by men, a group of female politicians, academics, and policy wonks form the backbone of the Obama administration. Of appointments already designated, the top posts in the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, both cabinet-level positions, are Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano, respectively; our new ambassador to the United Nations will be Susan Rice; and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the number three position in the Department of Defense, is said to be reserved for Michele Flournoy. For perspective, in the 318 total years those positions have been occupied, women have held them for 16. Or to put it another way, if these women each serve for a single term, they will match the entire combined tenure of women in these positions in the history of the country.

These appointments have garnered little criticism in large part because each appointee is so obviously--indeed, overwhelmingly--qualified. These are not token appointments, but rather a collective reflection of a recent and unprecedented ascendancy of women in these fields. Government positions dealing with war-fighting, tough negotiations, and security have for too long been off limits to women, due to prejudice and stereotypes, as well as structural impediments such as military restrictions against women serving in combat positions, a common path for upward mobility in these fields. But despite these long-lasting barriers, no one now questions the toughness or capabilities of these women. That these appointments have been met by a collective public yawn is itself a remarkable development.

And those are merely the top positions, and ones that are already filled. Burgeoning security superstars Samantha Power and Sarah Sewall are advising the transition on related matters and will likely have significant roles. From the political world, Jane Harman, the former ranking member on the House intelligence committee, has also received attention for her expertise and abilities in these areas as well, and is reportedly under consideration for a top intelligence post. The number of prominent women in this area, and the breadth of their presence--whether in politics, academia, the think tank world, or as civil servants--reveals a fundamental upheaval within the old boys club, rather than a set of outlier promotions. And the depth of their presence in these fields indicates this development is here to stay. Beyond the big names, a phalanx of "next generation" women in foreign policy and security are set to rise through the ranks. Obama's high-profile appointments have the potential to allow for advancement of women in the pipeline who might have otherwise been shut out, as well as providing a strong example for others considering similar careers.

The diversity of their paths to power is also an encouraging sign of future egalitarianism in the national security establishment. At least a few of the major players, including Rice, Power, and Sewall, studied issues and areas that were not traditionally perceived as primary in national security, such as conflict resolution, failed states, and post-conflict management. Rice, for example, is an Africa expert succeeding a long line of predecessors who were mostly students of the Cold War and of European politics. Sewall and Power have devoted great energy to humanitarian issues, with Power's rise to prominence sparked by her Pulitzer-winning book on genocide. Under a Cold War model, these focuses might not have been paths to prominence; but in an era of international terrorism, counter-insurgency, and failed states as a major security problem, they are vital areas of expertise.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=113b3e75-80b2-4e4b-9524-67240680de9a

[Bunny]

62. I was getting s-o-o-o-o-o tired of all the agita directed against gays here in the past week.

It's so refreshing to see some good old fashioned wimmen hatin' for a change.

[Joe the Revelator]

63. Who's "woman hating"?

Those who think that its possible to have more then one gender or one race on the cabinet?

[AtomicKitten]

66. I got over back-seat managing his appointments/nominations.

I couldn't stand the pain!

Happy Holidays, Jen!

[blm]

78. I don't believe he picked the best - I think he bent over to satisfy Bush/Clinton part of DC

powerstructure. I hope he shifts left after he's president, and wields the considerable power he will have and THWART the fascists pressuring him now.

[Leo The Cleo]

84. Secretary of State

And one of those women in secretary of State. That's friggin huge. I wouldn't say that women got the shaft. However, I'm not a woman. But any group can gripe. I'm black, I don't see the cabinet swimming in a pool of blacks. I think we should wait for policy to decide.

[mwei924]

89. WTF? Secretary of State and Homeland Security are females..

Those are big time gigs, and break the stereotype that women are not strong enough to deal with national security.

[Leo The Cleo]

93. What is the quota for women

Is there supposed to be a quota for how many women were supposed to vote for Obama? I think the conversation may be getting blown out of proportion. It also may not be getting blown out of proportion. However, no individual group put Obama in the White House. But if we are to parce things out, we'd have to decide on how to divide the electorate and what percentages must go in the cabinet. Based on percentage, how many Latinos and Asians based on country of origin belong in the cabinet? What percentage of the cabinet must be openly gay? Which percentage of the cabinet must be black? Is there a way to hash out all of these things?

[Liquorice]

100. A lot of countries have successful quota systems

to make sure women are fairly represented in government.

http://www.quotaproject.org/country.cfm?SortOrder=LastLowerPercentage%20DESC

[Uzybone]

110. None of those countries have the US Constitution

and where will the quotas end? I'm sure our large Hispanic population will not be silent if we impose quotas for women and blacks only. Then of course the gays will want their quota picks. Followed by native Americans and Asians. Whites will not want to be left out. Then we have to start religious and regional quotas. Quotas are an idiotic idea. They can only work in a fairly homogeneous population if at all.

[Liquorice]

111. That's your opinion. Most of Europe disagrees and does

quite well with gender parity laws.

[Uzybone]

115. Like I said, only in homogenous populations

Look at France and the UK, which or the only countries in Europe that come close to the diversity of the US, they seem to have even less women represented than the US. Their quota system isn't working too well is it?

Heck the average for all countries with quotas in under 20%. Quotas don't seem to be making a difference.

[Liquorice]

116. Quotas haven't been used long enough to fully judge success.

But the early results are quite obvious. In every country in which a quota system has been instituted, the percentage of women in government has increased. To say quotas don't work is ridiculous.

[Thrill]

105. This proves groups like this are only interested in complaining

They complain about not enough cabinet memebers. But don't celebrate the history made by Obama naming the first woman to lead the SEC.

[jenmito]

121. I agree. I also learned from a poster here that the group named in my OP

is really a RW organization fronting as a woman's organization.

[Scout]

148. yeah, those NOW cows, all they ever do is complain n/t

[AZBlue]

118. I thoroughly disagree with them.

And I'm angered by them - this kind of stupidity is what gives the women's movement a very bad name.

[jenmito]

122. Welcome to the club!

:hi:

[AZBlue]

124. Thanks!

:D

I am just amazed at this - why aren't they celebrating the female appointments instead of whining about the fact that they want more??

[cap]

128. I'll tell you why: A lot of Women voted for Change

and Change to them meant increasing the numbers to something close to 50%.

Gays are having the same problem: a lot of Gays voted for Change and Change to them meant stomping out homophobia. That's why they are having the problems with Rick Warren.

You will see the same problems with Hispanics: they want change, too.

Ditto for African Americans. An African American President goes a long way but they want to see the numbers too.

A lot of groups want Change NOW. And not incremental change... really BIG CHANGE. Everyone retreated under the Bush administration and people want more than just roll back. They want advancement.


Obama is going to have to deal with social issues. He is trying to diffuse them but he is caught between larger forces beyond his control.

[jenmito]

131. Good question...

I guess some people will NEVER be happy unless they have 100% of what they want. And I don't know why it matters so much about the number of women rather than the policies the admin. enact that are GOOD for women.

[Grateful for Hope]

123. Guess so

But, this woman is not disappointed. Obama has made some good choices.

[Yukari Yakumo]

132. $5 says both of them were, at one time, PUMAs. {nt}

[jenmito]

133. See post #117 up-thread. n/t