Apparently during the first part of Obama’s term, the women in his administration were not happy. In a recent Washington Post article, a story unfolds of women coming to Obama in Nov. 2009 with complaints about “men having greater access to him and feeling muscled out of key policy discussions.”
His senior adviser Valerie Jarrett advised him to elevate women to more positions in his reelection campaign, recognize the women more during meetings and elevate women to more senior positions so they don’t feel “muscled out” by the men. All of that was hush hush, but now a book is coming out.
“Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind was released this week and it talks all about the unhappiness of female staffers in the Obama Administration. The book release is highly controversial. Obama did agree to an interview and the administration cooperated with the author, however it seems this cooperation could lead to backfire.
One of the most striking quotes in the book is from former White House communications director Anita Dunn, who was quoted as saying that
“this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
This could put a dent in Obama’s reelection campaign. Do you think it will make a difference?
Another interesting issue brought up in this article is one we often hear about from chanting feminists about equality. Just because these staffers were women, and because they felt inferior, does that mean that a quota system needs to be implemented? Or women just need to be promoted or placed in positions just because they are female? What I don’t get is the feminist backward thinking of why this leads to advancement. It’s about skills and opportunity…not about if you are a woman.