Looks like the President needs those binders from Mr. Romney, all of his new cabinet choices are men, and white men, at that. What's going on here, anyway?
Here is a link that might be useful: Who's in - who's out
And which media is exposing the lack of women? Was it Fox? Or some liberal media like NBC?
The issue has gained relevance recently as news unfolded that the president would appoint men to all of the highest-profile cabinet positions (State, Defense and Treasury), even as some women were in the running. The number of women senior staff shrank even further Wednesday with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announcing her resignation.
Responding to a question from NBC's Chuck Todd about whether the picture "embarrassed" President Obama, press secretary Jay Carney immediately listed the names of women in the administration.
Here is a link that might be useful: NBC
I think I must have gone through the time warp and become post-feminist. I no longer think about gender in these appointments. I try to think about whether they are a good choice for the job.
I hope he appoints more women to significant positions, but lets not forget that he appointed a woman to the highest court in the land--he hasn't run out of gas on that choice yet.
And remember that Kathleen Sebelius (former Governor of Kansas--2nd woman gov. of Kansas) is still Secretary of Health and Human Services. As competent as they come! If she had more charisma on the electoral trail, she would be our first woman president.
(But how did we end up with right-winger nut Sam Brownback as governor in her place? I just don't understand!)
But, yeah, get with it, President Obama!
These things are only an issue in an republican admin. Lets move on here.
I think his first preference would have been Susan Rice for SOS.....we know how that worked out.
To be brutally honest I suspect that the most qualified to lead Defense, CIA and Treasury are likely men. Women are making great gains in those disciplines but the best and most experienced are likely men....but it's changing!!!
I doubt Obama would hand pick a men's only panel of "experts" to testify before congress about woman's health issues and birth control.
Not true it is a society problem. For the positions that were open so far he has only replaced with a man that was held by a woman. For that position it appears to be the best person needed for the job.
Nobody is looking to be "The Token" female. All I am expecting is that the best person is selected for the position. The position that was held by a woman was being considered but the Republicans were prepared to put the country through an upset.
The President has more women and diversity than any other President. Because it is just not a problem as it is in the Republican party the Democratic party do not think to use them as props.
I do not care what party it is I will continue to watch.
That would be me, that's exposing this lack of women, and I'm certainly not a Republican.
My links are from the Washington Post, which you would have noticed if you'd clicked on either one of them, or even just hovered over them to see where the links went.
I looked at the Washington Post link - read it actually. It appears to be a simple "who's in and who's out" summary. But the NBC link talks about people who are bringing up the lack of women as a concern in the media. That was my point.
Because people say that the liberal media is all about giving Obama a pass on things that he does "wrong". Here is an example of the liberal media bring it up - "hey, why so many men and so few women?". They ain't giving Obama a pass.
Here's the other link.
I'm not giving him a pass just because I voted for him. He'll make mistakes in this term, just like in the last one, and plenty of us "libruls" on this forum will call him on these mistakes.
Here is a link that might be useful: Link
Why does a person resign from a post amid such praises? Is there an underlying reason that is kept from the public?
I agree with JZ, this time. Gender is getting to be an invalid reason to hire someone. Qualifications are more important.
Perhaps the outgoing official feels incompetent? Defeated? Or just plain tired of being a symbolic gesture.
I think your paranoid suspicions are way off base, though not unexpected, and it only took 3 hours.
Perhaps the outgoing Cabinet Secretaries are just worn out, it's been a busy four years for all of them, I doubt it's an easy job under the best of circumstances.
With the hatred and vitriol aimed at President Obama and his appointees, I would guess they need some R&R. And of course, if they take R&R while they are still working, everyone will SCREAM about how lazy they are and how they don't deserve a break.
As far as I remember, it's quite common for some cabinet members to resign after 1 term and not stay on for the 2nd term.
Was the insinuation that they were incompetent raised when it wasn't that bad Obama man in charge?
In the case of Ms. Clinton, I think you can read the reasons in her face; she looks exhausted.
Hilda Solis will be returning home to run for a seat on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.
You make the most sense, Nancy. But, Hilary has been through the wringer a time or two, or three.
This post was edited by brushworks on Thu, Jan 10, 13 at 14:43
But, Hilary has been through the wringer a time or two, or three.
She's covered a lot of miles in her four-year tenure and has earned her time for R&R. I don't think she did near this amount of travel as senator or First Lady.
I think Hillary is going to run in 2016 for pres and the way elections go these days, you really need a full four years to prepare.
No matter how many times you say this Conservative will never hear or understand that LIBERALS ARE NOT SHEEP!!!!
It does not have to be whatever party tell us what to believe we will question. Something about that brain that Libruels use.
.....and don't forget: she ran a grueling race for the Presidency and shortly afterward was appointed as SOS in a time of great world unrest. The woman is *tired*.
Lots of people resign after one year from every President's cabinet, every one of them - no story here.
In a country where there are more women than men making up the population, I don't understand why Obama didn't himself refer to a few binders of women for appointments. Obama was very vocal about that "binders" comment from Romney during the race.
I expected better than this from Obama.
That's big minus point from moi, racked up even before he has been sworn again. I am disappointed, but there is nobody alive who is not going to be disappointed in decisions made by their choice after every single election. Maybe they won't admit it ---- or even vehemently deny it--- but unless they are brainless followers, there is going to be disappointment from time to time, sometimes big disappointment, in decisions made.
I'm glad to see that some liberals here are willing to step up - yet again - and say so out loud and in this forum when they think Obama has made a wrong move. Good for you all!
JG, I think Hillary will be among many Democrats seeking the office and I'm afraid she will be mocked and disrespected like she was in 2008 by her very own party.
Just my prediction.
The hatred and vitriol for zero and his team!! heh, its quite tame compared to what Bush endured.Well deserved tho as he tries his best to bury the country. I would be happy to pick someone of quality no matter what he she or it is..
Many people forget that their is major incompetence at the top, whether it's business or government. Get used to it.
Interesting that everyone thought he had been incredibly inclusive with his first team. The only difference so far this go round is his attempt to fill a post vacated by a woman was thwarted by a small number of conservatives. Other than that so far it's status quo in terms of women in his cabinet.
One thing for sure, he won't appoint anyone who is anti-drone killing.
A tempest in a teapot started by Charlie Rangel who thinks Obama should replace with minorities. Many serve only one term with the president and then go back to the private sector. All of his appts might not pass muster but gender and race do not have to be a consideration. I find far more troubling that females in the Obama Whitehouse are paid on an average of 18% less than males.
I find far more troubling that females in the Obama Whitehouse are paid on an average of 18% less than males.
This statement has the potential for being deceiving. All the White House receptionists may be women and are paid less because of the job (not because they are women). This would bring down the average, wouldn't it?
The question to ask is whether John Kerry will be paid the same or more than Hillary Clinton.
mrsk--can you give a source for the 18% less pay for women in the White House and clarify whether you mean women with the same background, training, and experience as men are being paid 18% less in the same job category as the men are? Or do you mean they earn less than men because they are hired in different and lower-paying jobs than the men are?
Are you telling me that Kathleen Sebelius, former Governor of Kansas and currently Secretary of Health and Human Resources, is being paid less than previous Secretaries of Health and Human Resources? Or that one earns more money being in charge of the Pentagon (traditionally a male job) than being in charge of Health and Human Resources (a more "female" job, although not exclusively I do believe)?
In other words, are you arguing about equal pay or about comparable worth? There is a big difference--comparing apples to apples vs comparing apples to oranges.
Just throwing out a figure--no source and no explanation of what you mean by it--is no help to discussion.
It is a good way to stir the political pot, however, if that is what your goal was.
"I agree with JZ, this time. Gender is getting to be an invalid reason to hire someone. Qualifications are more important."
Employers who do not consider race and gender when hiring are asking for trouble from the federal government. There must be diversity in the workplace. When there is not, the EEOC wants to know why.
Seems like choosing someone with a physical disability to serve would in his cabinet would be a good way for Obama to show his commitment to giving everybody a fair shot. Maybe that person is already there and I missed it?
And Mr. Unethical Rangel speaks up. LOL
I personally think it's ridiculous to talk about race and gender for these cabinet level positions. There is only a handful of people who have the qualifications for these jobs, regardless of race and gender, so there may not be the option of getting a woman or minority candidate for the job. For Secretary of State, Obama had a minority woman in mind and that didn't go very far. Perhaps we should blame the republicans in Congress for this "issue" since THEY were the ones who had the hissy fit when Susan Rice was mentioned.
According to a report published by the Free Beacon in April, the 2011 annual report on White House staff revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees � $60,000 compared to $71,000.
And in 2008, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock noted that as in Obama�s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.
I think I understand what you are saying Kate. If Obama only hires women to be receptionists and secretaries that would mean lower incomes. But that isn't really the discrepancy. It's equal jobs with unequal pay.
There is nothing in what you just said that proves your point, mrsk. You cannot compare all jobs; you have to compare the same jobs - apples to apples.
While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152
I doubt very much that the same jobs are paid differently, depending on gender. When I worked for the government (admittedly many years ago), everyone was classified according to a certain level (I forget the exact terminology so many years later). What level you were placed at depended on how much training and experience you had and how much education you had. So if I qualified by objective criteria for level 15, I got paid the salary designated for level 15--and everybody else classified as level 15 got the same exact salary. There was no room in that system for subjective judgments--it was based on facts that could be documented.
I'm sure they have probably refined the system since I was in it so many years ago, but my understanding is that the general premise and methodology of the system are still the same.
I'd bet that if we had more data to investigate, we would find that the lower paid females have a slightly different classification than the higher paid male employees. The simple fact is that we still do not have hordes of highly qualified women job-seeking in D.C. for govt. jobs--so more highly qualified guys end up in those jobs that have a higher mandatory salary attached to them.
Obama is too smart to go about underpaying women in the fishbowl of D.C. If he were that dumb, he never would have won the election! BEsides, as I pointed out above, it isn't part of his duties to determine what salary an employee gets. That has already been determined by Congressional law that set up the system as well as laws forbidding salary discrimination based on gender, race, etc.
It's equal jobs with unequal pay.
There are standard pay grades for federal jobs; salary is based on one's GS rating, not gender.
For those who face/faced racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination in the private sector, the federal government is/was a safe haven.
White House Record On Women Should Be Better
"One of the key discussions during Wednesday�s presidential debate focused on the matter of equality for women in the workplace.
The President has long sought the high ground on the issue, pointing to his signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Act that provided women with more legal room to file lawsuits to redress instances of employment discrimination. Governor Romney made his case based to his record of staffing his Massachusetts cabinet with more proportional representation of women.
A review of the respective records of the candidates reveals that both have some real problems in this area.
-snip-(this portion of the article deals with Romney, which is moot at this juncture)
However, the White House also does not have much to brag about when it comes to accomplishing equal representation of women in Obama administration.
Using the 2011 figures, the most recent available, 7 women were earning the highest staff salary offered in the White House compared to 14 men�meaning that only one-third of the top jobs were filled by women. This is clearly not representative of the population as a whole, given that there are slightly more women in America than there are men, and particularly problematic when we consider that�according to the U.S. Census Bureau �there are more working women with a college degree than there are working men. This would indicate that there is no reason to expect that women would, somehow, be less qualified for White House jobs than their male counterparts.
To be sure, the Obama record on equality in the workplace is an improvement over the previous administration as during the comparable point of the Bush administration there were just 3 women who had achieved the top salary. However, it seems fair to say that the White House would have done themselves a big favor had they strived for more equal female representation if the plan was�and is�to hold themselves up as a model for equality in the workplace.
When a salary analysis of the same time period is done to see how women fared when considering the entire White House staff, we find that women, on average, earned about $10,000 a year less than the men.
It is hugely important to note that this figure does not represent women being paid less for doing the same job as a male employee. The White House is not engaging in discriminatory behavior when it comes to providing equal pay to women who are doing the same job as a male counterpart.
What it does mean is that women working in the administration are, on average, placed in lower paying jobs than men and that suggests they are, again, on average, holding down jobs that comes with less responsibility. And while the White House record in this regard is better than the national average, it must still be pointed out that this administration has failed to make the symbolic and real effort to achieve parity for men and women in that particular workplace.
Further compounding the negative side of the record =are the stories that have leaked out of the White House over the years�stories of women on the inside of the Obama administration not being treated with the same serious intent as one should expect from the Obama team..."
Dublin: "Or do you mean they earn less than men because they are hired in different and lower-paying jobs than the men are?"
The article asks the question: Why is there a disproportionate ratio of women to men in the lower-paying jobs at the White House?
Yes, that article clearly makes the point I was making rather awkwardly above:
What it does mean is that women working in the administration are, on average, placed in lower paying jobs than men . . . .
It is not a case of unequal pay for equal work. The women who reached the highest staff level were NOT earning less than the men at the highest staff level. The point the article makes is that there were fewer women who attained the highest rank (with the highest salaries), not that women were paid less than men for the same work.
As to why fewer women attained the highest staff ranking, we would have to have their records and study a lot of data to determine what the reasons are. Having heard a number of women say they gave up their D.C. (or Wall Street)career and returned to Kansas to raise their families (which their careers in D. C. did not allow sufficient time to do an adequate job of child-rearing), I'd guess that problem explains why a number of women don't dedicate themselves to D.C. careers. But I am just guessing on that.
I think you are right, must be based on salaries of receptionists.
Here is a link that might be useful: link
You still don't get it, do you? You haven't decided yet whether you want to complain about Obama's political appointments being men or whether government employees who are women get paid as much as men. You are conflating the two issues and making no sense. A receptionist doesn't have to be confirmed by congress. These are different kinds of jobs.
Well, I'll jump in to say that I get it. It's called a discussion. You know, where people actually contribute and exchange ideas. This isn't a debate, or is it? A discussion doesn't necessarily have 2 sides. Maybe there are more than two sides. Maybe there is no argument.
"Why is there a disproportionate ratio of women to men in the lower-paying jobs at the White House?"
Having worked in the business world, at a senior level, the answer is quite simple. In any large organization there is a significant need for clerical/support staff. Typically these jobs are sought by women for a variety of reasons. Qualifications, disposition, educational background, work environment, benefits, working hours etc.
The WH is no different than any other large business. Walk into the local county office, an insurance office, utility company, etc and tell me what the ratio of male to female clerical staff is?
What is true is that the relative "value" of jobs that tend to be dominated by females is often deemed to be of lesser "value" than jobs dominated by males. Mind you this has changed drastically over the last few years as has the gender mix of jobs traditionally held by one sex or the other.
What is very certain is that in the government, as well as most large corporations, salaries are based on the position NOT the gender of the employee.
Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 12, 13 at 1:02
There's always an argument when one comes here looking for an argument.
That is why there aren't that many discussions.
You can't have either a discussion or a debate when someone makes up their own facts. And, furthermore, I fail to see your distinction between a discussion and a debate. Are you saying that in a discussion you don't have to worry about accuracy?
"Are you saying that in a discussion you don't have to worry about accuracy?"
Lucky for most of us, I say yes. Careless or otherwise intentional inaccuracy is not dishonest in my book.
This story of the 18% or what ever difference in salaries with Obama's staff is an old debunked chestnut that keeps being pulled out from time to time-keeping the myth alive since I know for a fact it has been debunked here on Hot topics, always with the same results..until next time.
The gains that women have made in the past 30 years or so is just astonishing-cultural norms take a very long time to change. Even though women are still expected to take the time off to get the kids to the dentist still the careers of women have improved impressively since a time when I got a B in a class where I was competing with male graduate students and I had by far the highest performance-because the guys needed the A more than I did. I dont see us getting parity any time soon but I do believe it will come. I love the fact that a woman can be replaced with a man. I want to see the day when the gender of the previous office holder wont be an issue(I dislike that a female Supreme must be replaced with a female). With the pool of people qualified to hold certain offices being so small and then you have to talk them into the serious pay cut they usually have to take-a major reason people bail after a single term,the pay is laughable for these people-how much sacrifice do you expect? It takes time but it is happening-we need a woman president but I am willing to bet most of her cabinet will be male.
We are making progress when Chase argues that in "...the government, as well as most large corporations, salaries are based on the position NOT the gender of the employee."
May I help you, Chase?
Not in the mood to play games. Explain what you meant by this statement....
"We are making progress when Chase argues that in "...the government, as well as most large corporations, salaries are based on the position NOT the gender of the employee."
Or not.....quite frankly I couldn't care less which choice you make. I am only interested in a grown up discussion.
chase, there are some people (some conservatives, mostly) who believe that if you ignore the fact the race and gender (and other suspect categories) even exist, there will be no race or gender (or other suspect categories) conflicts in our society.
In other words, from their viewpoint, race and gender problems are CAUSED by society noticing that there are race and gender differences in the world.
Don't ask me to make sense of that. That is their theory.
Kate : )
It makes perfect sense, unless you believe that blacks, or hispanics, or women, or whatever distinguishing characteristic that some choose to point out, make more poor choices in life (you know--the laments of minorities--increased illegitimate births, higher incidents of committing crimes, lower test scores, lower test scores in math and science, higher numbers of drug users, less likely to have skills to procure and maintain gainful employment, etc.) BECAUSE their skin is black, or they were born to ethnic parents, or they happened to have two X chromosomes.
Of course it's because SOCIETY HAS NOTICED these things.
That's the problem--not being black, or a woman, or hispanic or disabled.
I happen to believe that problems that people have have absolutely nothing to do with what color their skin is, if their families are not white, or that they happen to have two X chromosomes.
But that's just me. I believe that people are just that--people.
We should measure ourselves by our potential and help one another to reach our potential--but not make blanket excuses based on prejudicial observations like the color of one's skin, sex, or ethnic background.
It's an insult to do so, actually.
Chase, From time to time statistics are used to further the notion that the US is a place of rampant gender discrimination against women. You may recall that Democrats spoke frequently of a Republican "war against women" in the last election.
When an income/gender disparity was noted in the Obama circle, the default explanation of gender discrimination was replaced by a reasoned discussion focusing on how to understand and explain these differences.
As you correctly noted, in government "...as well as most large corporations, salaries are based on the position NOT the gender of the employee."
You cautioned folks to consider the position as well as gender when considering salary disparities.
I think we are making progress when liberals and conservatives can agree that a disparity may "look like" discrimination, but may not necessarily BE discrimination. Disparities may well be a reflection of the differences in skills and responsibilities that different positions require.
You may recall that Democrats spoke frequently of a Republican "war against women" in the last election.
Oh, if Democrats had not loudly protested against the anti-women's reproductive rights legislation, it would not have existed? Or women would have been too dumb to figure out they didn't like it?
In other words, women would not have thought curtailing birth control options or requiring a relative stranger to force an intrusive instrument, by law, into a woman's vagina was a problem if the Democratic women had shut up. Left to their own devices, women would not have figured out that they do not approve of state-mandated "rape" with an intrusive instrument?
Well, all I can say is, THANK GOODNESS FOR LOUD PROTESTING WOMEN!
Thank you nik.
The way you phrased your statement.." We are making progress when Chase argues that in the government, as well as most large corporations.... " made me think that the progress was specifically because I was making the statement which struck me as rather odd.
However, it is important to note that I specifically pointed out that salaries, in the government and most large corporations, are based on position not gender. There is still much discrimination in the workplace when it comes to women's salaries and there most certainly is when it comes to social and health issues.