DudeBros in the White House
According to Ron Suskind’s new book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President, Obama’s White House is a sexist boys’ club. From the Washington Post:
In an excerpt obtained by The Post, a female senior aide to President Obama called the White House a hostile environment for women.
“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
…
The book, due out next week, reveals a White House that at times was divided and dysfunctional.
It says that women occupied many of the West Wing’s senior positions, but felt outgunned and outmaneuvered by male colleagues such as former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Summers.
“I felt like a piece of meat,” Christina Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said of one meeting in which Suskind writes she was “boxed out” by Summers.
Dunn told Suskind that the problems began during the 2008 campaign. At one point she was viewing a television ad with other campaign officials and was shocked to see no women in the spot.
“There isn’t a single woman in this ad,” Dunn said. “I was dumbfounded. It wasn’t like they were being deliberately sexist. It’s just there was no one offering a female perspective.”
The ad was later reshot, with women included.
“The president has a real woman problem,” an unnamed high-ranking female official told Suskind. “ The idea of the boys’ club being just Larry and Rahm isn’t really fair. He [Obama] was just as responsible himself.”
…
According to the book, female staffers, like Dunn and Romer, felt sidelined. In November 2009, female aides complained to the president about being left out of meetings, or ignored.
Dunn said in the interview that her husband, now-White House lawyer Bob Bauer, was “surprised to see me as someone who could be talked over in meetings.”
…
Obama, according to the book published by Harper Collins, failed to call on Romer after asking her male colleagues for their opinions. The snub prompted Romer to pass a note to Summers where she threatened to walk out of the dinner, according to the book.
The Obama White House has long been dogged by similar claims of exclusivity — his golf outings have been typically all-male affairs, though Melody Barnes, who heads the Domestic Policy Council was invited on at least one round of golf in October 2009 after much grumbling about Obama’s choice of golf buddies.
Dunn and Romer are now trying to walk back the worst of this, but that’s normal. That’s how these things go: you vent to the reporter, then when the book comes out you do some CYA “that’s not really what I meant.”
At any rate, none of this is remotely surprising to anyone who has paid close attention to the dynamics inside the Obama camp. Of course they’re dudebros. Of course they’re assholes.
That women like Naomi Wolf could have ever deluded themselves into believing that Obama represented the feminist version of “Christmas and New Year’s and Hanukkah rolled into one” just goes to show the extent to which human beings can convince themselves of anything.
By the way, speaking of morons: has Amanda Marcotte weighed in yet? What’s her take on the female staffers quoted in Suskind’s book? She has a history of “explaining” that any woman who criticizes Obama is a:
a. Racist
b. Republican
c. Lying bitch
d. Hysterical bitch
e. Jealous bitch
f. All of the above
I look forward to Amanda’s post in which she explains that the women in Obama’s White House were secret racist Republican moles who are now hysterically lying about what really happened there. Also, they’re jealous of Amanda’s career.
30 Responses to “DudeBros in the White House”
-
myiq2xu says:
Althouse:
Dunn now rejects the term “hostile workplace,” and adds the typical PR bullshit evidence: “The president is someone who when he goes home at night he goes home to house full of very strong women… He values having strong women around him.”
In my experience, women who are vigilant about workplaces that are hostile to women hate that argument: A man has a strong wife at home, so he must not be opposed to the success of women in the workplace.
And, by the way, specifically, I’d say that Barack Obama has kept his wife in a distinctly subordinate role. Michelle Obama went to Princeton and Harvard Law School, and now she works on encouraging children to eat vegetables and get some exercise.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:04 pm EST -
Violet Socks says:
The argument that “he can’t be sexist because he has a strong wife” is asinine. It’s typical anti-feminist bullshit from the right. The weird thing is that in 2008, feminists started invoking it for Obama. And they’re still doing it.
It’s just another of countless examples of how people bend over backwards and betray their own knowledge and beliefs in order to excuse Obama.
-
Unree says:
Should we vote for the unprimary’d dudebro next fall? I am inclined to go with the Green Party again, even though I doubt Obama will repeat (much of) the misogyny of his 2008 primary campaign.
-
Carmonn says:
And what’s with the plural, strong “women”? Like he’s entitled to some kind of automatic credit because his wife gave birth to daughters instead of sons or something? Hey, he could have taken them directly from the birthing room to the orphanage, but he let them stay!
-
Violet Socks says:
Unree, I’m always inclined to go with the Green Party. But it’s just going to depend on how things stand a year from now and who the Republican nominee is. A lot is going to happen between now and then.
If it’s Perry and things look close, I can see voting for Obama just to avert ultimate catastrophe. Four more years of Democratic party self-destruction vs. the Cowboy of Doom. Having lived through the Reagan and Dubya dystopias, it is impossible for me to be sanguine about that possibility. I mean, people who say, “how bad could it be?”—jesus. Did you live through Dubya? Did you live through Reagan? Do you understand what those two eras did to this country and the world?
By contrast, in 2008 I was about as unworried about McCain as I’ve ever been about a Republican candidate. He was almost guaranteed to be a weak coda to the Bush years. The country was sick of the war, sick of the Republicans, sick of it all. He would have been an “interim pope,” as it were. Probably a one-termer.
-
Monchichipox says:
Fuck golf.
-
snow black says:
Oh, why am I not surprised?
“This is what a feminist looks like!” Oh yeah, baby.
Just this morning I walked my dog past the die-hard “Hillary 2016″ sign in an apartment window in my neighborhood. I check it regularly, nowadays, to see if they’ll change it to “Hillary 2012″.
-
gxm17 says:
I’ll be voting third party if I even bother to vote. There is no way I can in good conscience vote for that misogynist asshat. I’m sick of having terrible choices shoved down my throat and I’m just not gonna play their uni-party game anymore. Done, done, and done.
And yes, I’ve lived through Reagan and Dubya, and frankly I don’t see a whole lot of difference between them and Obama. Way too many similarities for me to ignore.
-
lambert strether says:
Sexist boy’s club? Shocker! Film at 11.
* * *
I will not vote for either legacy party ever again. As gxm17 says: Done, done, and done. I’m tired of enabling, and I’ll just take the hit for the sake of a better outcome.
Because if our sociopathic elite concludes that Obama is indeed the one, then you can bet the house that an “ultimate catastrophe” of an opponent is exactly what they will engineer.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Count me in as being “done.” Third party, even if said party is the “We believe aliens come down to earth and invade all of our brains on our 16th birthdays” party.
-
Simon Kenton says:
I supported Nader a couple of times. It was a little weird – remember that ad where he talked mournfully to his parrot? I could never select with any certainty between the resonances of sincerity, self-parody, and non-compos havering in that ad, but you get to moments when your vote seems too valuable to squander. Another time, long ago, I was pissed at Governor Lamm (who in retrospect and after some conversations seems about as good a governor as we have ever had) and voted for Sal A. Mander, who had gotten on the ballot somehow. His position on water – a perennial point of controversy in Colorado – was that he liked it.
-
quixote says:
Me too. Done. Carbonisé, even.
Not even the specter of a Perry could get me to vote for the other sexist asshat. And, yes, I lived through Ronzo the Bonzo and Shrub The Lesser. Perry, if he actually had a Republican Congress and a free hand, would do more damage than both of those combined. But I’m so mad I’ve reached the “Burn, baby, burn” level of political analysis.
-
Sameol says:
I hate the way that Obama’s supporters revel in the traditional, throwback, anti-Hillary role that the media insists on playing up for Michelle Obama. OTOH, though, just because she went to Harvard Law School that doesn’t mean she actually wants to embrace some type of public policy role. If she does, great, but I don’t know why it’s assumed that the wife of the President is that oriented toward public policy. If she were, she’d probably be a politician herself instead of just married to one.
It’s unfortunate that the First Lady can’t continue to pursue her own career while her husband’s in office, but as much as Obama’s advisors play up the “proper woman” role to the hilt, it’s possible that she herself just grit her teeth and chose something non-controversial to keep the heat off, knowing she’s expected to launch some type of campaign and not being particularly comfortable or interested in taking on that role.
-
votermom says:
But I’m so mad I’ve reached the “Burn, baby, burn” level of political analysis.
Me too.
-
Violet Socks says:
But I’m so mad I’ve reached the “Burn, baby, burn” level of political analysis.
I sympathize, but what about good old enlightened self-interest? It’s not like this is some bar fight playing out on TV that has no impact on us.
-
ugsome says:
It is very much enlightened self-interest to withdraw support from the DINOs who eroded abortion rights and women’s standing in the workplace more than any Republican would’ve dared. Yes, the Republicans might be worse. But the Democrats will never get any better.
-
JeanLouise says:
I disagree, ugsome. The GOP will do worse. My state went Republican in 2010 and we’re on the verge of passing the most restrictive abortion law in the country. It’s un-Constitutional but who knows what will happen with the GOP woman-haters on the Supreme Court.
-
ugsome says:
JeanLouise, then we truly are in a pickle, I’m afraid. :(
-
Alison says:
Violet, I’m in agreement with you on Perry. He is dangerous for all of us. And for me, this trumps Obama’s deplorable sexism and bizarre style of leadership. I would also vote for Obama over Bachmann, despite wanting a female Prez. But I would likely vote for Huntsman or Palin over Obama. Just curious what others are thinking…
-
MikeDC says:
Can I tie this conversation back to something a Elisabeth Warren and something a little more fundamental?
That fundamental thing is being correct on the issues.
I don’t understand the excitement for Warren. As a (former) economics teacher, I used her analysis in The Two Income Trap as a case study in the terrible and misleading use of statistics. Feisty female or not, nobody should fawn over her because she so badly misunderstands our situation she can’t possibly hope to make it better.
Attributing something good to her because of her gender is counterproductive plain and simple.
In contrast, Christina Romer represents the opposite pole of sexism. She’s literally one of the world’s foremost economists and appears to have been ignored and insulted because of her gender. More importantly, she was absolutely right on the facts. If the President had listened to her recommendations back in 2008 and early 2009, we’d all be in a better place today. Obama included.
Point is, the gender issue shouldn’t get in the way of the “being right” issue in either direction.
-
dandelion says:
What’s interesting to me is that (some) women have been pointing out a woman problem in the Obama WH and in his campaign for years now and were basically told that either they weren’t seeing what they were seeing or that they should stfu for the sake of the “big picture.”
But now — now that the story has been validated by a male reporter — now suddenly it’s like Columbus discovered America. Now the woman question is a question — since it’s been posed by a man.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Feisty female or not,
Thanks for the lesson in sexism, you mainsplaining concern troll.
-
quixote says:
No, I agree, this isn’t some bar fight playing out on the teevee. I’ve just reached my limit for cooperating with jerks holding their foot on my neck. Enough.
-
Violet Socks says:
Feisty female or not, nobody should fawn over her because she so badly misunderstands our situation she can’t possibly hope to make it better.
Attributing something good to her because of her gender is counterproductive plain and simple.
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit?
God almighty, I should have banned your ass the first time you showed up here with your libertarian republican bullshit. I’m too nice.
-
Carmonn says:
That’s the least counterproductive argument in the history of arguments, there, Mike. Thanks bunches, you’ve completely changed my worldview. If only I had been introduced to this rare and revolutionary viewpoint before.
-
Unree says:
Love the way MikeDC named a woman he likes just to prove he isn’t sexist, no sirree. Also there’s a perfectly fine Elizabeth Warren thread active elsewhere on this blog.
That said, Mike made me curious and so I typed “elizabeth warren two-income statistics” into Google to find out what he might be talking about. Here’s a paragraph that supposedly came from the book:
“But the two-income family didn’t just lose its safety net. By sending both adults into the labor force, these families actually increased the chances that they would need that safety net. In fact, they doubled the risk. With two adults in the workforce, the dual-income family has double the odds that someone could get laid off, downsized, or other wise left without a paycheck. Mom or Dad could suddenly lose a job.”
I agree that sounds wrong but I don’t know the context–and don’t see any misused statistics. Violet, please delete my comment if it’s misplaced. Which would be especially likely if Mike’s ass has been banned.
-
the15th says:
I’m definitely a fan of Warren’s. But allowing the publisher to title her book The Two-Income Trap, presumably so it could ride the popularity of the other anti-women’s-rights blockbuster titles that were popular at the time, was a huge slap in the face that I haven’t forgotten.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Authors don’t always get to give input on book titles, unfortunately.
-
Simon Kenton says:
“But the two-income family didn’t just lose its safety net. By sending both adults into the labor force, these families actually increased the chances that they would need that safety net. In fact, they doubled the risk. With two adults in the workforce, the dual-income family has double the odds that someone could get laid off, downsized, or other wise left without a paycheck. Mom or Dad could suddenly lose a job.”
Unree, that’s not wrong. I’ve seen it happen repeatedly. It doesn’t have to happen; it does if you consume up to the limit of both incomes. If you plan your consumption to hold it to a single income, you can build up a cushion with the other. My suggested use is to pay off the mortgage early. Then, almost no matter how bad things get, you have the house.
-
djmm says:
“The argument that “he can’t be sexist because he has a strong wife” is asinine.” Exactly — it was clear from the start that Obama was no feminist. He insisted on going with his wife to her interview (After convincing her to leave the law firm he did not want to join) so he could grill her perspective employer. I would never hire a candidate who allowed his or her spouse to do that. Nor would I vote for that spouse.
djmm
