White House: Motherhood Is a 'Wage Penalty'

    In recognition of Equal Pay Day Tuesday, Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, wrote an entry on the White House blog entitled Five Facts About the Gender Pay Gap. While touching on a number of factors influencing the "gender pay gap", Stevenson cites "motherhood" as one such factor.
    However, rather than present it as a natural choice women make, along with their mates, to enhance their lives and in turn benefit society, "motherhood" is said to be "associated with a wage penalty and lower future career earnings." The article goes on to tout the career-earnings benefits that accrue from delaying childbirth and asserts that women who might otherwise leave the workforce could be persuaded to stay with better paid family and sick leave policies and "therefore bolster their lifelong earnings."
    The full write up on the impact of motherhood on the "gender pay gap" reads as follows:

4. Motherhood is associated with a wage penalty and lower future career earnings. One reason the gender wage gap has narrowed faster among younger women is that between 1980 and 2013, the median age of first birth rose from 22.6 to 26.0. Because motherhood is associated with a wage penalty and lower wage gains later in a woman’s career these delays in childbirth have helped narrow the pay gap. Research has shown that delaying child birth for one year can increase a woman’s total career earnings and experience by 9 percent. But research shows that a lack of paid leave is one reason mothers with infants leave the labor force and therefore earn less later in life. So policies providing paid sick and family leave encourage women to participate in the labor force and therefore bolster their lifelong earnings.

    Throughout the article, Stevenson seems reluctant to acknowledge that other legitimate differences in choices women make versus men can also contribute to a pay gap. She notes that "women are still more likely to work in lower-paying occupations and industries," but says it's important to find out "what we can do to make it easier for women to succeed in high paying occupations." Stevenson's explanation seems to suggest that if men behaved differently, women might be better represented in some traditionally male-dominated fields:

For instance, from college, women are under-represented in STEM fields, receiving only 35 percent in STEM bachelor degrees. However, even among women who begin a science-related career, more than half leave by mid-career, double the rate of men. Forty percent of those who leave cite a “macho” culture as the primary reason.

    Interestingly, as pointed out Tuesday by Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air, Betsey Stevenson acknowledged, on Equal Pay Day 2014, the impact factors other than outright discrimination can have on the pay gap [emphasis added]:

Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged to reporters that the 77-cent figure did not reflect equal pay for equal work. “Seventy-seven cents captures the annual earnings of full-time, full-year women divided by the annual earnings of full-time, full-year men,” she said. “There are a lot of things that go into that 77-cents figure, there are a lot of things that contribute and no one’s trying to say that it’s all about discrimination, but I don’t think there’s a better figure.”

    Despite this 2014 admission, Stevenson, throughout her 2015 article, continually comes back to the "unexplained" differences in this "stubborn and troubling... large gender pay gap," at one point even suggesting that "even though employers are prohibited from discriminating, in cultures of pay secrecy, it is more difficult to enforce non-discrimination requirements." While grudgingly acknowledging that "women are more likely to take time out of the labor force and work fewer hours", the White House's message is clear: even though "American women have made tremendous strides", the work will not be over until the gap is gone.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Michelle Obama Employs Only 2 Men; Pays Men 46% More Than Women On Staff

    At the same time the Obama administration once again renewed its Equal Pay push, the White House released salary figures for White House staff. Upon analysis, the Washington Post, among others, concluded that the gender pay gap (as defined by the White House) that has existed since President Obama was elected is as wide as it was in 2009, a thirteen percent difference:

The average male White House employee currently earns about $88,600, while the average female White House employee earns about $78,400, according to White House data released Tuesday. That is a gap of 13 percent. 

In 2009, male employees made an average of about $82,000, compared to an average of $72,700 earned by female employees — also a 13 percent wage gap. 

One of the key reasons is that more men hold the higher-paying, senior jobs in the White House, and more women hold the lower-paying, junior jobs. 

    Although the sample size is significantly smaller, a similar analysis conducted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD of the salaries of First Lady Michelle Obama's staff is substantially larger. The analysis considered a White House employee as working for the first lady if the "position title" provided by the White House included "first lady", but also "Let's Move" and "Joining Forces", the first lady's two signature initiatives.
    As it turns out, the only two men on the first lady's staff are the directors of Let's Move and Joining Forces. Their salaries average $123,307. The other fourteen staffers are women (the salary for the deputy director of Let's Move was listed as $0 and was therefore not included in the analysis.) The average pay for the remaining thirteen women is $84,133, a 46% difference from the men's average.
    There are three women whose pay is higher than the men's average, including one making $172,200. The position title for each of these women also includes "assistant to the president" in addition to responsibilities for the first lady. A fourth woman, whose salary of $103,000 is well above the women's average, is also listed as assistant to the president.
    Mrs. Obama's staff has consisted primarily of women since her tenure as first lady began, though there has been a significant amount of turnover. Although it is unclear the role Mrs. Obama plays in hiring her staff for the White House, Mrs. Obama delivered a commencement address at Eastern Kentucky University in May 2013 where she drew on personal experience to give the graduates an idea of what a potential employer might be looking for.  She said that for her, grades, test scores, and scholastic pedigree were insignificant factors during job interviews.  Character trumps academics, and gender is not mentioned:

Whether it was during my time as a lawyer, as an administrator at a university, a nonprofit manager, even now as First Lady, I’ve never once asked someone I was interviewing to explain a test score or a grade in a class -- never.  (Applause.)  I’ve never once made a hire just because someone went to an Ivy League school instead of a state school -- never.  What I have looked for is what kind of person you are.  Are you a hard worker?  Are you reliable?  Are you open to other viewpoints?  Have you stepped outside of your own self-interest to serve others?  Have you found a way to serve our country, whether in uniform or in your community?

    President Obama was the subject of criticism even from allies at the start of his second term for a shortage of women selected for replacement cabinet positions. Mrs. Obama herself has largely escaped such criticism for her own staffing choices despite the fact that her husband's staff is far more diverse than her own.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Cites Domestic Violence in Push for Immigration Reform

    The White House is ramping up a new push for the president's version of comprehensive immigration reform.  In an opening salvo, White House advisor on Violence Against Women Lynn Rosenthal wrote a blog entry entitled, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Survivors Can’t Afford to Wait", saying that "it’s up to Republicans in the House to decide whether to move forward with immigration reform."  Ms. Rosenthal framed the argument in the context of the just-ended Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October:

Domestic Violence Awareness Month has ended, but our work to end abuse continues. Today, in this country, women and children continue to suffer from unspeakable violence because they are afraid to seek help without legal status. When immigrant survivors of abuse without legal status are, according to one study, half as likely to call the police to seek the help they need, we must act.

Rosenthal goes on to say the federal law (Violence Against Women Act) already contains provisions to help immigrant victims of abuse, more needs to be done.

Since it was first signed into law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act or VAWA has recognized the need for special protections for immigrant survivors of abuse, including self-petitions and categories of visas for victims of violent crimes and human trafficking. But while VAWA includes key provisions to help immigrant survivors, it is not enough. 

Rosenthal cites fear of deportation, potential homelessness, and economic dependence as reasons many immigrant women - documented or undocumented - do not seek help.  She noted that the Senate had passed legislation already, and asserted that "[u]nlike many other issues in Washington, immigration reform is one that both parties can agree on."


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Department of Defense Rejects GAO Recommendation Regarding "Sexual Assault Victimization" in the Military

    On January 23, news broke that outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had issued a directive that the military's ban on women in combat would be lifted.  The New York Times reported that his decision was in response to unanimous agreement among the Joint Chiefs of Staff as expressed in a letter to Panetta:

Mr. Panetta’s decision came after he received a Jan. 9 letter from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stated in strong terms that the armed service chiefs all agreed that “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”

     The Times article said it was unclear why the Joint Chiefs decided to act now after years of discussion, although there is speculation that recent threats of legal action may have played a role.  However, a Government Accountability Office report issued on January 29 raises some questions about the timing of such a monumental change in policy.

    I first reported the GAO report in a January 31 blog post at The Weekly Standard where I addressed the fiscal impact of allowing women in combat positions.  However, the broader focus of the report is spelled out in its title: "DOD Has Taken Steps to Meet the Health Needs of Deployed Servicewomen, but Actions Are Needed to Enhance Care for Sexual Assault Victims." An explanation of the special focus on sexual assault victims appears early in the report [emphasis added]:

The roles for women in the military have been expanding and evolving, particularly since the Persian Gulf War more than 2 decades ago. Formerly, servicewomen served primarily in supportive roles in overseas U.S. military operations. Today, servicewomen are integral to combat support and counterinsurgency operations, and they serve in many roles they previously did not hold. In late 2011, for example, women began serving aboard Navy submarines. In early 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced that changes to its assignment policies would result in more than 14,000 additional positions being opened to women, including positions in select direct ground combat units. Further, while sexual assault victimization is not unique to women, the presence of women in new roles suggests that continued vigilance with respect to this issue is needed. Given the expanding and evolving role of women in the military, the health and wellness of servicewomen plays an important role in overall military readiness. 

    According to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, this report was originally due by December 31, 2012.  As mentioned above, the report was released on January 29, but given that the paragraph above does not mention the lifting of the women in combat ban, the GAO report was apparently finalized prior to Panetta's announcement. This policy change, much more far reaching that even the change opening "14,000 additional positions" in early 2012, exponentially increases the need for "continued vigilance" regarding "sexual assault victimization" that the GAO calls for.  Therefore, the timing of the announcement lifting the ban and the DOD's reaction to the GAO report recommendations is curious.

    The GAO made two recommendations at the conclusion of its inquiry regarding "sexual assault victimization":

To enhance the medical and mental health care for servicewomen who are victims of sexual assault, GAO recommends that DOD (1) develop department-level guidance on the provision of care to victims of sexual assault; and (2) take steps to improve first responders' compliance with the department's requirements for annual refresher training. DOD did not concur with the first recommendation, but cited steps it is taking that appear consistent with the recommendation. DOD concurred with the second recommendation.

     In this short summary of the DOD's reaction to the draft report, which the DOD reviewed before the GAO prepared and issued the final version on January 29, the GAO notes that the DOD "did not concur with the first recommendation, but cited steps it is taking that appear consistent with the recommendation." This summary sounds sanguine about the steps the DOD is taking to conform to the GAO's first recommendation, but it fails to convey the lengths to which the DOD appears to have gone to avoid concurring and to avoid fully cooperating with the GAO staff conducting the review.  Here is the full paragraph from the body of the report discussing the DOD's recommendations.  It is quite lengthy, but I have taken the liberty of highlighting all the references to the DOD's reticence to fully engage the GAO:

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated in its cover letter that, overall, the department did not concur with the report's findings and conclusions. However, DOD's cover letter did not provide an explanation for this comment. In an enclosure to its letter, DOD stated that it did not concur with our first recommendation that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs develop and implement department-level guidance on the provision of medical and mental health care to victims of sexual assault that would specify health care providers' responsibilities to respond to and care for sexual assault victims, whether in the United States or in deployed environments. DOD's justification of its assessment, however, did not make clear why the department did not concur. Instead, DOD provided examples of steps it has been taking that may help to address the findings in this report. Specifically, DOD stated that, while the second version of DOD Instruction 6495.02, entitled "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures" has been in coordination for nearly 2 years and is not yet published, the revised instruction will be comprehensive and will contain two medical enclosures. According to DOD, the first medical enclosure will address health care provider procedures and direct the Surgeons General of the military services to carry out responsibilities related to the
coordination, evaluation, and implementation of care, while the second medical enclosure will address health care providers' responsibilities related to Sexual Assault Forensic Examination kits. During the course of this review, we met with DOD officials who had knowledge of and were involved in the instruction's revision, but these officials did not discuss or share their draft revisions with us when we presented our findings to them. We cannot verify, therefore, whether the enclosures referenced in DOD's comments will address our recommendation. However, we plan to review the instruction when DOD finalizes it to determine whether it meets the intent of our recommendation. Finally, DOD stated that the department meets its oversight responsibilities with regard to sexual assault response through training in graduate medical education and through monitoring and oversight of the process that governs credentialing and privileging of providers.  However, it is not clear why this statement is applicable to our recommendation. We did not address these points in the finding that led to this recommendation, and our recommendation is focused on the need for additional guidance. 

    The DOD's lack of transparency and full cooperation with the GAO has certainly compromised the effectiveness of this report at the precise time when a huge policy change regarding women is emerging. Not only, as the GAO indicates above, will this require further follow up by the GAO, but it has prevented Congress from having complete information on an important aspect of the issue at a time when Congress must decide whether or not to act.  As the GAO report said:

Given the expanding and evolving role of women in the military, the health and wellness of servicewomen plays an important role in overall military readiness. 

    Implementing this policy change, unless Congress intervenes, will be the first order of business for Chuck Hagel or whoever ends up being confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense. And given the importance of the military readiness of the United States, the Department of Defense owes the GAO, Congress and the American people full disclosure when it comes to how it plans to handle one of the most significant changes to the armed forces in our lifetime.


Note: A version of this article first appeared on February 6, 2013 at The Weekly Standard.

Government Report: Women in Combat to Cost Money

Note: This article was originally published at The Weekly Standard.

    Ever since outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced a week ago that the U.S. military would lift its ban on women in combat roles, the debate, which has been simmering for decades, boiled up again. Much of the argument has centered on cultural, social, and morale-related effects that such a change would bring about, though other practical issues have been raised as well. However, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released just this week may bring some other considerations to the fore, among them, the financial impact.

    According to the introduction to the GAO report, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2012 charged the GAO with conducting “a review of the female-specific health care services provided by DOD to female servicemembers...”  Though not directly addressed by the GAO, the report raises a perhaps unanticipated consequence of lifting the ban on women in combat. With an increasing number of women in combat units, as well as presumably an overall increase in women enlisting in the service now that more positions will be open to them, there may be a corresponding increase in health-related costs. For example, the report says:

DOD has put in place policies and guidance that include female-specific aspects to help address the health care needs of servicewomen during deployment. Also, as part of pre-deployment preparations, servicewomen are screened for potentially deployment-limiting conditions, such as pregnancy, and DOD officials and health care providers with whom GAO met noted that such screening helps ensure that many female-specific health care needs are addressed prior to deployment.

    The “female-specific aspects” of health care are self-evident, but for confirmation, one need look no further than the Affordable Care Act with its 145 uses of the word “women” versus one use of “men.” Although women already serve in many areas of the military, the full (or near-full) integration will certainly impact the amount of “female-specific ” medical equipment, supplies, and expertise needed by each branch of the service to meet the increased demand. Examination rooms may need to be retooled and medics may need further training. Additionally, the “potentially deployment-limiting conditions, such as pregnancy” can be screened for, but will still affect associated costs, not to mention the readiness of units destined for combat, in a way that is not present with male-only units. The report implies this when it says:

Given the expanding and evolving role of women in the military, the health and wellness of servicewomen plays an important role in overall military readiness.

    The exact cost of women in combat is not revealed in the GAO report.

    But at a time when the defense budget is under increasing scrutiny, and with the threat of sequestration slashing the budget further, the likely increased healthcare costs associated with the lifting of the ban should be taken into account.

    Higher costs may not be the most important aspect of the policy change, but neither can they be ignored. The higher percentage of the defense budget that must be devoted to routine healthcare, the lower the percentage that is available for areas more directly related to keeping the U.S. military the best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world, ready at a moment’s notice to deploy whenever and wherever needed.

President Obama's Diversity Kerfuffle

    President Obama has been taking friendly fire lately for the "lack of diversity" in recent cabinet picks.  As I noted yesterday, even Charlie Rangel was a bit put out by President Obama's lack of focus on symbolism in personnel decisions.  Perhaps there is nostalgia for the glory days when pandering to groups was more of a priority.  One such example is the president's signature accomplishment  ObamaCare.

    While perusing the ObamaCare law for another story, I made an inadvertent discovery.  I noticed the references to "women" were fairly frequent, but I had trouble finding "men."  As it turns out, there's a good reason that the disparity was so apparent.  A search of the document reveals 145 uses of "women."  And "men"?  One.  And here it is, in Section 1101, page 418:

(3) provide information to women and health care providers on those areas in which differences between men and women exist;

    "Men" only makes it into the law as a point of reference to define areas of care for women.  Men are simply the not-women of ObamaCare.

    Obviously men are covered under the (endless!) general provisions of ObamaCare.  Women have unique health needs that the framers of the law felt necessary to spell out.  Is this 145:1 ratio evidence of discrimination against men?  I suppose it's possible, but unlikely.

    The point here is not one of complaint, but rather illustration.  In the current kerfuffle with the president, liberals have painted themselves into a corner given their history of incessant emphasis on externals ("color of their skin", in the words of Martin Luther King, and "war on women", in the words of countless liberals.)  When a conservative or a Republican violates the unwritten rules of diversity, it's easy to shout "racism" or "sexism."

    But this is their man.  What are their alternatives?  Is the president deliberately or carelessly overlooking more qualified minorities in favor of "good ole (white) boy" picks?  That's virtually unthinkable for a true progressive like Obama.  Or are the minority candidates not as qualified, but the president's critics believe he should choose them anyway?  Diversity trumps qualifications?  Or are the good ole boys and the minorities equally qualified, and the critics believe a tie goes to "diversity"?

    Perhaps this conflict will help expose the hypocrisy of the "diversity" crowd to a wider audience.  I do not know Barack Obama's motives for choosing the men he has to fill the open cabinet positions.  But it is obvious that at least in these cases, he's not pandering on the basis of race or sex.  Would that liberals could give conservatives and Republicans the same benefit of the doubt.

President Obama and Women: The Face-off [Photo]

    President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately, even from his most ardent supporters, such as Congressman Charlie Rangel, for the "lack of diversity" in his latest Cabinet appointments.  As Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard reported, Rangel called the lack of diversity "embarrassing."  In an effort to dispel the notion, Jay Carney was compelled to tick off a list of as many women in the Obama administration as he could think of in a press briefing yesterday.  In this context, one can only wish there was an audio track accompanying the latest photo of the president released by the White House:

    Feel free to supply some dialogue in the comments section below, but keep in mind my Comments Policy in the right-hand column, please.

Diversity for Me, But Not For Thee

    Andrea Mitchell recently reported about internal Obama adminstration reaction to Susan Rice's withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of State:

ANDREA MITCHELL: A lot of Democrats are saying that the president did not show enough loyalty. A lot of women in the administration are very angry tonight, and I'm saying this at a very high level. Angry because they feel that she was not treated with respect, she was not given the support she needed and she was left to twist in the wind.

    Are the men in the administration angry too?  Just the women?  Why?  Because this president, who doesn’t need binders to pick qualified women, decided to accept the decision of a women to withdraw her name?  Should he have refused and nominated her against her wishes?  Or do these “angry women” think she was told to remove herself from consideration?  Are these women saying that if Rice was a man, Obama would have stood behind her?  After all this time of telling us Republicans are the ones waging a war on women, are they accusing their own president of waging a war on Susan Rice?

    Instead, why aren’t these women saying, “This President has shown great leadership in putting both men and women of all races in places in his administration on the basis of their qualifications for the job.  It’s ridiculous to say that Barack Obama treated Susan Rice differently because she’s a woman. Susan Rice made her decision to withdraw, and the president treated her like an adult and accepted it.”  Can these “angry women” not say that because they don’t believe it? Because they are so used to reacting to everything in terms of sex and/or race?  They’ve spent weeks accusing Republicans of sexism and racism for opposing Rice and criticizing her for her now infamous Benghazi comments on those Sunday talk shows. Is it possible – is it just remotely possible – that neither the Republicans criticism nor the president’s decision to accept Rice’s choice to withdraw have NOTHING TO DO with her sex or race?

    The Republicans have a long history of criticizing Democrats of both sexes and all races, and those Barack Obama has thrown under the bus are also the picture of diversity (Obama’s own grandmother, Van Jones, Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, and Ludacris, to name a few – someone has compiled a helpful if somewhat outdated list here.)  Have we lost the ability to look at political issues without resorting to a demographic analysis of all the individuals involved?  

    Or can we blame the media - like Andrea Mitchell - for introducing this element.  Here's another example.  At the White House Press Briefing Friday, the following exchange took place between Jay Carney and an unidentified reporter:

Q    Now that Susan Rice is out of the running, the President's -- 

MR. CARNEY:  Do you want to know who is in the running? 

Q    Well, yes, if you care to respond to that.  But the President is losing someone who would have brought diversity to his Cabinet.  So how important is it to the President now that his Cabinet with her out of the running reflects the sort of diversity that we see throughout the rest of the country?  

    “[T]he President is losing someone who would have brought diversity to his Cabinet”? Is someone’s race and sex the most important factor in determining diversity?  Would not John Kerry, now the presumptive nominee, bring diversity to the Cabinet?  John Kerry’s background is certainly quite diverse: married to an extremely wealthy woman; Vietnam veteran and harsh, vocal critic of the same war; long-time Senator; former presidential candidate.  How many other people in America can match that demographic?

    For all the left's talk about Republicans and conservatives being sexist and racist, more often than not it is they who focus on the external.  But on the other hand, maybe this incident shows progress of a sort.  In addition to the "good ole boys" network of old white men we hear so much about, this may be evidence of the emergence of a "good ole girls" network who look out for each other.  As the saying goes, you've come a long way...

State Department: Two Days After Benghazi, "Leaning Forward" on "Gender Mainstreaming"

    Egypt and Libya are the two most significant countries in Africa where U.S. foreign policy is currently focused.  In the aftermath of the riots at US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the State Department was scrambling to put together a sequence of events for the two incidents, deal with the fallout from the "apology" tweets and press release from the Embassy in Cairo, cope with the death of an ambassador and three other consulate personnel, determine the cause of the demonstrations and attacks, and handle the protests against the US that were spreading across the region.

    However, in the midst of the storm, the regularly scheduled business of the State Department continued, including participation in the Africa Center for Strategic Studies/AFRICOM Conference in Washington, D.C.  Patricia Haslach, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations at the State Department spoke at a luncheon at the conference on September 13, 2012, two days after the Benghazi attacks.  Here's how the State Department reported her remarks:

    The transcript of Ms. Haslach's remarks detail some laudable goals and worthy causes.  I will leave a full discussion of the merits of these efforts to others.  But "Gender Mainstreaming in the African Armed Forces" in a part of the world where women are often treated as less than second class, increasingly less than human as strict Islamists gain more power (e.g., Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood,) is more suggestive of Western-style political correctness than addressing the primary needs and rights of women and girls in those societies as they exist today.  In any case, the timing was hardly appropriate.  The following is an excerpt from Ms. Haslach's remarks:

Reflecting this nation’s commitment to [UN Security Council Resolution] 1325, in December 2011 President Obama signed an executive order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. This plan provides a comprehensive roadmap for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the federal government to advance women’s participation in making and keeping peace. The goal is as simple as it is profound: to empower half the world’s population as equal partners in preventing conflict and building peace in countries threatened and affected by war, violence, and insecurity. 

Achieving this goal is critical to our national and global security. The prospects for preventing deadly conflicts and forging sustainable peace will be much brighter when women become equal partners in all aspects of peace-building and conflict prevention—when their lives are protected, their experiences considered, and their voices heard. 

After the President issued the executive order, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said, “The fact that women have represented fewer than three percent of mediators and eight percent of negotiators to major peace processes since 1992 demonstrates that world leaders wage peace far too often with hands tied behind their backs.”

     As far as goals that are "critical to our national and global security," "gender mainstreaming" should be considerably down the list when the security of our diplomatic facilities worldwide has been called into question.  In view of the events of September 11th, perhaps the State Department would have been wise to take a rain check on this conference luncheon, or at least picked a more germane topic to address.  In any event, countries such as the United States may have the luxury of debating "women in combat" and Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the military.  But "gender mainstreaming"?  Too often in Africa, women (and men) are just trying to survive.

A Delusion is Not a Dream

    Another well reasoned, fact-based offering from the Barack Obama campaign eCard division:

When is an Interest Group Not an Interest Group?

    The Twitter feed of the Democratic Convention tweeted this item this week, recalling a quote by Barack Obama from an April speech at the ironically titled "White House Forum on Women in the Economy":

At the forum, surrounded by women, the president went on to say (via The Hill):

“I want to make sure that every agency across my administration considers the needs of women and girls in every decision they make,” Obama said. “There’s been a lot of talk about women and women’s issues lately, as there should be, but I think the conversation has been oversimplified. Women are not some monolithic voting bloc, women are not an interest group, you shouldn’t be treated that way. Women are over half of this country and this workforce.”

As if those words and actions were not self-contradictory enough, clicking "Groups" on the website of the Obama campaign brings up the following:

Let's see: "Supporters organizing around the issues they care about" versus the Answers.com definition of an "interest group": "A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an item of legislation, an industry, or a special segment of society."  So women aren't an interest group, yet the Obama campaign strongly suggests women join... an interest group for women!  I wonder if the Obama campaign sees its other groups as "oversimplified" and "monolithic voting blocs", or if they aren't interest groups either?

Barbie and Zoey: Mother-Daughter Team For Obama 2012

    The Obama campaign website is a never-ending source of entertainment for me.  This recent blog entry is a good example.  While Barbie is the mother, it is Zoey, the daughter-half of the team, who provides the historical context for the 2012 elections:

Zoey: "We went to a house party a family friend was throwing a few months back. We both wanted to volunteer [with the Obama campaign,] so why not do it together? Being at the house party and remembering what our country was like before [Obama] took office, I knew I had to do something."  [emphasis added]

Echoes of Solzenitzen.  I wonder what the English word for "gulag" is?

But it’s this answer that really kills me:

Zoey: "My parents raised my brother and I as equals, and it's so frustrating that if we had the same job, he'd be making more money than me. It doesn't make sense.
"Also, it's terrifying to know that the rights that I've had over my body my entire life could now be taken from me. So many women before me fought so hard, and that could all be taken away from us. Every single mother in this country has battled sexism their entire life, and knowing that my mom has had to watch me fight the same fights is heartbreaking. I don't know how she's done it. She's worked so hard for me to have more advantages than she's had, yet we're struggling to move ahead."

The Obama campaign could have had the courtesy to allow the recent college graduate a chance to edit her answer for grammar, but there's nothing they could have done to mask the overwrought sense of impending doom and lack of proportion this young woman exudes from every pore:

• "it's terrifying to know that the rights that I've had over my body my entire life could now be taken" (her entire life! all 22 years!)
• "could all be taken away" (possibly even the right to vote?!)
• "my mom has had to watch me fight the same fights" (is this a Sandra-Fluke-as-everywoman reference?)
• "I don't know how she's done it" (would that Harriet Tubman had been so courageous)
• "more advantages than she's had, yet we're struggling to move ahead" (again with Sandra Fluke?)

As I've stated before, it is not so much that there are people who feel this way that gets to me.  It is that the Obama campaign promotes these stories in order to appeal to his supporters, and beyond that, to those he hopes to win over.  Unless we are able to reach more young people with a conservative message, winning in November with Mitt Romney will not be enough.  Our country is in need of re-education (no, no re-education camps!), and Republicans and conservatives had better be up to the task.

Cradle to Grave

Via Charles C.W. Cooke:

"President Obama, quite literally, endorses cradle-to-grave government:"

More stunning evidence of the desire of this administration to cultivate the dependence on government that I wrote about in The Tiffany Generation.  The above scenario, of course, assumes Julia’s potential mother does not exercise her constitutional right to an abortion.  But that wouldn’t make much of a multimedia presentation.

Name It. Change It. Or Not.

    "Name It. Change It." is a website with a mission to "work to end sexist and misogynistic coverage of women candidates by all members of the press—from bloggers to radio hosts to television pundits."  According to their website, they are a "non-partisan project of WCF [Women's Campaign Fund] Foundation, Women’s Media Center, and Political Parity."  A recent post on the site by Leigh Ann Renzulli called out Slate’s Hanna Rosin for insinuating that "women only care about 'women's issues.'"

In a blog on Slate’s DoubleX Factor that was probably meant to demonstrate how important these recent issues are to women, Hanna Rosin seems to be saying that women only care about women’s issues (read: birth control) and not, say, the economy.

There is a moment in every recent election when issues that women care about become the critical issues of the campaign. This moment might arise because of a candidate’s mistress (Clinton) or because a women is on the ticket (other than Clinton, Sarah Palin)…This was supposed to be an election about the economy.

Rosin, a founding editor of DoubleX, clearly cares about women’s representation in the media, but she probably could have found a better way to discuss the role of women in the election.

So where might Hanna Rosin get the idea that women only care about women's issues ("read: birth control")?  On the home page of the Women’s Campaign Fund website (yes, the same WCF that sponsors Name It. Change It.) is their mission statement that reads in its entirety:

Women’s Campaign Fund (WCF), a nonpartisan organization, is dedicated to dramatically increasing the number of women in elected office who support reproductive health choices for all [emphasis added.]

So who is suggesting that women need only concern themselves with women's issues ("read: birth control")?  The very sponsors of Name It. Change It!  But not to worry.  I have used the reporting form on the Name It. Change It. site to alert them of this egregious example of sexism.  Now that I've Named It, let's see if they Change It.  Or not.