I’m shocked! (not):
We asked representatives of the major women’s groups what they thought about Anita Dunn’s comments on the anti-woman atmosphere in the Obama administration.
But even though these groups often jump to respond to claims of sexism — like with the unflattering Newsweek cover of Michele Bachmann last month, for example — they appear to be staying out of this one.
Sam Bennett, president and CEO of the non-partisan Women’s Campaign Forum, said she had never heard any allegations of tough conditions for women in the White House.
“Never once … have I heard anything negative about the Obama administration in regards to its internal treatment of women or is goals,” she said. “I can’t imagine that it would be lost on the Obama administration that it was women, particularly unmarried African-American women, who elected him.”
Julie Burton, of the Women’s Media Center, also passed on the chance to criticize the Obama administration.
“Anita Dunn says she was misquoted, and in any case, only she can characterize her experience in the White House,” she wrote in an email. “I can say that women outside the White House are concerned about administration policy as it affects their lives.”
And Susan B. Anthony List spokeswoman Ciara Matthews declined to comment, saying the issue was outside the scope of their organization.
Representatives of two other groups — EMILY’s List and the National Organization for Women — did not respond to a request for comment.
I haven’t seen any feminist groups going postal over Joe McGinniss’ tabloid trashing of Sarah Palin either. Since when is it okay to bring up a woman politician’s (alleged) premarital sexual history?
The reason is simple – they have been assimilated into the Oborg. If they want access to the White House they can’t rock the boat. The Obama administration has also put out the word to big donors that they shouldn’t donate to anyone that isn’t a team player.
There is one feminist group speaking up:
One lesser-known women’s group, The New Agenda, does have an objection. The group’s president, Amy Siskind, emails:
Clearly Anita Dunn has pushed back on the notion of a ‘hostile work environment;’ but, there’s no disputing the lack of women in President Obama’s inner circle and in senior roles in his administration. There have been a troubling number of departures including Dunn, Moran, Romer and Bair, to say nothing of women simply passed over like Warren. Which can only leave one to wonder: are Obama’s all-male golf outings parts of a motif?
One of our front-pagers (Sandress) also blogs at The New Agenda.
Riverdaughter has an excellent post on this.
Well, alright then. I guess that’s that. Those female Obama staffers are just making it all up.
Everything can be quantified, ladies. We have the technology. The White House has data at its fingertips that can be analyzed. How long does it take to get your email answered, how many meetings were women invited to, who was left off the group meetings lists, who didn’t return phone calls, who went to lunch with whom, who went on golf outings. All that information can be pulled from the servers. Statistical packages can determine if there is a correlation to positions on org charts, locations of offices, office and desk size, or some yet unknown component. If the meetings were recorded, how many times were women presenters interrupted or talked over them? Who interrupted them? How many times were they called on to give their expert opinion? Performance evaluations can be analyzed for words that can indicate if a staffer is being graded on acceptable social behaviors or actual accomplishments. Get some computational linguists on the case to sift through the words.
If the women of MIT can do this kind of investigation, the White House certainly can. This isn’t rocket science.
What she said.