David Dayen:

There's a sense that this [the hostile work environment] was a source of problems early in the Administration, and the atmosphere generally improved. And a couple women's groups who have not pulled back their punches on Obama typically had positive things to say about the inclusiveness of the current White House. But I do think this is a nagging problem that had impacts not just for the female White House staffers themselves, but more broadly.

For instance, look at this fascinating passage that Brad DeLong highlights. Christina Romer, then the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, was in a meeting with the President near the end of 2009, the time when the pivot to the deficit and away from jobs occurred. Romer argued in favor of at least a $100 billion program aimed at job creation. Peter Orszag's view was that a small stimulus would be ineffective and that fiscal responsibility was a bigger priority. When Obama agreed with Orszag, Romer blurted out "that is oh so wrong."

Obama snapped back, "It's not just wrong, it's oh so wrong?" And he launched into an uncharacteristic verbal tirade, saying that a new stimulus wasn't going to happen. He was extremely dismissive. A few weeks later, Larry Summers brought up the exact same idea. Obama was more respectful, but still denied the pitch. Even Summers pointed out to Romer, "You know, he sure was a lot more generous to me than he was with you."

The real problem here is that Obama seemed to get it into his head that productivity gains, not a shortfall in aggregate demand, accounted for the high unemployment of the period. I cannot help but think that if Romer wasn't arguing the other side initially, if it came from Summers, the President might not have come to this conclusion, which is truly disastrous (Obama is saying that high unemployment is essentially a smart business decision). "The President seems to have developed his own view," Romer said. It's speculative, but worth asking, whether this was due to the messenger of the opposite view.

I think what the WH is worried about is the timing of the book; it's all well and good to say, "this was a problem and we addressed it and moved on," but when people are reading and hearing about it for the first time, the WH is forced to address the inevitable questions, one of which would have to be, "are the women in the WH there for the optics, for bragging rights, or are they there to make a contribution?"

It's not enough to say that this is a problem that occurs everywhere, and while you BTD have been very very good on this issue, that is not at true of other progressives or progressive sites.

Nor is it enough to say, well, gee, the world is hostile to women, shrug, what do you expect?  As if that then excuses the participants or lets off the hook those progressives who consistently ignore gender issues in the face of issues "more important."  

Now, now that the problem in the WH has been validated by a man, Ron Suskind, some progressive are talking about it.  

But seriously, I jest.  I knew from his campaign what to expect, sweetie. I'm just grateful Suskind exposed it.

>>>
So... is there something sexist about the Obama administration? Seems like Suskind came up with a great angle for his book, but I'm skeptical. I think Obama may have been overenthusiastic about giving a lot of  positions to women, and perhaps those women really weren't as good as the men he surrounded himself with and really does need to rely on. In that case, he deserves credit for good judgment.

>>>

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/09/obama-white-house-actually-fit-all-of.html

Honestly, I sometimes think Men who Hate Women aren't women's biggest problem.

Dudely

I'm really not going to bother my beautiful mind trying to filter through the claims and counterclaims surrounding Suskind's book, but I've long said (perhaps not on the blog (?), but to friends) that there did seem to be a strong dude culture in the White House in a bad way.

What exactly is the problem here? That one woman told a writer she thought the work environment (by which she did not mean Obama but his staffers) was hostile? That another said one particular male made her feel like a piece of meat and now doesn't remember saying it and has only praise for the Administration?

Politics at this level is a contact sport. No different than a heated criminal trial, or performing a dicey surgery, running a hospital or even a major television network or public company. If you don't have the personality or stomach for it, pick another, less-stressful field.

And I've never found men to have an advantage in dominating conversations. It's up to each individual to make themselves heard, and I know just as many, if not more, women that do that quite well. It's not a gender trait, it's a personality trait.

The article also says most of the men in this group had worked together on the campaign before the election. Those hired after the election were joining a team. The article makes clear many of the women were newcomers. Any newcomer, male or female, is going to have to make their bones when first coming on board.

Sure, there are hostile work environments out there, particularly where women are working in inferior positions to men or denied promotions based on their gender. That's not what's under discussion. These are all senior appointees. And when I look at the appointments listed in the article, Obama has done quite well by women.

For the most part, women's groups have either remained silent or supported the President, but the one group that came out and bashed Obama referenced was Siskind's New Agenda.

Let's keep it real here people: I have no doubt that Obama's administration is sexist in any number of ways. I am not a believer in the patriarchy, but I do think that the boys' club concept is real and one that pervades in places of power.

But the fact that a certain segment of the population is up in arms over this and it happens to overlap with the same segment who believes Hillary would be a better president and that also happens to overlap with a similar segment that has been highly critical of Obama from the start . . .

Many anecdotes portray an economic team plagued by in-fighting. After former Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag writes a memo to the president urging him to push a tax on financial transactions, Summers yells at him, "What you've done is immoral!"

At another point in the book Summers tells Orszag, "We're home alone. There's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.'

Let me start by saying I wholeheartedly agree that we all need to be more sensitive to one another and women deserve respect and should be treated on par w/men in any setting they want.

But....

Thought: Perhaps issues of sexism and discrimination are coming to the surface because there has never been as big a critical a mass of influential women in an administration, and that influence gives them the standing to voice concerns.

Thought 2:  I believe that almost all organizations of power have embedded sexism and do not doubt for a second that Obama's admin has a similar issue.

Stunning actually.

The guy is just a moron when it comes to economics.
 (A sexist moron too!)

What I find most useful from blogs regarding women's issues, are the personal experiences commenters, both male and female, share with us all.

On my part, I've always considered myself a feminist, and I could bore you all to death relaying all the things I've done in furthering the cause, but it would naturally be self serving, and not extremely helpful. So, I'd like to highlight another point of view, a not so altruistic view, but simply a practical, pragmatic view.

And, that is (from a businessman's perspective)  that sexism (and racism) is just plain stupid. Now, all those "touchy, feely, warm all over" things, like dignity, respect, and fairness, are fine, but from a business point of view, who cares? It's a "number's thing," and the businessman/woman who doesn't "get it" will also not "get" something else.....success.

Back in the 60's, when the racism/feminism cauldron was really heating up, most of the debate was from an emotional, and subjective basis. But, as a young manager, hopefully on the way up, I saw it as  mostly from a logical, mathematical basis. What kind of fool running a business would reject demographic groups of 51% and 13%, and think they could be successful in the competitive marketplace? So, forget any noble, altruistic qualities I might have fooled myself into believing. The qualities I seized upon were greed, lust, and competitive advantage. I said, "let my competitors direct their energies to keeping "them" in their place."  I would go "all in" also, but "their place" would be as my customers, and my employees.

So, as my macho competitors entertained themselves with moronic, deprecating jokes, I entertained myself with counting the money those fools so willingly, and thankfully handed over to me.