Posts
I am still working through, Dee Dee Myers' book, Why Women Should Rule the World, and I do like the writing style and flow -- I have begun to develop some concerns with the rational behind her cry for inequality and abuse while working in the political arena. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are many ways that women are much more challenged than men when it comes to succeeding in politics. The one that seems to standout the most is, the double edged sword that women are judged by, one that constantly puts them at odds with the voters, this idea that they should be judged at a higher standard then men, and that they have to prove that they are tough enough -- where men are assumed to be able to handle it.
We have seen this theme through each of the books we have read and in our class decisions. What was so interesting is that most of us did not realize that we did this (hold women to a higher standard then men) until we discussed it in class. It took many discussions and personal pondering to bring about the realization that I was just as guilty as all the people that are discussed as prohibiting women from being treated equally in all areas of our society. Quite the eye opener...
BUT, back to Dee Dee Meyers -- she does touch on the notion of women being judged differently then men, but her personal examples do not seem to substantially back her plea that she was mistreated because of her sex. When she described the conversation between her and Stephanopoulos and Seidman about the opportunity to come and work for Clinton in the White House as his press secretary. Yes, the job would be different than she had originally expected, and yes, her role was not as high profile -- but she was the first to admit that she did not have a great deal of experience and high profile wins to be a top candidate for the job. To me it seemed like she was being offered her dream job, and she was ungrateful because it was not being served on a silver platter. The situation to me seemed to have nothing to do with her sex but everything to do with her experience and qualifications. Clinton wanted to hire her -- so his team was going to make that happen. The problem was not that she was a female it was that her resume did not match up to candidates (and past office holders) per-usual of such an esteemed position.
Maybe I missed something, but to me she was offered the opportunity to launch her career at the young age of 31, and she was ungrateful about it.
I would love hear someone's counter to my personal opinion, because I have always really respect and admired Dee Dee Meyers, and some of the points she rises in the book are important and extremely well thought out. I am just irked by her personal saga of strife and oppression.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Emily, I don't think that I can provide the counter that you are looking for, but here are my thoughts on this issue.
For the case of why her lesser role could have had sexist motives:
-in D.C., it isn't what you know, it's who you know. So the fact that she was on Clinton's campaign from essentially day 1, means that she should have landed the "full" press secretary's job. She had done a good enough job for him to get elected, after all.
-who here actually thinks that they would have offered this lesser role to a man, and reasonably believed that they would have taken it? Bueller??
-it was political posturing by Clinton. He wanted to appoint the first female press secretary, but wasn't willing to go all the way. Another example of liberals talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
-how could Clinton honestly believe that she was good enough to be the press secretary for the campaign, but not for when he was actually in office? Wouldn't the political opportunist/pragmatist want to put the best foot forward for the campaign?
-the exchange between her and Panetta about salary (he has a family!) shows that there were elements of sexism at play.
For the case of why it probably wasn't:
-She was very young. When Dana Perino was elevated to press secretary, she had more experience. Clinton didn't want a novice representing him publicly no matter what the sex.
-She didn't know Washington, and more importantly she didn't know the Washington press corps.
-She had previously only worked for losing campaigns, so didn't really know how to handle the governing part of politics.
-they liked her, and didn't want to lose her, but the full role was just too much. It wasn't personal. It was business.
My guess is that the real answer to this question is probably a mix from both. I also don't believe that her only option was to say yes. If she felt, as she claims, that she was being set up for failure, shouldn't she have said no? I agree that the whining and the "they set me up for failure" was her attempt to pass the buck, at least to an extent.
Overall, I think this book was OK, but I wouldn't say that it said too much that we haven't already covered in class thus far.
Emily -
I also had some uncertainties when reading portions of Dee Dee Myer's book. In particular was her discussion on appearance. For example, she complained that her appearance was always talked about but she also admitted that she did not really know what to do when it came to her appearance. I wonder why she did not ask for some help or simply look around and see what other women were wearing. In my opinion her appearance is an important aspect of her job because she is on camera. She should be dressed appropriately and in such a way that she is not a distraction. But, in some ways it seems like her clothing choices (cowboy boots, snow boots, and a long leather jacket) were not necessarily appropriate for the event or the venue.
I also did not understand where she was going with her discussion of nature versus nurture. Her argument seems to be that while both nature and nurture contribute to our behavior boys and girls are simply born differently. To support her argument she gives examples from her son and daughter's childhoods. To me, the argument that boys and girls act a certain way because that is how they were born seems to take away from the feminist argument somewhat. I also think that we are all born with different interests. I rarely played barbies. In fact, I think I had one Barbie and one Ken. On the other hand, my sister played with barbies non-stop and had enough dolls and accessories to have an entire barbie city. Obviously this interest has nothing to do with our gender. I am just not sure what she was trying to accomplish here.
I am just not sure that some of her examples backed up her arguments.
Emily, Ilana and Emma,
I do not know if I am backed up all of Myers arguments, but here are more ideas for the discussion.
I think Dee Dee tried to make a point between what are the physical, cultural and genetically differences between women and men, but I agree with you that when it comes to the nurture part she does not explained what we were expected. I saw what you see that boys and girls act certain way because it is how they were born, but I was wonder if society make boys and girls act differently. I understood that baby girls prefer different toys than baby boys, but at certain age there is a possibility that adults give them certain toys according with their gender? The same think could happen with colors. Why we (women) choose pink dresses to our daughters and blue and green for our sons? Did we learn that or it is just a nurture contribute to our behaviors?
On the other hand, she is trying to explain the biological reality, when she says: “There is no unisex brain, there is no unisex norm.” Of course they are not. She pointed here that “the alternative is to embrace the differences”. For instance, nature and nurture gives different characteristics to boys and girls, women and men. In order to embrace them should we change how we feel about those differences or should we learn how to live with them? Maybe, we can begin by not labeling them.
It took me a while to really think about my feelings about Dee Dee Myers' book and about Emily's questions, but I think I may have come to some conclusions. I think the value that Myers' book provides (and perhaps the one thing that makes it very distinct from the other books we've read in class so far) is the honesty.
While I agree with Ilana that Washington, and to a certain degree, politics is who you know -- and Myers credentials may not have been as strong as others - I still think that her complaints and her points are valid if only because they represent a very realistic example of the experience of women fighting for a position that they feel they can manage even if they are not as credentialed.
In many ways this is the classic argument of affirmative action -- can someone who has not necessarily had the opportunity to gain the kind of experience necessary fulfill the full requirements of a job? It is a risk that many employers have been faced with and in a lot of ways I think Myers book explores the kind of personal reckoning and explanation that she truly felt from that experience -- which I think is a very valuable perspective.
Post a Comment