Jackson Free Press

"'There are some outstanding women but they're rare,' Barbour said. 'I'm not in the bean-counting business. As we fill out this administration, I feel very comfortable that people are going to say those are the right people, they work hard, they're very representative of the state, but I'm not in the quota business.' The co-president of the Mississippi League of Women Voters said Barbour should include more women in his administration. 'This is so important because women make up the 51 percent of the population in Mississippi,' league spokeswoman Fran Leber said, adding that women in Mississippi earn an average of 69 percent what men make."

Previous Commentsshow

Uh, wow. My take is, there are some outstanding men, but they're rare. And outstanding politicians seem to be even rarer.

kate

Jan 23 2004

Just read the full piece. There's this little snippet as well: "Dr. Warren Jones is a family doctor with years of experience as a head of a health-care agency. Jones is the permanent replacement for former director Rica Lewis Payton. Jones will make $160,000 -- 70 percent more than Payton, who was paid $93, 500." Another data point for those that look at the wage gap between men and women, for the same work.

kate

Jan 23 2004

Giggle, Kate. This seems like a good place to point y'all to Bingo's "Chicks Rule" piece of last spring: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=754_0_9_0_C Why does it suddenly feel like 1972? Note that Barbour's comments about the weaker gender happened to come on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The 2,000 crosses are on the Capitol lawn, by the way, if y'all haven't seen them, yet.

DonnaLadd

Jan 23 2004

By the way, I often wonder how many Republicans know what a "quota" is? Maybe we need high-stakes standardized tests for anyone considering running for office that test the meanings of words; measure reading comprehension; and determine the knowledge of world, American and state history (including important stuff that's happened over the last year or two). I get so sick of being insulted by politicians and elected officials who either believe or pretend Americans all stupid. Remember when Bush started using the word "quotas" interchangeably with "Affirmative Action" during the debate with Gore? Truly amazing.

DonnaLadd

Jan 23 2004

The desperately needed Education Plan could be called "No Politician Left Behind."

DonnaLadd

Jan 23 2004

Let's make it "Every Politician Kicked in the Behind" Act.

kate

Jan 23 2004

Let's make it "Every Politician Kicked in the Behind" Act. OK, done. Let's call it the "ASS Act" for short. (Uh, oh, I feel a Friday afternoon coming on.) BTW, Kate, you are one outstanding woman, and don't you let any defensive politician try to convince you any different. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 23 2004

I think the reason Gov Barbour doesn't know any outstanding women is that, with an attitude like that, they keep the hell away from him. Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. And, yeah, I'd worry alot about myself it he referred to me as "an outstanding woman."

kate

Jan 23 2004

I am about as big a Barbour non-fan as any of you, and I don't want to be perceived as defending him... but I think this headline is a bit out of context. I read the WAPT report, and based on the paragraph before the one quoted here, it sounds to me as if he was saying that there weren't nearly as many women as men working in the fields of law enforcement and public safety, and that therefore that made it harder to find outstanding woman candidates for leadership positions in those fields. While I have no idea if those assertions are correct or not -- based on his track record, I am skeptical -- that statement is a bit different from what is implied by the headline here on the JFP site, which is that he thinks outstanding women of ANY SORT are rare. This may seem like nitpicking, but from a journalistic standpoint, and especially considering the JFP code of ethics, I think the distinction matters. Still and all, the gap in pay is outrageous, and I seriously doubt that Barbour's looking very hard for qualified woman candidates in general. Scott Albert Johnson

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 24 2004

That's a good point, Scott. Although I think the context is a bit murky -- he seems to be talking about there not being qualified women for any of the cabinet positions and agencies, considering the dearth; the "areas such as" is pretty gray -- you're right that this, as posted, probably goes too far. Following is the part of the report leading up to what I posted (available at the link above): Gov. Haley Barbour has named a new director of Medicaid. Dr. Warren Jones is a family doctor with years of experience as a head of a health-care agency. Jones is the permanent replacement for former director Rica Lewis Payton. Jones will make $160,000 -- 70 percent more than Payton, who was paid $93, 500. Jones is the second African-American selected by Barbour, but there still are no women heading any Mississippi agency. Barbour said there aren't as many women working in areas such as law enforcement and public safety, and that makes it difficult to find qualified women to fill his cabinet positions in those agencies. "There are some outstanding women but they're rare," Barbour said. "I'm not in the bean-counting business. As we fill out this administration, I feel very comfortable that people are going to say those are the right people, they work hard, they're very representative of the state, but I'm not in the quota business." We're definitely in agreement that Barbour doesn't seem to be looking very hard for qualified womenóand I'd hazard to suggest that there are "outstanding" women in every area of government. Of course, it depends on how you define "outstanding." Thanks for calling us out on it.

DonnaLadd

Jan 24 2004

I think this is just the START of Haley's Coment...Does the word RECALL sound familiar?

CMYK

Jan 26 2004

On NPR this morning they reported findings that companies with greater gender diversity in senior management performed better financially than those with less diversity. The research was done by a group called Catalyst, and the press release can be found here: New Catalyst Study Reveals Financial Performance is Higher For Companies with More Women at the Top . This also ties (a little bit) to the discussion on Guns, Germs and Steel, since of the implications of that book is also that diversity is good, and isolationism and lack of diverse viewpoints impede advancement.

kate

Jan 26 2004

Love that name, CMYK. Should we call you Cyan for short? Good point, Kate, about Guns, Germs, and Steel. It also brings to mind the idea that won John Nash that Nobel in economics: that when everyone works toward the greatest benefit for the largest number of people, the overall gain for everyone is higher than it would be if the group was only working for the benefit of a few. A beautiful mind indeed. Somebody should take Mr. Boobour to see that movie and make him think about its implications.

Nia

Jan 26 2004

OK Donna, you had to have guessed that I would jump on this one. I read the piece posted and my ears began to burn and I felt really queasy; however, I read on and realized the rest of what I think Barbour was trying to say. I continue to give Barbour the benifit of the doubt. Hopefully, this publicized statement will be a ultimatum to women to step out of the shadows and get serious about competing for these positions. THEN we can determine if the playing field is even or not.

venus

Jan 26 2004

Are competent MS women really hiding in the shadows? Or are MS women just uncompetitive in general? Is that what you're saying, venus?

Nia

Jan 26 2004

I'm glad you're jumping on it, Venus. (Someone with the balls, proverbially speaking, to call herself Venus ought to be able to jump anywhere she wants! ;-) ) My question back is: Isn't what Barbour was trying to say, as you put it, about as disturbing as the idea that he thinks that outstanding women in general are "rare"? That is, shouldn't we be very concerned that he believes there are so few outstanding women in the areas that state leadership requires? Business? Education? Development? Law enforcement? etc. Shouldn't we demand that he back up that statement? How does he define "outstanding," anyway? It's not enough just to say it; back it up! I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that depends on his actions and words. A flip statement even involving the sound bites "bean-counting" and "quota" are a big credibility-smasher to me. More on that in the print edition. Agreed, though, on the ultimatum part. The best thing that could come from his statement, however one interprets it, is a discussion of *why* there are so few "outstanding" women in the state who could help run a government, and *how* that can be remedied, if it's true. Talk among yourselves. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

One more, and I gotta skedaddle. Good questions, Nia. You might add: Or are they relegated to the shadows? For just a quick anecdotal example, pop over to www.magnoliareport.com -- which supposedly links all the political news of the day -- see how many "perspectives" by females are listed. Note how many female staff columnists the Clarion-Ledger has that speaks up about anything of substance. I love Sherry Lucas to death, but I could give a squat about the topics in most of her columns. She's been in the city and state a long time; I'd rather hear her talk about topics that really affect everyday life, but from a female perspective. Where's the meat? When's the last time you've seen a female columnist face on the front page of the C-L's Perspective section? I'm not talking about bean-counting or quotas; I'm talking about not ignoring the views and ideas of 51 percent of Mississippi's population. Viva la difference.

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

It is absolutely disturbing, but not shocking. It isn't fair as a woman to have to acquire a definition of "oustanding" from her male counterparts, but in my experience you (a woman) have to do it bigger and better than the next guy to even get noticed. The world just still doesn't sem ready for agressive women, but until more women step up to the plate (so to speak), only the "few" will be the "rare" and the bunch to choose from will be slim-perhaps misconstrued as not being outstanding. That s all I'm saying... Excuse me while I go dislodge a bean hull from my teeth, yuck, yuck

venus

Jan 26 2004

Ready or not, world ... ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

Personally, I don't think we need any more aggressive people on this planet--of any gender. Assertive, though, is something else. And I think that's what you meant, venus. But you seem to be blaming the victim a bit. The problem isn't that women aren't assertive; it's that assertive women are labeled as "unladylike," "bitchy," "uppity" (if they're black), and so on. Women who behave exactly the way sterotypes dictate are unfairly labeled, too, with titles like "rare," which may be a good thing. It means that statistically at least, there are fewer of those rare, sterotypical women around. That's what we should be wishing for: the extinction of sterotypes and the stereotypical women who fulfill the stereotypes. :-)

Nia

Jan 26 2004

Good point about "agressive," Nia. I tend to avoid that label as well, although it is telling that it's OK for men to be agressive, but not women. But I agree that most people I consider the most aggressive are a pain in the ass to be around, and often aren't very effective at what they do. Now, I don't entirely agree that the problem is that women aren't assertive. I think there is work still left to be done to show young women that it's OK to be assertive, speak up, have a strong voice, be heard, demand that their needs be met. And the fear of one's voice does seem to be stronger still in the South than, say, in the East. It amazes me how many young, smart women here talk like mice, as if they're afraid of the sound of their own voices. That can't be good.

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

Personally, I refuse to believe that the number of qualified, competent women for high level government posts is as rare as Barbour believes, or at least as rare as his appointments would leave us to believe. It's crap. There are qualified women in every field out there, and they are not that hard to find. He's just appointing white men because that's what he's comfortable with - not because there's no one else out there. I meet kick ass women all over Jackson - in professional and non-professional capacities. I don't believe that this is in any way an issue of women being competitive, aggressive or assertive. It's about the Barbour administration taking the time to think creatively, and think strategically about what's going to benefit the state (and his policital career) in the long run. And, as that study I cited above shows, there are real benefits to have women in senior management positions - because women often bring different, complementary perspectives and styles, which leads to more creative hiring, business practices and problem solving. If we want to get MS moving forward, and into the Creative Class, we might want to try the radical step of hiring women and minorities in a few key positions. And paying them as much as the 'outstanding' men we hire.

kate

Jan 26 2004

Apparently, I cannot spell aggressive. Perhaps I should avoid using it. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

and, while I'm ranting, I'd argue that this is shocking (contrary to venus' opinion). It's the year 2004, people. We've had women astronauts, women senators, women vice presidential candidates, women supreme court justices, women CEOs, women authors, women business school teachers, women everything. It is absolutely shocking for a Governor, anywhere, to dismiss criticism of his hiring practices by saying that 'outstanding women are rare.' There are NO WOMEN heading any Misssissippi agency. Think about that. No women. None. Zippo. Zero. Grrr.

kate

Jan 26 2004

Kate's "Grrr" is well-justified, but I am not sure how to fix the problem, other than continuing to support candidates who are willing to hire women and minorities, and to loudly oppose those who won't. I am an ambivalent supporter of affirmative action, but I think some of the criticisms of it have merit. I think making gender and race a preminent criteria in hiring does, in some ways, perpetuate the prejudices that affirmative action is supposed to eradicate. Hearts and minds have to change on their own. I am not ultimately opposed to some form of affirmative action as a way of pushing that along, but I don't think we should ignore its flaws, and I also think we have to acknowledge that some things do change for the better over time. At least now, Mississippi has some minorities and women in leadership positions (Amy Tuck is a woman, whether you agree with her or not), and Jackson has many... that would have been unthinkable in 1970.

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

Somebody give Kate another cup of coffee so she can go kick Barbour's butt! Only teasing, Kate. :-) But if you want to kick Barbour's butt, I won't tell anybody. Donna, you really think young women aren't assertive enough? Seems to me that they can be assertive when they want to be: with their parents, with school teachers, with kids they don't like. But they've learned not to question some authority figures--governors, presidents, media personalities. I reckon they're bein' taught when to be good girls.

Nia

Jan 26 2004

yes, time to switch to decaf, for sure. And, Scott - the thing that's just so DUMB about Barbour not appointing any women is that it will be (I hope) be a politically liability for him. One that could have easily been avoided, because, as you point out, there are plenty of women in leadership positions, in Jackson and around the state. I do want to go whack him over the head with that Catalyst institute study, and have him read Guns, Germs and Steel, and start to understand the implications of isolation and lack of diversity. Hiring diversity is good for the state, not just good for the people or races or genders or whatever that get hired. That's why it's so dumb, and so annoying, that Barbour (and other men in other leadership positions, who do the same thing) is being so short sighted, in so many ways.

kate

Jan 26 2004

It's also good for the city, Kate. Have him read the "Creative Class" book while he's at it. Nia, I do think that young women here still wrestle with their own assertiveness. So many will come up to me and about whisper about something I wrote that they really liked, and often about heavy-duty topics. It's as if they're afraid someone's going to hear them. So the hell what? Isn't that the idea??? Scott wrote: I am an ambivalent supporter of affirmative action, but I think some of the criticisms of it have merit. I think making gender and race a preminent criteria in hiring does, in some ways, perpetuate the prejudices that affirmative action is supposed to eradicate. I don't think this is really a discussion about affirmative action, at least not in the sense of giving points to characteristics that have historically been used to disqualify candidates for education or jobs, which is really the meaning of AA today. Sure, you can discuss and debate the best ways to ensure that that the playing field is leveled, but what frustrates me are the red herrings thrown into the debate to confuse people -- like the threat of "quotas" as Bush erroneously (and sneakily, I'd guess) put it during debates with Gore, and this idea that a bunch of people who aren't qualified are going to be running things. I'm not a fan of those kinds of quotas, either. What I believe we should be discussing here is the meaning of "qualified," which I think is what Kate is getting to, and not only the idea of supporting people who hire "qualified" people (defined in an enlightened way), but helping figure out how to ensure that more people are considered "qualified," or "outstanding" perhaps, in the future. "Qualified," whether for private or public positions, should have a wider definition that includes knowledge of certain needs of certain communities, not just your resume and SAT scores. Tackling this is something we can all do, whether it's encouraging our nieces and little sisters to speak, or writing and talking more about the qualifications we as citizens and voters demand from our elected officials. And Kate is right: It's gross to even suggest that the number of "outstanding" women available to serve in state government is "rare," especially being that the pool of male ones hasn't been that impressive, either. It sounds like Barbour is making excuses for appointing folks who look and think like him, rather than a variety of people who will challenge him to do what is needed to serve the various citizens of the state. I'd second Kate's "Grrr" on that one, but it might get me accused of being aggressive. And, as a good Southern girl, I just couldn't stand the thought of that. Shudder. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

Philip (for sure) and others (perhaps) will correct on this if I'm wrong, but doesn't MS have the highest number of elected women officials in the country? I know I read that somewhere, I'll try to dig it up. I also think MS has the highest number of elected black officials. The telling part of that, though, is that they're low-level positions, relatively speaking, Tuck and like excluded, obviously.

Nia

Jan 26 2004

*we* may not be discussing affirmative action in this thread, but barbour made it an issue in his defense of not hiring women. Actually, any time one says that not enough of a certain type of person (as delineated by race, gender, whatever) are being hired, or the idea of using that status as an affirmative factor as a hire, that is affirmative action in the true sense of the phrase. that doesn't make it wrong -- I don't think it is, necessarily -- but it has to be considered as a factor in the historical context of the debate about there not being enough women or minorities in such positions. I agree, though, that is is wise to move the debate away from a traditional affirmative action argument, as you suggested. I am just saying that this is where people like Barbour (and Bush, and that ilk) are going to try to place the argument, and so one has to be ready to counter those positions (as you also said). And I definitely agree that the meaning of "qualified" needs to be widened.

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

I'm settling down from my rant here, thank goodness. But, I will add, that once you've been labelled a bitch, you suddenly don't have to deal with as many small minded people who are afraid of you. It's quite fun, actually. By the way, I know a woman who's fairly high up in a university who once told a male colleague he should just go outside and piss on a tree. And once he'd marked his territory to come on back in and then they could get down to the real work. She's my idol.

kate

Jan 26 2004

I agree, though, that is is wise to move the debate away from a traditional affirmative action argument, as you suggested. I am just saying that this is where people like Barbour (and Bush, and that ilk) are going to try to place the argument, and so one has to be ready to counter those positions (as you also said). And I definitely agree that the meaning of "qualified" needs to be widened. Scott, we're saying pretty much exactlly the same thing, I think. I sure don't mind having a discussion about affirmative action; I just don't want to see a discussion of whether there's enough "outstanding" women (or whatever) devolve into a simplistic "quota" discussion (which you weren't doing, I know). Very often, the argument being had is the wrong one, and the most important questions aren't being asked and allows people--Barbour in this case--to obfuscate the real issues. Here, to me, the big one is what is the meaning of "qualified"? After all, Barbour works directly for us, not the other way around, so we all should make ourselves heard on the issue. I view the idea of affirmative action as taking definite affirmative actions to make sure that people will have opportunities that might otherwise be denied to them for a variety of reasons. It's nonsensical to me for anyone to argue that we're to the point where this doesn't need to be done -- but I can see how the actual methods can be debated and can evolve as we get closer to reaching the goals of actual equal opportunity. Of course, if good affirmative action efforts are truncated by political forces, we may find ourselves in a situation where more efforts are needed rather than less. That's one danger of the misleading "quota" innuendo -- that it'll not only halt progress, but also help set us back.

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

Giggle, Kate. On the bitch point, I can think of very few times when someone's called me a bitch that I didn't take it as a compliment. I took back that word a long, long time ago. But this does tie back to our points above. Young women (and others, but this is a gender thread) often worry about ridicule if they speak up. Often the women who truly are willing to speak up are the ones who don't actually give a damn if people ridicule them for it (or realize that the source of the ridicule rather negates its power). I think the danger zone is when young women are made fun of (or worse) for speaking up, and then lose their voices as a result. It can be hard to get them back. And we need loud young women involved in the political process. After all, they're the ones companies want to market to; candidates should also have to market to them -- in a substantive, intelligent way, and certainly not by bandying about "quota" and "bean-counting" excuses that insult their intelligence.

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

Donna: yes, I think we agree. You put it right when you said affirmative action is "taking definite affirmative actions to make sure that people will have opportunities that might otherwise be denied to them for a variety of reasons." That's where Barbour's quota argument needs to be rebutted. One other thing on this issue: I think that we need to find a much stronger progressive governor's candidate next time... one who can actually WIN. I love Sherman Lee Dillon as a person and fellow musician, and I think he is smart as can be, but he had no chance of winning the election. Anyway, I think it would be great if the Democratic candidate next time around was a truly kick-ass woman or minority. There's got to be someone female, black, or both who is strong on the issues, has a great resume, and can articulate their positions in a way that will convince a majority to vote for them. (Barbara Blackmon was weakened by the political climate surrounding the tort reform issue, as well as her dumb abortion gambit.) I actually know a few people that could do it but will not mention their names now. I think the only way there will be real, permanent progress in these areas is to elect someone who shares your/our views on the importance of diversity in government. It took the election of William Winter -- a true Mississippi hero in my book, despite being a white male ;) -- to move this state forward (a little) in race relations and education.

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

When someone calls me a bitch and I smile, they look as me as if I've misunderstood something; but I smile because I know for sure that they understand exactly who they're dealing with. Their understanding usually follows within a few minutes (some folks are harder to convince than others). ;-) I can't believe that women in MS aren't up in arms over this. Even die-hard Republican women should be offended by Boobour's comment. Hasn't even one elected woman official come out and said how objectionable his statement is?

Nia

Jan 26 2004

I go back to my original objection over the interpretation of Barbour's comment that suggests he was saying outstanding women of any stripe are rare. I believe he was referring to those two specific fields. That doesn't mean he's right, or that he wasn't thinking much more generally. I think the real problem was the way the WAPT story was phrased. Reading that, it's easy and legitimate to conclude that he was saying there are few outstanding women, period, but I don't think he was.

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

to finish that thought... I think that's why people weren't up in arms... because what I think he was actually saying was less controversial (I am NOT saying it was accurate) than a blanket statement that there aren't any outstanding women. Also, the WAPT web site is not exactly the New York Times, Washington Post or even the C-L in terms of readership and editorial excellence.

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

Scott, at this point, I don't care what he said. The fact remains that he has not appointed any women to run any state agencies. And that's just bullshit. Actions speak louder than words.

kate

Jan 26 2004

Kate: I hear you. I was just trying to respond to your question about why people didn't freak out. But I might have been giving the people in this state too much credit... the real answer might be that not enough people in Mississippi really care. It's still bullshit, as you said, but this is a pretty conservative state.

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

whoops... that was NIa's question, not yours. My bad. Forgive me... I'm handicapped by my white maleness. :)

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 26 2004

Careful, some of my best friends are white males. ;-) Of course, and you know this Scott, but I'll say it for the record, it's not about under-representing white males; it's about making sure other folks are represented as well. You can do that without hating white men, despite the crap the Femi-Nazi-hunters spew to cloud the issue. Scott, I agree that we need more actual progressive candidates, and not at just the governor's level. On every level of local and state government. That's where the diversity can really begin to take hold (and not just black candidates in majority-black districts). We need candidates willing to talk straight and to bridge gaps, not just court the black vote or the Northeast Jackson vote. And I definitely want to hear who you have in mind next time I see you in person. I tend to agree with Kate that even the kindest interpretation of what Barbour was saying doesn't make it a less obtuse, or shocking, statement. I actually read it the way I believe you think he meant it, even if I presented it in a more sensationalist way above. It never really dawned on me that people might think he seriously doesn't think there are any outstanding, in any way, women. Obviously, he meant professionally outstanding in the fields that he is appointing in. That is the context, and was included in the link to the piece I provided up top, and that is the reason I posted it in the first place. Nothing said here since has convinced me that his beliefs there aren't outrageous and, yes, as shocking as I took them the first day when Todd told me about them in outrage. (He's a white male, too, and he's pretty cool -- just in case we're bean-counting. ). Back to work.

DonnaLadd

Jan 26 2004

No worries, Scott. At least from me, on this point. I know where you're coming from. And, kudos to WAPT for running the story, and yay to the LWV for raising the issue.

kate

Jan 26 2004

Agressive women....aggressive men: As a white male (and a multigenerational midddle class white southern male besides !) I have to say that I don't find the statement "aggresive men" admirable, though I be in the minority among my kind. To me, such people, of both genders, are often outright bullies and narcissists - and traits can certainly demoralizes the work environment, which lowers productivity, which lowers profits, etc. -- and sooner or later, you have cooked books which leads to Enron and WorldCom. So assertive people (of whatever gender) are admirable -- but aggressive ones are NOT as far as I'm concerned.

Philip

Jan 26 2004

Speaking of cooked books, I've read in more than one place that MS has the largest number of elected women officials and black officials. Are these folks elected janitors or official mascots or what? Where are they and in what capacity are they serving? Philip?

Nia

Jan 26 2004

Nia, As an initial reaction (and someone who is "on the scene" [well, sort of]), I think these are actual minority public officials - at least in The Delta. Several years ago, the US Justice Dept. effectively stated that the number of people on my home parish's Police Jury (analogous to a County Board of Supervisors) had to match the racial makeup of the parish. My home parish, 2/3 black, had from 1970 to some time in the 90s a 5-4 white majority. Today, it's 6-3 Black, and has been for 10 years or so (although they are about to reduce the number of members to 5, so it ought to be about 3-2 Black). I would think this applies to Mississippi counties as well. As for women, I don't know about elected officials, but I can assure you that the branch manager of the hometown bank i have my account at is a woman. La's newly elected governor is a woman too. Understand I'm not saying sexism is eradicated - just that there are instances of women breaking into traditionally white male positions even down here. Things like this just take time to purge out of "the system", and it definitely IS BEING purged (as opposed to "purgED").

Philip

Jan 26 2004

From Marshall Ramsey: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/editorial/ramsey/040126.html :) -s-

Scott Albert Johnson

Jan 28 2004

That was hilarious! Luv that 'toon.

Nia

Jan 28 2004

More annoyances on the topic of women in politics. This gem is from George Will's column today: "New Hampshire confirmed what Iowa intimated. Democrats who are serious about the candidates' electability understand that seriousness requires a retreat from the feminization of politics." and, "Feminized politics, according to Carnes Lord of the Naval War College, justifies all policies with reference to their impact on children. In his book "The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know Now," Lord says leadership is a problematic concept in today's democracies. Modern technology has produced prosperity, which has produced a middle class growing in size, competence (education), security (homeownership, 401(k)s, etc.) and self-confidence (assertion of rights). All this, plus the egalitarian, anti-hierarchical spirit of the age, plus the rarity of great wars, threatens to make politics seem unimportant and leaders seem dispensable." "Leadership, Lord says, presupposes some element of "such traditionally manly qualities as competitiveness, aggression or, for that matter, the ability to command." Because "leadership that is not prepared to disadvantage anyone is hardly leadership at all."" While I agree that leaders do need to make hard choices ("leadership that is not prepared to disadvantage anyone is hardly leadership at all"), I take great offense that 'ability to command' is somehow a 'manly' trait, and that it is at its most effective when tied with traits like competitiveness and agression. Competitiveness I do think CAN be a good quality, and, if channeled correctly can be a good thing. But I have serious doubts about 'agression' being a desirable quality in a leader. Particularly a political leader, since so much of politics depends on listening, learning, and finding the best possible course of action - not on "winning." Grrr. Going for more coffee now...

kate

Jan 29 2004

Good Lord. George Will gets worse by the year. Maybe he's perpetually PMS-ing. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2004

Promise on the horizon.. In this state, the first female, a major in the Army National Guard, to ever command a line company in aviation assumed her position in 2000. She has since been followed by two other female commanders as well, a 1LT and CPT. Although all have assumed the post with some static or lack of faith, all earned the positions the same exact way that the men did; however, The military rarely has the liberty to opt otherwise.

venus

Jan 29 2004

Outstanding. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2004

Beg to diifer (a bit), venus, though you're right in that it doesn't happen often enough: Somebody should tell George and Lord Puff-and-Stuff about the several women jet fighter pilots who've spent the past 15 years enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zone and providing air cover for our troops on the ground during two wars. If they're not leading with force--deadly force--then what the hell are they doing that's so different from what their male counterparts are doing? And if you don't have to be competitive to become a top-gun pilot, then I want all my damned tax money back bc if George and Puff-And-Stuff are right, the Air Force/Navy will let any ole' wuss fly multimillion-dollar aircraft and shoot at people. Now that my rant is over, this is just typical smut from the smut police who can't see women as anything but light-weight, inferior versions of men. Those "rare" women they know probably aren't competitive, forceful, or aggressive/assertive, unlike the rest of us, who compete daily for everything. Competition is the lifeblood of human culture. Without it, we'd have a culture of mediocrity with far fewer technological advances and the societal changes tech innovations inspire. Despite what George and Puff think, women participate in, if not run outright, that competitiveness. I agree with Kate that aggression is an undesirable quality in a political leader with the might of armed forces at his disposal. Assertiveness, as we've said before, is different and a desirable quality.

Nia

Jan 29 2004

Nia what exactly are you disagreeing with? I said nothing about it not happening enough and I don't recall mentioning that they weren't mentally and physically prepared. You just seem so angry and I'm not certain that you are understanding what I'm trying to say. This is a "positive" thing. Women do have to compete in the military. Unfortunately, when they are selected for leadership roles, they are often challenged differently, almost like someone is waiting for them to mess up so that they can say, "see, see, I told you she couldn't do it"-much like they are in the civilian world. Again, women ARE making strides here just perhaps not where you are looking. They ARE stepping up to the plate, hopefully to pave the way for others such as in the example I've given.

venus

Jan 29 2004

Take a pill(s), venus. I'm not angry, but you do seem to be confused about what I meant. And you're falling into that sad ole' trap people fall into when someone--especially a woman who's assertive--says something they don't like: "She's angry!" If I were, I'd be right to be. My "rant" was for George and Puff--not you--and if you'd read the entire post that should have been clear to you. Go back and read it again. And while you're at it read Kate's. Most of what I wrote was in response to her quotes from Will and Lord. Clearly, if I'm touting the accomplishments of women top gun pilots (that's where I'm looking, at the Armed Forces' most elite troops), then obviously I think the advancements women have made in the military are a positive thing. When I said, "Somebody should tell George and Lord Puff-and-Stuff..." why did you think I was referring to you?!? When I said "I beg to differ (a bit)"--not disagree-- I was referring to your statement "The military rarely has the liberty to opt otherwise", which I interpreted (it would seem incorrectly) as meaning "the military rarely offers women the same chances as their male counterparts." My quibble wasn't with the spirit of what you said. I was simply leading you to read of even more daring examples of women's bravadA in the US military among its best and brightest full-time soldiers. No disrepsect to the Guard, but they aren't supposed to be FT troops or career officers. The three women top gun pilots that I know of are all under 33, and two of them entered the service as officers. That's f***ing amazing. I just think that there are a lot more women like them that we don't hear about. They're all but invisible. Did you know about them? I was just pointing out that the armed forces have changed, not enough, but the opportunites are there.

Nia

Jan 29 2004

Just curious, are there women in the chain of these governmental positions that are currently qualified to fill them? For instance, in my corporate life, I'm surrounded by women in power. The majority of the employees in my dept. are female. Most supervisors and the like are female. It's somewhat a supply and demand situation and I'd wager a little sexism as well. Still, I'd assume that the ratio of male to female in politics has to be 3:1 (at least). Mind you, that's only an assumption. Still, as has been noted, sexism is not dead. I know this from many angles and experiences. Take to heart that the sword of sexism has a double-edge whether it's believable or not. And in many corporate work environments that I've witnessed or dealt with, it seems the sword is currently swinging in favor of the female gender for many high and low-level positoins. As noted, it will take time for the old systems to be upgraded or purged (I'm such a geek). Still, it makes me rethink whether it's a supply vs demand issue or an issue of sexism... Or a little of both. That's just my $.02.

kaust

Jan 29 2004

Exactly Knol. Thank you for clearing up what I've been trying allude to all along. It is often a slow process. And Nia, I'm not sure where any of the posts became personal, (i didn't think you were referring to me, nor was I belittling angry women),but to let you know, I'm fully aware of the achievements of women who serve and am popping pills as we speak.

venus

Jan 29 2004

Venus, I think Nia was referring to "You just seem so angry" that you typed above; I agree with her that it's frustrating when one states their opinion and people accuse them of "being angry," which serves to belittle their point. I can certainly say that I have been accused many times of being "angry" when Todd (or another man close to me) as said the same things and been taken more seriously. It's something we women live with, but we don't have to let it go by without comment. Of course, it doesn't only happen to women: look at Howard Dean. ;-) I am curious about how/why you're summarizing with "It is often a slow process." I think we all agree on that; the question hereóor at least was at the topóis whether Barbour is seeking out a diverse enough Cabinet to serve the various interests of the state of Mississippi. You don't draw Cabinet nominees from a "chain of command"; it's much more political and subjective than that, and often the qualifications of appointees are hard to quantify (as I'd argue is the case with most job applicants). I'm not disagreeing with you or Knol, especially, but I think the issue has gotten twisted around a bit. And I don't think that saying for one moment that "it's a slow process" provides any sort of excuse. How slow, why is it slow, and how can we speed it up? Those are questions I want to hear asked. How can we ensure that there are more diverse options in the "chain"? I think the best good that could come out of this current discussion ó short of a sudden change of heart by Barbour; yeah right ó is a determination by everyone reading it to mentor and train and hire and encourgae and whatever we can think for a diverse pool of talent, so that these excuses aren't even tenable in the future.

DonnaLadd

Jan 29 2004

I'm popping, too, just in case. I have only worked at one place where there were more men than women in the office, but in every case, there were only a few women managers. Even when there were nothing but qualified women in the office pipeline, outsiders (read: men) were chosen to fill exiting managers' positions.

Nia

Jan 29 2004

I agree Donna. I think I keep referring way back up there where I first posted. I used the example in our state military to let you know that women are taking leadership roles (be it outside Barbour's staff). Of course we should ask "why", but I maintain for now that maybe the qualified women aren't being ASSERTIVE enough--as I'm sure NIA would agree, women often have to do it bigger and better than the guys and often with equal (or less) pay. I would like to see it changed too. Question: Who are the outstanding women who have been overlooked? Let's find them and back them... NIA, I'm with you. One thing though. Yeah, the guard's original mission was stateside, but all of the reserve forces have state AND federal missions now. I would hate to think that you believe the troops (men and women) that have been deployed from our state on 18 month plus tours do not enter theater with the same DARING BRAVADO as active duty troops. Please tell me you don't believe that. DO not be fooled by the types of missions, no matter how glamourous they may appear. Further, If I went to battle I'd take you with me. Grrrrrrrr....

venus

Jan 29 2004

Nia, in my current environment, it's 2:1 (female:male) when it comes to managers; probably 3:1(female:male) when it comes to supervisors; and probably 3:1 (maybe more) general employees. I'd wage the majority of my co-workers are female and a large portion of those females are of a shade other than white. Actually, for many businesses I've worked for it has been similar. Nearly every manager I've had has been female; of those, two have been caucasion, one has been hispanic, and three have been African American (or black). So, our experiences differ dramatically. From the top down, many companies I've worked with have had extremely diverse employee pools and many female managers/supervisors. Of course, I've only worked in the tech/retail/fashion areas of the job market... They are a bit "known" for their diversity practices. Anyway, not to change the topic (please continue), I read an interesting post on C-L the other day from Jody Renaldo (Equality Mississippi) challenging Barbour to include gays and lesbians in his "diversity" goals. I found it a unique and necessary challenge being aware of the gay community's effects on a state and/or metro area both financially and creatively... Here's the link: Click me... You know you want to!

kaust

Jan 29 2004

Venus, no, I don't believe that Guard troops don't have the same bravado as other armed forces soldiers. They are proving every day in Iraq that in at least one way they have more bravado bc they're doing way more than they signed up to do and many of them are doing it for less pay and fewer benefits than their FT counterparts (which isn't fair, equal pay for equal work, period). I was only pointing out that people who serve in the Guard have different career expectations than people who attend the armed forces' academies and intend on serving FT as a career. IOW, women who graduate from the Air Force academy with honors, go through pilot training and fighter pilot school, then fly multimillion-dollar hi-tech planes for a living are women who are bleed competition. They thrive on it, just as some men do. And if I had to go to battle, I'd be pleased to serve with you. Grrrrr.

Nia

Jan 29 2004

See, the thing is, all of this talk about women in leadership positions just serves to annoy me more about Barbour's appointments. It's clearly not that women can't lead, that women aren't in these fields, that there aren't any of them in MS. It's simply that Barbour is not appointing women to head agencies, when he has the chance. It's all male, it's mostly white. That's not slow change. That's a throwback.

kate

Jan 29 2004