Obama’s Misogynistic Associations Come Back to Bite Him
December 1, 2009
by Amy Siskind
It’s not been a particularly good week for two well known misogynists: Rick Warren and Larry Summers. Nor has it been a particularly good few months for President Obama.
Obama had little concern for poking women in the eye with his early associations as he became president. I suppose he figured that 56% of women voted for him in 2008 and he could take their vote for granted going forward. WRONG!
President Obama’s Inauguration was presided over by Rick Warren, well known for his belief that women are second class citizens put on the earth to serve their husbands. The New Agenda issued a press release also noting that Warren encouraged battered wives to stay in their abusive relationships. Hundreds of viewers wrote to our blog about their personal experiences at the hand of Rick Warren and his church – treating women like objects under the control of their husbands. If only they could make a better meal, keep their home cleaner, or be a better wife – then they wouldn’t “deserve” the beating that their husbands gave them.
Warren is back in the news this past weekend for his ties with a Ugandan pastor who is helping to spearhead legislation which, if enacted, would result in the execution of HIV-positive gay men. Would Warren condemn this killing? NO.
Larry Summers, Obama’s pick for Director of the National Economic Council, also made news this Sunday. Putting Summers into this role was Obama’s end around strategy after women’s group such as The New Agenda spoke out when Obama contemplated appointing Summers to Treasury Secretary, a post that would require senate confirmation. Director of the NEC did not require senate confirmation so Summers was able to skate in despite his comments while at Harvard that girls are genetically inferior to boys in math and science.
This past Sunday, a Boston Globe article cited that Summers ignored warnings about investments while at Harvard, costing the University’s endowment $1.8 billion. This should hardly be a surprise to anyone. The New Agenda has been speaking out about Summers inability to work with others – especially women – for over a year now.
I wrote in The Daily Beast last December that Summers ignored warnings from Brooksley Born on the derivatives market:
The implosion of the derivatives market and the subsequent collapse of many of our prominent financial institutions could have been averted. Back in 1998, there was a clear and unequivocal warning. A woman by the name of Brooksley Born, then chairwoman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, warned Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers of the risks inherent in not regulating derivatives.
Michael Greenberger, a senior director at the commission at the time, noted: “Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.”
Summers, then deputy to Rubin, took it from there: “In early 1998, Mr. Rubin’s deputy, Lawrence H. Summers, called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis,” The New York Times reports.
More recently, Summers has also been featured all over the press for not heeding warnings by Iris Mack who also while at Harvard Management Co spoke out about the lack of understanding there of the risk inherent in derivative products held in Harvard’s portfolio. Summer’s reaction: fire her.
Not only does Summers have a track record of being unsuccessful, he also has ties to the Wall Street firms that he is meant to watch over through policies and stimulus monies. In April, I wrote a piece about how Summers had received over $8 million in compensation from these firms for 2008:
For 2008, Larry was paid over $5 million from DE Shaw, one of the largest hedge funds in the world. DE Shaw has multiple strategies that they run – and many of these strategies intersect with markets in which Larry can have major impact. For example, the derivatives market which Larry and gang are seeking to regulate.
Larry also received $2.7 million from Wall Street banks during 2008 that were recipients of government bailout money. For one speech alone, Larry Summers was paid $135,000 by Goldman Sachs! Now, does Goldman Sachs ring a bell for anyone? Yes, not only has Goldman received billions of dollars of TARP funds, Goldman was also the single biggest beneficiary of money that was drained out of AIG.
There’s an old adage on Wall Street: you roll with dogs, you get fleas. Well President Obama must be pretty darn itchy right about now.
Rick Warren is a heterosexual male supremacist. How absolutely disgusting that he spoke at Obama’s inauguration. Obama supporters should be ashamed of this. Can you imagine if Hillary or George Bush had a white supremacist speak for them? NO ONE would EVER forget this!
This recent response by Rick Warren fits in line with what we already knew about him but it’s still visceral to read this. It makes me sick.
In the article that you linked to I also find this very disturbing (in regard to the reaction of the Obama Administration):
Yes, when it comes to the beating and murder of women, and the beating and murder of gays, no reason for the Obama team to speak up, huh? Sickening
Slightly OT, but Jake Tapper asked Gibbs whether tonight’s Obama speech would include support for SCHOOL FOR GIRLS!
Surprise: no clear answer.
What an atrocious thing to sit on the fence about and refuse to take sides! Not that Warren cares, but the bible doesn’t support his “diplomatic” view of executions. There’s the whole part about letting him who is without sin cast the first stone…
Warren is always taking sides. He took sides when he compared abortion to Nazis, when he put violent marriages before women’s safety, when he hosted the Obama debate, he took sides.
I really have a problem with these kinds of preachers. I almost prefer the most rabid ones screaming from the pulpit, at least you know where they stand. The Warrens of the world wrap themselves in self righteousness and brag about their unbiased approach. Blech.
I wish I could be confident that the women who supported that ugly SOB would wake up and get some sense, but I saw how far in denial most of them got with their ex-husbands. And they were looking at Barky as if he were a dreamboat fantasy boyfriend — that’s how they saw him, so that’s how they’re still seeing him. It’s going to be a long wait until his girl groupies wake up.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by the new agenda, DrIrisMack. DrIrisMack said: The New Agenda – http://thenewagenda.net/2009/1.....-bite-him/ [...]
Awesome post, Amy. If we are supposed to judge Obama by the people he surrounds himself with then we can confirm that he is a homophobic, woman hating misogynist.
Janis,
That was my thought exactly. While almost every single fact in this post is disturbing in the extreme, by far the most disturbing concept was whether women would give Mr. Obama the thumbs down he deserves. And I fear that they will not. Why would any woman have voted for him in the first place? Honestly, I have a deep anger for any woman who did and I have absolutely not one ounce of pity for them. Not one ounce.
Mr. Obama is a racist, an elitist, a woman hater, and a liar. His track record is so awful that there is almost nothing he can do to make himself appear less worthy in my eyes. He just continues to do what he has always done. The only question is will American women and gays and lesbians who voted for him face their deep seated hatred of women and take responsibility for it and have the power to change. This past election was not a mandate about race people, it was a mandate about gender and women were relegated to the bottom of the barrel. Whether this is a permanent is something I do not know but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for women like Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Ehrenreich, or others to own up to what they have done.
But god help us if they do not….
“Obama supporters should be ashamed” Sadly most of them don’t have the brains to be ashamed. Most women who support Obama run around looking dumber in their infatuation with Obama than the teen girls who are in to Twilight. At least the teen Twilighter’s know they are in lust with their own illusions and their obsession doesn’t hurt anyone else.
My rah-rah re Jake Tapper pales next to these brilliant women.
[...] You can read her entire post here. [...]
My only question here is what about the countless evangelical preachers who believe similar to Rick Warren and the women who feel similarly? Warren’s views are an extreme extension of the general antipathy to homosexuality that is woven into the fabric of American politics. Obama’s not good on this point but neither are any of the mainstream Republican politicians or quite a few Democrats. Call him out on that, certainly, but shouldn’t this blog also question the positions of the politicians it supports on this same issue, many of whom I doubt would come up smelling of roses?
What politicians does this blog support, Chris? I see nothing but defending various politicians against nontstop sexual humiliation. If you think that transaltes to agreeing with every single thing any of them has ever said, you are seriously mistaken.
I’m serious. I want this question answered, so I’m asking you right now to answer it. Do you think that the following two things are identical:
1) Defending a woman against vicious sexual humiliation, and
2) Agreeing with everything that woman says.
Answer the question. Are you really so incapable of seeing the difference between those two things? Do you think that nonstop sexual humiliation is the right and proper response to a woman with whom you disagree about anything?
Why do I get the feeling that you don’t even understand what I’m getting at?
Women: Agree with them 100%, or leave them for dead by the side of the road. Pick one!
Hmm, Janis. There’s no need to insult my intelligence. I understand your position perfectly: the New Agenda believes in achieving parity in women’s representation in politics by voting for women regardless of party affiliation. And my question is if Obama’s going to be criticized (correctly, in my opinion) for his association with Warren who, by his silence on the Uganda issue, espouses some extreme homophobic views, shouldn’t the women this blog supports be held to the same standard? Martha Coakley has a good record on this issue; Hilary Clinton seems to go further than Obama but she’s not as strong as I would like. But what do we know about Jennifer Carroll’s position or Kay Bailey Hutchison’s? Michele Bachmann’s? That’s just a few of the politicians listed. I’ve yet to find an active conservative politician in this country who supports full equality for gays and lesbians. So what distinguishes them from Obama on the issue?
It is obvious that Chris just hates women. Chris, Janis is a woman. Why not answer question?
Brian, I’m a woman too and I’m entitled to having my opinion taken seriously. (Interesting assumption…) I’ll answer Janis’s question when she or somebody actually engages with my point. And here’s a hint: I just praised Martha Coakley.
Hmmm… it’s tough to talk about Obama’s very weird respect for Rick Warren until we go through how every female candidate out there feels about gay marriage.
Rick Warren is a monster and the O administration echoed his sentiments on Uganda. It’s disgusting and I think bringing up how Hillary Clinton feels about gay marriage in this context is a bit odd.
Alison
I agree. Some things are just unforgivable and it’s time everyone joined together and said it’s not okay for Obama to be aligned with these people. If this were an issue of Hillary Clinton associating herself with known racists people would incessantly attack her. Yet Obama gets away with it. It’s kind of like the saying once a cheater always a cheater… Well once a misogynist always a misogynist. We can’t keep giving Obama free game time and again when he continues to ‘cheat.’
getting back to Janis comment on Chris.
as difficult as it is, some readers fans of TNA are democrats, some republicans, probably a lot independents. therefore, female republican candidates are mentioned and supported against misogeny (in contrast to the sad past of NOW). as long as nobody posts sexual humiliation to guys such as sodomizing one of them on the beadspreads of the opposing party candidate, men can not compare the scrutiny and objection they get in politics as women. and that is why we have to call out every sexual attack to any woman in politics.
TNA is not a fan club for a particular candidate, although many of us like Hillary and Sarah.
pointing out the reckless misogynous behaviour of Obama and his associates is spot on. The non mentioning of burqas and lack of schooling for girls in some islamic countries fits perfectly to this male supremacist agenda.
I assume Chris is still under the delusion that D stands for something good for women.
Maybe I’m not making myself clear. Rick Warren is extremely popular in many conservative circles. I don’t see anybody on any side of the aisle calling him out for his odious views re Uganda. (He’s also become very good at hiding what he really stands for.) His views about women (also odious) are very common in evangelical circles. Obama should not be associated with him, agreed. But there are certainly a lot of republican politicians (and some conservative democrats as the stupak amendment shows) who align with him and others like him. (Take the Family, the clandestine Christian political group that John Ensign, Mark Sanford, and Bart Stupak are in that is also behind the man who introduced the antigay legislation in Uganda. This group also has a history of supporting dictators who are doing who knows what to women in their countries. Jeff Sharlet has done some great research on this group. His most recent “Fresh Air” interview goes into these connections. Here’s a transcript: http://www.npr.org/templates/t.....=120746516 These ideas are pervasive.)
Shouldvevotedforhilary says: Some things are just unforgivable and it’s time everyone joined together and said it’s not okay for Obama to be aligned with these people. I’m with you. But it’s not just Obama. Many of our politicians hold the same kind of socially conservative views as Rick Warren. Rick Warren exists as a national figure because mainstream culture and mainstream politicians embraced him.
M, I’m under no delusions that D stands for women but R doesn’t stand for women either.
Chris,
If I may make a suggestion. Present your argument as “I absolutely agree about Obama and the Democratic Party”.
Then separately hold the other people responsible for condoning these acts. As is it appears that you are trying to excuse Obama by bringing up the other people.
Chris, do you understand the difference between “I agree with and support everything that woman says” and “I am ready to defend that woman against grievous sexual humiliation at the drop of a hat?” Do you GET that these things are different? Do you get that one does NOT have to pick through a woman’s opinions and past with a fine toothed comb before saying a tepid, limp, “Not that that excuses what happened to her … ”
Do you understand that you are behaving in exactly the same way as the male knuckledraggers who would say, “Not that I think that that should be done to anyone ever, buuuuuuuut was that girl who was gang raped and left for dead drinking?”
Do you get that we can defend a woman against sexist attack before first telling the whole world what’s wrong with her?
Do you get how demanding that that be done is tantamount to saying that she asked for it and some sexual attacks are forgiveable and even justified?
Do you get that you are saying that we can’t hold a man accountable for anything until we hold all women everywhere accountable for everything?
Do you even GET ANY OF THIS?
John, I don’t agree absolutely with Obama and the Democratic Party so no, I won’t preface my remarks with that caveat. (Actually, I think politics in this country are fatally flawed on all sides.) I think it’s perfectly legit to criticize him at the same time as criticizing others who hold similar positions.
Janis, the New Agenda stands up for women who’ve been discriminated against, a goal with which I have no argument, but it goes well beyond that. Prominent members of the blog and followers routinely state that nothing can be achieved unless all women unite and vote for women political candidates, regardless of positions. That’s what I’m questioning because some of these positions do a great deal of harm to women and other groups pushed to the margins of our society. I was impressed that Amy Siskind brought up Rick Warren’s ties to this business in Uganda but I really worry about treating him or his beliefs as outliers. They aren’t, they’re pervasive. That’s all I’m saying.
I do have to say, attacking me for making reasoned objections isn’t exactly the way to convert people to your point of view and undermines some of the good work the organization is doing (i.e. your stance on Polanski and Chris Brown).
As an example, consider that while few people who post here are that fond of Nancy Pelosi, we still stood up for her over that whole Pussy Galore garbage the RNC threw at her. And we’re standing up for the volcano of hate speech being thrown at Sarah Palin.
Thus, we all must simultaneously agree and disagree with the current hellth kare being put forth in Congress because Pelosi likes it and Palin doesn’t. (BTW, I call it hellth kare because, like cheez-whiz and cheese, neither health nor care are actual ingredients in the thing.)
I am not going to play this misdirection nonsense where I’m told that merely by refusing to allow a woman to be sexually victimized tha tI’m signing my name on the dotted line on all of her opinions. I do not CARE about a woman’s opinions when she’s being sexually degraded. They are not relevant. We do not stop to nitpick everything the victim ever said or did wrong before condemning the hate speech flying at them.
And no, we don’t do the yes-but thing. (Well, I don’t, and a lot of people here don’t, and it’s about time.) You know, “I’m not saying that any of this should have been done, buuuuuut … ”
The appropriate way to respond to hate speech is with a simple “THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND WE WILL PUNISH YOU FOR IT.” Period. No “however” at the end, no comma, no waffling. It’s not acceptable, and the perpetrators will be punished. End of sentence. Any other discussion is for another time.
Chris,
I just wanted to address your second post in regard to the positions of Senator Hutchinson, etc. In my very quick search regarding how the Republican Women Senators voted on bills such as the Lily Ledbetter Act or the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act (part of HR 2647) ALL of the Republican women supported those bills. So when you put women’s EQUALITY rights on the table, it seems that regardless of party affiliation the women are unified in the Senate. Don’t forget that the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act was introduced initially in regard to gay rights. All of the Republican women in the senate still supported it (or a more accurate way for me to say this is that none of the women voted nay; one Pub woman from AK didn’t vote).
It is hard to tell the difference between the votes of the Democratic women and the Republican women in the Senate (at least from looking at these two high profile bills).
The Congress is a different animal altogether and doesn’t seem to fall into a nice non-partisan package. I just have to put in the caveat that I don’t get any of the women in the House right now. I mean the world is topsy turvy when Louise Slaughter (D-NY) votes yes on a bill that denies any kind of abortion access. It doesn’t seem that anyone is thinking, just reacting to partisan playground politics. I want to replace the whole lot of them (and replace them ALL with new women
).
Thanks for that rundown, Optixmom. Interesting differences between the women of the Senate and the women of the House.
Leave your response!