Wampum

The other "Two Americas".

I've often alluded to this election season as being "testosterone driven". Both Bush and most of the rivals for the Democratic nomination built their campaigns on appealing to men, and not just NASCAR-dads. The war in Iraq, terrorism and pissing off the UN occupied the headlines and the debates, these were the hot points of the stump speeches and disputes among the candidates.

I became an Edwards fan early on due to his rejection of the testosterone-laden campaign strategy. Despite being from a state with a significant military presence, Edwards emphasized bread-and-butter issues, drawing attention to the tens of thousands of texile workers whose jobs had been eliminated or moved off-shore under Bush's tenure. He also openly spoke of hot-button issues important to women; education, the economy, civil rights. And if you scanned any audience to which Edwards made his "Two Americas" appeal, you could see the nodding of heads, particularly those of women.

See, for many women in America, the "have vs. have not" allegory is not just one of economics, at least not economics in a vacuum. Despite assertions to the contrary (usually as justification for the dismantling of affirmative action programs), the gender imbalance in America is alive and well. And the fact that many have worked so hard, and with great success, to assert that gender bias no longer is a factor indicates that we may in fact be worse off than in the years where the struggle was accepted as valid.

Some have argued that there is really no such thing as sexism (or racism, for that matter), that it is all a matter of economics. Women are more vulnerable because of their tendency to inhabit the lower rungs of the economic ladder. However, this week’s settlement between Morgan Stanley and the EEOC over blatant discrimination against women even in senior positions undermines that argument.

The stories of rampant sexism filtering out of the case are disheartening; hostile comments, cakes depicting women’s anatomy, and trips to strip-clubs. Qualified women passed over for promotions and raises. Treatment one expected prior to women entering the workforce in equal numbers to their male counterparts, prior to diversity training and the politically correct workplace.

And then there were the denials and smokescreens: According to the Times version, the lead plaintiff, Allison Schieffelin, was not a victim of discrimination, but the perpetrator of an inter-office cat-fight. Schieffelin, a senior executive at Morgan Stanley, saw her position terminated in 2000 after she contacted the EEOC regarding discriminatory treatment in her workplace:

She contended that the firing was a retaliatory act, but Morgan Stanley officials countered that Ms. Schieffelin was fired for insubordination after turning hostile and disrespectful toward her supervisor, a woman who had recently received the promotion Ms. Schieffelin sought.

Ironically, this is not an unusual tactic in deflecting accusations of sexism; if the facts are against you, muddy the waters with overtones of a slap-fest between women competitors. Men in particular are reluctant to get involved with the “messiness” of personal disputes.

If you think that government is a safe haven from gender discrimination, think again. A separate story in the Washington Post describes the disparity in pay and status in the Bush White House. In this case, the discrepancy didn’t arise within similar job classes; men and women were paid the same for equal work. Instead, women failed to break the glass ceiling.

At the White House, the gap has nothing to do with wage discrimination: Women and men with similar titles receive similar pay. Rather, it comes from the dominance of men in high-end jobs; of the 17 White House staffers earning $157,000 -- the top of the pay scale this year -- 12 are men. That's roughly comparable to the 26 percent representation of women in the federal government's 7,000-person Senior Executive Service, according to the Partnership for Public Service.

[This figure is close to the current representation (22%) of women in the Maine Legislature. Sadly, however, that number has declined dramatically over the past 15 years, from a high of 35% in the late 1980s. This year, in light of the current dearth of women nominees in both major parties, that number is likely to drop into the teens for the incoming legislative class.]

Allison Schiffelin and the other 340 mid- and upper-level executive women at Morgan Stanley are heros; despite having achieved relative economic and professional success, they were willing to risk everything in order to bring attention to blatant misbehavior based upon the fact they were women. John Edwards, as well, was courageous enough to shrug off the mantle of machismo, willing to focus instead on issues of the head (and pocketbook), not just of the cohones.

Within Democratic “hackery” circles, John Kerry was criticized during the primary season as relying to heavily on the Old Boy Network, pulling much of his early staff from the ranks of the graying male dominated establishment. Fortunately, whether Teresa lobbed him upside the head, or he came to the realization himself, he began to change that image (warning, potential for accusations of “flip-flopping”), including the addition of Mary Beth Cahill as his campaign manager. And while a truly brave act would have been naming a woman such as Mary Landrieu as his running mate, his choice of Edwards and his “estrogen-laden”, multi-faceted Two Americas message shows Kerry may have finally gotten it.

Posted by MB Williams at July 13, 2004 10:23 AM | TrackBack