Obama, Larry Summers, & Feminism

In efforts to avoid thread hi-jacking, I thought I’d just create a post about this.  Recently, a comment I made about how I wouldn’t count on Obama to defend women’s rights led to an argument.  As I stated there, I did not vote for Obama.  I’m a registered independent in my state, so can’t vote in party primaries for President.  As a Socialist, I also have no more use for the Democratic Party than I do for the Republican Party.  I voted for Cynthia McKinney in the general election because I felt she was the only candidate to really commit to all of the world’s oppressed people.

So, what does this specifically have to do with Obama and feminism?  One of Obama’s first acts after being elected was to appoint Larry Summers to his transition team.  He later gave Summers a position in his administration that, conveniently, allowed Summers to avoid Senate confirmation hearings.  Those hearings would (hopefully) have been used as a forum to out Summers on his sexist views on women in science, engineering and math.

As I stated in my comment, Summers has made comments about the genetic inferiority of women when it comes to math, science and engineering.  Some tried to jump to his defense, claiming he never said any such thing.  Sadly, he did, as discussed in the following quotes. 

Summers exact words (bolding mine) are as follows:  "In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude , and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination ." (See:  Mob rule in academia by Debra J. Saunders and note that this article is in defense of Summers . )

When Summers name first came up, the president of NOW was sceptical about him.  In an interview, she noted (again, bolding mine):  "’But on the topic of the old Harvard controversy, Gandy added: "I’m torn on the subject. Part of me thinks his opinions on women’s capacities for math and science don’t have relevancy to financial markets. On the other hand, economics is a very math-heavy field. Does that mean he’d be less likely to include women in his own circle of advisers? I don’t know the answer to that question; I don’t know him. But I do wonder whether if his comments about women’s lack of aptitude for math and science had instead been a comment or an opinion about African Americans having less capacity for math and science, would he be on anybody’s short-list. That’s a fair question to ask .’" (See:  Now President Questions Summers as Treasury SecretaryNote that I do not agree that his appointment would not "have [had] any relevancy to financial markets."  In fact, the appointment of anyone who makes that kind of statement is troubling, especially when made by a president who is supposedly all about inclusion, a man who supposedly embodies the "anyone can do it" premise. )

Dr. Nancy Hopkins, a woman who was actually at the event where Summers made his comment about female aptitude, wrote this:  "In 2005, Harvard University’s President Larry Summers proposed that women are genetically inferior to men at the high end of the ability spectrum in math, science and engineering. Summers said this is the second most important reason women are under-represented on the faculties of elite universities in these fields." (See:  Why Does the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus agree with Larry Summers that women are genetically inferior to men? by Dr. Nancy HopkinsNote that Dr. Hopkins gives study results that show why Summers is wrong. )

The New Agenda discusses why Summers was eventually chosen for a post that didn’t require Senate Confirmation:  "In addition, President-elect Obama has shown a clear disregard for the women of this country by choosing Larry Summers as Director of the National Economic Council. ‘It was a clever move by Obama to appoint Summers to a position that does not require Senate confirmation. Clearly Obama knew that appointing a man who notoriously claimed that girls have a innately lower aptitude for math and science would be hard for the American public to swallow, ‘ said Dr. Nancy Hopkins, co-founder The New Agenda."  (See:  December 15:  Halftime Report:  Women Don’t Matter to Obama by Amy SiskindNote:  Bolding is mine.  I hope that his appointment would have been "hard for the American public to swallow."  I just have some doubts.  It would have reflected very poorly on Obama to have public discussions in the mainstream media about the topic, though. )

And, even worse, Obama thinks Summers’ statements denigrating women are just funny as hell :  "’We’ve also begun to change the culture in Washington. We have even made the White House a place where people can learn and grow. Just recently, Larry Summers asked if he could chair The White House Council on Women and Girls. (Pause as audience fails to respond.) And I do appreciate that Larry is here tonight because it is seven hours past his bedtime. ‘ — President Obama, joking, at the White House Correspondents’ dinner this past Saturday"  (See:  Shakesville post by The Skakespeare Sister, as well as the comments section.  Note that the bolding was in the original. )

As we await Obama’s next big choice–the next Supreme Court Justice–his commitment to women becomes extremely important.  It is time for feminists to hold his feet to the fire.  It is time to stop protecting Presidents, just because they belong to the Democratic Party.  The "lesser of two evils" doctrine has got to go.  Mainstream feminists have, for far too long, allowed the Democratic Party to use their movement for votes, while delivering far too few results for real women. 

As a Socialist, I long ago came to realize that mainstream feminism could not bring us true equality–not for heterosexual women, not for Sapphic women, not for white women, not for women of color, not for American women, not for women in the rest of the world, not for any woman anywhere –until they took off the yoke they have been too willing to wear.  Throw off the Democratic Party’s collar until it proves it is going to fight for us all.  If it doesn’t do so, then throw off the yoke of mainstream feminism and join more radical feminists who will fight for all of us.  There are other options.

Disclaimer: This post was written by a Feministing Community user and does not necessarily reflect the views of any Feministing columnist, editor, or executive director.

Join the Conversation