White House Creates Council on Women & Girls

This Just In:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                         March 11, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT SIGNING OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
CREATING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON WOMEN AND GIRLS

East Room

1:31 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Well, today, as we continue our celebration of International Women's History Month, I'm proud to sign this executive order establishing the women's -- the White House Council on Women and Girls.  It's a Council with a mission that dates back to our founding:  to fulfill the promise of our democracy for all our people. 

I sign this order not just as a President, but as a son, a grandson, a husband, and a father, because growing up, I saw my mother put herself through school and follow her passion for helping others.  But I also saw how she struggled to raise me and my sister on her own, worrying about how she'd pay the bills and educate herself and provide for us.

I saw my grandmother work her way up to become one of the first women bank vice presidents in the state of Hawaii, but I also saw how she hit a glass ceiling -- how men no more qualified than she was kept moving up the corporate ladder ahead of her.

I've seen Michelle, the rock of the Obama family -- (laughter) -- juggling work and parenting with more skill and grace than anybody that I know.  But I also saw how it tore at her at times, how sometimes when she was with the girls she was worrying about work, and when she was at work she was worrying about the girls.  It's a feeling that I share every day.

In so many ways, the stories of the women in my life reflect the broader story of women in this country -- a story of both unyielding progress and also untapped potential.

Today, women make up a growing share of our workforce and the majority of students in our colleges and our law schools.  Women are breaking barriers in every field, from science and business to athletics and the Armed Forces.  Women are serving at the highest levels of my administration.  And we have Madam Speaker presiding over our House of Representatives.  (Applause.)  I had the privilege of participating in a historic campaign with a historic candidate, who we now have the privilege of calling Madam Secretary. 

But at the same time, when women still earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make; when one in four women still experiences domestic violence in their lifetimes; when women are more than half of our population, but just 17 percent of our Congress; when women are 49 percent of the workforce, but only 3 percent of our Fortune 500 CEOs -- when these inequalities stubbornly persist in this country, in this century, then I think we need to ask ourselves some hard questions.  I think we need to take a hard look at where we're falling short, and who we're leaving out, and what that means for the prosperity and the vitality of our nation.

And I want to be very clear:  These issues are not just women's issues.  When women make less than men for the same work, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work harder just to get by.  When a job doesn't offer family leave, that also hurts men who want to help care for a new baby or an ailing parent.  When there's no affordable child care, that hurts children who wind up in second-rate care, or spending afternoons alone in front of the television set.

And when any of our citizens cannot fulfill their potential because of factors that have nothing to do with their talent, their character, their work ethic, that says something about the state of our democracy.  It says something about whether we're honoring those words put on paper more than two centuries ago -- whether we're doing our part, like generations before us, to breathe new life into them in our time. 

 That, above all, is the true purpose of our government.  Not to guarantee our success, but to ensure that in America, all things are still possible for all people.  Not to solve all our problems, but to ensure that we all have the chance to pursue our own version of happiness.  To give our daughters the chance to achieve as greatly as the women who join us today.  That's the impact our government can have.

It's the impact of a Health and Human Services Department that funds research by women like Dr. Nina Fedoroff, a biotechnology and life science pioneer -- (applause) -- who won the National Medal of Science in 2006.  It's the impact of a Defense Department that works to recruit and promote women -- women, so that women like Sergeant Major Michele Jones, who was the Army's highest ranking enlisted woman before she retired, can strengthen our military with their leadership. (Applause.) 

It's the impact of a Department of Education that enforces Title IX, so athletes like -- (applause) -- so athletes like Olympic gold medalist Dominique Dawes and Lisa Leslie -- (applause) -- have a level playing field to compete and to win.  It's the impact of a White House and a Congress that fight for legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, so that all women can get paid what they deserve.  (Applause.)  I'm very proud this was the very first bill that I signed into law. 

And that's why I'm establishing this Council -- not just to continue efforts like these, but to enhance them.  The Council will be composed of the heads of every Cabinet and Cabinet-level agency, and will meet on a regular basis.  We have many of those Cabinet members here.  Some of the men showed up -- we put them in the second row.  (Laughter.)  But they're going to be fighting -- (applause) -- they're going to be part of this Council, and it's going to meet on a regular basis. 

Its purpose is very simple:  to ensure that each of the agencies in which they're charged takes into account the needs of women and girls in the policies they draft, the programs they create, the legislation they support.  It's not enough to only have individual women's offices at individual agencies, or only have one office in the White House.  Rather, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said, in our government, "πresponsibility for the advancement of women is not the job of any one agency, it's the job of all of them."  (Applause.)  And she should know -- she helped lead an interagency women's initiative during the Clinton administration. 

At the same time, given the critical importance of its work, this Council must have strong leadership from the White House, and direct accountability to me.  And that's why I'm appointing Valerie Jarrett, one of my closest advisors and most senior members of my administration, to lead it.  Tina Tchen, another senior member of my White House staff, will serve as the Council's Executive Director.

In the end, while many of the challenges women and girls face are new, the work of this Council is not -- it's been with us for generations.  Frances Perkins, who was President Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Labor, and the first woman to serve in the Cabinet -- a great hero of the New Deal -- described it well when she said, "πI had a kind of duty to other women to walk in and sit down on the chair that was offered, and so establish the rights of others long hence and far distant in geography to sit in the high seats."  To sit in the high seats.

That is why I'm standing here today, because of what my mother and grandmother did for me, because of their hard work and sacrifice and unflagging love.  That's what Michelle is doing right now, thinking every day about making sure that Malia and Sasha have the same opportunities as anybody's sons do.  That's why so many of us are here today, because of the women who came before us, who were determined to see us sit in the high seats:  women who reached for the ballot, and raised families, and traveled long, lonely roads to be the first in the boardroom or in the courtroom or on the battlefield and in the factory floor; women who cracked and shattered those glass ceilings, so that my daughters -- and all of our sons and daughters -- could dream a little bigger and reach a little higher.

So now it's up to us to carry that work forward, to ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have no limits on their dreams, no obstacles to their achievements -- and that they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers and great grandmothers never dreamed of.  That's the purpose of this Council.  Those are the priorities of my presidency.   And I look forward to working with all of you to fulfill them in the months and years to come.

All right, so I'm going to go sign this thing.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

(The executive order is signed.)  (Applause.)

                         END                 1:39 P.M. EDT

 Attendees included among many others:

United States Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Susan A. Cohen, Guttmacher Institute
Kim Gandy, NOW
Judy Gold, Chair, Women's Policy Council, Obama for America
Sandra Goldstein, Hadassah        
Silvia Henriquez, National Latina Reproductive Health Institute
Nancy Keenan, NARAL
Mara Keisling, National Center for Transgender Equality
Kitty Kolbert, People for the American Way
Ellen Malcolm, Emily's List
Kate Michelman
Sarah Morgenthau, Women for Obama
Sammie Moshenberg, National Council of Jewish Women
Irene Natividad, Global Summit of Women                                     
Debra Ness, National Partnership for Women and Families
Darlene Nipper, Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood
Vicki Saporta, National Abortion Federation
Ellie Smeal, Feminist Majority Foundation    
Susan Thistlethwaite, Chicago Theological Seminary  

Membership of the Council.  The Council shall consist  of the following members:    (1)  the Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President  for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison, who  shall serve as Chair of the Council;    (2)  the Secretary of State; (3)  the Secretary of the Treasury;    (4)  the Secretary of Defense;    (5)  the Attorney General;    (6)  the Secretary of the Interior;    (7)  the Secretary of Agriculture;    (8)  the Secretary of Commerce;    (9)  the Secretary of Labor;    (10)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services;    (11)  the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;    (12)  the Secretary of Transportation;    (13)  the Secretary of Energy;    (14)  the Secretary of Education;    (15)  the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;    (16)  the Secretary of Homeland Security;    (17)  the Representative of the United States of   America to the United Nations;    (18)  the United States Trade Representative;    (19)  the Director of the Office of Management and  Budget;    (20)  the Administrator of the Environmental Protection  Agency;    (21)  the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;    (22)  the Director of the Office of Personnel  Management;      (23)  the Administrator of the Small Business  Administration;    (24)  the Assistant to the President and Director of  the Domestic Policy Council;     (25)  the Assistant to the President for Economic  Policy and Director of the National Economic Council;  and    (26)  the heads of such other executive branch  departments, agencies, and offices as the President may, from time to time, designate. 

Comments

[Christopher Hathaway]

Great. More colossal foolishness of government attempts to make everything "fair" in society while at the same time remaking society along lines never tested before. There's a reason men on average (and it is the averaging of salaries that gives the so-called wage gap) get paid more than women; they are more productive because they take less time off for raising a family, and this again is for very obvious biological realities that "enlightened" men like Obama are studiously intent on ignoring. The solution he proposes is to get men to take more time off for family need, even though in a healthy society there would be little need for them to be at home as well if the mother was also there taking care of the children.

Government intelligence; if something the state does screws things up in one direction fix it by screwing it up in the other direction to compensate. By no means cease meddling activity.

[Beth from TN]

That screaming you hear is my utter inability to articulate in any meaningful way how utterly vile I find this absurd, lying rant.

[Nick]

Notice how many of those organizations really aren't organizations for women but for intercourse? Thought so.

[Kamilla]

Beth,

And here I thought that distant sound was the result of being snubbed. Why aren't you and I on this thing?

Kamilla

[Beth from TN]

That, too, Kamilla! :)

[John Hetman]

This is absurdity carried to it logical conclusion by an Administration that is founded on absurdity to begin with. The nation is literally awash in programs for girls and women. Had Mrs. Clinton found her human roots, she'd probably be sitting in the Oval Office now behind the desk.

The White House Council is a cheap attempt to prepare for Obama 2012. And only true believers will pay much attention to another ploy by President Teleprompter.

[Margaret]

What pernicious drivel.

[AMereLurker]

A sorority of self-congratulatory liberal feminists, now there's change we can believe in. Wouldn't real change be, oh, I don't know, something like having all viewpoints represented? How is the creation of a governmentally sanctioned echo-chamber supposed to bring people together?

Every day my frustration with this administration grows.

[Rob G]

"Notice how many of those organizations really aren't organizations for women but for intercourse?"

Yes, freedom to fornicate is foundational to the empowerment of women. And mirabile dictu, men also seem to like this aspect of the women's movement.

[Judy K. Warner]

As with everything Obama does, I wonder if he is just dumb, ignorant and incompetent, or if this is part of his community-organizing plan to create chaos.

[Joe Long]

Judy, I try hard to follow the rule "Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity", but I don't have much more room for that sort of charity where the new President and his Congress are concerned.

[Judy K. Warner]

My daughter commented this morning: Obama wouldn't be president and none of this would be happening if women hadn't gotten the vote.

[David Gray]

>My daughter commented this morning: Obama wouldn't be president and none of this would be happening if women hadn't gotten the vote.

You have a very perceptive daughter.

[NTBH]

The other aspect of the voting issue is that if the vote had continued to be limited to those with an actual stake in the economy, (historically land owners, now there would have to be some way to include business owners) then we would not have the problem of people voting themselves free money by supporting the welfare state.

[Peter Gardner]

Why stop there? I volunteer to be Emperor.

[Jim Kushiner]

I'd be happy if only the votes of real live American citizens who actually voted were counted. Good place to start.

[dorotheos]

Isn't that what happens now? What are you suggesting?

[Judy K. Warner]

Jim lives in Chicago, Dorotheos. 'Nuff said.

[dorotheos]

Not 'nuff said. Are you saying that the national election results are invalid?

[David Gray]

>Not 'nuff said.

'Fraid so...

[Beth from TN]

Dorotheos, I don't know where you are from, but it is pretty common knowledge that Chicago politics are some of the most corrupt in the nation, and have been for a long, long time. One "irregularity" is the consistent voting record of dead people, often for years after their demise.

[dorotheos]

I know that is what is said. I am not a Chicagoan, and I frankly don't know the truth of this one way or another. I did grow up in Philadelphia so I know something about corrupt city politics.

This is not what I am interested in. I am inquiring about what Mr Kushiners statement implies about his (or others on this forum's) belief about the validity of national (the last one in particular) elections.

[Rob G]

"...we would not have the problem of people voting themselves free money by supporting the welfare state."

Right. As someone once put it, if you're able to vote while nursing at the breast of the government, you'll always vote yourself a bigger breast. (Actually, the person who said it used different terminology, but I didn't think the original would clear the censor).

[David Gray]

>This is not what I am interested in. I am inquiring about what Mr Kushiners statement implies about his (or others on this forum's) belief about the validity of national (the last one in particular) elections.

I'm quite certain he's not calling for an insurrection. And I'm quite sure that Obama received enough votes of living lawful citizens to be elected (although he received lots of other votes as well).

[Joe Long]

Fraud is widespread, particulary endemic in the inner cities, and (therefore?) disproportionately Democratic. (Leftist political philosophy is also fraud-friendly: eggs, cakes and so forth.) It's also, digracefully, subsidized Federally through ACORN and other groups.

But Obama won the election - and unfortunately, he would have won it fairly, too.

[Beth from TN]

"I'd be happy if only the votes of real live American citizens who actually voted were counted. Good place to start."

What I don't understand is why this simple statement that voter fraud exists (which everyone knows is true), in the context of a discussion on who should have the right to vote, would make anyone think that Jim was saying that the election results were not valid. That was not even under discussion . . .

[Judy K. Warner]

Agreed, Beth. I was not saying the election results were not valid. Though if the election were held today, the results might be different.

[Jim Kushiner]

My comments about votes were made in the context of comments about principles of voting. I make no claim about this or any other election (except maybe 1960, Cook County's presidential tally, and I am not alone in that one). I am troubled when people can show up and register to vote with no proof of citizenship. I have no idea how widespread that is. I do not think it should be easier to register to vote than it is to get a driver's license, or even a passport, perhaps. If every single vote is important and if democracy is important, then the license to cast a vote should be treated more seriously than it has been in many places.

[Beth from TN]

I knew you weren't, Judy. I didn't see why anyone would think Jim *was*.

[Joe Long]

Well, for the last eight years, claiming that the President was illegitimate and the election had been stolen was a common refrain in some quarters, so perhaps led to a certain presumption.

[Rob G]

"Nonsense: if it is important, then it should be granted as widely as legally possible, because it it the inherent right of each potential citizen applicant."

Baloney. It's not a human right, it's a civil right. And as such it carries certain responsibilities. You want to make it a free-for-all: "Hey, you live here legally? You get to vote!!!" But that's a recipe for disaster. As I said above, those that nurse at the breast of the government will always vote themselves a bigger breast.

"this represents the ideal and most reasonable way to actualize the fullest potential franchise."

Who says that what we need is the "fullest potential franchise"? Keep it real simple: 18 and over, photo id, not on welfare unless disabled, not a convicted felon. Personally I'd argue for an IQ test, but I know that would never make it.

[Benighted Savage]

Beth fron TN writes:

>>>One "irregularity" is the consistent voting record of dead people, often for years after their demise.>>>

I can't believe that in this day and age there still exist Americans who would deny the right of the deceased to vote. Necrophobe! Have you no shame?

[David Gray]

>Besides, if your crowd is so right and reasonable, you should be able to convince the poor as well as the rich.

It is the stupid and foolish that are the challenge...

[Ethan C.]

If I got to pick, I'd go with real property owners and business owners only. And by business owners, I mean actual operators. Corporate shareholders wouldn't count. And I'd add a basic test. Perhaps it would be enough to remove all the names from the ballot, so that all votes would be "write-in." That way, you'd at least have to know the name of the guy you were voting for.

"The fullest possible franchise" is a recipe for disaster, as the founders well knew.

[Kamilla]

Ethan,

How's this for a test? Only those brave (or foolhardy) enough to drink cow pee soda can vote!

Kamilla

[Rob G]

"Are you trying to imply that I nurse at the breast of the government? That's a mean little slur."

No, only that many of those whom you want to vote do.

"We don't need to raise the bar on ID; but SSN is a good place to start"

Nope. Gotta be photo ID, unless there is some way on site to verify SSN's.

"It is the stupid and foolish that are the challenge..."

Bingo.

I'm surprised that the extend-the-franchise crowd hasn't pushed for pictures of the candidates on the ballot, to help the literacy-challenged, don't you know.

[Beth from TN]

Benighted Savage wrote:

>>>One "irregularity" is the consistent voting record of dead people, often for years after their demise.>>>

--I can't believe that in this day and age there still exist Americans who would deny the right of the deceased to vote. Necrophobe! Have you no shame?--

I know, I know, it's a terrible thing, but I just can't stand the dirt and odor in the voting booths . . .

[Joe Long]

I'd be good with a franchise awarded only at the honorable completion of military service - lifetime voting privileges for vets, everyone else gets a voting certificate yearly with his tax return.

If you're a net tax beneficiary household rather than taxpayer household in any one particular year, no vote for you that year. (Unless you're also a vet, as stated above.) No shame attached; you can qualify another year; but rightfully the contributors have the authority. ("Youngster, while I'm paying your bills, you'll follow my rules.")

[Benighted Savage]

Beth from TN writes:

>>> I know, I know, it's a terrible thing, but I just can't stand the dirt and odor in the voting booths . . . <<<

That's because you have failed to transcend your outmoded and bourgeois notions of cleanliness and redolence. You must raise yourself, sister, from your bio-centric squalor!

[Benighted Savage]

--I can't believe that in this day and age there still exist Americans who would deny the right of the deceased to vote. Necrophobe! Have you no shame?--

>>> I know, I know, it's a terrible thing, but I just can't stand the dirt and odor in the voting booths . . . <<<

That's because you have failed to transcend your outmoded and bourgeois notions of cleanliness and redolence. You must raise yourself, sister, from your bio-centric squalor!

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Joe Long: "But Obama won the election - and unfortunately, he would have won it fairly, too."

I don't know about that. Producing a valid birth certificate that Obama was born in Hawaii and resolving that he's a valid U.S. citizen would be immensely helpful. Didn't the leftist liberal democrats demand proof that Bush served in the National Guard? And did Kerry ever produce his military records when asked to do so in his 2004 presidential run?

[Juli]

I don't know about that. Producing a valid birth certificate that Obama was born in Hawaii and resolving that he's a valid U.S. citizen would be immensely helpful.

Even Snopes is in on the conspiracy:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

[Rob G]

"People We Approve Of should vote. That would guarantee Our side always winning, which is fine, because We are the natural masters"

Funny, that's exactly how I would have described YOUR position, except that it also includes the notion of keeping the poor dependent on the gummint. Ever read Thomas Sowell?

You obviously haven't spent enough time here to know that to at least some of us, neither big business nor big government is to be trusted. You seem to be saying "You're not liberal egalitarians? Then you must be big business capitalists!" (After all, those are the only options, right?)

[Benighted Savage]

Cyranorox writes:

>>> The deep fallacy in your thought is this: if a man might have a bad motive, he must feel it, and act upon it: thus the canard about the poor voting themselves benefits. If true, however, it applies to all men, and thus should exclude any class of persons who have access to helping themselves from the common pot or shaping the discourse. You apply it only to those against whom you are already opposed. I, on the other hand, believe men may not act on bad motives, though they may, and no economic or political set can be distinguished for greater or lesser failing in this regard. <<<

The deep fallacy in your thought is this: you think the folks who read this blog don't see the debased form of class analysis that forms the foundation of your loosely-argued "arguments." Or that, when in your lampoon you write that "the franchise should be limited to Us, and taken from Them," we fail to see that you forget to add communism and certain forms of socialism to your list of proscribed forms of government. How selective you are in your silence!

[Rob G]

"I did peg you for mockers and revilers of the poor, based on what you did write."

You fail to make the necessary distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. As St. Paul implies when he writes that a man who doesn't work shouldn't eat, there is a difference between those who are truly poor and those who are lazy. Your policies blur that distinction.

Likewise, your policies create a situation in which the poor become dependent on the government, thus preventing them from working their way out of their poverty. Responsible behavior is punished, irresponsibility is rewarded. This results in the entrenchment in power of the liberal bureaucratic class: they are needed to perform the necessary redistribution of wealth, which keeps the lower classes voting for them, perpetuating the cycle.

In short, the poor (and not only poor blacks) are stuck on the white liberal plantation.

[Benighted Savage]

CyranoRox writes:

>>> O benighted one, your comment, while attempting a parallelism, does not really connect to any ideas. <<<

And this should surprise me? What ideas?

>>> Class, as i used it, is really drawn from common usage, ie, the class of all fools, or the class of regular solids; not social class as such. <<<

I didn't write class, I wrote "class analysis." Of the degraded kind. You cool with that?

>>> To help you along: plutocracy, oligarchy, etc are similar to plans sketched here: rule by those who own most of the wealth. Juntas represent rule by the military sector, or perhaps retired military, as proposed here. i did not name fascism or communism because these are inflammatory words, tending to debase discourse, without much gain in clarity. <<<

Alas, the "general position" that you so genteely ascribed to the posters here was that:

--- "We Approve Of should vote. That would guarantee Our side always winning, which is fine, because We are the natural masters [cf. CSL on the finding of such persons]. The franchise should be limited to Us, and taken from Them. They should be treated kindly, of course, but made to feel their inferiority as We roll the pleasures of superiority on our many tongues, and write the laws to allow them such good as may overflow from Our table." ---

This is an ingroup/outgroup opposition so general that it could apply to any form of government that has elected offices. Also, I find it suspicious when someone whose first post mentions the CSA and house slaves suddenly becomes reticent about using inflammatory terms. May I ask, what was clarified or valorized in your original post?

>>> "Don Juan," canto ix, st. 25 (1823) - and while I do not aspire to rule, the mob of you shall not prevail. <<<

What mob? Prevail against what?

>>> I am interested in your ideas on the necessity or not of men acting on the basest motives that can be found for them, and on any way you propose to find any class or set of men more or less liable to this failing. <<<

Perhaps the franchise should be limited to citizens who do not attack straw men or beat dead horses. Especially when they've had too much coffee. Whaddya think?