How do you interpret *'s group of women around him?

* has a group of women who seem devoted to him. Rice, Hughes, and Meier seem smart but very deferential. I've read descriptions of both Rice and Meier implying that don't argue, Meier gets coffee, all are described as 'ladylike', but they hold very high level positions. I think these women and the roll they play hurt women. They are honored for being loyal, deferential, and ladylike instead of strong and powerful. It appears that in some ways they hide their power and intelligence behind a deferential exterior.

Here's an interesting article in Salon about this:

Harriet the meek
Why is Bush selling Miers as a lady, not a lawyer?
By Joan Walsh

Pages 1 Print EmailFont: S / S+ / S++
Oct. 6, 2005 | At moments I've found myself wanting to root for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, the meek but determined, lonely-seeming Southern lady lawyer who found "something was missing" in her life in her late 30s, according to the New York Times, and filled the hole with fervent born-again Christianity. Maybe she won't be an ideologue. Maybe her years as a single person have given her a David Souter-like humanity and independence (that's of course the religious right's worst fear). Maybe she's the best we can expect from this administration, anyway.

But the noxious mix of sad, retro ideas about women that have been packed into her nomination, plus the always rampant cronyism that rewards loyalty over competence, is becoming more than alarming. God, this administration, and particularly this president, is messed up about women. We're frequently told how much he loves 'em -- loves 'em! Certainly he surrounds himself with them -- Karen Hughes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Miers are among his closest advisors. He went to war to liberate them in Afghanistan (though they'll likely have fewer rights in the new Iraq than they did before, but hey, you can't have everything -- women especially know that!). Now he's proudly sending another woman to the Supreme Court, to fill the shoes of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But Miers is another example of Bush trying to use feminism politically while in fact sending very mixed messages: Good women come to power by doing what they're told, along with, in this case, taking good care of George W.

Maureen Dowd examined it first and best Wednesday morning, but I still can't stop wondering: How does this man get so many strong women to minister to him, personally and politically? First there's librarian Laura, next comes Karen Hughes, who gave up her family to move to Washington with Bush, then famously went home to Texas for about a minute, and is now traveling the globe selling the president's befuddled ideas about Islam to Muslims. And of course there's Condi, lovely and single and like a daughter to Bush (although she allegedly called him her "husband" once in public), vacationing with him and his family in Crawford, Texas, and at Camp David, always available. Finally, there's Miers, a bachelorette just like Condi, and true blue to her boss, maybe even a little bit love-struck. She told David Frum he's the most "brilliant" man she's ever met, and if that's not love, it's drugs, because "brilliant" isn't a word thrown around a lot about Bush. As Dowd wrote, "W. loves being surrounded by tough women who steadfastly devote their entire lives to doting on him, like the vestal virgins guarding the sacred fire, serving as custodians for his values and watchdogs for his reputation."

In a three-day spin cycle jampacked with creepy moments as the administration tries to stand by, and stand up for, its woman, the worst for me came Tuesday, when Bush touted Miers this way: "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today." Yuck. George, maybe you want to marry a gal like that, I'm not sure, but I know that's not what we're looking for on the Supreme Court.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/10/06/miers/index.html

I had to think about it for a bit. I caught that "she's not going to change is 20 years" stuff and found it very creepy.
So do we have strong powerful women around bush, women who know what they want for the world? Women who may have an ideology I disagree with, but stay true to themselves?

Or do we have women who have been so damaged on their way "to the top" who have seen other women hit that glass ceiling so hard they fell? Essentially frightened women reinforcing sexual stereotypes subtly, so they can "stay on top?" Because we know we live in a sexist world. It's a given, we deal with it in our daily lives, almost to the point we don't notice. So these women, would have HAD to run into overt sexism during their careers. No one is going to convince me otherwise. How did they deal? Quiet acquiescence to the dominant male role? Changing approaches and responses to ones that "work" as they climb the career ladder? The "lady" role? The articulate women who is a "calming" influence on all that fading testosterone? Who uses this very acquiescence to become assertive when the opportunity presents itself? Getting a chuckle and a "atta girl" from the males in charge?
Corporate or political ascent is a deadly, poisonous business from what I understand. Many men fall by the wayside. How much more difficult would it be for a women? Personally I don't see women succeeding to that point without developing some sort of subservience, or conversely, becoming so aggressive that they don't care who they walk over, or what they have to do. Hell MEN have to deal with it in this way.
The problem to me, is that many of the powerful women in the bush circle have betrayed the very ideas that allowed them to be there in the first place

career. I looked around and realized all the men in higher positions had stay at home wives and all the women were single without children. It was very difficult to make it in this environment without devoting yourself solely to your job. I'm hoping things have changed in the past 20 years but I'm not sure it has in these environments.

Women of the age these women are had to give up much to get to their position. They seemed to attach themselves to powerful men. One of the ways they did that was to cater to their needs and build up *'s ego. I think they act as poor roll models for the rest of women.

I've never worked in the corporate world. To me, however to reach the heights these women have despite as capable, talented and intelligent as I'm sure most of them are, It seems they would almost have to walk behind a few steps (figuratively)Ugly game to have to play. I totally agree with you about being the poor role model. There are women in politics, I know-- less powerful perhaps --that paid their dues every step of the way.(or are rich, but that's another story!) And are awesome role models. The women around bush seem lost somehow. Lost and pathetic. (I'm sure they've conviced themselves otherwise!) Ms. Rice in particular.

Her legal work seems always to have been secondary to her political life - becoming president of the Texas Bar Association is a lot of politicking and not much lawyering, so that's what makes this nomination so problematic.

There are women at high ranks of the legal and judicial and corporate worlds who are of Mier's generation, and most of them married and had kids. It wasn't about sacrificing her marriage and family ambitions so as to get ahead in her work - it was, in fact, her choice, which, when you think about it, is what feminism is about.

She's a proper feminist, who made her choice.

"victim" a bit.

Women have been put in no-win situations that get worse the higher up they go. I don't want to ask them to be role models on top of surviving and even succeeding in toxic environments. I do think it's fair to criticize them for their own job-related weaknesses, but it bothers me greatly when people like Maureen Dowd play amateur psychologist about things they known nothing about and women's personal lives, which is no one's business and, in this case, likely has nothing at all to do with George Bush. There are a lot of "normal" seeming men and women who are staying in marriages and having kids in households fraught with arguing, addictions, abuse, neglect, lack of love, adultery, etc., etc. Maybe one reason they stay in those situations is that society judges people who are alone so damn harshly and blames it on their own personal weaknesses.

Feminists might find this opinion piece interesting:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/61/female_ceo.html

"The Female CEO ca. 2002"

1. Toxic bosses still create unfriendly work environments.

snip

"Neutron Jack" Welch and "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap may have inspired men, but macho leadership styles continue to alienate women. The Boom Boom Room of Smith Barney was more luxurious than the cubicles of software startups, but I've talked to too many women in both environments who have been -- and who continue to be -- subjected to routine sexual harassment. I've even unwittingly hired some of the perps -- liberated guys who definitely know better.

snip

Excellent article, and I will look forward to her book. I especially liked the hope for women--and men, really. If the old system is broken and these young women are taking a look at it and saying This is broken, we'll make our own system, it seems a natural progression of feminism.

Feminism is built on the backs of the sacrifices of earlier feminists. It's been slow going, but articles like this honor those earlier sacrifices, it says we ARE making progress. Inch by inch.
Thank you again.

amazon.com.