The Washington Post reports:Jim Geraghty adds this:
Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president's tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.
At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.
Much of the stir comes from Anita Dunn's telling author Ron Suskind that the Obama White House "actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women." Then she denied she said that, and then Suskind played a tape of her saying that, so that's pretty much all you need to know about Anita Dunn, along with her fondness for Mao.
For a bunch of these folks, their entire worldview is based upon the patriarchy and the establishment keeping them down, and they can't suppress those instincts of victimization just because they voted for the new boss. I suspect that upon entering the White House, a lot of folks find that their egos simultaneously swell and get more fragile. Then they're put in a high-stress environment, where any error reflects badly on the munificent Sun King, and they're working extraordinarily long hours, convinced that the future of the country and/or liberalism depends on every move they make. Throw in a walking harassment lawsuit waiting to happen such as Rahm Emanuel, and you have the single most combustible working environment since the Hindenberg.All that is correct, but I think there's something missing. Why would we expect an administration that's so adamantly pro-abortion to be anything but hostile to women? Being pro-abortion and being hostile to women go hand-in-hand.