April 10th, 2008

The Sad Spectacle of Dee Dee Myers

 by Carey Roberts  
| View comments | Print This Post Print This Post
According to Dee Dee Myers, women are better communicators, better listeners, and better at forming consensus. A review of Why Women Should Rule the World.

Why Women Should Rule the World
by Dee Dee Myers
published by Harper (February 26, 2008)
Hdbk., 288 pgs.
ISBN-10: 0061140406
ISBN-13: 978-0061140402

Dee Dee Myers has just come out with her amusing tale, Why Women Should Rule the World. You may recall Mrs. Myers was the first female White House press secretary, appointed during the first two tumultuous years of the Clinton administration.

Simply put, Myers is a female supremacist. “Women tend to be better communicators, better listeners, better at forming consensus,” she argues. That entitles women to run the world because they do everything better than those power-hungry men, Myers believes.

As the unsmiling Myers goes about promoting her book, one wonders what led her to pen a tome filled with crude gender stereotypes and doubtful claims.

After Myers left the hurly-burly of the White House in 1994, Myers married a handsome (and well-paid) magazine executive. They moved into a tony Washington, DC home and had two children together.

But 14 years after leaving her heady White House post, Myers’ career has stalled out. She has only managed to land a few part-time consulting jobs, like advising the now-defunct NBC series, The West Wing.

Hardly an inspiring role model for the female global domination wannabes.

If you go out and get Myers’ book, don’t expect to find a watertight argument.

According to Myers, women create a nurturing, idyllic work environment – well, with a few exceptions. In a 2000 Frontline interview, Myers made these remarks about her White House encounters with a devious Hillary Clinton:

Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience.

Women are the peaceful gender, as well. To prove the point, Myers highlights on page 125 how Queen Elizabeth I arranged to have Mary Queen of Scots beheaded, Indira Gandhi pushed for a sharp increase in nuclear arms, and Margaret Thatcher went to war in the Falklands.

Women never abuse their power, either. That’s true for every woman in the world except Indira Gandhi, who “used emergency provisions to grant herself extraordinary powers and quash dissent,” Myers admits.

Women are gentle consensus-builders, as well. Myers recounts the story of Alexis Herman, former Secretary of Labor, who tried her hand at resolving a labor strike. Frustrated by the lack of progress, Herman grabbed one of the negotiators by the lapels and issued this threat: “Don’t f_ck with me.”

Perhaps we should be grateful that Mrs. Myers does not make the claim that women are the logical sex. And some of her factual statements raise eyebrows, as well.

Myers says back in 1998 the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition brokered the historic Good Friday Agreement, a claim that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also stands by.

Unfortunately, no one else saw it that way. As Irish historian Tim Pat Coogan noted, “It was a nice thing to see [Hillary Clinton] there, with the women’s groups. It helped, I suppose, but it was ancillary to the main thing.” The Women’s Coalition disbanded in 2006 after its candidates lost in two straight elections, an inconvenient truth that escapes Myer’s notice.

There’s this chestnut on page 56: “until recently, all the research into [heart] disease was conducted on men.” But somehow that doesn’t square with the FDA analysis that found, “women have been included in drug development studies at least since the early 1980s in approximate proportion to the prevalence of disease in them.”

And as we all know, women are victims of the gender wage gap. Want proof? When the 31-year-old Myers worked at the White House, she was paid a measly $100,000. But there was another deputy assistant, he was paid $10,000 more.

True, he was far more experienced and qualified. He took a big pay cut to come work for President Clinton. But that didn’t matter – Dee Dee was entitled to that extra 800 bucks in her paycheck.

Go call the lawyers!

Lest you suspect that Myers is totally unsympathetic to men, she proffers this reassurance on page 128: “That’s not say women should replace men altogether.” And yes, she does thank her husband in the Acknowledgements.

See, not all men are that bad.

Dee Dee Myers comes across as a woman who hasn’t figured out whether she wants to be a stay-at-home mom or go back to being a 60-hour-a-week workaholic. So every road bump in life is blamed on the heartless patriarchy. She publishes a book filled with odious stereotypes and half-truths, and then wonders why her colleagues don’t take her seriously.

In the end, Myers’ book becomes a feminist fairy tale that provokes sadness, not outrage. In its over-wrought quest to promote female empowerment, her work becomes a parody of the very movement she has chosen to embrace.

Why Women Should Rule the World is available on Amazon.com.

Book Reviews, Feminism, Abortion, Euthanasia



Carey Roberts is a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, and has been published in The Washington Times and LewRockwell.com, among others.
careyroberts@comcast.net

Read more articles by Carey Roberts

  1. “According to Dee Dee Myers, women are better communicators, better listeners, and better at forming consensus.”

    They are also the most bloodthirsty professional wrestling spectators.

    “Dee Dee Myers comes across as a woman who hasn’t figured out whether she wants to be a stay-at-home mom or go back to being a 60-hour-a-week workaholic.”

    Isn’t it nice that she has this choice, but her husband doesn’t have the option to become a stay-at-home dad?

    To the author’s credit, she didn’t use the word “Ms” once.

    Comment by sedonaman | April 11, 2008

  2. If I recall correctly, it was at one of her first press conferences that Mz Myers was cornered into admitting that the "get-the-richest-among-us-to-pay-more-of-their-fair-share" tax hike Clinton proposed in 1993, the one billed to apply to those earning over $200,000 a year, would actually reach down to those earning over $30,000 (just over median at the time).

    Comment by sedonaman | April 11, 2008

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.