See subjects. Cite.
Perhaps to counter that every single Secretary of the Treasury, all 76 of them, have been male?
I believe that’s an unhelpful answer. It’s not the point for an anomaly of this size.
Why was every US Treasurer between 1775 and 1949 a man?
Find me another high government position that has been only women, blacks, Jews, or any racial/national background group besides “white Christian” for so long.
Really, that, and any comment on this case is what I’m interested in. I know IMHO when I want to avoid it here.
I guess I should have been more straightforward in my answer which is the Secretary of the Treasury is considered an important position. The Treasurer is generally not. It’s one of those positions the male hierarchy deems it’s acceptable for a woman to hold . That explains why it was a women before PC-ness became important. Since then I suspect it’s partially tradition and partially a way to get a woman into some kind of post to keep women from complaining. Others don’t complain about a woman holding this position because a man fills the important post.
So what’s your argument? It’s not tokenism if it’s white Christian men?
No. Do you think it is?
It just seems strange that seventy-six men in a row have been Secretary of the Treasury and twenty-eight men in a row had been Treasurer but you don’t seem to think this requires an explanation.
But when fifteen women in a row have been Treasurer, you feel it needs an explanation. And might be the subject of complaint.
Why do you think giving a job to men is normal and giving a job to a women is not?
The position of Treasurer used to be an important one. By 1949, most of the responsibilities had been taken away and given to other offices. So by that point, it was a minor job, despite it sounding like an important title. Truman decided that it would the token job for women which sounded like it was an important job but wasn’t. Now the rule is that it’s mostly the token job for Hispanic women. Is that bothersome to you? Is it bothersome that every single Secretary of Treasury (which is now a much more important job) and every single Secretary of Defense has been male? Is it bothersome that every single Secretary of Agriculture except one and every single Secretary of Labor except one has been male? Is it bothersome that every single Secretary of Interior except two and every single Secretary of Education except two has been male? Is it bothersome that every single Secretary of Health and Human Services except three has been male? Go through all the cabinet positions and all the subcabinet positions (and Treasurer is actually fairly far down on the list of positions in the executive branch) and tell us which of them has been mostly male and which has been mostly female. Come back and tell us about it when you’ve actually done some research on this issue.
I dont think it could be understood that “the seventy six men in a row” thing cannot have an explanation, because it surely obvious to all that there is an explanation, and what that explanantion is. You are trolling or can’t detect the most obvious troll attempt ? why am I typing up something about something SO OBVIOUS ?
The explanation of 15 women in a row is obvious too.. tokenism. Its a safe position to put a woman in. Once a year you ask them to report,
they say “no problem, treasure has plenty of money, We made some, we lost some, we threw some away, we spent some”.
Your advice is perplexing. The entire point of asking a question in this forum is to avoid having to do the mountains research needed to figure out a question with a simple answer. And now you’ve answered the question, and yet recommend the OP go do research to learn about the subject. When he’s already gotten the answer.
If it really is SO OBVIOUS no doubt you’ll easily be able to explain why it’s tokenism if you always appoint a woman to a job but it isn’t tokenism if you always appoint a man to a job.
It’s obvious that Leo Bloom didn’t do any research, and apparently he thinks it’s beneath him to do research. He read somewhere that Treasurers have always been women since 1949 and that this proves that women get positions that men are barred from. If he had bothered to do any research, he would have found that the job of Treasurer is a minor one. If he had bothered to do any research, he would have found that all of the cabinet positions have been entirely or almost entirely held by men. The kind of research necessary for my previous post took ten minutes. Why didn’t Leo Bloom do that research?
Because men historically have been in positions of power, and for the most part, still are. That’s sort of the opposite of tokenism.
(bolding mine)
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Replace ‘treasure’ with bank account, and it sounds a lot like my SO! 
Tokenism is, by definition, giving a job to a member of some unrepresented demographic just for the sake of saying “See, we’ve got one”. Therefore, a member of an overrepresented demographic, by definition, cannot be a token. Now, this is not saying that what’s going on there is better than tokenism: In fact, it’s probably worse. But it’s not the same thing as tokenism.
Moderator Note
Isilder, accusations of trolling are not allowed outside the Pit. I’ve already advised you to read the rules and FAQs before continuing to post. I’m not making this an official warning, but let’s comply with the rules in the future.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It’s obvious that most GQ questioners didn’t do any research and just want a quick answer.
But I agree with you. Everyone should do their research to get their answers before coming here to ask their question.
Therefore GQ is no longer needed and clearly should be closed.
According to the OP’s cite, the post has been vacant for an aggregate of 9 years in the past 50 (897 days between Ms. Granaham and Ms. Kabis; 404 days between Ms. Villalpando and Ms. Withrow; 568 days between Ms. Marin and Cabral). My question is why bother having a position on the books that apparently doesn’t need to be filled for months at a time?
In addition, the last two have been pretty cute, so maybe there’s some development emerging there, too! :dubious: