Why has Every US Treasurer since 1949 been a woman? Hasn't anyone complained?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The fact that a position is unfilled doesn’t mean we don’t need it. We haven’t had an ATF Director since 2006.

[Colibri]

@Wendell_Wagner

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?

Moderator Note

Wendell Wagner, I don’t think that we need these kind of personal remarks in General Questions. The question is not as straightforward as you are implying.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Ravenman]

@Wendell_Wagner

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.

The wikipedia page states that between 1981 and 2002, the Treasurer was responsible for oversight of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the US Mint, and the US Savings Bond Division. That’s an important job. It’s more important than quite a few government positions subject to Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, I can tell you that, and I’ll bet you I can name quite of few of those positions that have been staffed only by men in recent history. In fact, I’m tempted to say that the only reason someone may consider the Treasurer an unimportant job is by virtue of a particular characteristic that recent officeholders have had, but I don’t think that’s what you were specifically driving at.

It is unusual to have so many women appointed to the same office, but I don’t know of any books that go into the internal deliberations of the White House on selecting appointments to be Treasurer.

[Ludovic]

@Little_Nemo

It just seems strange that seventy-six men in a row have been Secretary of the Treasury

“Don’t go appointing any Secretaries of the Treasury on your way to the parking lot!”

[Keeve]

@Little_Nemo

Why do you think giving a job to men is normal and giving a job to a women is not?

We’re not talking about right and wrong here. Like it or not, US society IS male-dominated, and men DO tend to get the powerful positions. That’s why one might think that giving a powerful job to a man is normal, and giving a powerful job to a woman is not.

[Little_Nemo]

@Keeve

We’re not talking about right and wrong here. Like it or not, US society IS male-dominated, and men DO tend to get the powerful positions. That’s why one might think that giving a powerful job to a man is normal, and giving a powerful job to a woman is not.

True. But my point is that if you’re going to start questioning things, you should be asking about all the jobs women aren’t be hired for rather than the handful they are.

[robert_columbia]

@Wendell_Wagner

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…

One thing that I’m wondering about is how much de jure power the Treasurer has today. Wikipedia didn’t list much other than that the Treasurer “advises” various other government officials and that her signature appears on cash. If she wanted to implement her own personal policies or just rock the boat a little, how much could she do? Could we all wake up tomorrow to see the newspaper say, “Treasurer of the United States orders newly printed currency to be floral scented and to carry pictures of My Little Ponies starting May 2013. Obama, Congress, SCOTUS shrug and say, ‘Can’t do anything, that’s her right as Treasurer.’ See page B4 for a preliminary design of the Twilight Sparkle $100”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Obama can always do something. He can remove any appointed executive official at his pleasure (though not career civil servants), other than those whose offices Congress intended to be independent (most of whom are commissioners of things).

[dtilque]

I asked a related question a couple years ago: Jobs reserved for women

[Captain_Amazing]

@Little_Nemo

True. But my point is that if you’re going to start questioning things, you should be asking about all the jobs women aren’t be hired for rather than the handful they are.

Yea, but the answer to that question is kind of trivially obvious. Every Treasury Secretary has been male because we live in a sexist country that was, in the past, even more sexist, and didn’t give women the opportunities to participate in politics the way it gave men (either that, or girls can’t do math).

[Gary_Robson]

[moderating]
Although this thread didn’t start out as a debate, it has most certainly become one (despite Colibri’s best efforts). Rather than shut it down, I’ve moved the thread over to GD, where you will be subject to Great Debate rules rather than General Questions rules.
[/moderating]

[esmeralda2]

@OldGuy

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.

Yes, exactly. It is a token position. The idea is give a woman a ‘high level’ position where she can’t do any harm. Political correctness nowadays, keep the women from complaining in the old days.

[blindboyard]

So what changed in 1949 for it to go from all-male to all-female?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Apparently, in 1949, there were complaints that the number of women in cabinet posts and posts just below cabinet rank was too low. Truman apparently got a lot of pressure to do something about this. He must have asked his staff what position sounded important but wasn’t. They apparently told him that Treasurer is such a position. So he appointed a woman as Treasurer and then apparently told himself, “Now those uppity females can’t say that I don’t appoint women to such positions.”

[Measure_for_Measure]

To be fair the Treasurer gets her signature printed on all newly designed currency. Which is kind of cool.

[even_sven]

I don’t have any real insight into the US government, but from my experience with less progressive (as in, openly sexist) cultures overseas, there is a strong tradition that women are “suited” for the role of treasurer, and that treasurer is the proper place to have representation from women in a club or other organization’s leadership. I’ve seen a lot of minor elections (social clubs, professional groups, etc.) and I’ve heard that about the treasurer a million times.

The explanation I’ve heard is that women are “more honest” and less likely to pilfer cash for other things. Men are considered to have these complicated lives where they might be tempted to dip into the cash (booze, business, loans to friends, etc.) While women are used to watching money carefully.

I couldn’t tell you if this transfers into the US or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came about from the same line of thinking.

[Martin_Hyde]

@even_sven

I don’t have any real insight into the US government, but from my experience with less progressive (as in, openly sexist) cultures overseas, there is a strong tradition that women are “suited” for the role of treasurer, and that treasurer is the proper place to have representation from women in a club or other organization’s leadership. I’ve seen a lot of minor elections (social clubs, professional groups, etc.) and I’ve heard that about the treasurer a million times.

The explanation I’ve heard is that women are “more honest” and less likely to pilfer cash for other things. Men are considered to have these complicated lives where they might be tempted to dip into the cash (booze, business, loans to friends, etc.) While women are used to watching money carefully.

I couldn’t tell you if this transfers into the US or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came about from the same line of thinking.

Okay well two things.

1. Treasurer of the United States while not a particularly important job isn’t the same as treasurer of some private club. So those experiences aren’t really that relevant.
2. No one needs to be overseas to know what you just said. I’m guessing you’ve never been involved in a church, social club etc here in the United States but most of those have women who meet a certain stereotype as treasurer as well.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Measure_for_Measure

To be fair the Treasurer gets her signature printed on all newly designed currency. Which is kind of cool.

Treasurer of the United States is only really a joke compared to a cabinet position, which it ain’t. But it’s still high government office, the Treasurer directly oversees the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and on the Treasury org chart the Treasurer is equal to various Assistant/Under Secretaries that head their own offices and who are all right below the Deputy Secretary of Treasury overall. The Treasurer regularly meets with the Secretary of Treasury on various issues…it’s an important job just very unimportant relative to the job it is frequently confused with (Secretary of Treasury, one of the “big four.”)