Women and Politics

Ladies, you didn’t want an equal voice in health care reform, right? Good - because holding 17% of Congress won’t do it for you, and being only 10.5% of today’s special health summit certainly won’t either.

Yes, out of the 38 congressional leaders invited to today’s White House health summit, only four were women. That doesn’t even accurately reflect our sad 17% in Congress.

So, when given the chance to actually create a group with and equal number of men and women, both the White House and members of Congress chose not to? Awesome.

No wonder our government’s broken.

It’s like an endless montage of network news gaffes on the Daily Show: Broken government, broken government, broken government. Only this isn’t so hilarious.

As Americans scramble to make ends meet and wait on bated breath for health care reform, they’re bombarded by accusations of who’s to blame for this mess. Democrats? Bush? Obama? The GOP?

Well, how about men? Considering they’re 83% of Congress, that’s a large group to blame. But it seems our Congresswomen would tend to agree with this sentiment. As Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) shared last month:

“We go to the ladies room and we just roll our eyes at what’s being said out there. And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the health care bill, if we sent the men home, we could get this done this week.”

Shea-Porter has been raked over the coals for this comment, with many calling it sexist. But PunditMom on MOMocrats asks,

“Is it sexist if it’s true? For the most part, women are the ones dealing with care-giving issues for children, parents, in-laws, sisters, and extended family. How can lawmakers really weigh in on what’s needed to address these issues unless they’ve got first-hand experience with some of them?”

With men being over 4/5 of Congress, doesn’t math prove that they’re responsible for the majority of the deadlock? After all, it was the women who stood together against the Stupak and Nelson amendments. It’s the women’s organizations banding together to ensure that health care reform actually helps women and doesn’t strip away any existing rights.

With research rising about women’s positive impact on corporations, boards, and elected offices, it seems some are embracing the need to add more women to government…just not the U.S. As Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand alluded to in 2009, women tend to run for office because they want to get something done, while men just assume they can do the job and enjoy the blood sport of politics.

In a Washington Post article, Katty Kay and Claire Shipman pointed to research showing that Fortune 500 companies with more women at the top outperformed those that didn’t.

“Gender stereotypes aren’t politically correct, but the research broadly finds that testosterone can make men more prone to competition and risk-taking. Women, on the other hand, seem to be wired for collaboration, caution and long-term results.”

Research from the National Council for Research on Women confirms this, saying that women consider different issues and are more collaborative while making decisions, which leads to more win-win outcomes. But this can’t happen when there aren’t enough women at the table.

“When women do reach decision-making positions, it is not until they constitute a critical mass upwards of 30% that they are no longer perceived as representative of a special interest, but rather as full members of the group.”

And the current state of Congress proves this perfectly. With women only holding 17%, their thoughts and suggestions can easily be marginalized and ignored. We have 90 amazing women between the House and Senate, but despite their exemplary ideas and leadership, they can’t overcome their minority status.

So yes - maybe we should send the men home if we want to emerge from this quagmire any time soon. You don’t have to send them all home - just 355 to make it even: 90 women and 90 men.

I think it’s safe to say that things have changed since 1787. Our country is much more diverse and our priorities are a lot different.

Sure, 223 years ago, a big concern was how each state would be represented in the national legislature. The Great/Connecticut Compromise decided that each state would get two Senators, and the House members would be determined by each states’ population.

But, as Annie Lowrey points out in the Washington Post, this seems to make less sense today:

“Half of the population of the nation lives in 10 states, which have 20 senators. The other half lives in 40 states that have 80 senators,” says the official Senate historian, Donald Ritchie. Small states and states whose representatives might tip the balance on a key vote make out like bandits, as their senators demand outsize appropriations in return for their support.”

Lowrey notes, “The Great Compromise was intended to make sure the big states didn’t trample the little guys.”

But who are the “little guys” today? I would argue they’re not states, but the under-and non-represented portions of our population: Women, low-income families, minorities, the young, the old, the middle-aged, etc.

Lowrey poses a radical question: What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?

Get outta town. Our representative democracy actually representing our population accurately? Would that really be so crazy?

I’m sure many would think so…probably the demographic of folks who have been in power since 1787 and couldn’t possibly conceive of changing the system to be fair.

Which makes me really sad, because the Senate that Lowrey describes sounds so wonderful:

“Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets — with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Or how about if senators represented particular demographic groups, based on gender and race? Black women, Hispanic women and Hispanic men would have six each; black men five; and Asian women and men two each.”

And the part that especially made my pro-choice feminist self jump for joy?

“Women voters would control a steady and permanent majority — making, say, discriminatory health-care measures such as the Stupak Amendment and the horrible dearth of child-care options for working mothers seem untenable.”

Sigh. It would be so beautiful. But while it makes perfect sense to me, I know others would dismiss, laugh at, and otherwise criticize the idea to no end.

What do you think? Should our government reflect the makeup of our population?

It’s true. Sad, but true. The United States, a country that boasts its dedication to equality, still gives almost no voice to over 50% of its population. Well, you might say, women got off to a slow start in U.S. government, but we’ve made progress.

Sure. The U.S. elected the first woman to Congress in 1916, Jeannette Rankin. But it wasn’t until 1941 that women broke double digits for their combined seats in the House and Senate.

The year of the woman, 1992, brought us up to a whopping 12.4% of Congress. And here we are today—women holding only 17% of Congress. Clearly, whatever progress we were making has severely stagnated.

Almost a century after electing the first woman, our federal legislature—arguably the most powerful governing body in the world—doesn’t even come close to accurately representing its country. Not by gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, age, or ethnicity.

For being a long-standing world leader—historically ahead of the curve, innovative, powerful—the United States has certainly fallen way behind on the road to gender equality in its government. As we’re ranked 84th in the world for the number of women in our national legislature, I would say we’ve fallen off the equality cart and can barely even see the dust that we’re being left in.

As White House Correspondent Anne E. Kornblut and author of “Notes from the Cracked Ceiling” points out in the Huffington Post, the U.S. currently falls behind Pakistan and Cuba, with many other countries already appointing female leaders.

“At one time, Margaret Thatcher seemed to be the rare example of a female head of state, the isolated exception to the worldwide rule of male-dominated law. Now there are numerous women running countries—from Angela Merkel (Germany) to Michelle Bachelet (Chile) to Cristina Kirchner (Argentina) to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia) to Luisa Dias Diogo (Mozambique) along with a handful of others.”

Kornblut discusses examples of female leaders across the globe, showing how even the men in some societies are promoting the unique qualities of women. In Liberia, after enduring a terrible civil war, people are saying things like, “Men are too violent, too prone to make war,” or “Men have failed us.”

In Iceland, the former male leaders are being blamed for their economic meltdown and are “now looking for a female solution to clean up the mess.”

Several international studies have found women to be more trustworthy and less likely to be corrupt:

“A 1999 study published by the World Bank claimed that women were more trustworthy and public-spirited than men and concluded that greater representation of women in Parliament in a sample of 150 countries in Europe, Africa and Asia led to lower levels of corruption.”

Many countries have turned to women to clean up the mess left after severe national conflict—especially in Africa, from countries like Rwanda to Sierra Leon.

Hmm. So with the United States currently at war(s), suffering from a severe economic recession, with a giant federal deficit, and its citizens becoming more divided by the day, I have to ask: When will we start turning to women for help?

When will we realize that our security, stability, and progress are being inhibited by the lack of diversity in our public leadership? How much worse does it have to get before we have our national awakening? Will we ever get there?

Well, we’re starting to get there…slowly. But even despite our own reports saying that women lawmakers are more effective than their male counterparts, women who dare tout that fact are still criticized. (Cough, Sonia Sotomayor, cough.)

I fear to imagine what terrible circumstances might have to arise before our country finally works to put more women in power…but I certainly hope we won’t have to find out.

As if Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl ad hasn’t already sparked harsh criticism and anger, they decided to go ahead and double down.

Yes, the extreme anti-choice group has produced yet another commercial gem, which will be aired…wait for it…four times during the pregame show.

So now we don’t even have a chance to heat up our queso before having anti-choice rhetoric shoved down our throats.

I find the outright bias and audacity of CBS hard to put into words. Despite my frustration, I find myself laughing at this scenario, as it is truly ridiculous that such a hateful and divisive group is airing five ads during the most-watched sporting event of the year. Five.

Not to mention that it turns out CBS has been in bed with this group for months—helping with the writing of the ad to ensure it was approved for air. Beautiful.

And now, the latest pièce de résistance: “In fitting with the Super Bowl theme, the ad was made with a bit of humor in it,” says Focus on the Family CEO Jim Daly.

I’m sorry, what? Let me repeat that. The organization that founds itself on the sanctity of human life and wholesome family values has produced a humorous commercial about abortion.

And again, I say—can you even imagine the backlash that would occur if Planned Parenthood were to produce a humorous ad about abortion…how pro-choice supporters would be called unfeeling, cruel, and soulless baby haters?

Never before have I seen such a blatant double standard. Never before have I wanted nothing more than to walk into a TV Executive’s office and scream at the top of my lungs.

How has the anti-choice, anti-woman movement managed to hijack public discourse? How have we gotten to a place where their hurtful ideals are eagerly displayed to an audience of over 100 million people?

How did we get here? Studies show we have wide support for a person’s right to make their own personal, private health care decisions across this country. We have many pro-choice elected officials and activists.

But why, despite all this support, do I feel like we’re losing the battle and drowning in hateful ignorance? How do we win the fight back? How do we effectively speak out?

It seems we’re no match for corporate greed and wealthy socially conservative donors. Our voices can’t match their indoctrinating dogma and full wallets. But we must find a way. It just can’t be all about the money.

We must regain our ground in the fight for reproductive health freedoms. We have come too far to be hurled into a place where we have no control over our own bodies…where the public has no respect for women or reproductive rights.

How we get there, I don’t know. But I do know it has to start now, with people across the country in all levels of power. This means, especially, that we need to ensure the election of more pro-choice women to public leadership.

Because I’m here to tell you, Jim Daly, that there is nothing funny about abortion or your vicious campaign to control women. And there never will be.

In deciding to air a Focus on the Family ad during the Super Bowl, CBS executives have effectively outed themselves as anti-choice and anti-woman.

If CBS is trying to avoid controversial issues in Super Bowl commercials, I think it’s safe to say that they’ve failed miserably. Even putting aside the negative frenzy the ad has already caused, let’s remember that Focus on the Family is one of the most contentious, intolerant, and extreme organizations in existence.

Not to mention that reproductive rights is one of the most controversial and dividing issues of our time.

To approve an anti-choice spot and reject an ad for a male dating site (among their past rejections of progressive organizations) shows blatant hypocrisy and bias.

We can’t show two guys making out, but we can talk about abortion?

Defenders of CBS’ decision say yes—that despite its divisive and political message, the ad itself is positive and uncontroversial. Bill O’Reilly asks, how can anyone be offended about Tim Tebow being alive?

But now I have to ask: What if a pro-choice ad had been submitted for the Super Bowl? What if it featured an uplifting story like Tim Tebow’s?

Picture this: Fade in. Moving music plays. Video of children playing. A woman talks about how happy she is that the birth control pill was available to her. She wanted to make sure she became a mother when she was ready. Because of her ability to make that choice, she now has two children who she’s fully able to support. End on picture of happy family. Fade out.

And what if this ad was for Planned Parenthood or National Abortion Federation? Something tells me CBS wouldn’t approve their message to over 100 million Super Bowl viewers. And I don’t think Bill O’Reilly would deem this a “positive message.”

It seems both are making this decision solely based on the ad—not its message, political connotation, or extremely divisive views of the creating organization.

Many organizations, including WCF, are demanding that CBS pull the ad.

TAKE ACTION: Join the Women’s Media Center and add your voice now!

The issue of women’s reproductive health belongs in doctors’ offices, family discussions, and women’s hands.

It doesn’t belong in our government or with politicians. And it most certainly doesn’t belong in the Super Bowl.

In honor of the 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I am Blogging for Choice - a NARAL Pro-Choice America tradition. TOPIC: What does Trust Women mean to you?

Trust. It’s a tricky thing—very difficult to earn, but extremely easy to lose.

It’s a concept most often applied to close personal relationships. You need to trust your family, partner, doctor, friends, auto mechanic, co-workers, etc.

But what about when we think of trust on a larger scale—our government, elected officials, and world leaders? We’re supposed to trust them to protect us and make decisions in our best interests.

In America, we’re granted the freedom to make many personal decisions. Because of this, we’re in essence saying that we trust our fellow Americans to carry out their actions in a careful and harmless manner. Be it with their gun ownership, raising children, public safety, etc.

However, it’s become increasingly clear that some members of our society and even our elected officials don’t trust certain groups of people—be it based on race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or gender.

Women, over half of the US population, certainly don’t seem to be trusted. Sure, it’s better than it was…we’re now trusted to work outside the home, vote, drive a car, and start a business.

But when it comes to the most deeply personal of actions, we don’t trust women to take care of themselves. We don’t trust them to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, and reproductive options.

Men’s reproductive systems are completely left alone—we trust them to make their own decisions about sex, health, vasectomies, and cancer prevention.

But women…oh, no. They’re a different story. We must regulate every aspect of the reproductive health—from birth control to pregnancy to cancer screenings. Because they, clearly, cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves.

They couldn’t possibly decide when to have sex, when to have children, or how to protect themselves. They wouldn’t take these things seriously.

What? If we can’t trust women to take care of their most critical health needs, how are we even trusting them to be in public and function in society? They must be so irrational, frail, and unintelligent—how do we even allow them outside the home?

Despite how damaging it is for anyone to harbor this opinion, the problem is that it’s not just normal individuals—many elected officials don’t trust women, and are constantly working to pass laws that restrict our ability to make personal, private medical decisions.

Though it’s doubly devastating for a woman public official to work against women’s health choices, the current problem is that we don’t have enough women in our government. A pitiful 17% of Congress is women. Some states have never even seen a female Governor or Senator.

I promise you that if we had more women in government, a woman’s right to make her own health decisions wouldn’t even be up for discussion. We could focus on things like the economy, environment, and national security, instead of what a woman does with her doctor.

This is why in addition to fighting the ridiculous legislation coming at us from anti-choice, anti-women officials, we also have to work to elect more pro-choice women, immediately. (First step: Getting more women thinking about running for office). This will be the only permanent way to end the vicious attacks on women’s reproductive freedoms.

We have to start trusting women. Trust them to choose, trust them to run, and trust them to lead. Or we may never see the day when our personal health decisions are truly our own.