Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Although recent polls suggest that Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is garnering support rivaling that of incumbent Barbara Boxer, Fiorina’s anti-woman beliefs may ultimately thwart her endeavors towards becoming a California representative.

Fiorina remains staunchly opposed to a woman’s right to choose, and threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. This strong resistance to women’s reproductive health choices, however, does not sit well with the vast majority of the people she seeks to represent:

“A full 71 percent of Californians favor either keeping the state’s liberal abortion laws intact or making abortion easier to obtain, according to new data from the Field Poll. The same percentage said they support the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.”

Although Fiorina’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul maintains that reproductive rights won’t be a significant issue for voters this year, she vastly underestimates the importance of choice to constituents. This issue is bound to be a huge hurdle for Fiorina “as she attempts to become the first anti-abortion candidate to win a California race at the top of the ticket since 1986.” California democrats are not the only ones who value reproductive health choices, a large percent of republican and independent voters do as well. Fiorina cannot adequately represent California when her beliefs are so intensely at odds with the majority of constituents.

If Fiorina continues to run an anti-woman campaign, she will likely end up isolating herself from California voters—especially female voters: “A Field Poll released in early July found that women prefer Boxer over Fiorina, 51 percent to 40 percent.” Strikingly this poll also indicates that among independent female voters, who offer a crucial pool of support for GOP candidates running for office in such a Democratic leaning state, “Boxer led Fiorina 49 percent to 35 percent.”

There’s no question as to why Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is favored among California women; throughout her career, Boxer has remained deeply committed to women’s health care issues and has been unwavering in her mission to protect a woman’s right to choose. While Fiorina may be unwilling to stick up for the issues most important to Californians, Boxer has proven to be a representative who fights for the rights most valued by the California people. Boxer’s campaign manager, Rose Kapolczynski, put the situation into significant perspective when she begged the question,

“Are we going to have a senator who defends a woman’s right to choose when it’s under attack by the right wing, or a senator who will join forces with the most extreme anti-choice groups to try to make abortion a crime?”

Sen. Barbara Boxer understands the causes that her constituents care deeply about, and has valiantly fought to preserve the reproductive health care choices that many, including opponent Fiorina, seek to take away. At WCF, we commend Boxer’s efforts in upholding the values significant to Californians, and support her as she continues to be a wonderful representative of her state.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In a recent attack ad, Carly Fiorina accused Senator Barbara Boxer of being an ineffectual representative, with her name on only three bills in the past 18 years. This prompted Rod Pennington to conclude that virtually all female Senators are essentially:

“Empty pants suits keeping chairs warm and taking orders from their male party leadership.”

I’m trying to figure out which Senate Rod Pennington and Carly Fiorina are watching. In the U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer is the first female Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and simultaneously, Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only Senator in charge of two committees at the same time. Also, a quick online search reveals that, in the current Congress alone, Boxer’s name is on over 500 pieces of legislation, including an international effort to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and an important taxpayer protection amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill.

Despite Pennington’s claim that women take their direction from male power-brokers in the Senate, he seems to have forgotten that, in addition to Boxer, who serves as Chief Deputy Whip, Sens. Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln and Debbie Stabenow all hold leadership positions. In fact, the 4-to-10 ratio among the majority leadership is actually much higher than the actual percentage of women in the Senate (17%)—showing that these women are excelling in their political careers.

The recent health care reform debate also made it clear why we need women in Congress. Senator Barbara Mikulski, a leading member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, played a key role in ensuring that women received equal treatment in insurance plans.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Ledbetter shows why having women in Congress—and on the Court—is essential to promoting women’s equality. After Justice Ginsburg’s inspirational dissent, Congress quickly stepped up to remedy our unfair pay systems. Boxer was one of the first to co-sponsor the bill, and was soon followed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell. Although the final bill was not passed until 2009, it seems unlikely that we would have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today without the support of these influential women.

Last year, Sen. Boxer was named the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women’s Issues. This is the first subcommittee to ever focus specifically on women’s issues, and I’m certain that Boxer’s many years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee were instrumental in its creation. In response to her appointment, she eloquently stated that:

“Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world.”

This is an observation that many men would never make. Just as it took Justice Ginsburg to point out that our pay systems were unequal, often we need women to be part of the conversation to show what men choose not to see. In his article, Pennington poses the question:

“Could it be political correctness and the desire to have a woman, any woman, in a high office is to blame?”

The women that I’ve come to respect and admire in the U.S. Senate have fought for women’s rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all. I’m very proud to have these 17 women in the U.S. Senate, and hope the rest of America doesn’t share Pennington’s ridiculous and archaic assertions.

Ever since Sarah Palin declared herself a feminist and anti-choice conservative women began winning primaries across the country, there has been a debate raging about whether these women can be considered feminists.

I’ve made my position clear. Here at WCF, we love that more women are winning races. It helps create an environment where it’s normal for powerful women to hold leadership positions on both sides of the aisle.
I’m also glad to see that these women candidates are spurring a national debate over feminism. Allan Bradley at the Harvard Political Review commented on my Huffington Post piece after being on the Laura Ingraham Show, when I called Palin’s term of “Conservative Feminism” an oxymoron. Bradley writes:

“What Bennett should have written was, ‘We congratulate the women who have won these high-profile primaries in races across the country.  We hope that their obvious and sincere commitment to women’s freedom and equality will force them to re-evaluate their pro-life views.’”

I completely agree. In fact, that’s why after the many victories in the June 8 primaries, I wrote:

“Though some of these women don’t share WCF’s views on reproductive health choices, I am encouraged. This sudden deluge of victories has forced the country to stand up and take notice of women’s political power… That said, I want to ask these candidates one question: If elected, what will you do to advance women’s rights?”

While I understand that Bradley was not trying to defend conservative women’s definition of feminism, his uninformed criticism of women’s groups that are willing to fight for equality in all aspects of life, shows a clear bias. WCF is certainly not alone in stating that feminism is about more than just women succeeding in politics or business. That may be the end goal, but those of us who have been working in this field for years know that reproductive health choices are crucial to protecting opportunities for women to thrive.

Indeed, Bradley acknowledges at the beginning of his article that the outlook for the “Year of the Woman” is not nearly as positive as the news media would have us believe. There have already been a number of losses for women in the primary, and the vast majority of candidates in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program are men.

Although there have been a few high-profile races in which women candidates have been victorious, the fact is that it is still incredibly difficult for women across this country. And I don’t just mean for women candidates—all women are affected by the laws passed that limit women’s freedoms. The more anti-choice, anti-woman candidates we elect—regardless of their gender, or whether they call themselves feminists—hurts American women.

Women’s groups around the country are being attacked for trying “take possession” of feminism. Actually, it was these organizations, like WCF (which has been around since 1974), that helped create and build on the concept of feminism, and are still working hard today to make that dream a reality. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem has even come out against the new conservative pseudo feminism:

“You can be a feminist who doesn’t agree with abortion, would never have an abortion, but you can’t be a feminist who says that other women can’t, and criminalizes abortion.”

Regardless of what the anti-choice movement would like to believe, feminism and reproductive rights go hand in hand. I’m excited about the women who won elections in the past month, and I hope that they keep winning. But I also hope that they will choose to use their new positions to work to help—and not limit—other women’s access to opportunities and success.

This post was submitted by Courtney Samuels, WCF Political Programs Fellow

Can one call herself a feminist without being an advocate for women?

With the numerous victories of Republican women in last week’s primaries, an interesting debate has

developed between feminists and anti-choice women labeling themselves as such.

While it cannot be denied that Fiorina and Haley’s wins are historic, they also beg the question: Are these victories for women?

As feminism and the women’s movement were born out of the need for reproductive freedom in the form of birth control in the 1970’s, can an anti-choice woman running for office be considered a feminist just because she is a woman? The answer: No.

While, here at WCF, we applaud conservative female candidates who have risen above the misogynistic tactics thrown at them during their races, feminist victories will only come from women who support reproductive health choices.

Without the women who fought for freedom and choice in the past, it is likely that Palin, Fiorina, and Haley would not be where they are today. And while freedom from government control is one of the strongest themes touted by the social conservatives (and anyone who believes differently is scolded as un-American/Socialist), government control of reproductive health choices is exactly what many conservative women support.

As WCF President/CEO, Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, said this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show:

[Women need] to have the control to be able to make those important life decisions. If you take away that control from a woman, you take away her economic viability; you take away all the other host of things that make the life that she’s going to enjoy even possible. And that is as American as freakin’ apple pie, Laura!

Well said, Sam!

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Ever since Sarah Palin declared herself a “feminist,” there has been a resurgence in the debate about how to—and who is allowed—to define the word.  This morning, WCF President/CEO Siobhan “Sam” Bennett tried to explain to Laura Ingraham why it’s so important for feminists to stand up for the policies that will lead to gender equality in the United States.

Sam was adamant that the sexist attacks on Nikki Haley and Sarah Palin are reprehensible, and here at WCF, we always make a point to criticize attacks on all women, even if they don’t share our views on reproductive choice.

However, Sam made a crucial distinction between our endorsed candidates and women like Sarah Palin:

Feminism from the very beginning has been about equality for men and women. 81% of Americans believe that… as an individual, not the government, [I] should have control over my own important life decisions, and these women don’t support that… Sarah Palin calling herself a conservative feminist is like BP calling themselves corporate environmentalists. You don’t get to just pick up that word and use it the way you want it.

While these socially conservative women seem to support equality in the workplace and upper echelons of our political system, it is essential that all women—including the disadvantaged and under-educated—have the same freedom in all aspects of life.

In fact, it is disproportionately lower income women who suffer the most from anti-choice policies, which restrict their options and decision-making power. Real feminists cannot ignore this disparity and assume that all women are afforded the privilege and opportunity of people like Carly Fiorina.

Candidates like Fiorina have been able to mount their political campaigns largely due to their personal wealth. Granted, for generations, wealthy men have dominated the political sphere, and I’m glad to see that these women were able to succeed in the business world and promote women’s involvement in government.

But I’m also concerned that these women aren’t looking out for others who have not been as lucky. As Sam put it this morning, reproductive health choices are directly linked to a woman’s quality of life and future success:

If you take away that control from a woman, you take away her economic viability, you take away all the other host of things that make a life that she’s going to enjoy even possible… she needs to be able to make that choice herself.

Women like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina are riding on the coattails of the hard work and success of what pro-choice feminists have achieved. It’s exceedingly unfortunate that they seek to utilize this success do just the opposite for all other women.

We often hear women candidates credit the support of family and friends in their run for office. But the fact is, for women to choose to run for office, they need economic independence, a support system, and the ability to make their own health choices (just as every man in this country does).

Americans have always believed that equality of opportunity is a core value of our society. Let’s not forget that providing reproductive health choices for all will allow women the same chance as men to succeed in politics, business, and life—which is what feminism is all about.

Yesterday’s primaries brought huge victories for women across the country—many who succeeded against great odds, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and victim of egregious misogyny and racism, Nikki Haley, in South Carolina.

But the biggest headline we’re still seeing is how many of yesterday’s victorious women belong to the Republican party. Winning the GOP nomination last night were Carly Fiorina for U.S. Senate in California, Meg Whitman for California Governor, and anti-establishment candidate Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate in Nevada.

Though some of these women don’t share WCF’s views on reproductive health choices, I am encouraged. This sudden deluge of victories has forced the country to stand up and take notice of women’s political power.

That said, I want to ask these candidates one question: If elected, what will you do to advance women’s rights?

Many of you prevailed in spite of the Political Establishment. Now, it is my great hope that you will use your hard-earned collective power to help us break up the Good Ol’ Boys’ Club and change the many existing harmful views against women.

It is my firm belief that we need more women in government—but it’s essential that they use their leadership to protect and empower all women in America.

That means working to turn the tide of the Establishment, which continually looks to restrict women’s freedoms across the board.

We all know how difficult it is for Republican women to defend reproductive health choices. The party’s vicious attacks against Dede Scozzafava last year were a prime example of this.

In fact, RNC member Bill Crocker said in January,

“No more Scozzafavas, please. No more Specters, please. No more Chafees, please.”

Well at WCF, we want many more Scozzafavas, please. At WCF, we constantly look for Republican candidates who do support health choices, work to provide a safe haven for those women, and find new ways to recruit pro-choice Republican women.

Moderate Republican Woman shouldn’t be a bad word. We want both parties to acknowledge that most Americans believe health choices should be left up to the individual, not the government or a politician.

So as the country lies in wait to see how many new GOP women will be elected this November, I challenge  these women to take a stand for their gender—not work against it.

Thanks to Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky for reporting this story! It seems Carly Fiorina, who recently announced her intention to run against Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat in California, has already begun her attacks.

Disappointingly, her first jab at Boxer involves gender and isn’t based on any real issues:

“Barbara Boxer … disrespectfully demanded a Brigadier General refer to her as “Senator” instead of “ma’am” during a recent Senate hearing. I’m sure you’ll agree that Boxer’s arrogance and disrespect for our nation’s military leaders is way out of line.”

Fiorina was referring to the way blown-out-of-proportion “incident” where Sen. Boxer asked to be referred to as Senator instead of Ma’am. I hate to see another woman attacking Boxer for making a perfectly appropriate request, which wouldn’t have been an issue if it had come from a man.

While I should be psyched to see a Senatorial race between two women, it almost makes me want to jump into a hole and pull the hole in after me. I envision the dialogue becoming sexist and, of course, being spun as some kind of “political cat fight” by the media.

I truly hope this won’t be the case. I hope these female candidates will stick to the issues and have an intellectual debate, not sinking to cheap or gender-based attacks. (Especially since Fiorina spoke out against the sexism Palin experienced last election cycle).

But this preliminary comment doesn’t bode well for that scenario. And even if the candidates leave gender alone, we all know the media will be there to make the sexist remarks for everyone. Batten down the hatches, folks—this should be an interesting race.