Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

I have to admit that I was startled when I first read the title of Katrin Bennhold’s New York Times article, “Feminism of the Future Relies on Men.” Despite the evocation of the future, I braced myself to see the archaic rhetoric of women’s dependency masked in the guise of Palin-inspired “conservative feminism.”

Fortunately, my defense was unnecessary. Instead of the antiquated discourse I had expected, I received a thought-provoking account of the obstacles to gender equality that still exist in the Western world.

The picture that Bennhold paints of women’s stance today is an accurate one in that it is full of confounding contradictions:

“Women earn more doctorates, but less money. They are overtaking men in the work force, but still do most housework. They make the consumer decisions but run only 3 percent of Fortune 500 companies.”

As a stalwart feminist working for women’s advancement in public office, I find myself constantly confronted with the same message: “We have come so far, and yet we have so far to go.”

Why has gender equity proved so difficult to achieve, especially when women excel in so many areas? How is it that we still have such a long way to go?

The answer is perhaps an obvious one.

“In the Western world, motherhood remains the barrier to gender equality. Until they have children, young women now earn nearly the same as men and climb the career ladder at a similar pace. With the babies often come career breaks, part-time work and a rushed two-shift existence that means sacrificing informal networks like the after hours beer-and-bonding experience often crucial at promotion time.”

Unequal division of labor in the household still thwarts women’s advancement in the workforce. Women get pregnant and have to take time off from work. Women go on maternity leave and have to put their careers on the backburner. Women are responsible for the post-work “second shift” of housework and child rearing.

Where are all the men?

When it comes to household division of labor, women have become content with the status quo. Surely feminists have fought valiantly to change the dynamics of the workplace to better accommodate women’s needs—women have negotiated for adequate maternity leave policies, argued for more flexible hours, and opened up avenues for part-time work or work-from-home opportunities in order to balance their roles in the workplace and the home.

As significant as these steps may be, they have not yet yielded sufficient solutions. Women have already proved that they can enter into the “world of men.” What they need to do now, Bennhold postulates, is concentrate on “pulling men into women’s universe.”

“The only thing that can level the playing field at work is a level playing field at home. And that requires a major shift in public policy and corporate culture.”

Gender equality should apply to all realms, in and out of the office. Moreover, gender equality should be important to all people, men and women alike. The solution, it seems, is to inform men of their role in perpetuating gender inequality, to show men how they can benefit from gender equality, and to ultimately engage men in the feminist movement.

As Joanne Dreyfus claims, “Men have a lot to gain from the rise of women.” Men deserve more time in the home with their families, and if the corporate environment were to accommodate men by including paternity leave policies and more flexible work schedules for all employees, both men and women could benefit from a more manageable work-home balance.

Furthermore, employers need to recognize that accommodating all of their employees will aid the advancement of women in the workplace—something companies can be sure to profit from. Research continues to demonstrate that women’s increased involvement in leadership positions positively influences decision-making processes.

I was, therefore, slightly disturbed by Bennhold’s assertion that “guys are the more effective feminists because other guys are more likely to listen to them” (Is feminism yet another realm where men supposedly exceed women?). This claim implies that it’s not important for women to hold leadership positions because men can more effectively push these policies on their own.

Certainly it is vital to convince men already in power of how gender equality will benefit all people. But men alone cannot accomplish the task at hand any more than women alone can. It is crucial to have men and women participating in leadership roles together, constantly in dialog to create policies that help all people reach their fullest potential.

So yes, we must persuade men that gender equality is worth fighting for. But as we enlist men in our cause, we absolutely cannot cease in our endeavor to achieve equal representation in leadership. If we fail to usher more talented women into leadership roles, gender equality will never be realized and our country will suffer the consequences.

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.

Let me say this one more time: Sarah Palin is not a feminist. In fact, the fabricated term “conservative feminist” is an oxymoron.

As I said this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show, Sarah Palin calling herself a conservative feminist is like BP calling themselves a corporate environmentalist. You don’t get to just pick up that word and use it the way you want it.

I think we can all agree that feminism is about equality. Where we disagree is whether or not “equality” extends to all aspects of a woman’s life—including reproductive health choices.

To me and the many other women’s rights activists who have spoken out on this subject, claiming to support equality for women—without trusting them to make the most important and personal life decisions—is both absurd and insulting.

Feminism is intrinsically linked to a woman’s ability to make the same decisions as a man. Women need to have control over their own important life decisions. It’s that simple. If you take that power, that basic right of autonomy, away, you take away a woman’s economic viability, personal freedom, and any ability to make her life her own.

True feminism means giving women choices. Anything else is silly putty feminism—stretching the word far beyond all meaning and recognition.

What’s ironic is how women like Palin and Fiorina are reaping the benefits of the pro-choice feminist movement. And that’s fine…when women have equal representation in public office, we will of course have women on both ends of the political spectrum.

But I find it immensely sad that these women aim to revoke the very rights which afforded them their chance to become successful political figures.

Of course, I can’t change that. However, these women don’t get to turn around and completely redefine the word feminist. They don’t get to steal, mangle, and distort its meaning. Not on my watch, and not on the watch of the many organizations that truly defend women’s rights.

Even putting feminism aside, 81% of Americans believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should have control over their own important life decisions, according to their own circumstances and values.

Government isn’t about forcing your own personal beliefs on the masses—and neither is feminism.

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.

I’ve attended Netroots Nation in the past as a candidate, which helped propel my online campaign to a whole new level. This year, I had the pleasure of attending Netroots as the President/CEO of WCF, which was a tremendously enriching experience.

It was inspiring to listen to and meet women like Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend—who I watched win one of the first annual WMC Women in Media awards earlier this year, presented to her by Gloria Steinem.

Of many panels I attended, one that especially stood out to me was about feminist blogging, organized by former WCF blogger and PunditMom, Joanne Bamberger. What a thrill it was to hear Amanda Marcotte, Jill Filipovic, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, Lindsay Beyerstein, and Pam talk about their pioneering work as feminist bloggers! These remarkable young women leaders are the future of the movement.

What really stood out for me was that as women bloggers, their very presence on a blog required the addition of “trap doors” and enhanced “TOS (Terms of Service)” due to the instant misogyny their presence elicited. Striking. These are the hurdles that men never experience.

There are also, of course, challenges that are unique to women candidates. We all agreed, audience and panel alike, that we cannot let blatant sexism thrive in our political system anymore.

I shared my story of when I was running for U.S. Congress in 2008: My local paper plucked from the internet this juicy tidbit and decided it was appropriate to run day after day on the front page (I apologize for the profanity):

“Sammy Bennett is a phony political wh***, who makes cheap political opportunists look like fuc**** Mother Theresa. Even her c*** is made of plastic.”

Yes, folks—misogyny is alive and well. We must create a unified force against all kinds of institutionalized and accepted sexism, whether it be as blatant and crass as I encountered, or more covert.

With the support of the amazing women activists and bloggers I met at Netroots, I know we have the players on the field to fight—and one day win—this battle.

picture by: Frank Hurley

Iconic feminist leader Gloria Steinem turns 75 today. As Gina Salamone in NYDailyNews writes, Her words continue to be motivating and inspirational:

“Women and girls no longer feel crazy, alone or flying in the face of nature if they have the outrageous idea that they should be treated as full human beings,” the feminist leader and social activist told The News Tuesday. “Knowing that the system is crazy, not you, is a huge leap forward.”

While we celebrate everything she’s done to advance women’s equality, she reminds us that the fight ain’t over yet.

“We’ve demonstrated that women can do what men do, but not yet that men can do what women do. That’s why most women have two jobs — one inside the home and one outside it — which is impossible. The truth is that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.”

Steinem hopes we can keep making progress on issues such as reproductive rights, women in politics, and domestic violence.