Women and Politics

Cross-posted from Women’s Media Center and Huffington Post

Women leaders have shown they know how to work together, whether it’s in the public or private sector. Women’s Campaign Forum President Sam Bennett describes a new initiative to put enough women in office this year to overcome the political impasse plaguing our nation’s lawmakers.
I know I’m not the only one to find myself watching the news in disbelief day after day. We listen to pundits, elected officials, and even the vice president call our government “broken.” This sentiment was only reinforced at last week’s White House health care summit when the partisan stalemate continued—only four women had been invited.

Who’s at fault and how do we get out of the seemingly endless deadlock? Some dare to argue that men are to blame. Somewhat earlier in the health care debate, Representative Carol Shea-Porter said of her sister House members: “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.”

A bold statement? Yes. But studies have shown that women, who hold only 90 out of 535 seats in Congress, legislate differently—often being more collaborative and ensuring more win-win outcomes—than men. Women in the House and Senate stood together against the Nelson and Stupak amendments, just as women’s organizations banded together to ensure health care reform’s effectiveness and prevent the elimination of any existing rights.

And it’s not just women asserting that we need more women in public office. For our Women’s Campaign Forum (WCF) Parties of Your Choice Gala in New York next Thursday, we’ve gathered prominent leaders from the fields of business, media, theater, politics, fashion, and publishing. Folks like NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash, The View co-host Sherri Shepherd, musician/singer-songwriter Moby, former 60 Minutes Executive Editor Philip Scheffler, fashion designer Vivienne Tam, and actor Alexander Chaplin will come together to support the need to increase women’s political representation.

These WCF events have mobilized supporters from across the country for three decades now. But this year, it’s with a much greater sense of urgency. To underline the need right now to elect more women to fix our broken government, we will debut our national awareness campaign (Who Needs More Women in Government? Everyone.) via a performance piece written by and starring a broad array of female leaders. Performers—including former CEO Christie Hefner, WNBA President Donna Orender, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Elizabeth “Liz” Shuler, and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner—will be perched on ladders in the middle of Christie’s Auction House at the gala reception to command attention in a launch of a campaign designed to disturb the complacency of our nation.

Most people, when hearing that the U.S. ranks 84^th in the world, behind Afghanistan and Cuba, in the percentage of women in the national legislature, are briefly surprised—“Oh wow, I didn’t think it was that bad”—but the thought process stops there. We need everyone to realize the true weight of this disparity: That women’s political inequality isn’t just a “shame.” It’s actually halting progress and damaging our country.

As Womenomics authors Katty Kay and Claire Shipman point out, research has shown the many benefits of having more women at the decision-making table—leading to a wake-up call among many U.S. companies. In addition to focusing on collaboration, women seek out long-term results and tend to take fewer risks. The positive results of women’s leadership can be demonstrated by corporations’ performance: “By all measures, more women in your company means better performance. Pepperdine [University] found that the Fortune 500 firms with the best records of putting women at the top were 18 to 69 percent more profitable than the median companies in their industries.”

Considering we’re currently at war, suffering from a severe economic recession, and unable to fix a broken health care system, I have to ask: When will our political system acknowledge women’s unique ability to enact change?

Given our current state of wheel-spinning and political gridlock, it would behoove us to make 2010 another Year of the Woman—one that this time will have staying power. (We harked back to that historic 1992 election year for the cover of our gala invitation, which shows women walking up steps on the Hill.) And yes, we need more women on both sides of the aisle. That’s why WCF works to recruit female candidates from all parties, across the country, at all levels of office. But as we’ve learned with Sarah Palin, not all women support reproductive health choices, and we acknowledge that finding a Republican candidate who will stand up for women’s health can be difficult. Yet the country is hungry for female moderate Republican candidates who will do just that.

WCF currently has more than 30 endorsed candidates for 2010—18 of whom are running for Congress. And we only expect those numbers to increase, as more applications flood in every week. But will we really move the needle on women’s unequal representation this November, or even this decade?

The Women’s Campaign Forum has been in the game for 36 years now and endorsed thousands of women. When we were founded, there were no female senators and 16 congresswomen. Since 1974, the percentage of women in Congress has gone from three to 17 percent—only a 14 percent increase. Today we have organizations all over the country working to elect more women, yet our progress has stagnated. Many estimate that at our current rate of growth, it will take more than 70 years to achieve political gender equality.

So what’s it going to be, America? Will we continue to stand agape at our broken government the way children stare at a broken toy, or will we answer the wake-up call and elect more women?

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

This month marks the end of our crazy snow-filled winter and the beginning of spring. But more importantly, March is Women’s History Month. I cannot think of a better time to address the importance of having more women in elected office.

The year 1992 was dubbed the “year of the woman” and for good reason too. A record-breaking amount of women candidates on the federal ticket motivated more than 60 million women to go to the polls and vote. The 1992 election resulted in the most women ever elected to U.S. Congress in any single election; to be precise, 24 women were elected to the house of representative and 5 women were elected to the U.S. Senate. Perhaps Americans believed that women could continue this trend of increasing more women in government with every election.

But 18 years later, women remain extremely underrepresented in Congress; only 90 out of the 535 members of Congress are women. No wonder double standards regarding women candidates still exist; Dawn Johnsen has still not been confirmed to head the Office of the Legal Counsel after a year of delays; and there was a severe under representation of women at President Obama’s Healthcare Summit.

Now, more than ever, we need another “year of the woman.” In a time in which some of the biggest reforms in America’s healthcare system are being proposed, women’s reproductive freedoms are truly in the hands of our elected officials. Only women know what best for women’s bodies, and it’s been proven again and again that it takes female elected officials to ensure our rights aren’t stripped away.

To combat the national complacency around women’s political inequality, WCF is launching its national awareness campaign, “Who Needs More Women in Government? Everyone.” This campaign will officially kickoff at the 30th Annual Parties of Your Choice Gala on Thursday March 11th.  It will begin with the premiere of a dramatic performance piece co-written and performed by a wide array of powerful female leaders such as Christie Hefner, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler, and WNBC President Donna Orender.

This original performance piece will not only state the need for more women in government, but why there is this need. Women bring a whole new set of qualities and perspectives to the table, which adds a breadth of talent and wisdom to our country’s direction. Research shows that women tend to avoid risk, increase collaboration, and ensure more win-win outcomes than their male counterparts.

2010 must be the year that our entire nation gets serious about electing more women to public office. The future of our country depends on it.

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

Although the country remains deeply divided about how to accomplish health care reform, there are few who would dispute the great need for it. However, it seems only a fraction of people have a true grasp on just how sexist our current system is. And with women holding only 17% of the seats in Congress, there’s certainly no guarantee that this disparity will be properly addressed.

Adding insult to injury, last week’s White House health care summit included only six women out of 42 attendees. Dan Rather knows this is ludicrous:

“If more women were in the room, might the debate have been different? If there were more women in Congress (which is around 17 percent female), might our politics be less rancorous and might our elected officials get more accomplished? There’s a school of thought that is emerging that suggests the answer is yes.”

Luckily one congresswoman spoke up for women’s health. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) made a dramatic call for healthcare, touching upon a wide array of issues that relate to our broken healthcare system and women. Calling the pre-existing conditions regulations cruel and capricious, she said:

“Eight states in this country right now have declared that domestic violence is a preexisting conditions on the ground, I assume, that if you’re been unlucky enough to get yourself beaten up once you might go around and do it again”.

Yes that is correct. If you live in Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming, or the District of Columbia and you’ve been abused by your husband or significant other, you will probably be denied health insurance.

Furthermore, Slaughter called upon the importance of having a higher percentage of women in government  in order for our voices to be heard:

“In 1991, women were not included in any of the trials at the NIH because we had hormones. It wasn’t until we had a critical mass of women here that said this will not do for more than half the population of the United States, who pay taxes, that we made certain that diseases like osteoporosis, mainly a woman’s disease, cervical cancer, only a woman’s disease, uterine cancer and others were really looked at”.

In time when crucial legislation is constantly being debated, most of which affects women directly, it is unacceptable that only 17% of Congress is women. Without increasing the number of women we have in elected office, we leave ourselves open to more legislation that restricts our reproductive choices and endangers our health.

A clip of Slaughter’s statement can be found here.

It took strong women such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Barbara Boxer to narrowly defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment last December.

Women know what’s best for women, but 90 out of 535 in our federal government not nearly enough. Perhaps fixing our lopsided government is the first step in fixing our broken health care system.

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.

When will you female candidates learn? You can’t be too emotional, that makes you seem weak. But don’t be too cold, that makes you an Ice Queen. Definitely don’t focus on your gender, but don’t ignore it either.

Talk about your family and kids, but not too much, because a busy candidate can’t be a good mother. If you don’t have kids, you’d better be extra warm and fuzzy.

So how can you act, you ask? That question remains unanswered. Why? Because our society has developed so many extreme stereotypes for women that we no longer know how to respond. We don’t know what’s safe.

As a result, female candidates end up trying to traverse the icy trail of double standards, attempting to choose between one extreme over the other, floundering around in the middle, or just trying to be themselves.

Hillary Clinton has always been a strong leader who doesn’t take any crap. But it wasn’t her experience or vision that won over some voters, it was the fact that she cried on television. (”Oh good, she does have emotions, I had no idea”). Would voters ever need to see a male candidate cry to earn their support? Of course not. But apparently Clinton had acted too removed, too hard, too much like…a man for people’s taste.

But if Clinton had come out of the gate overflowing with emotion about women and her campaign, she would have been blasted for being a sappy female.

Meanwhile, Martha Coakley has repeatedly been called “icy” and is now criticized for not emphasizing the historic nature of her campaign. But should a female candidate dare express that her gender is indeed one of her many qualifications, the response I always hear is, “I won’t vote for a woman just because she’s a woman.”

It seems women just can’t win. And believe me, it’s not just women pointing this out (nor are women excluded from judging based on stereotypes). To POLITICO, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) recounted that despite her overwhelming win in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton still faced sexism from voters there.

McGovern also brought up how a local paper concluded that Coakley’s new hair and makeup style were to blame for the race tightening:

“They wouldn’t write this about a man,” McGovern said. “I still think we have a long way to go to make this an equal playing field.”

James Carroll of The Daily Beast describes Massachusetts’ rich and long history of misogyny toward female candidates:

“The short of it is that the most liberal state in the nation … practices the politics of misogyny. When it comes to positions of real power, no women need apply. Martha Coakley was croaked by an electorate that could not get past her gender.”

Martha Coakley’s loss in the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat leaves many of us angry that the “progressive” state of Massachusetts continues to squeeze out women. It also leaves us frightened about the future of women’s reproductive rights in the health care bill.

Without Coakley, preventing attacks on choice in health care reform looks bleak. And if Massachusetts serves as a thermometer for the way our country is viewing female candidates, we’re in big trouble.

It’s 2010, folks—when will the double standards stop?

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow.

Today Massachusetts voters head to the polls to decide who will replace the legendary Senator Ted Kennedy.

Their votes could also ultimately decide the fate of health care reform. It seems a vote for Martha Coakley would take us one step closer to passing health care reform, whereas a vote for Scott Brown would do the opposite.

Brown has already made it public that he is adamantly against Obama’s healthcare bill, and without his support, health care reform will suffer another round of delays. At a time in which millions of Americans do not have health insurance, many those being women and children, a delay in the passage of this bill is simply not an option.

Electing Coakley is a necessary move, not only for the future of health care reform, but for increasing the representation of women in government. If elected, Coakley will join a mere 17 other women senators in the U.S. Congress and will make her the 39th woman to ever serve as a Senator.

In a country where women make up 51% of the population, having such a large minority of women serving in Congress is simply unacceptable—especially at a time when legislation directly affecting women’s health is being debated. As the Stupak and Nelson amendments demonstrated, the lack of female perspective is severely damaging to the legislation affecting millions of lives.

If the DCCC had a female Chair, do you think she would be urging Bart Stupak to run for re-election, as Chris Van Hollen is? Certainly not.

We need a senator who won’t throw women under the bus. We need a senator who will defend the civil rights of all Americans. We need a senator who will move our country forward, not throw it backward. We need Martha Coakley.

The outcome lies in the hands of Massachusetts voters, but their decisions today will impact the entire country for years.