Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

I hope all of you read WCF President/CEO Siobhan “Sam” Bennett’s most recent op-ed in the Huffington Post. She does an excellent job refuting Sarah Palin’s claim that her “mama grizzlies” represent the majority of American women. I completely agree with Sam that while we love how women are getting engaged in politics, this vein of political activism is actually detrimental to women’s rights and equality.

Unfortunately, Adrienne Royer at Cosmopolitan Conservative doesn’t seem to have understood this message. She read Sam’s article and declared that:

“Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women.”

However, Sam’s point was that these women’s views don’t include protecting women’s rights and equality for all people. Sam actually made the argument that:

“Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.”

Indeed, here at WCF, we’re proud to endorse Republican women that recognize the importance of allowing women to make their own health decisions. As the Republican party has become more anti-woman in its platform, this brand of Republican woman has been harder and harder to find; however, WCF has a proud history of endorsing hundreds of Republican women that were not afraid to stand up for women.

This was the crux of Sam’s argument—that anti-woman policies do not need to define conservative women. Sarah Palin’s attempt to co-opt feminism for herself and her radical followers is not a move that will serve women well.

In her post, Royer identifies herself as a pro-life woman who supports the use of contraceptives. While this is not the position that WCF has chosen, this shows the dynamic nature of this issue. Despite the experiences in her own family, Sarah Palin doesn’t support comprehensive sex education or access to contraceptives. I agree with Royer that abortion, contraception, and sex-ed:

“Are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities.”

But I disagree with her contention that these issues don’t go hand-in-hand. The idea that access to comprehensive sexual education and contraceptives is somehow separate from other important health decisions is simply false. Conservative, anti-choice groups would like to believe that if we ignore the issue, by teaching abstinence-only sex-ed and limiting access to essential health resources, the problem will go away.

Royer criticized WCF’s use of a poll that showed that 81% of Americans support individuals making their own health choices—because it was 4 years old. I hate to break it to her, but women have needed to make these choices throughout history—and for a long time, they had to do it alone, and in a way that often endangered their lives. Perhaps she should take her own advice that:

“Women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Women should be able to make all the same decisions that men can—including over their own bodies and health care needs. No one’s political views—Sam’s, mine, or Sarah Palin’s—should limit anyone else’s right to make their own important health choices.

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.

While Sarah Palin’s laundry list of controversial views has incensed a broad spectrum of Americans, she has been an especially sharp thorn in the sides of feminists. And with her ever-increasing celebrity status, it seems we just can’t escape her damaging rhetoric.

But things just managed to get worse. Now Palin is claiming that she’s a feminist? (April Fools? … j/k? … No?)

As if we don’t have enough trouble battling blatant anti-woman forces…now we have to face a political celeb who mistakenly identifies herself as one of us? Oye.

With feminists like Sarah Palin, who needs enemies?

It seems that Palin thinks by putting the word “Conservative” in front of “feminist,” she’s able to magically change its intrinsic meaning. It would be like calling yourself a meat-loving vegetarian—it just doesn’t work. Their goals directly contradict each other.

Of course, many actual feminists have already refuted and condemned Palin’s false identification. Simply put by Taylor Marsh,

“Anything less than supporting women’s full individual rights simply renders you a pretender, a fake, a feminist fraud.”

While there has been debate about whether or not you can be an anti-choice feminist, the majority of thought and most of the feminist community concludes that you can’t. (Basically, an individual’s choice for or against abortion for themselves shouldn’t apply to everyone - but that’s a giant topic for another day.)

As Palin has done nothing but use her own personal decisions to showcase her anti-reproductive choice stance, it’s clear that she doesn’t support women’s freedom to make their own personal choices. Heretofore, she is not a feminist.

In fact, I would argue that it’s worse than that: Sarah Palin’s politics, views, and approach are actually harmful to women.

I say this especially in light of her battle plans against female candidates who would actually advocate for women’s rights. In fact, she’s targeting many WCF-Endorsed Candidates.

WCF works to get more women into public office, from both sides of the aisle. But we, along with many women’s organizations, believe that it’s imperative to elect more women who will defend women’s reproductive health.

Unfortunately, Palin’s recent actions aren’t just threatening to women’s health—her venomous and uncompromising approach to politics harms our entire country.

Many note that Palin and Bachmann’s political approach disproves the idea that women collaborate more than men. As former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) said,

“With Sarah and Michele [Bachmann], they’re not listeners — they want to tell you what to believe, so it’s a very different style than most women in politics have had.”

But at a time when explosive partisan politics continues to deepen our divisions, do we really want leaders who will only continue to tear that expanse further apart?

And I must remind everyone that Palin’s extreme reproductive choice views don’t reflect those of most Americans; who believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should decide which option is best for themselves and their families.

It deeply saddens me to witness the destruction caused by women like Sarah Palin; who could use their powers for good, not evil; whose goals aren’t to truly empower women, but strip them of their freedoms; who don’t foster much-needed collaboration, but boast how they would further divide; who aren’t a true voice for all women, but tow the line of minority opinion.

As recent elections have overwhelmingly demonstrated, our current political system often fails women. And Palin’s tactics only further polarize our political system, making it increasingly difficult for women to succeed within it.

I truly hope that voters this November will choose collaboration over division; new approaches over stale partisan politics; and advancing women’s rights instead of turning back the clock.

WCF-endorsed former candidate for NY-23

Remember Dede? She was edged out of the race for Congress in NY-23 because she dared to be a female moderate Republican. After suspending her race, she endorsed the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who ended up winning over the GOP-backed Conservative candidate.

In a recent interview with CNN, Dede recounted how atrocious the attacks against her truly were:

“The attacks were pretty vicious, especially since it was coming from people who identify themselves as Republicans.”

Robo calls from her Conservative opponent used terms like “homo-lover” and “child-killer” to describe her.

About the outside Republicans who swooped in to oppose her, such as Sarah Palin, Dede said:

“They had no understanding of who I was and no understanding of the issues that drove the district. So for people to come out and be endorsing a candidate in a race in a place that they knew nothing about, I thought it was pretty disingenuous.”

To top it all off, Dede has now been strong-armed out of her state Assembly seat. POLITICO says that Assembly Minority Leader Brain Kolb had been receiving complaints about Dede from his members, and decided to “have a frank discussion” with her. Aka, ask her to resign.

But even after all of this—after her party turned against her, viciously attacked her, and now dumped her—Dede says she plans to remain a Republican. She hopes the party can be unified moving forward so that they can agree on core principals.

Dede says she has no regrets about her decisions, even her support of the Democratic candidate:

“I do not regret, at all, the endorsement,” she said. “And I do not regret running.”

Dede, we don’t regret you running, either. Not even a little bit. Thank you for being brave enough to stand up and say, “I’m a female Republican who supports reproductive choices and gay rights, and that’s OK.”

Thank you for helping to put another crack in the political glass ceiling. Your story will help inspire future women candidates who dare to break the mold.

It seems that Dede Scozzafava’s party is failing her. Word came today of even more Republicans jumping ship to back Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 special election.

At first, I had hope. The list of people backing Hoffman wasn’t exactly current party leadership: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Former New York Gov. George Pataki, Former House majority leader Dick Armey, Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

However, now we hear that National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman (NRCC) Pete Sessions is jumping ship on Dede, too. Sessions told POLITICO he would welcome Hoffman “with open arms.”

So now, thanks to those who don’t feel that the Republican Party should embrace ideals such as women’s rights, Hoffman is rising in the polls, and the GOP is afraid of losing the Republican seat.

To those who abandoned their own candidate, I have to ask: What if you stood in defense of Dede instead of caving to outside pressure? What would the outcome be if her party actually supported her properly?

Is this how all Republican female candidates should expect to be treated—left in the dust when faced with opposition? Abandoned for standing up against sexual abuse? Cast aside to endorse a candidate who drags the party backward?

Shame on you for deserting your own candidate, and double shame on you for deserting a strong female candidate, who you so desperately need for your party’s future.