When will the women of this nation stop accepting "guilt gifts" from the men in their lives who act abusively?
When will we say "enough is enough" and turn a deaf ear to half-hearted, mealy-mouthed apologies that provide poor salve for hateful and hurtful actions and words?
When will we finally deliver the tough love and consequences for improper behavior?
I'm posing these questions in large measure because October is National Domestic Violence Month. Yet, more specifically, I want to shed light on the ugly abuse women have been experiencing in the political arena this election season as well as election cycles past.
Certainly, it is shamefully obvious that Jerry Brown and his campaign have a real contempt and lack of respect for women. Come on Jerry -- "whore?"
Of course when questioned about the use of the sexually derogatory term to refer to Meg Whitman, his Republican opponent in the California race for Governor, Mr. Moonbeam dismissed the slur as simply "salty language"before backing into an insincere apology.
Yet, more disturbing than the slur is the fact that the leaders of the California chapter of the National Organization of Women still insist on endorsing a man who refers to an intellectual giant, one of the leading entrepreneurs of the 21st century, a renowned and respected women, as a "whore."
In stereotypical June Cleaver fashion, the women of California NOW put the needs of others before self interest. They allowed loyalty to "the Party", in this case the Democrats, to trump their womanhood.
Every women's organizations, and for that matter, every men's organization, should have ZERO tolerance for sexism and anti-woman rhetoric. Slurs and slanders against any woman should mean the automatic cancellation and revocation of All endorsements.
Unfortunately, the disrespect for women and our issues doesn't begin and end with Jerry Brown. And ironically this dismissive attitude toward women seems most acute in the party most beholden to female voters -- Democrats.
Historically, for Democrats, women have been a dependable and constant constituency and this election cycle is no different. Recent polls conclude that 52 percent of women will vote Democrat and 40 percent Republican in the midterms. That is why in this final stretch to the election the President has taken to the campaign trail to urgently woo as many women as possible in a last ditch effort to halt a potential GOP onslaught.
Yet, it is hard to understand our loyalty when the Democrats have shown a lack of support for us and our issues.
Even the staunchest Democrats don't believe the Party is doing enough, nor has it done enough to promote women into public office, ensure equal opportunities for women, or ensure federal contracts are awarded to women.
It is more than a bit disingenuous, if not downright insulting, to have Democratic leaders come begging in the 11th hour for women to turn out and vote.
You want us to "hold our cute little button noses" and vote the Democratic ticket when the party has all but abandoned many of its female candidates?
According to Politico, Democratic women are in danger of losing electoral ground in the midterm. This reversal of female fortune is due in large measure to the fact that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has decided to cut or dramatically reduce funding to at least 16 percent, (nine of its 56) female House members. Admittedly, the Democrats have pulled funding from a number of male House members as well, but the DCCC "defunding ratio" is approximately 3 women for every man.
Democratic women can't help but feel somewhat betrayed by the party.
If the Democrats want women to turn out and vote, they need to make some extra efforts to address our needs. Here are ten concrete and measurable steps the DNC can and should immediately take to win women back:
Before you become too comfortable, you Republicans get no pass on this issue -- not when men make up 83 percent of Congress.
These ten action items are already being implemented by fellow world leaders. As it stands now 89 other countries boast a higher percentage of female representation in government than the United States. That's unacceptable. It is imperative that both parties commit to embracing legislation to close America's glaring gender gap.
Countries as wide ranging as France and India have laws on their books require significant female participation in their governments (40 percent in France and 30 percent in India).
Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has taken the female participation mandate into its corporate board rooms through its Employment Equity Act. And while the legislation doesn't set quotas, but instead establishes policies to encourage the hiring of women, it has resulted in women holding nearly 30 percent of the jobs in the country's largest federal and provincial Crown corporations.
Yes, Democrats we hear your pleas. We know you need us to help stem the rising GOP tide. However, the question is -- Will we women heed your call?
It's not enough to turn a blind eye to our needs. It's not enough to airdrop a study 10 days before the election. Please don't insult us by noticing us only when it comes time to "turn out and vote."
And if, by chance, we Democratic and independent women help you keep the House and Senate, know this -- we are disillusioned at best, and disgusted or disaffected at worst with the Democratic Party. Apologies for poor behavior and inaction just won't do. There are consequences.
“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. At issue is the extent to which this pattern of gender bias reflects flawed “dominant aggressor” guidelines and assumptions about IPV based on discredited sociopolitical theories of patriarchy”
“Victimized males do not have access to services because of the assumption that they are only minimally impacted by IPV, if at all. This assumption, however, runs contrary to an overwhelming body of research evidence. A significant minority of IPV-related physical injuries, between 25% and 43%, are incurred by men (Archer, 2000; Laroch, in preparation; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Straus, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and men are the victims in nearly a quarter of intimate homicides (Rennison, 2003)”
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/NFVLRC_2_.Policy.statement.pdf
95% of workplace dead are men..It will take 4,500 years for women to achieve parity for 100 years if no men die in the workplace for that time.
Men die 7 years earlier than women from stress and hard labor...If every woman dropped dead today that would make up for a mere 10 years of early death from men.
There are 10 womens health centers in the federal guv, there are 0 for men.
Title IX, Affirmative Action, ect., the list is endless, give women privelege and entitlements over men in school, sports, earnings and job placement.
80% of suicides and 85% of homeless are men, Government help is offered only to women.
If a divorced man who owes child support loses his job and can't affors to pay the Bradley Ammendment states there is NO excuse not to pay, he will be jailed for the crime of being poor.
For any crime a woman recieves less than 1/2 the sentence of a man.
All this and countless more female privelege yet men are oppressor's. If nothing else, american men will go down as the worst oppressors ever in the history books of the future.
These numbers were not achieved through quotas. Targets are goals. Goals to achieve with the best qualified candidates. With women comprising more the 50% of university students in US surely there are a few qualified female candidates for Boards, legislatures, upper management etc.
Caren is a fabulous writer and thinker. She gets it. Now it is time for us to step up to the plate too!
Try some different vantage points once in a while. The "angry feminist" angle is but one way to examine an issue.
Too bad when appearance means more than actual candidate performance. Hopefully most women will take no notice of the "looks" but will do their own homework on the candidates and incumbents and make logical, factual decisions.
What will be said about their business savvy when they spend their millions and walk away with nothing?
The Republican says "It's their money to do with as they please."
The Democrat says "Thank heavens that spend thrift is not in charge of spending MY tax dollars.
I am not speaking of stupid comments about appearenece or family status; strictly policy issues.
Imagine if Joe Biden really tore into Sarah Palin in the 2008 VP debate. It would have looked like bullying and Biden would not be respected for his superior knowledge and experience, but because he was harsh and aggressive.
remember when Rick Lazio walked across the stage to get Hillary to sign a no new taxes pledge during their senate debate? The race was all Hillary's after that fatal blunder because, again, Lazio was perceived to be physically threateninig Hillary.
If Biden and Lazio were running against Hank and Sam and not Hillary and Sarah, it would be perceived very differently.
Woman play the gender card, too. Like when Sharon Angle tells Harry Reid to "man up."
What should Reid's reply be? Answer? He really has none, unless he wants to appear harsh and aggressive.
The women candidates running under the Tea Party banner and with R beside their name are the subject of ridicule from the left and there is no outcry from traditional feminists. Women still on the fence who are politically aware certainly must be taking notice by now and I would expect more and more will be swayed to right.
So, if your spouse is abusing you, taking advantage of you, talk to your friends about the situation, and figure out how to change it, and if you can't change it, take that Radical Step, and get the hell out of that bad relationship. Easier said than done, sometimes people prefer the devil they know, to the devil they don't, but the good news is, all you really have to do, is ask for help. And, pack a suitcase.