David Gergen made an interesting point Tuesday night on CNN amid the roar of the punditry. The advisor to four presidents and respected political commentator pointed out that not too long ago, the number of women running for office in this election would have been headline-worthy news. Last night it was simply an aside.
Have we gone from the year of the woman in 1992, to the year of the woman-II in 2008, to the year of so-what in 2010?
Even as women in politics is becoming no more newsworthy than women in business, the arrival of a new crop of generally young, seemingly bright and overwhelmingly Republican women does raise a question. Are we seeing a shift in women as a reliably progressive bloc on social issues?
Of the 90 seats women held in Congress Tuesday morning, 56 House women were Democrats and 17 were Republicans. In the Senate, the Democratic edge is 14 to four. So the bad night for Democrats was preordained to be rough on their women candidates.
Not that the new arrivals could turn the tide on those issues alone. Both arms of Congress are still firmly in the hands of men. Women in, women out -- what's the big deal?
We've never seen an influx of women like this.
The incoming group in 1992 -- some say they were a response to the savaging of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas affair -- were largely Democrats, and -- it follows -- reliably supportive of social and women's issues. The new arrivals are coming to a Republican controlled House on a tide of righteous conservative anger. It's hardly a confluence that promises a progressive social agenda.
There were Mama Grizzlies and a few who used their mom status to cement their conservative credentials -- but nobody ran saying, "I'm a woman, and I care about women's issues." There were, it seems, bigger fiscal fish to fry.
While it might be assumed that there is little an influx of conservative women to a conservative Congress could do to turn back the clock on these issues, Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood's vice president of public policy says -- not so fast.
She points out, for example, that Title X in the Health and Human Services budget got its first budget increase in ten years. What happens now to the only Federally funded family planning program? She also believes we could see a resurrection of the demand that any health care plan offering abortion coverage be barred from participating in insurance exchanges under the health care plan. There could be new life in the move to de-fund Planned Parenthood altogether.
You could extend the question beyond women's issues. Writing in the Washington Post, Vince Bzdek argues that it wasn't until a woman -- Nancy Pelosi -- worked her way to a position of power that we got a health care bill after almost a century of futility. "Pelosi's animating ambition," he wrote," has been to put so-called women's and family issues such as health care, education and the welfare of children on the same level as homeland security, foreign relations and defense." One can't help but believe that incoming tough-guy Speaker John Boehner will not be similarly inclined.
All in, there is the real possibility that women in Congress -- once a progressive bloc -- could take a turn to the right on social issues. Things we thought were settled or at least protected could once again be in play.
In this "year of the Republican woman," don't look at the numbers of women who won the prize. Look at what they're going to do with it.
Follow Dr. Peggy Drexler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drpeggydrexler
Lisa Anderson: A Tribute To Anita Hill After 20 Years
Bob Burnett: Desecrating Nancy Pelosi
The New Power Girls: The New Power Girls: Going After What You Want in Life
Marcia Reynolds: It's Time for a Corporate Women's Uprising
At the end of the day, the truth is, it's not just about men and women, but more importantly about elites versus non-elites. Only recently have we seen a relatively poor man, Obama, win the coveted number one seat. Isn't that more of a victory to the have nots, that they too can dream?
I'm not once downplaying what this article is, and all articles have some spin they represent. It's more of a challenge to us all to see to it that no group is left behind by the train of progress (and development), whoever that group is or whatever our thoughts about that group are.
That is the start of a truly just society.
I think the article is good butasfor putting bread in the stomach it is active perhaps .
But Detroits houses are still 18000 dollars and comment was short before elections.
China will have 85 percent of GDP and Harvard will still be analysing them. Does that make this article less . Perhaps not
10 percent full unemployment and 7 part time
Hopefully, élites GOP women will escape their controller, to see the pain, suffering, poverty, starvation & death resulting from imposition GOP/USA policy on its & the people of the world. That they will realize the threat to USA is not terrorism, but USA desire for world domination & the imposition of capitalism on all nations benefiting the privileged
I don't know which election races you were watching, but that is more than a stretch of the truth. It's absurd, actually. Enough said.
I'm having trouble identifying anyone by these 3 descriptors.
As a woman, I don't want to pay for someone else to have abortion. There are MANY options for birth control and even the morning after pill so why are abortions even necessary? It should occur to some people by now, not to get knocked up in the first place!
Regarding abortion: why should a woman, if she became pregnant through rape or incest be forced to carry that fetus? Why should a woman not be able to receive a procedure that would save her life if there was a problem with the fetus? Why should a woman who is paying health insurance or getting public health insurance not be able to get an abortion? Women who can't afford to pay cash should be covered just like any other treatment. Abortion is still legal in this country.
You mention drugs like birth control and the morning after pill. That's swell, but there are too many women (specifically since that's our topic here) who dispute even their use and coverage.
The issue is not that women get knocked up in the first place, the issue is that we tend to be so woefully ignorant about the subject of s#x through birth (whether through lack of education, or religious views of morality), that we have too many girls and even women who are getting pregnant when they shouldn't.
Here's an example: http://www.theledger.com/article/20101103/NEWS/11035064/1410?Title=Carroll-an-Inspiration
====================
Sweat it all!
Fight on all cylinders and stop tamping down the outrage that fuels activism.
Of course the people need the same privilege to hear the truth & everything that's going on not censored national & world news often preempted by entertainment news.
All those things you cited should be decided, administered and funded at the state level.