The U.S. ranks 40th in the world for women's political empowerment and we're losing ground.
Fortieth. This ranking, based on 2010 data, is a comparative measure of the gap between men and women in political decision-making at the highest levels. (Here is the entire report.) Not 1st. Not 12th. Not 19th. Not 32nd. And, that's the overall number. Guess what it is for parliamentary representation -- legislatures, state and national?
It's 72nd. Forget having a female head of state. Just considering that in 2011 women lost ground, when our representation in Congress fell for the first time in 30 years, this number can only go down. This is why Iowa's gender politics should disqualify it for primary caucuses. Iowa has NEVER elected a woman to the Senate, the House or as their governor. Iowa is part of our problem, not the solution.
Our rank has dropped in each of the last ten years. Gives a new meaning to American Exceptionalism. As in: Except Women. I'd warrant that most people think we in the U.S. rank in at least the top five in the world for gender equity (we're 19th, BTW), especially for women's political representation. But 40th?
Last Friday in the "Forum" section of The Washington Post, political scientist Jeanne Zaino asked an important question: Given the fact that Iowa has no record of electing women to our legislature or as governor, should it have the distinction, honor and power of holding the first and very important caucus?
No. It should not have that honor. It's like rewarding it for sexist obstinacy. Trivializing and ignoring it's deplorable record is a way of rewarding bias, sexism and inequality. It's how we continue to pay lip service to the concept of gender equality without taking it to it's logical gender conclusion. Can you imagine a world where these gender numbers were reversed? Now, that would be a "boy crisis" you could really sink your teeth into.
But, the truly sad and shocking fact is how not alone Iowa is. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, although there are four states (Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi and Vermont) that have never sent women to Congress, half of all states have never elected a female senator or governor.
I know that there are people and organizations, partisan and non-partisan, working very hard in Iowa and across the country to change this. Organizations like Emerge, She Should Run, The White House Project and Off The Sidelines, and others are dedicated to building infrastructures to address this imbalance at local, regional, state and national levels.
I also know that change takes time and "we've come a long way," blah blah blah. But this is ridiculous now. At the very least, we should be honest and stop insisting that we're all good, in fact, "better than the rest of the world." That myth is how our lack of female representation in governance ends up "not mattering" when it really does.
Iowa, as Zaino pointed out, has a long-standing demonstrable resistance not just to electing women to represent it, but also to women running for presidential office in the Iowa Caucus. You would think that if anyone could overcome it in Iowa, it would be Michele Bachman, so keen on using works like "submissive" to illustrate her commitment to traditional, conservative "values" -- the ones now being used to mess with her. Zaino points out that, despite her avowals, Bachman was recently asked by two Iowan evangelical leaders to defer to Rick Santorum, their candidate of choice. These men, I'd say two of the finest minds of the 19th century except that gives the 19th century a bad name, urged her to defer her ambitions and be a running mate. They backed Santorum, even though his numbers were lower at the time. This isn't despite her conservatism -- it's because of it. It's what words like "helpmeet" and "handmaiden" and "submissive" mean when the "traditional" rubber hit the caucus road in Iowa.
There are LOTS of reasons why Bachman would be asked to step aside, but those reasons do not include her gender. Suggesting that she should be a female "Mini Me" running mate to Rick Santorum is a specifically condescending and patriarchal option. Among commonly cited reasons that women don't do well in Iowa caucuses are that Iowa skews elderly, conservative and rural with traditional values and, as such, isn't truly representative of the country at large. An unrelated "5 Myths About Iowa Caucuses" piece, which ran three days after Zaino's piece, debunked these ideas without making any reference to Zaino's article or gender bias.
And gender bias is what this is about. Gender bias in culture and education but, particularly salient in this case, in politics and in media.
A couple of years ago, when we had a slightly higher ranking, a guest on Tucker Carlson's popular TV program said, "It's embarrassing. We rank 68th in the world for women's political participation!" His dismissive response?
"I'm not embarrassed. When I get up at a baseball game and sing the Star Spangled Banner ... I'm not embarrassed at all."
Really? What did that mean? That patriotism is incompatible with gender equity? With feminism? Carlson went on to ask his guest, "If women want women in Congress then why don't they vote for them?" How can he imply that our nation's increasingly poor showing is just a "women's problem?" What drivel.
Typical drivel, actually. Tucker Carlson's flip response was belittling and painted a portrait of the woman speaking as unpatriotic, silly, and extreme in her "feminist" views. This is par for the course for women running for office. Two recent studies demonstrate clearly how prevalent this type of sexist media response to and coverage of women running for office is and how it was responsible for derailing Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. It's a serious issue for all of us -- not just women -- for two reasons:
1) Real democracies are truly representative. Women's involvement in public life and policy formulation is essential to that idea. Here is how Political Parity, a non partisan group, describes its importance:
2) We have a "You can't be what you can't see" problem caused by sexism. With the exception of the Women's History Month posters we trot out, little girls and boys don't see women in public life: they're not on currency, not in statuary, not in historical imagery, not really visible in current photographs of powerful hierarchies in our culture (political, corporate, religious). Equal numbers of boys and girls want to grow up to be president until the age of seven. After that, girls start losing confidence or interest. Coincidentally, it's just around the time that they also start learning history, being subjected to marketing and advertising stereotypes, become more exposed to sexist and misogynistic portrayals of girls and boys. But that stuff's not important. What's important is the message being sent to women that it's their own fault that they don't run, don't have confidence in their abilities and don't vote. It has nothing to do with sexism, bias, media power, education and culture. They're just born undermining themselves. My husband is now asking me to stop slamming my head against the wall because it's only the first week of of the year and it's a leap year.
- According to lawmakers (male and female), women legislators make the political process more transparent and public.
- Women bring a alternative style of advocacy, debate, and behavior to the legislative floors.
- Unlike their male colleagues, women in legislative and executive posts are mostly motivated by policy goals, not power or prestige.
- Women inclined to nonhierarchical collaboration, consensus building, and inclusion, and they bring that style to politics.
- Women legislators are more likely to rely on constituent perspectives in agenda setting and deliberations.
- The presence of women legislators has a major impact on the extent to which women's interests are represented in legislatures --a fact acknowledged by both female and male lawmakers.
- Women legislators are more likely to consider how laws will affect women once enacted.
The number of women running for office, and seeking leadership roles in high schools and colleges declined in 2011. We face a crisis across the board in getting girls and women involved in the political process. After 20 years of a conservative cultural backlash we have a media and entertainment machine optimized to undermine the idea that women can be powerful leaders ... so much so that girls and women doubt the abilities of their own gender.
Correlations between gender equity and economic success, more equitable wealth distribution, reduction of societal violence and measures of populations' happiness are well documented.
Our false sense of superiority and national cultural disinclination to consider gender issues systematically and seriously has real, day-to-day economic ramifications for people. The sluggish traditional, conservative values holding us back in terms of political parity are the same ones that make it difficult for boys and men to adapt to rapidly changing economies, educational demands and family structures and for women to contribute equally to our society.
That's why I think it's unpatriotic and irresponsible to ignore sexism.
We can keep perpetuating these values and cultures or we can Name It Change It. This is actually the name of a non-partisan project of WCF Foundation, Women's Media Center, and Political Parity that is trying to do just that. Go check them out.
Follow Soraya Chemaly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/schemaly
Michael J. Hunt: Iowa Undecideds Just Want Candidate Who Can Beat Obama
And I am ashamed of that.
When candidates not elected, or not re-elected are women, is it alwas evidence of sexism? Could qualification and performance be the determining factor?
Could the image of POLITICS as corrupt and driven by corporate greed discourage many able potential candidates who are women... and men... from running for office?
Could the values and performance of high ranking leaders, who are also women, be a factor? Ms. Chemlay cites factors identified by the group Political Parity as distinguishing "women's involvement in public life and policy formulation." I feel certain there are governors who illustrate these factors in practice. Who are the most effective? At the national level, are there also good examples?
Could qualifications and records of service of individuals promoted as role models discourage others from seeking national leadership roles? I do not believe that the women in the US who have come closest to the presidency as candidates (Ferraro, Palin, Clinton), or based on succession to the presidency (Pelosi, Albright, Rice, Clinton) approach the standard of world class leaders who also have been women (e.g., Meir, Gandhi, Thatcher, Robinson, Merkel).
In these challenging times can agree that first and foremost we need the most value-grounded, effective, responsive and responsible leaders we can find. Assuring that at least 1/2 of ineffective leaders are women does not seem like pogress.
Women lack a solid religious base - where is the Divine Feminine, where is the face of the woman reflected in the image of God? Many women don't even have their own name, the surname they were born into as they change it to that of the husband. Their children carry on the father's name as if the father was pregnant for nine months, gave birth and nourished the child.
Many women continue to vote for men in office because old paradigms of male leadership take long to disappear. Aggressiveness in women, whether running for political office or fighting for gender equality, is seen as unbecoming while men, short of breaking the law, are expected to be aggressive in all aspects of their lives. Unfortunately, patriarchy is alive and well and will continue to be until women dare ask tough, unapologetic gender questions of their elected officials and stop voting against their own interests.
Women simply don't choose to /pursue/ careers in politics as often...but in many other countries, you aren't allowed to vote for a specific politician. You are forced to vote for a party, and the party chooses who it actually puts in office.
When people are free to vote for specific politicians, you end up with more men in office, because more men want to run than women do, and more women vote for men.
This ridiculous, obsessive-compulsive habit of focusing on a count of how many women this, how many blacks that, is just hatemongering nonsense. It's an attempt by greedy, sociopathic manipulators to gain more power by dividing people along collective lines.
Everything about this piece screams man = bad, woman = good.
Men not being more like women holds them back?
Why is the traditional family bad?
Equal wealth distribution?
No one "distributes" wealth to men, they earn it.
Women sought less leadership roles in college and highschool? Isn't 60% of college grads being women enough?
Your bullet points are listed as if they are facts and not just words you typed in. Does the addition of more women to anything always = better?
The vast majority of K12 teachers are women, yet we're at the bottom of the barrel in education.
The majority of middle management are women yet the middle economy is dismal.
Almost all therapists are women yet the psycological outlook of society as a whole has never been worse.
In field after field women have been mandated into positions of power to where they are now the majority. Where's the great enlightenment?
For all the articles about how men can do more for women. Be more supportive. Be more loving. Be more giving. Be more of everything for women. I can't remember ever seeing an article of what women can do for men. Try running an article about how women can be more supportive, loving and giving towards men, then watch as the comments are riddled with rage and womens empowerment. About how women weren't put on this earth to serve men.
Your contempt for male dissent could not be more obvious. Nothing he said indicated a hatred of women. He questioned how our society engages in sexist assumptions like women doing things better, or the introduction of women will vastly improve this or that as if women were very different from men. He also challenged the demands men do things to make women happy while men are attacked if they ask the same of women.
If we want equality we have to accept that neither of us are better than the other nor are more or less obligated to be kind to one another.
I guess it's true, American women can always find something to complain about.
The other implied notion is that the men being elected to office fail to adequately represent the interest of women. That is simply not true. Women are a powerful voting block even though they rarely function in unison. Women's issues are lobbied for in the same way other interest groups get their agenda's passed into law, and women's groups have been very successful . The lobbyist are the real force in our democracy not the gender of our representatives. Women in political office won't alter this dynamic.
The men in power are not focused on the issues of men or giving them special advantages unless you consider being sent into combat to die a privilege. The men in power consistently passed laws that are contemptuous of men in the name of helping women. Women have real power without becoming the puppet like figure head holding political office. After decades policies that favor women being passed into law I don't think you can honestly declare these male representatives inherently sexist against women.
A lot of feminist are tied to a elitist way of thinking because they are among the well off, well educated, and well to do members of our society. The women out their struggling are not interested in who is the CEO they care about whether or not they can get a job.
Equality is always relative to the choices a individual makes. If two people of equal ability in a similar context make the same choices we would like to think they would get to about the same place. For the most part I feel that is true all though it's impossible to properly test.
Individual identity matters much more than gender and if we are to tackle a gender disparity it should be the kind which have significant impact and not the welfare of a few well positioned over achievers.
The "Violence Against Women Act"... the title speaks for itself. As if men mainly commit violence against women, or women do not commit violence against men, or men don't more often commit violence against each other.
Instead, the CAWP reported that "Tennesseans, UNLIKE voters in more than half of the states, have never elected a woman to be senator or governor."
Reading through this I thought to my self how during the years that I have been involved in campaigns how, for the most part, the number of women have been thin although the number has increased. When it comes down to it, women are going to have to motivate and push women to not just vote but to actually become involved and not just in the pretty positions of communications and media but actually get their hands dirty and be willing to be involved in the less attractive aspects of campaign work.
Becoming involved in local political parties, boards, and working on campaigns is part of the process. One can not just run for office. It just does not work that way for men as well. Although sexism plays a role, it seems more often than not that women simply are not interested, are not as involved, and if women want more representation from the state level on up, it will come down to doing the work and getting involved. Simply voting is not enough.
For the most part, I see child care as being the responsibility of the parents-male or female and am not an advocate of dropping children off at day care when they are infants and toddlers for a long list of reasons. There is a period of years with children where I believe the primary "job" of those who bring a child into the world need to be focused upon is being a parent. Starting a political career while children are in diapers and learning to walk is impractical and irresponsible. We don't need political actives or opperatives who abandon their parenting duties to pursue politics. Perhaps if more parents spent more time raising their children there might be a lot fewer problems with children down the road.
As far as the economics, half the households ? As in the unemployment numbers of men at this time ?
and I want to build a defenses around America not leave out military were death is waiting for them !
Lets build AMERICA not Nations with tax payers money RON PAUL or no 1 at all