I love women. I respect and admire them. I think it’s imperative that a representative percentage of them are running the government. If we want to change the direction of the nation and foster the needs of women and girls, more women must be on the ballot and more should be elected. This idea is best described as “The Thirty Percent Solution”. In principle, every political woman supports this idea.
That being said, there is a movement afoot, promoted by the neo-conservative elements of the power structure, to pretend that voting for women-hating women accomplishes this goal. I suppose if one is a neo-conservative woman, voting for these women supports not only a female supportive agenda, but even more importantly, supports a pro-family or pro-patriotic program. Included in this list are a few of the Republican women who may be seeking elective office. Phyllis Schlafly’s conservative Eagle Forum may be supporting many of them.
According to Right-Wing Watch, these are the major elements of Schlafly’s anti-feminist movement:
- the fervent belief that America is at a tipping point between freedom and fascist power: President Obama and his congressional allies are on the verge of delivering America into Socialism, Communism, and/or Nazi-style tyranny, and that government is therefore to be feared and resisted
- optimism that the tea bag movement and anti-health-reform town halls are a sign that Americans are prepared to resist that tyranny
- extreme opposition to Democratic health care reform efforts, with some support for the congressional Republican alternative and some demands for a no-compromise approach that would involve ending all government involvement in health care, including Medicare
- recent attacks on ACORN are just part of a larger effort to target progressive community organizing groups and their religious supporters and “defund the left”
- hostility not only to same-sex marriage but also to any legal protections for LGBT Americans and same-sex couples
- a continued merging of messaging and organizing among the Religious Right and “teabagger” right
- a new push to use “abortion as black genocide” as a wedge between African Americans and pro-choice progressives built around a new “documentary” portraying abortion as 21st century genocide
- American exceptionalism – the belief that America’s founding was divinely inspired and the nation has been uniquely blessed by God – is alive and well, though America is now living under a curse for having elected Barack Obama
- activists don’t need a majority to take back America; if their minority or “remnant” is committed enough God will use them
- the apparent passing (or grabbing) of the torch from Phyllis Schlafly to Janet Folger Port
Whether one agrees with any or all of these positions, they represent a trend.
Take Michele Bachmann, if you will. The representative from Minnesota is making the rounds as a women’s candidate. She’s being pushed like patent medicine by both allegedly pro and anti-feminist sides of the aisle. Since the next voting cycle 2010-2012 promises an unprecedented interest in the “women’s vote” the women’s vote is in play. Right wingers are encouraging everyone to put aside bickering over the most divisive of issues: abortion. Liberal women are being assured that Roe v. Wade is not threatened-can’t be lost. Conservatives are being told it is headed for the trash heap of history. Which is correct? Is this really the critical issue? I believe the real assault by conservatives will be against less high profile issues that nevertheless affect the well-being of women and girls.
She voted against:
H.R. 1913, Hate Crime bill extending coverage based on sexual orientation. She gets a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
She opposes campaign reform.
She voted for the stimulus bill but opposed an extension of federal unempolyment benefits.
She gets an 8% rating on animal rights issues.
Predictably, she opposes any legislation that would ease access to contraception of interruption of unwanted pregnancy.
She opposed the Lily Ledbetter Act.
She opposed the Fair Pay Act.
She voted with agricultural employers 100% of the time.
She voted with the national chambers of commerce 94% of the time.
Wildlife protection interests gave her a 0% rating.
Children’s Defense Fund rates her a 0%.
The list goes on. Perhaps you can put abortion aside, but can you put everything aside?
Maybe I don’t get it, but isn’t voting for this woman the same as voting for the establishment patriarchy? I’ll believe in the honesty of this vote for any woman idea when I see support of conservatives for women candidates of a more liberal bent. So far, that hasn’t happened.