Trifecta of Stories on Dearth of GOP Female Officeholders
Two days ago, I flagged and wrote about Politico’s story on this topic.
Two more articles about this slap on the forehead today. First, from US News & World Report we have, “Republicans reject women when they shed moderates.” Highlight, which echoes my reaction at the end of my post yesterday:
The Republican National Committee says it’s running a grass-roots recruiting drive to get women to run for office in all 50 states. That’s fine. The problem is, that to encourage them to run, Politico reports the RNC is bringing groups of women to Capitol Hill for tours. That’s the last thing they should do! As a former staffer for a Congressman, I can tell you that Capitol Hill is one of the least women-friendly, family-friendly places on earth. It’s the original men’s club. My advice to the RNC: encourage women to run for office in order to change what they’ll find on that Capitol Hill tour.
And, from a different columnist at USNWR, “Republican Women Are Stay-At-Home Moms While Female Democrats Run for Congress,”:
I think the main reason [for the difference in numbers of office holders], however, is that Republican women are generally more traditional than Democratic women, who tend to be more progressive. Therefore, GOP women are more likely to be fulltime homemakers or to work part-time and not to pursue all-consuming careers such as politics. Republican women like former Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) have even agreed with me in conversation that this is the case.
This does not mean all Democratic women want to run for office or be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, or that all GOP women want to be homemakers. Certainly not. But the majority fall into those stereotypes and that is the main reason I believe the numbers are skewed in Democrats’ favor.
Do you agree with that suggestion - that Democratic women are more likely to be in relationships that involve a more egalitarian approach to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to the benefit of themselves, the significant others in their lives and, when there are children, their kids?
Speaking of which, here’s a great article on how two members of Congress were pregnant and had babies while in Congress during the last 12 months.
Cross-posted from Writes Like She Talks.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
38 Responses to “Trifecta of Stories on Dearth of GOP Female Officeholders”
What a quaint stereotype. It helps to keep the liberal self-image alive.
Here is an article by a newly-minted conservative woman:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/letter_o…
There should be stats on this “stay at home moms” business. Someone will have researched common occupations of the various parties. The proposed pattern sounds a lot like a guess.
Lol Jwest, that Robin person sounds like a douchebag when she was on the left, and is a newly minted douchebag on the right. The difference between the ranting ignorant liberals in berkeley and the ranting ingnorant republicans is that the liberals are couped up in Berkley protesting to eachother in a giant circle jerk with no real power outside the ability to annoy anyone who forces themselves to listen, while the ignorant republicans are running the GOP and have their own news network.
Lets face it, the people in charge of the GOP these days are essentially stuck in the 50's. They are largely unable to connect with women and minorities because they don't truly respect either.
jwest: The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
If you looked at all Democratic female office holders, you would probably find many more like Nancy Pelosi where there is a rich husband who can afford to pay for nannies and private school before you find many husbands who are sharing in the child raising.
Superdestroyer – so you're saying that fathers of children whose mothers are Democrats would rather pay someone else to take care of their kids than raise the kids themselves? Is that any different from fathers of children whose mothers are Republicans – or are you also then saying that fathers of children whose mothers are Republicans would rather raise the kids themselves (that is, the father will do the childrearing) than allow the woman they married and who gave birth to their child to raise that child? That doesn't sound like GOP family values to me.
What exactly are you trying to say – you know, if we take what you wrote to a logical conclusion?
SLAMFU: Let’s try to avoid use of the word “douchbag” here. I have had one complaint about it. It actually is not a word that “crosses the line” uer our official posting policy, but let’s use something mroe dignifiied like “idiot” or “cretin” or “schmuck” (actually not if you know what that actually means!). My rule of thumb in my own comments is: I can’t use a word in comments if I would not use it in my posts. It isn’t a word we would use in posts here. I DO appreciate your particpation in our discussions here and the good points you do make,. So let’s just try another word. If you’re an NYPD fan you remember that the word they used was “dirt bag.”
I doubt this is true. Conservative Republican women work outside the home too. Perhaps older conservative Republican women don't. But then, older liberal Democratic women might not either. The economy necessitates two-earner families these days, regardless of ideology. There may be brief moments when a young child is in the house that the mother will stay home. But that applies to liberal Democratic women (like my wife) as well as conservative Republican women.
Elrod – I think you could be right – I'm not really sure of the exact reasons, though I'd say an unsupportive environment that encourages and supports female candidacy has got to be part of it.
What do you think might be the reason for the huge disparity?
Well, gee, after seeing how a conservative woman is treated when she accepts the nomination for vice president, I'm sure that lots of conservative women are chomping at the bit to seek office.
CStanley – surely you know that argument holds no water. Democratic women have been treated just as badly if not worse. It doesn't matter what party it is – women are treated that way. And frankly, McCain's crew were the worst offenders – Palin has indicated as much since after the election.
Stop pushing a red herring.
What's your explanation for the numbers – which have been in decline for the GOP women in politics since the mid-90s?
Well, Jill, since you offer no evidence for your claim that Democratic women are treated just as badly (specifically, I mean getting treated badly by other women , as many feminists not only failed to defend Palin but actually joined in the attacks), I'll just have to agree to disagree that this is a red herring.
I do realize the trend predates Palin's exposure- but I think it was something that most conservative women would somewhat anticipate. When Democratic women run for office, they're certainly subject to sexist attacks but then prominent women's groups come to their defense. If anyone had suggested that a Democratic female candidate might be incapable of holding high office because she had too much on her hands with her children, do you have any doubt that feminists groups would be outraged by that double standard (since men are NEVER similarly challenged on that basis?)
Yet not only was Palin not given backup, but this article quotes some of the attacks on Palin that were made BY feminists. And Camile Paglia nailed it on how and why so many feminists felt threatened by her particular brand of conservative feminism.
I'm not trying to belabor the point about Palin specifically, but I'm saying that this is the general feeling that we conservative women get from the feminist movement, and we saw it play out with Palin just as we would have expected it to. Women who make the choice to embrace a traditional role, whether with or without a career alongside childrearing, are just not given any respect by feminists (it's similar to the Uncle Tom phenomenon that bedevils black conservatives.)
Aside from that, I'd say the trend is that there are fewer and fewer conservative women- and that's a shame. Personally I think it's because women tend to be more emotionally driven and Democratic political rhetoric is based on pushing those emotional buttons.
CStanley said:
“If anyone had suggested that a Democratic female candidate might be incapable of holding high office because she had too much on her hands with her children, do you have any doubt that feminists groups would be outraged by that double standard (since men are NEVER similarly challenged on that basis?)”
Personally, I felt Palin was incapable of holding high office because of her lack of intelligence, lack of intellectual curiosity, tendency to incite people to call an opponent “terrorist” and “traitor”, and literally being one very elderly cancer-surviving man's heartbeat away from the presidency; not because she had too much on her hands with her children (I'd feel the same way had McCain-Palin had a D for party designation rather than a R).
That being said, as liberal and as liberated a woman as I am, I still felt it was a mistake for her to accept the nomination since her special needs baby would suffer the most of any of her kids with the kind of brutal schedule that campaigning brought with that. Again, I would've felt that way even if she were a Democrat.
“Since you offer no evidence” – enjoy:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html
http://politicalvoicesofwomen.ning.com/profiles…
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/159045
http://michelleobamawatch.com/category/chicaner…
http://www.blogher.com/michelle-obama-depicted-…
That being said, as liberal and as liberated a woman as I am, I still felt it was a mistake for her to accept the nomination since her special needs baby would suffer the most of any of her kids with the kind of brutal schedule that campaigning brought with that. Again, I would've felt that way even if she were a Democrat.
And as conservative and traditional as I am, I'd give both Democrat and Republican candidates the benefit of the doubt that they could make such decisions in the best interest of their families, regardless of whether their choices were the same ones that I would make in similar circumstances.
As for the rest of your comment, Anna, you're entitled to your opinion and I have no beef with people who opposed Palin for reasons of substance- but that doesn't excuse the shameless character assassination that she had to undergo.
Jill, I haven't had a chance to rea all of your links but I checked a few- so far I'm not seeing anything comparable where female Democratic candidates have been attacked BY FEMINISTS- or where feminist leaders failed to support a female Democratic candidate when she came under fire of sexist attacks.
Here's what I wrote:
“Democratic women have been treated just as badly if not worse.”
Here's what you wrote in response:
“Well, Jill, since you offer no evidence for your claim that Democratic women are treated just as badly (specifically, I mean getting treated badly by other women , as many feminists not only failed to defend Palin but actually joined in the attacks), I'll just have to agree to disagree that this is a red herring.”
I completely resent the lines you are drawing re: the disparaging of a Democratic female candidate must be done by whomever you decide fits some definition you have of feminist otherwise it doesn't count.
I gave you six on point and complete examples, which you've yet to fully review. They include female news anchors saying horrendous things about Hillary Clinton in that clip from the Women's Media Center – months before anyone had ever heard of Sarah Palin, let alone McCain was thinking about her as a VP choice – but you want to say that these female news anchors can't be counted because…why? Because you think they aren't feminists? How do you know?
Read the whole interview w/Ferraro for goodness sakes – the most salient portions are about how lousy Ferraro was treated – but I suppose you're going to dismiss that sexist treatment of her in 1984 unless it was at the hands of feminists. But hey – in there, there are also statements by Ferraro about how stay at home moms treated her and the idea of a woman running for office, but wait – don't tell me! They aren't feminists either so none of that counts.
Seriously.
Why is it so hard for you to see: female politicians get treated lousy by many people in our culture – doesn't matter if the women are Dems or GOP. Doesn't matter if it's a liberal male at Daily Kos who illustrates Michelle Obama be hung and branded by the KKK (did you click that link I provided?) or John McCain's handlers telling Palin to listen to them (which she herself has discussed as having been the general way things ran) or Barack Obama (go check out my post on Writes Like She Talks for when he called a female journalist “sweetie”) is the one doling it out.
The sexist treatment is wrong – always has been, always will be, and the Ferraro link is to demonstrate just how long and how harsh it's been and continues to be.
And yet women DO run for office and women DO win political races and these articles linked to in the original post are about how the GOP has an inadequate pipeline of women seeking or in political office and so they have far fewer in state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress.
I cannot understand why you're making it only about whomever you call “feminists” and whether those so-called “feminists” beat up on Dem women political candidates. If you want to read about women beating up on women, go read the NYT from Monday about female bullies in the workplace. But that's not what this post was about.
Unbelievable.
And besides – if it's so easy to dismiss a group of women whom you think didn't treat Palin properly as feminists who don't find any faults with Dem female politicians (which means we HAVE to conclude that feminists are never conservatives??) , how on earth can you also give these women – these “feminists” – the clout of being responsible for why women on the right side of the aisle don't run for political office? That's just illogical, not to mention wrong. If a conservative woman who wants to run on the right side of the aisle isn't going to run for political office because women whom that conservative woman calls “feminists” aren't very nice, then guess what? That woman shouldn't be running for office.
Obviously, that is not the reason why there are so few GOP or conservative women running for or in political office.
Well, in the last 20-30 years, haven't most classic “women's issues” been items that received more advocacy in the Democratic party rather than the Republican one? I'm thinking of topics like family leave, state-funded/subsidized child care, rape law, domestic abuse laws, equal pay for equal work, and such. Generalizing terribly, most of the time the party trying to increase, strengthen, or promote these topics has been the Democratic one. And so women who are politically engaged with these sorts of issues will be drawn towards the Democratic Party. Of course, these things form a cycle. Some women join the Democratic party to fight for such issues; they do in fact promote them; which then means the Democratic Party is even more in favor of such items, which drives the next cycle.
The point is simply that there are reasons African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Dems, and there are reasons many politically active women will run within the Democratic party. It may have very little to do with economic backgrounds and more to do with interests and goals.
I guess what you'd want to know is whether there are equal numbers of women in each party who spend little time on issues that more directly affect women. (And, yes, I know these issues are not truly women's issues, but are issues for everyone, etc.)
Generalizing terribly, most of the time the party trying to increase, strengthen, or promote these topics has been the Democratic one. And so women who are politically engaged with these sorts of issues will be drawn towards the Democratic Party.
Yes, and generalizing also, most conservative women to not agree that those policies should be supported (this is what I meant in one of my earlier comments when I said that I believe that women's tendency to emotionalize more makes them susceptible to the rhetoric of the Democratic party.) Again a generalization, but the conservative idea of feminism is to be strong as individuals instead of appealing to the refs for government support (which we believe weakens women's position and further fuels the sexist stereotypes.)
Jill, what female anchors are you referring to in that WMC clip? I saw dozens of male anchors saying things that were unacceptably sexist, and a couple of times female anchors (I noticed Mika from the MSNBC morning show, for instance) calling them out on it. The only female at all that I noticed saying bad things about Hillary was Michelle Malkin- and she would say bad things about any Democratic candidate and she's certainly not a liberal feminist.
And actually the best proof of my point is that I don't see a similar film clip by WMC compiling all of the vile things that were said about Sarah Palin. Why is that, Jill?
And furthermore, nothing in any of the links that you provided even come close to rising to the level of character assassination that Palin faced. You haven't commented, for instance, on the Andrew Sullivan thing I brought up. Pretend for a second that Hillary Clinton had recently given birth (or alternatively, that there were rumors that she'd had an abortion) and a prominent blogger relentlessly insistedd that she must release all of her medical records to prove maternity of her baby or to confirm or dispel the rumors of abortion. I think the only debatable thing is exactly HOW apoplectic an organization like WMC would be about this- but there's absolute silence on it in the case of Palin.
Palin had her friend's divorce records being scrutinized to see if any dirt could be dug up on her perhaps being a homewrecker. Her children's school attendence records were uncovered (which triggered the rumor about Trig being Bristol's babys since she had had an extended absence from school.
Where is the defense of her against this kind of disgusting character assassination?
And no, I'm not saying that since feminist groups don't generally defend conservative women that this makes it impossible for conservative women to run- but it is a factor. I assume you'd agree that we don't see more liberal women running either because of the uphill battle that many people just don't want to have to face. My point is that at least liberal women tend to have feminists groups at their back, while conservative women tend to face friendly fire as well as attacks from men. That, of course, is a generalization, so please don't give me anecdotal exceptions as though those disprove the general point.
Ha, you love a good fight, don't you, CStanley?
The main thing that brought me back to your response here was just how important Point of View is on everything. For many people, seemingly including yourself here, something like subsidized child care is “running to the refs” and weak, since it's not being strong as an individual. You may be right, but I also thought, is it weak to be mad when the garbage truck doesn't show up for two weeks, or when we drive on the highway to work, or when we drop our child off at public school? Those are all things that most of us think government should have a role in, and it isn't weak to partake of them. And yet it is to have government-funded child care. I really have no idea where the line is between these things. 150 years ago did people also feel that the state shouldn't build roads because if there was a financial need for a road, they could just build it themselves? I don't know.
Anyway, one place you and I probably agree, CStanley, is the following: One of the great pitfalls to government funding is that the connection between taxes and the service invariably becomes invisible to most. An example of what I mean is this: I took a French class a few years ago (went back to grad school in my 30s), and the text book would often have comments like: “Preschool is made available to all French citizens free of charge.” Well, no. It's not free at all. French citizens just pay for it with their taxes. You hear this all the time: shots for TB are free, preschool is free, education is free, and on and on. People seem to have forgotten that they are paying for it all the time. (Yes, of course, some citizens are paying for more of it than others, and for some number it might indeed be free.) Whenever you disconnect the pain of payment from obtaining some good, money flows irrationally. It's why one of the first budget tips people give to those in great debt is to cut up the credit cards and pay cash. The money becomes real again.
I'm in total agreement with your last paragraph, of course, Paca.
As to the first part, it does in fact have to do with where to draw the lines. I'm certainly not an anarchistic libertarian and I do feel the government has some legitimate roles to play. With regard to women's issues, I generally don't favor government solutions but that doesn't mean that I reject all antidiscrimination laws, for instance. I just think that the liberal feminist movement, and the Democratic party's advocacy for some of its tenets, generally goes too far.
I also think for black Americans, affirmative action programs had their place but at some point became counterproductive because the preferential treatment gave rise to resentments of whites who were then being discriminated against, and the AA programs also encourage a certain amount of condescension (for white people to feel that blacks couldn't make it without that boost.) That's the same kind of blowback I think happens when women go beyond asking for redress for real discrimination and instead expect quotas or preference in awarding contracts, or expect government to pay for childcare needs. I think women are barking up the wrong tree when they make personal decisions that result in having a child without the commitment and support of the father, and then turn to government for redress for that. I think it's fathers who need to be held more accountable, not society as a whole.
CStanley:
This post isn't about Sarah Palin and I will not be wagged by your tail and tales about how much worse everything is/was for her.
The post is about why there's a dearth of women in the GOP running. If you are arguing that there's a dearth of women in the GOP running for political office because Palin was treated poorly from August 31, 2008 through now, you are entitled to that opinion. I absolutely and categorically disagree with that explanation for why there is a dearth of women running as GOP candidates for elected office.
As to specifics things you've written in your comments:
1) I have no idea what Andrew Sullivan piece you pointed me to – please provide the link again.
2) Here's the WMC on Palin – over and over and over, then and now:
http://womensmediacenter.com/wordpress/?s=sarah…
3) Your moments of clarity:
“My point is that at least liberal women tend to have feminists groups at their back, while conservative women tend to face friendly fire as well as attacks from men.”
That is not my experience and those links – which you point out have a ton of men in them – demonstrate that it's not the reality (that is, the men attacked Dem women). What this explanation of yours indicates then is that conservative women should be forming groups – and I believe some are (see the relatively new blog, “the mother of all conservatives” for a great example) – that will give them wind at their backs.
“…there's also the fact that there just aren't a huge number of conservative women, and of that group there are many who aren't interested or involved in politics- and that's a function of belief that government solutions aren't the ones we seek.”
What makes no sense about this rationale is: then why are even men running in the GOP? Based on the idea that the solutions sought are not to be sought in the gov't, then, shouldn't the GOP actually have…no one running?
This sounds like a Rick Perry secessionist kind of thing – you're suggesting that these women (and men, IMO) just don't support using the Democratic process of electoral politics to inform and form this country the way they'd like since that would mean tipping a hand to the fact that we involve gov't to solve problems. This suggestion by what you've written really doesn't make sense to me.
“You'll probably find a lot more conservative women in upper management of business than liberal women, for instance- because ambitions for private sector leadership positions would be more in line with conservative philosophy.”
Hey – if you have stats on that, I'd love to see them. Sadly, there are only something like 17 women CEOs of the Fortune 500. Here's what I've found in a two minute search:
Business Woman Magazine endorsed Barack Obama:
http://www.businesswomanmagazine.org/view.php?I=62
But here's the magazine's front page – not sure what it says re: party affiliation but I'm not getting a big conservative vibe:
http://www.businesswomanmagazine.org/index.php
Finally, there's The Glass Hammer at http://www.theglasshammer.com/:
“The Glass Hammer is an online community designed for women executives in financial services, law and business.”
There are a lot of very good pieces there from numerous viewpoints along the spectrum, but here is one in particular:
http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2008/09/09/o…
This article has links to a list from Fortune and one from Forbes re: the most powerful women in business. I'd suggest you look through that list and google to see if they're conservative or liberal, Dem or GOP is you really think this will show something.
FYI – an article from 9/08 titled, “Democratic women going easy on Sarah Palin so far”:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08253/910552-470…
At the base of all that you've written is a suggestion that women don't need to be in politics and you are groovy tunes with the GOP's leadership and lack of women. It's definitely not my side of the aisle so, as from the start of this post, I'll leave it for those who are on that side to figure it out for themselves. Or not.
Jill, what can I tell you? You wrote the post asking for potential explanations, I give you mine (coming from the perspective of a conservative woman) and you reject it. OK, so what is your theory?
I understand why you'd think it would logically follow from my argument that few conservative men would run for office either, but you're missing part of the point. I think we will both agree that women GENERALLY are underrepresented in politics, on both sides of the aisle. I also would think that we both agree that part of the reticence for putting oneself out there as a woman is the sexist response that has to be overcome. Do we agree so far?
If so, then consider that I gave you two reasons why those factors might be even more dissuading for conservatives than for liberal women. First is that there AREN'T many conservative feminist groups like you are saying we should form (your suggestion presumes that we agree that increasing the number of women in politics is an important goal, and we don't necessarily agree on that. I'm fairly neutral on it, would like to see it but I don't feel my life will be altered one way or the other much by the presence or absence of more female politicians.) And I've given the Palin example mainly to show that I do feel there's hypocrisy in the liberal feminist movement because one would think that they'd support and defend ALL women against sexism, not just the ones that they want to support for reasons of ideology. To me this would be like the ACLU not sticking up for first amendment rights for religious people or for even noxious right wing political statements. The principle should be the same, to defend, even when you don't agree with the person you're defending.
Anyway, I'll try to stop digressing to Palin personally (in spite of your insistence that I'm trying to change the subject, her example IS central to my point and you just won't really accept the point, for reasons that I don't understand.) I've already explained that I realize you're talking about a trend that predates Palin- but my point is that ALL conservative women have faced that kind of backlash from liberal feminist women that we know in our personal lives, so it was completely predictable to us that she wouldn't have much defense from women's advocacy groups in the way that such groups defend liberal women against sexism. Having now seen it played out with such ugliness, our concerns have been validated.
But then the second principle argument I'm making is that since conservative women don't see the great need for government policy to shape our lives (specifically, on 'female issues'), there isn't the same drive that leads liberal women to push forward through the expected sexist responses to their potential candidacy. So I'm not saying that no one, male or female, would be driven to enter politics on the conservative side because we believe completely in laissez faire governance- I'm just arguing that female conservatives don't feel such a dire need to represent our gender in politics, so there isn't the same level of determination to break through the glass ceiling in that arena.
Also BTW about Andrew Sullivan- you must be joking to ask for a link to explain what I'm talking about. You couldn't have set foot on the blogosphere over the past year without knowing about his heinous series of rumormongering and calls for her to abdicate any shred of medical privacy.) As far as I know, there was silence in response to him, or in some cases defense of what he was doing.
I really appreciate your stick-with-it-ness because I obviously share that quality. Thank you.
1) Here is a main point of divergence. You wrote,
“…but my point is that ALL conservative women have faced that kind of backlash from liberal feminist women that we know in our personal lives, so it was completely predictable to us that she wouldn't have much defense from women's advocacy groups in the way that such groups defend liberal women against sexism. Having now seen it played out with such ugliness, our concerns have been validated.”
So – you are saying that if only conservative women didn't have to defend themselves against liberal feminist women they'd be more likely to seek office?
Do clarify if that's not what you're saying, but it's how I read what you've written a few times and I've written back: that just is not a good enough, strong enough or realistic enough (in that it happens at the level that it would be driving potential recruits from entering the fray) an explanation.
The reason I make this assertion is, as I've written, because women on the left of the aisle get treated just as badly – you want to say that no one got treated worse than Palin. For the sake of argument, let's say I agree with that – cool, great – we agree that from August 31, 2008 through now, no female political person has been treated worse than Palin.
That STILL doesn't explain the dearth of women seeking office from the right-side of the aisle, which has been plummeting since the 1990s.
2) You wrote:
“I'm just arguing that female conservatives don't feel such a dire need to represent our gender in politics, so there isn't the same level of determination to break through the glass ceiling in that arena.”
Again – this says to me, then, that you are arguing, impliedly, that female conservatives are okey-dokey with how the men from their side are defending their needs, desires, intents etc. and have no interest in gender parity in politics. People are entitled to feel that way – I think it reinforces a very oppressive and anti-democratic way of life.
3) As for Sullivan, I really really REALLY do not follow him. If others I trust link to him, I MAY look, but yes – now that you've written that – I do remember what you're talking about.
I'm a woman who can let the decibel level of my home (and in my minivan mom-mobile) rise to a level that most might find intolerable for being able to work. My ability to screen out writing and opinions for which I have no use is similarly honed if not more so.
So – you are saying that if only conservative women didn't have to defend themselves against liberal feminist women they'd be more likely to seek office?
No, not exactly. You have to put both of my points together- that conservative women just don't tend to gravitate toward politics much anyway, and then the hurdle of sexist treatment of female candidates (without having a pro-female lobby backing you against that) makes it that much more unlikely for any particular woman to make this decision. And comparing liberal females to conservative ones, they both face sexist attacks but the liberal ones feel so strongly about the need for gender representation that they're more motivated to endure the attacks. Maybe to you that sounds like we're wimpy, but again it all depends on whether or not you think the goal of parity of genders in politics is a worthy or important one or not.
People are entitled to feel that way – I think it reinforces a very oppressive and anti-democratic way of life.
But that's why you're a Democrat and I'm a Republican. Yes, I would agree with your statement that conservative women are generally not that concerned with 'gender parity'. I think this is why you're having so much difficulty understanding my explanation of the phenomenon- you just can't fathom that some women don't feel the same about it as you do.
I have a hard time completely assenting to your statement about feeling that the male GOP leadership is doing hunky dorey, because I certainly don't feel that way. But I don't necessarily think their failures have much to do with gender- I think that we've come to a point in the cycle of power corrupting, and it's time for fresh faces. If more of them end up being female, great, but if not, that's fine too as long as they have integrity.
As for Sullivan, I really really REALLY do not follow him. If others I trust link to him, I MAY look, but yes – now that you've written that – I do remember what you're talking about.
See, this gets to my point. I've seen you write about women's issues and complaints of sexism, and it's obvious that you're pretty tied in to all of this. And yet a prominent, respected blogger makes outrageous attacks against a female politician, and no one in your circle apparently was talking about it. That doesn't give you pause to wonder if your cohorts didn't take this seriously enough? Shouldn't women generally be more aware of how other women of ALL ideological stripes are treated?
CStanley re: your last comment about Sullivan -
I follow no prominent bloggers and I'm not sure why you would think I do or should. Do you?
Mr. Sullivan et al have plenty of readers. I'm certain that they don't miss me.
“Your cohorts” – who do you think are my cohorts? Honestly – you really have little idea of the people I respect and listen to and follow if you think I'm so monolithic as to have A Circle. I'm blessed to have many circles and many that overlap. None define me.
You ask, “Shouldn't women generally be more aware of how other women of ALL ideological stripes are treated?”
Should they?
My answer to that last question is 'yes', and if I presumed incorrectly I apologize but I thought you would also agree with that. And I also thought you would have a circle consisting of other women who similarly write about women's issues. If you don't, then at the very least it does seem like some of the websites and groups that you link to are similar minded to yourself about women's issues, and so they would form the 'cohort' group that I'm referring to.
Anyway, back to the question. I felt that some of the complaints of sexism against Hillary Clinton were overblown and one or two felt a bit staged (yeah, I'm that cynical about politics) like the guys who had signs or whatever about ironing shirts. But on balance, I'm happy to agree with you that she was treated unfairly on many occasions because of her gender, and that WMC clip had some good examples.
Now, realize that I'm saying this as a conservative who doesn't agree with the majority of Clinton's policy positions, and I happen to dislike her personally as well. But that doesn't stop me from calling foul on foul treatment- in fact I feel obligated to do so. I'm questioning though whether Democratic women feel a similar obligation- not to support female conservative politicians in their campaign efforts (if you do not agree with their political views that would be nothing more than tokenism) but to support and defend them against unfair or gender based attacks. Some liberal feminists, to their credit, did so for Palin (Paglia is the prominent example that comes to mind) but on balance I didn't see it.
FWIW, too, Jill, I'm pretty sure I commented in YOUR defense during the campaign here. I recall that you and one or two other female bloggers were subjected to some vile comments when you wrote in support of HC's candidacy, and I objected to that. I mention it only to point out that I feel I'm pretty consistent on this, that supporting other women shouldn't have anything to do with agreeing with their political views.
To CStanley comment prior to the Sullivan comment:
1) You wrote,
“And comparing liberal females to conservative ones, they both face sexist attacks but the liberal ones feel so strongly about the need for gender representation that they're more motivated to endure the attacks.”
Not sure where you get this gender representation thing – the people I communicate with the most discuss it terms of equality in representation reflective of the overall population and egalitarianism. And again, you seek to pit women against women – your arguments succeed far better when you look at these groups discreetly and in terms of what motivates them to make the choices they make, which seemingly are so different from one another.
2) You wrote,
“I think this is why you're having so much difficulty understanding my explanation of the phenomenon- you just can't fathom that some women don't feel the same about it as you do.”
There's nothing intellectually challenging about suggesting that some women don't care about “gender parity.” I'm not sure why you think I can't “fathom” it but regardless, “gender parity” is hardly the main reason Dem women run for political office. That will not get anyone elected.
Rather, there are a whole host of issues that women all along the spectrum care about and want to be heard on: national security, education, health care, reproductive rights, civil liberties, environment, energy, human rights, immigration, states' rights, trade, social security. People seek political office to impact those issues. Nothing you've mentioned addresses why conservative women hang back in terms of offering a voice, through political office, on those subjects.
CStanley – I was eviscerated when I wrote that I voted for Clinton and I was eviscerated when I wrote that people who'd supported Clinton could find reasons to support Obama – it was lose lose lose all the way around for me – but it didn't deter me for one moment. Whatever support you gave me, I appreciate.
This post is not about whether women must support all women all the time, or liberal women not being there when conservative women are beaten up by sexist or other commentary/attacks, or either of those things being the reason why there are so few GOP women in elected office – which IS what the post is about.
Based on what you've written, it wouldn't matter HOW MUCH liberal women or anyone else for that matter called out attacks against conservative women – the conservative women still wouldn't have very high numbers of representation in elected office – because of the other reasons you've cited.
If you are sincere about the belief that all women should support all women all the time, check out The New Agenda:
There are many dedicated, passionate, involved, intelligent women there from all along the spectrum. The intensity of some of them is beyond my comfort zone, but I respect their efforts and believe that they've corralled the voices and concerns of many women – I think that's great and I support them in that effort.
As far as whether all women should know what all other women are thinking, again – I just won't make that dictate. I keep abreast of a helluva lot of stuff but I'm the last one who would ever try to guilt someone into saying, “you aren't reading that!”
If you want an EXCELLENT taste of just how disparate the views are among the women in these listservs, check out the launch of Slate's Double X website. I actually have not read much of it – but it's been all the rage on the listservs – pro, con, who cares and so on.
The order of what I read:
-my five newspapers (The Plain Dealer, The New York Times, Chagrin Herald Sun, Chagrin Valley Times, Cleveland Jewish News)
-my email (very selectively – I get 100s a day, many are newsletters including from gun rights advocates, Family Research Council, National Women's Law Center and just yesterday I got an invitation to be on a conf call for conservatives trying to rally around the concept of “freedom” – that's just a sampling
-my google alerts (which I choose and primarily are my local electeds, the name of my city, and a few others)
-my twitter stream
-my facebook page and that of my facebook page for my city council campaign (assuming you didn't miss that I'm running for my city council)
-BlogNetNews Ohio – to see what Ohio bloggers – left and right – are writing; that, my google alerts and the people I follow on Twitter – who are all over the political spectrum – are my prime sources of what's going on/what are people reading/thinking about – right now. It's totally subject to change.
And that's pretty much it – if I have the time for all that.
I have nearly 400 feeds in my BlogLines account but I haven't looked at it in months – just no time and too voluminous.
I'm happy to learn that there's more diversity of thought out there but if it doesn't make it to me through what I seek out but rather through someone informing me, then that's how I get it. I'm only human.
This post is not about whether women must support all women all the time, or liberal women not being there when conservative women are beaten up by sexist or other commentary/attacks, or either of those things being the reason why there are so few GOP women in elected office – which IS what the post is about.
Well, the problem is that that IS what my response was about, at least in part, so I can't really engage your question without going there. And you still haven't answered- if you don't agree with my reasons, then what do you think it is?
Based on what you've written, it wouldn't matter HOW MUCH liberal women or anyone else for that matter called out attacks against conservative women – the conservative women still wouldn't have very high numbers of representation in elected office – because of the other reasons you've cited.
Sure, but my appeal for liberal feminists to support women who aren't liberal isn't based on a desire to see more conservative female politicians- it's just based on common decency and the need to support others who are in the same boat as oneself. I guess I think that having feminists groups that aren't ideological, or those that are liberally ideological but still defend conservative women against unfair attack, might lead to a small increase in the number of conservative female politicians because the headwind wouldn't be quite as strong. But again, you assume that's a major goal or should be, and I don't.
Before I get to these little things called work projects and children
I do want to say this:
I feel strongly that women possess perspectives from which our society can benefit. When women elect to stay out of politics, one playing field for helping society benefit from their perspectives is lost. That is why this matter of women in politics matters to me.
Fair enough, Jill, but I believe that we possess qualities that can perhaps best manifest in the sphere of life outside of politics. I don't wish for women to be politically disengaged but I don't necessarily think the best place for feminine influence to be asserted is in politics.
CStanley:
“if you don't agree with my reasons, then what do you think it is?”
I would only be speculating from where I sit – I don't think that would be very fair and also could be horribly inaccurate. At a minimum, and I speak from what I know about in Ohio, recruitment is not what it could be. And as you say, there don't seem to be support apparatus to the extent women on the leftside of the aisle have. But the left side also has many more role models. I mean – look at how the GOP speaks about Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, women on the right included – isn't that something to be called out? Or…is it just issues? I'm not well-positioned to comment on that, but I can tell you that when I see Dem on Dem stuff, it drives me INSANE (check out the infighting between the AccountabilityNow.com folks and the Blue Dog democrats for example).
You wrote,
“…having feminists groups that aren't ideological, or those that are liberally ideological but still defend conservative women against unfair attack, might lead to a small increase in the number of conservative female politicians because the headwind wouldn't be quite as strong.”
Again – check out and follow for a little bit The New Agenda – you might find you like it a lot – I'm not sure. Also, again, I firmly believe that the catfighting concept is a very very tiny part. Trust me – as someone who is getting up the courage to run for office even in my small city, you have to really want to contribute to run for office. If you don't, there's no reason to bother, IMO and concerns about how mean someone/some group is going to be just would not be enough to deter. IMO.
I'll check out that site when I get a chance.
As for this:
Trust me – as someone who is getting up the courage to run for office even in my small city, you have to really want to contribute to run for office. If you don't, there's no reason to bother, IMO and concerns about how mean someone/some group is going to be just would not be enough to deter. IMO.
It's not about meanness though, or thin skin. It's about whether or not the bullying ends up being effective because no one calls the bullies into account. I'd think that most conservative women who might consider running for office would probably feel that it would be futile if the environment is so inhospitable toward conservative women, because no one is going to call out the commentators and pundits who create this negative narrative and image of them. And if you feel your chances of winning are extremely low, then how can anyone justify putting their families through that?
Kudos to you for considering a run though, for sticking to your own values about this. I wish you the best if you make that decision.
Thank you, I can feel that you are sincere in the good wishes and I do appreciate that (as well as this debate).
The issue about weighing/balancing/looking at/analyzing the costs v. the rewards of running are 100% real – I understand that. It's a topic for another post and maybe that's the next one I'll do – I've not written about my run at all on TMV and I don't want to make it the centerpiece of a post. But I pulled petitions at the very beginning of April and have been working along steadily ever since – anyone who is interested can follow me here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=620507627…
However, I think that a democracy that allows people to feel or that allows the actual negative narrative to be so overpowering that they won't seek to become involved in the political process, man or woman, is hugely flawed – which, I believe, is how many women, left of center, do feel (that the system is flawed and that their/we're going to keep at it until it's less flawed). I think there ARE women right of center who feel that way as well and I think Snow and Collins are good examples of that. Look at Meg Whitman who is running in CA – clearly she feels she's got something to contribute (and she'd be an example of your women in business – Fiorina as well).
And of course there are women who don't think the system is flawed at all, or it's flawed but they are hopeless about it changing or uninterested in changing it.
Obviously that's not something that describes me.