Everyone has a woman problem

Everyone, meet Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), currently Vice-Chairman of the House Republican Conference and thus the highest-ranking Republican woman in Congress. The highest-ranking Democratic woman is still House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), if anyone cares. But we all know Pelosi well; she’s standard-issue when it comes to crafting her party’s message for women. McMorris Rodgers is not. As you’ll see, it’s actually a priority for her.

The profile spends a lot of time on her efforts to appeal to female voters with free-market rhetoric and “pocketbook issues” including jobs, health care and family policy. Like many Republicans and a few independent women who dislike pandering (like me!), she’s not fond of the Democrats’ belief that women need government at all times, most recently exemplified by The Life of Julia. The difference is that McMorris Rodgers (who I’m calling CMR from now on) sees a political opportunity more clearly than her male counterparts.

Let’s use Julia as our example of the ideal Democratic woman. She took Head Start as a youngster; she went to a public school, as do her kids; she paid for her college education with some state aid; she uses her parents’ health coverage; she is not closed off to suing for equal pay; she has student loans, but pays them off steadily; her health insurance covers everything concerned with childbirth, including contraception; her own small business depends on certain tax cuts; and she uses both Medicare and Social Security. All with the Obama administration’s help.

Now, based on CMR’s talk, let’s develop an avatar for the ideal GOP woman. We’ll call her Natalie. (I’m watching Star Wars prequels as I write this.) Her own small business depends on certain tax cuts. Everything else is up to the free market and what she decides to buy and sell from it. Also, she definitely has or will have kids. Done.

Do you see the disconnect? It’s not just that Democrats see a bigger role for government and Republicans see a smaller one. CMR throws around the words “family” and “children” much more often than single, childless/childfree women might like. Say what you will about Democrats and birth control, but at least they acknowledge that some women don’t want children at any given moment, or perhaps at all. Paternalism is the Democratic woman problem; natalism is the Republican one. Either you marry a father figure or vote for one.

Once CMR can capture this segment of the female electorate, her goal will be met. The only thing all women have in common is the desire for respect for our choices, and space to make good on them.

The Violence Against Pretty Much Everyone Act

What’s interesting about the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is that only a fraction of the full text paints women as the only type of victims it is designed to protect. Otherwise, it is full of generalities that could apply to people of either sex: spouse, partner, abuser, victim, etc. Except for some titles, subheads and statistics, the text of this legislation is almost always ambiguous enough to include male victims. An attempt by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to clarify this is not quite the “expansion” that opponents paint it to be.

VAWA is up for renewal this year, and it might have been renewed already if not for some concerns by Senate Republicans about extending domestic abuse protections to LGBTs, illegal immigrants and Native Americans. (It’s worth noting that an entire title of the 2005 law concerns Native women exclusively.) This would be done through Leahy’s bill, which does the following:

• prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;
• gives Native tribes jurisdiction over abusers if their ties to the tribe in question are strong enough; and
• allows police to request visas for victims who are illegal immigrants and who are assisting their investigations.

Meanwhile, the GOP version sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) would extend the current law, eliminate all of the above amendments, and add provisions targeting related fraud, namely marriage fraud. He dubs the anti-discrimination provision “a solution in search of a problem” (does it need one if it doesn’t mandate anything except not being an asshole?). His problem with the tribal provision is the contention that these courts could have jurisdiction over any American. Which, as you’ll see in section 904, is not true.

I have absolutely no problem with the first two, although I am slightly baffled that the second one didn’t already exist. Clearly tribal politics in America is a horse of a different color. The third one is causing the most controversy so far, for the usual reasons. I would tentatively deem aiding a domestic abuse case an acceptable justification for a visa. Leahy’s other two provisions and Grassley’s fraud provisions, meanwhile, can and should peacefully co-exist.

Vacation update: Attempted to use the Nice Ride MN program in a park in north Minneapolis. Until then, I hadn’t been on any bike since I was 10 years old. Turns out my legs are too short to handle an adult-sized bike. Get some women’s and youth sizes in there! Later, took in a Twins-Red Sox game at Target Field, which is basically the best sports venue ever. The Twins got blown out.

Disposal Day #117: The crackpots and these women

STORY #1: The war for women

Amazing how quick former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is to take up challenges from President Obama. This week, the challenge was to prove that he can be a good candidate for female voters. After all, the Obama camp charged, is Romney not from the party that opposes legislation making it easier for women to sue for wage discrimination, and has engaged in ridiculous attacks on their reproductive decisions? Romney’s response: 92 percent of jobs lost on Obama’s watch were held by women!

What Romney neglected to mention is that a) the unemployment rate for men is still 0.2 percentage points higher than the one for women, and that b) male-dominated sectors like construction were more heavily represented in the earlier years of the recession, which is a typical pattern, while female-dominated sectors like education are more represented now. Does anyone but him see the recession any other way?

STORY #2: The war between women

Good God, I hope we’re not about to get into this “Mommy Wars” bullshit again. That appears to be the result of Ann Romney’s introduction to Twitter. Democratic commentator Hilary Rosen said yesterday on CNN that, because Ann has “never worked a day in her life,” she can’t be in touch with economic struggles faced by women. Ann shot back by pointing out that raising five boys is work. (But five Romney boys? What did they do, eat sugar? Get a B?)

That it is, so Ann wins that part of the argument. But her inattention to Rosen’s point about socioeconomic status, which bars many women from even thinking about staying home with their children, only makes Rosen look right. The ability to respect other women’s choices in full requires the ability to understand why they were able to make them, which Rosen has in greater numbers. But why Rosen brought a candidate’s wife into a political chat is a mystery.

STORY #3: The war on boys’ clubs

Demands for 50 percent of everything in terms of gender parity sound just as disingenuous coming from smirking right-wing commentators as they do from raging feminists. That seems to be the only thing that will satisfy this wrtier from The Blaze, a fairly new conservative site, on the “boys’ club” mentality and salary disparity in the Obama White House. Does anyone outside the business world ever factor in the role of salary expectations when measuring men’s to women’s salaries? Until they do, I’m not going to bother worrying about it. I’m happy with my salary.

Disposal Day #113: SEX! Now that I have your attention . . .

STORY #1: The anger games

Pop quiz: When the Obama administration decided to shut down Texas’s “Women’s Health Program,” which provided health care for 100,000 low-income women, over the state’s decision to forbid any federal funding from going to abortion services, who made women more angry? Was it a) the state, for cutting off funding for abortions, or b) the feds, for cutting off funding for everything else? Answer: Frankly, I don’t know, but if I were a low-income Texan woman, I’d pick B.

There are plenty of arguments to be made against the state’s decision, primarily the already very limited availability of abortion services in the South. But the feds’ move in response is, to quote Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) (and I rarely do except to ridicule him), “political posturing” of the worst kind. The process of cutting off the funding will take about nine months, which may be time for Texas to make up the revenue. But it’s safe to say that they won’t use that time to change their minds about their right to fund services as they see fit.

STORY #2: Satan loves porn

Number #1,583 on the list of Relatively Unimportant Things That Freak Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) Out: consensual adult porn. I imagine non-consensual, non-adult porn is in there as well, but he’s certainly not arguing for a national porn ban on that basis. His campaign website promises a crackdown on the distribution of hardcore porn through all channels, including the Internet. Of course, this is Santorum we’re talking about, so that probably includes depictions of kissing with tongue.

Easy as it may be for the government to get away with censoring porn, that doesn’t make it right. The simple act of looking at it (the consensual adult version, which I cannot clarify enough) does not cause any harm to others that merits government interference. For that matter, laws of this nature can be vague enough to lead to the prosecution of 16-year-olds who write yaoi. Say “censorship” and I’m done with you.

STORY #3: Follow the money

In the second of our two stories about people caring way too much about abortion: A controversial and ultimately scrapped decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cease donations to Planned Parenthood was due to pressure from Catholic bishops in Ohio, even though no money from Komen’s Ohio chapter go to Planned Parenthood at all. They just feared that it might somehow end up at another affiliate elsewhere in the country. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could geotag our money to make sure it never pays for things we don’t like?

I love it when the women get involved

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), now a two-time failure here at The Future American. But don’t worry, this isn’t about another politically motivated Oversight Committee vendetta against President Obama. . . . God. I really hope the Republicans get back to the economy soon; I’ve been talking like a hardcore Democrat for the past two weeks thanks to this reproductive nonsense, which, unbelievably, continued on Thursday. Believe me, I don’t feel good about that.

Anyway, Thursday was the day Issa convened a hearing on Obama’s rule for employers to provide free contraception to female workers, now complete with an exemption for religiously affiliated workers. The first five witnesses at the hearing were all male and all religious leaders. But that was just the first panel; the second included two women, one of whom happened to be a doctor. The three congressional Democrats who walked out of the hearing in protest missed that, and now, rightfully, look too self-righteous for their own good.

But that wasn’t the fail. No, that happened when Issa told Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), one of the walkers, that Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke would not be permitted to testify because the debate wasn’t about “reproductive rights and contraception.” Fluke’s role would have been to provide insight on how any watered-down version of the rule might affect women. I’m skeptical of how much insight a law student could provide, but Issa was basically saying that any such testimony was irrelevant to the discussion.

See, that would have made sense if the rule in question concerned religious matters far broader than reproduction. Unfortunately for Issa, it’s at the very core of the rule he’s so angry about; there are parties to it other than the five religious leaders he brought in. (Wouldn’t everyone have gotten the picture if only two or three of them had spoken?) It’s very clear that this cross-section of the GOP has no clue what women’s concerns are, including Catholic women, and don’t want to try to get one.

I generally don’t believe that women in politics automatically bring a different perspective than a men, but anything concerning pregnancy is an exception for obvious reasons. I comfort myself with the knowledge that Independent women are more valuable than the Republicans know.

We desire you would remember the ladies

A contributing factor to my split with organized feminism was my realization that the private sector can have a role in repairing social ills. (That may seem obvious, but I’m Canadian.) As evidenced by a new campaign launched by a series of well-known advocacy groups, the feminist establishment has yet to have such an awakening. As is their way, they’ve entered the debt ceiling debate by bringing up how it will impact women.

The purpose of the “Respect, Protect, Reject” campaign is to lobby Congress not to cut federal programs that support women, or reduce entitlement programs that benefit lots of people (but especially women!). Partners include the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the National Conference of Women’s Organizations (NCWO) and, presumably, other groups with “national” and “women” in their names.

Even those with a disproportionate zeal for budget-cutting would agree that cuts to social services, especially those that have proven cost-effective, hurt. Such organizations have enough trouble getting funding already, from private sources or more local governments whose support would be more meaningful. We don’t need to get into how much more painful cuts to entitlements would be, however necessary for the sake of national fiscal health.

But the long-term benefits of taking this into consideration would free up more money for such programs down the line. More importantly, this campaign is one more in a long line of instances of feminist organizations running to the government for help. Their remarks on jobs for women are limited to the public sector mostly employing women, and most recovered private jobs employing men – no surprise considering most of them are in manufacturing.

If feminists wonder why this generation isn’t all that enamored with them, they might consider the new sense of fiscally conservative populism. More women, as well as men, want to hear a connection between feminism (and other social movements) and employment, education, housing and the ability to help feed their families. And they want it outside the confines of government, where it would be safer from cuts.

If the aforementioned feminist organizations absolutely must spend whatever they’re spending on this campaign, they might put it toward the specific non-profits that will have to go without. No amount of social activism will stop what’s happening to the budget.

It’s all about the Susan B. Anthonies

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. I’ve ragged on a number of Republicans for yammering on about social issues at a time when the majority of Americans would like to hear more about deficit reduction and job creation; now it’s a liberal’s turn. President Obama has signed a memorandum that would extend the federal government’s efforts to collect data on women’s progress, mostly in the realm of earnings.

This on its own is bad enough. O’Neill says the data benefits non-profits like hers who need the numbers to lobby effectively; clearly the memo amounts to little more than throwing a bone to her group and others. Even then, she isn’t happy with Obama’s priorities, nor the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that Obama signed nine days after his inauguration: “We’ve got to have investments in jobs, and they’ve got to be investments in jobs for women.”

I’d hate to break it to you, Ms. O’Neill, but there’s actually no sense in job-creation initiatives targeted to specific demographics. The objective is to lower the unemployment rate for everyone, a strategy which seems to be working so far. “A rising tide lifts all boats” may seem like empty rhetoric to the NOW crowd, but it’s true when the boats are equally qualified for certain jobs and no systemic discrimination is involved.

Of course, you’ll have a hard time convincing that crowd that systemic, first-degree discrimination is the largest cause of the income gap between men and women. The best way to determine if it is or isn’t would be to find a large enough group of men and women with the exact same education, skills, experience, seniority, salary expectations and productivity. Has anyone tried this yet? Show me the charts.

The central objectives of the aforementioned Fair Pay Act and another NOW favorite, the Paycheck Fairness Act, are to make it easier for women to claim that they are underpaid on the basis of gender. Women cannot hope to legislate their way to parity. This is one of many examples of feminism failing to realize the individual potential of the people it claims to speak for. It’s on them, not the feds.

Disposal Day #59: Let’s talk about sex, baby

STORY #1: Obama’s DOMA drama

President Obama has announced that his government will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which remains, in my mind, the single worst piece of federal legislation that isn’t “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Not only does it lack any constitutional basis, but its raison d’être is the fact that some people are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, and that’s no reason at all. Any self-styled conservative should be ashamed of themselves if they ever endorsed or voted for this drivel.

So does this mean Obama now supports legalizing gay marriage? According to a White House spokesman, he is “still grappling” with his beliefs on the issue. If he would like some help in his search for truth, I would advise him to come and visit us in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for six years. He will be able to see then that there are no side effects.

STORY #2: It’s a ho-down!

According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), “Nevada needs to be known as the first place for innovation and investment – not as the last place where prostitution is still legal.” In truth, prostitution is bringing Nevada as close as it possibly can get to a diversified economy. Yet Reid is now pushing to repeal its legalization, not out of fiscal concerns but out of plain old embarrassment.

I’d be pretty embarrassed if the only reasons people traveled to my state were gambling and poon. But legalized prostitution enables the state to regulate it, which is good for the people working in it, and tax it, which is good for its own coffers. If Reid would like to get people’s minds off Nevada’s fine brothels, he might consider investing some of that revenue in a third economic sector.

STORY #3: Wandering eye of Newt

Some time ago, I published a column about how any attempt by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to run for the presidency was doomed to fail, mostly because, as Speaker, he failed at getting then-President Bill Clinton to do things his way; Republicans don’t forget that easily. Now it’s suspected that what I called “the wife thing” will be the death of him. He says it won’t.

And, really? It won’t. He’ll lose simply because the GOP has better people to nominate than him. Only if he starts spouting off about traditional morality will it become anything resembling an issue.

Put on your big girl panties and deal with it

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Democratic activist Christine Pelosi (yeah, that Pelosi), Siobhan Bennett of the Women’s Campaign Forum and MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. For a while, I’ve been looking for an excuse in the news to castigate people who worry about discriminatory-sounding words instead of actual discrimination. Here it is: All three are attacking Joe Scarborough, also of MSNBC, for using the phrase “Man up” in reference to Republican opponents of former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).

Yes. That’s all. He said “Man up” and it became an actual thing, however minor. No doubt Scarborough has a checkered past when it comes to political civility, or the lack thereof, which is well documented in books such as this. But the point he was trying to make in the op-ed where this phrase was published was that Republicans can’t let Palin be their avatar, which anyone would agree with if they reviewed his back-ups. (Wait, what? She “blamed George W. Bush for wrecking the economy”? She actually got one right. I’m impressed.)

The above failers have zeroed in on two innocuous words in the whole of Scarborough’s column and used it as a springboard to attack all “gender-based imperious imperatives,” according to Pelosi. To their credit, they’ve also gone after women who use the same language, such as “cojones” (Palin) or “man-pants” (Christine O’Donnell). At least they’re not hypocrites. But that women are using it at all should make them happy that we no longer freak out about mere words. Most of us, anyway.

How many people here know what someone is really trying to say when they say “Man up”? Answer: “Stand up for yourself.” How about “Grow a pair”? Answer: “Be stronger.” Now how many of them are so unnecessarily academic that, in the back of their mind, they’re thinking “Men are fundamentally stronger than women and I should prove this in my slang”? Answer: None.

That’s the problem with so identity politicos on the Left. With most substantive political battles already won in the West, they have nothing left but other people’s English. Just as there are starving children in Africa who would love your Brussels sprouts, there are downtrodden women in Iran who would love to run for public office.

When violence really is “against women”

When you’ve spent enough time on a message board dominated by people claiming that their gender has it worse, you see all gender issues through that filter; every question leads to a new question of “Is this fair to both women and men, or does it only benefit one?” The mere suggestion that one, in general, may get the short end of the stick can result in accusations of deep-seated ignorance, resentment, or hatred of the other. (No, really. It happens all the time.)

We have tended to agree, however, that women outside of the Western world have it worse when it comes to institutionalized sexism, and that this is where efforts on the part of organized feminist activism would serve the most purpose. It has already been the impetus for bipartisan legislation in the Senate that would allow the U.S. to take the lead on ending violence against women (which we will call VAW) around the globe.

The measure, costing $50 million over five years, would mandate from the State Department a five-year plan to combat VAW in countries where it is particularly high. This plan would include increasing access to health care for victims and to jail for abusers, and providing additional aid to countries which already have anti-VAW policies of their own. The sponsors are Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

For the anti-feminists on the above noted message board who may oppose all this emphasis on women, it is important to define exactly what constitutes “gender-based violence.” According to Wikipedia, it may be

• domestic violence;
• violence relating to pregnancy and childbirth;
• recommendations to battered women on the part of medical professionals that may lead to more battering;
• female prisoners of war being forced into makeshift brothels;
• and state agents misusing their power to sexually harass/assault women.

No doubt, men are capable of facing all of these problems and have probably had it happen to them before. But the sexual  and discriminatory natures of so many of these crimes (which can often be domestic) make us pay more attention to female victims. I don’t expect that the policy itself would bar male victims from receiving any of these services. Nonetheless, for the sake of erasing all doubt, it would be better to address the problem of “sexual and domestic violence” regardless of gender, even if the majority of victims are women. It may at least provide extra guidance to aid recipients.