Women's Interest = Nation's Interest

In an Alternet posting [Rigidly Male-Dominated Societies Are Violent; The U.S. Is No Different] of an opinion piece by Riane Eisler originally published by The WIP, the author raises the point we shared in our recent posting [Women's Solutions, National Solutions]: in meeting women's needs we improve economic security for all our nation’s people, women and men alike.

Eisler writes:

This relegation of "women's issues" to a secondary place is obviously terrible for half of America (actually the majority, since women are 52 percent). But it's also terrible for the political and family health of our entire nation.

While calling for progressives to make women's issues integral to their agenda, she notes:

The equal valuing of the two halves of humanity -- women and men -- will obviously vastly improve girls' and women's quality of life. But it's also essential if we are to move to a more democratic, peaceful, and sustainable future for us all.

The Alternet posting has an active comment list. Join it, or start the conversation here with your comment.

Women's Solutions, National Solutions

In a campaign season where the concept of “women”—as candidates and as voters—has generated a great deal of rhetoric, but not very much in the way of substantive policy, Barack Obama’s announcement of a set of policy priorities [pdf] targeting the needs of America’s working women was a welcome, albeit long-over-due change. We hope this announcement marks a turning point in the campaign, and that both candidates will hold themselves accountable to the millions of women—especially low-income women and women of color—who are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis.

As Obama implied on The Today Show, women across America are finding themselves disproportionately affected by the uncertain economic environment. Women still are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns (the disparity is worse for African American women, who earn 62 cents, and even worse for Latinas, making 53 cents for every man’s dollar) which puts them at a disadvantage even in a good economy. Moreover, women comprise the majority (59%) of the nation’s minimum wage earners, while simultaneously bearing greater responsibility for child-rearing (10.4 million women are single parents, compared to 2.5 million single-fathers according to the latest US Census). Also the majority of minimum and low-wage jobs do not guarantee affordable health care or even paid sick leave, and the result is that many working women must make a choice between their own health and putting food on the table for their families. The soaring cost of child-care further erodes working women’s chances at establishing any sense of economic security.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis rippling across the nation has also hit women harder: 32 percent of women hold subprime mortgages compared with 24 percent of men, a disparity accounted for by women’s historically lower wealth and income. The repercussions are even worse for African American and Latino homeowners who were 30 percent more likely to have received sub-prime loans. Furthermore, as the real estate market employs significantly more women (142,000) than men (42,000), the industry-wide downturn means that more women’s jobs are at risk.

Our grantee partners across the country, many of whom are low-income women and women of color, know personally the effects of economic injustice, made more acute by the current economic downturn. Based on their lived experience, they have vital recommendations for policy change. Being attentive to the struggles of low-income and middle-income women is a first step; truly incorporating working women’s diverse perspectives in policy development, however, is the only way to guarantee the practical, sustainable solutions our nation needs.

Most importantly, we must realize that meeting women’s needs—via affordable health care, accessible child care, paid sick leave, a living wage, etc.—will result in an improved chance at economic security for all our nation’s people, women and men alike.

A Closer "Look" at Women Voters

Did anyone catch the sad irony of the way the New York Times Magazine presented Linda Hirshman’s article, “16 Ways of Looking at a Female Voter” last Sunday (2/3/08)?

One of the most disturbing things about the piece—in the online and print versions, though it’s more stark in print—was that there was not one significant visual image of a woman voter alongside the text. While one could write a thesis and more about the absence, and misrepresentation, of women in the media, this was especially stunning given that the article was supposed to be a literal “look” at female voters.

For those who don’t have the article in front of them, the only visual markers throughout the piece were small photos of women’s disembodied hands placing a ballot in a box. I couldn’t help thinking that while Hirshman ostensibly sets out to address the motivations and thinking of women voters, the omission of photos of real women only perpetuates their invisibility as real political actors.

Unfortunately, the irony of the title also extends to the absence of a thoughtful and in-depth “look” at “what we know and don’t know about gender and politics.”

This is surely not all we know and don’t know about gender and politics. Hirshman’s reliance on disembodied data and minimal-to-no context—as well as her odd interpretation of some of the data—paints a pretty disparaging picture of women. After scanning the extremely short takes on how women think, readers can only conclude that women don’t think all that much. And that what they do think doesn’t really matter. According to the article’s sources, women on average have less knowledge and interest in our country’s political life than men; they read the news far less than men; they will decide whether or not to support Clinton solely on the basis of her gender; and when they do vote, their voting power won’t decide elections. As Hirshman writes, “with the possible exception of 1996, women have never voted a candidate into the White House when men thought the other guy should win.”

Then there’s the extraordinarily cursory mention of race and class—less than two short paragraphs under the heading, “Race Matters—and Class, Too”—with zero mention of the ways in which racial discrimination and economic inequality prevent women from fully participating in voting booths and at policy making tables.

As we are well aware at the Ms. Foundation, women—especially women of color and low-income women—continue to be marginalized in the political arena and widely excluded from centers of power and decision-making. How can an article about women voters ignore this fact? In any analysis of women’s political participation, the relationship of race and class to gender is key. And this speaks not just to Hirshman’s article, but to the majority of coverage of this year’s primaries which has consistently sought to analyze gender, race and class in isolation, or worse yet, to pit them against one another.

So, while giving a nod to women’s power by conceding that “when women do come forward they alter the political landscape,” the article’s less than one-dimensional picture of a “female voter” further marginalizes women’s participation in the political arena—particularly women of color and low income women—and undermines the crucial role women play in developing and implementing policy solutions on grassroots, state and national levels.

The Times, as is true for media nationwide, owes it to all its readers to provide a more in-depth, sophisticated and nuanced examination of gender, race, class, public policy and civic engagement. It must also commit to incorporating a full range of women’s voices and perspectives—throughout the election season and beyond.

And one more thought: If you read this issue of the Magazine cover to cover, aside from a couple of advertisements, the only images of women you’ll find are in a 14-page fashion spread of young, white women in surreal, nymph-like dress. Is this the only way we’re permitted to look at women—even if the title of an article on women voters suggests otherwise? Meanwhile, the same issue of the Magazine profiles Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, and includes no fewer than nine pictures of him in action, touring the world! What’s wrong with this, well, picture?

Sara K. Gould
President & CEO

The Primaries: Yes, Gender Matters...A LOT

Let’s put aside the question of whom to support in the Democratic primaries. Instead, let’s look at some of the most challenging issues facing our democracy that were raised by Gloria Steinem, co-founder of the Ms. Foundation for Women, in an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times (1/8/08), "Women are Never Front-Runners."

They include:

“Why aren’t we ready to break the gender barrier?”

“The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent, and can only be uprooted together.” And finally,

We have “a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers, and paper degrees.”

Yes, money and pedigree are on the list, too, even though this country likes to blur our own class structures by highlighting the opportunities our free market system has to offer “everyone.” Class, like race and gender, creates significant barriers to equal and meaningful participation in our democratic process.

So, if our commitment to progressive social justice is real, we must at once address race and gender and class as we strive for an equitable and inclusive democracy.

At the Ms. Foundation, we support over 200 community-based and national advocacy organizations across the United States that represent, and work on behalf of, low-income women and women of color. Through our 35 years of support for women’s full participation in our society, we have seen over and over again that our grantees have powerful solutions to the myriad crises facing communities nationwide. But while fighting for policy and culture changes that benefit us all, they continue to face reinforcing barriers of racism, sexism and poverty–making them the most marginalized citizens in our democratic process.

Just take Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing disaster in the Gulf Coast. Low-income women of color were disproportionately affected by the storms and subsequent housing, health care and unemployment crises. But while their experiences make them uniquely positioned to devise and implement policy solutions, they remain largely excluded from decision-making tables.

In her op-ed, Gloria Steinem addresses the barriers women face by asking us to imagine an African American woman—with the same credentials as Barack Obama—running for president. “Could [she] be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?” Ms. Steinem asks. Not likely. That’s because, she goes on to say, “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.”

Let's now add class to the mix. Let's imagine a low-income, African American woman, single mother of three, running for public office. A woman with scarce resources and time, yet whose knowledge, leadership and commitment would drive significant policy changes that would benefit all members of her community, city, state or country.

The fact is, while small numbers of low-income women of color have won a seat at policy tables —our grantees are a testament to that—most continue to be excluded from decision-making processes—and at great cost to us all. So as we take a look at the field of presidential candidates before us, let's not forget that the combined, often inextricably linked barriers of race, gender and class persist nationwide. Just how deep and pernicious these barriers are should be of great concern to everyone if we hope to realize a just and truly participatory democracy in 2008 and beyond.

By Sara K. Gould
President & CEO