And so we have all these women running for office in November. Many of them are right-wingers. Those are the ones I want to talk about. (California has two: Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP, running for the Senate, and Meg Whitman, former CEO of EBay, running for governor. Neither one has ever held public office before. But that’s another story.) Following Sarah Palin’s lead, these new double XX politicos want us to think they are feminists. (We’ve gone there before in this space. Want more? Go here.)
I’m not even sure they’re women.
Don’t get me wrong. I think women come in many stripes and colors. So do feminists. And there’s nothing better than a big tent, right?
And yet. There are a certain number of bedrock issues (Abortion? Not even gonna go there.) that we can all agree upon, that you would assume any double X-er would support mainly because these are the issues that directly affect women. All women. And their families. Women’s issues, right? Hello, kids? But these right wingnuttettes? Nope. Seriously, folks. A skirt does not a woman make.
(Neither does a tea party.)
Case in point: The New York Times reports today that the GOP — which is banking on some of these whack-job women helping them achieve a majority in Congress — plans to reveal its plan to “take back America” today at a lumberyard outside of D.C. Channeling the “Contract for America” cooked up by former GOP Speaker of the House and Family-Values-Guy Newt Gingrich (who, by the way, dumped his wife for another woman when said wife was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. But that’s another another story) the New York Times reports that they begin their blueprint with the following promise:
“We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity. We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”
And without question, we can expect to hear that these newly energized “feminist” politicos, these women who call themselves women, have signed right on.
To what, specifically? Here you go. One of the ways they plan to honor families is to repeal the newly enacted health care law. On the agenda. Front and center.
That sound you hear is me throwing up. Because who suffered most under our our health care system of old? Women. And when women suffer, it’s often the kids who pay the price. So much for those family values. But let’s recall a few things we may have forgotten about the old way of health care. Pregnancy: pre-existing condition. Women: statistically more likely to work part-time jobs (so they can care for their kids) that do not provide benefits. Sure, all is well and good for ladies who can depend on well-employed husbands for heath care benefits. But what if he loses his job? Hard to afford COBRA on a part time salary. Or no salary. Or even one salary, for that matter.
And what if she’s a single mother? Sorry, kids. No doc for you…
Back to a post from back in November that linked to a piece in USA Today, here’s a quick refresher on how the old health care system discriminated against women:
- insurance companies are allowed to charge women more for the same policies as men in 40 states and the District of Columbia;
- in those same states and D.C., insurance companies can charge businesses with mostly female employees higher group rates;
- many companies don’t provide maternity coverage as part of their basic plans (perhaps you heard Rep. Senator Jon Kyl, of Arizona’s sensitive take on this issue? “I don’t need maternity care and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.” Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich, called him on the jackass remark, replying “Your mom probably did.”);
- insurance companies can exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions; having had a C-section is one of them;
- if a woman is pregnant when she buys an insurance company, insurance companies can deny maternity coverage;
- 8 states and D.C. allow insurance companies to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence.
There’s more, but those are the highlights of healthcare coverage for women who had insurance. But what about the ones who didn’t? Or their kids? You do the math.
Should we go on? Yes. Let’s.
Then there’s the Meg Whitman plan for California that involves cutting off welfare at the two year mark. Which would be great if there were jobs to be had. (Ahem. You know how that one ends.) But again, what about the families we care so much about? What happens to the kids when mom and dad can’t get a job, or when a single mother can’t afford day care — because, you know, we’ve never made affordable day care a priority?
A while back, one of the experts we interviewed for our book talked about the rise of the right wing women in politics and what she suggested is that maybe one of the reasons for their success so far is that they are not threatening. And really, given their position on the issues, why would they be?
About a month ago, New York Times columnist Gail Collins had a chat with feminist writer Stacy Schiff, and here’s a little excerpt from what they had to say about the new wave of women activists, who had taken to calling themselves “mama grizzlies”, the moniker inspired by Sarah Palin, and whether or not they could really be feminists. Let’s give Gail and Stacy the second-to-last word:
Gail Collins: Do you think the Mama Grizzlies really can be feminists? I don’t think you can throw a woman out of the club because she voted against the stimulus bill. But if feminism simply means supporting equal rights and equal opportunities for women, I don’t see how a feminist can be opposed to government programs that provide poor working mothers with quality child care.
Stacy Schiff: Exactly. The issue is no longer first-rate intellect, or first-rate temperament, but first-rate opportunity. Which is where the Mama Grizzly business really falls down.
An actual grizzly mom is a single mom. She lends a whole new definition to full-time homemaker. If Dad shows up it’s probably to eat the kids. What Mama Grizzly wouldn’t believe in school lunches, health insurance and quality childcare? Who’s going to look after the kids while she’s off hunting? It’s really, really clever to put this powerful vocabulary — pit bulls and grizzlies — in the service of disempowering people. Kind of like death panels in reverse.
Barbara Kelley
Shannon Kelley
You could probably write another whole book on just this topic. It is deeper and wider and so much more insidious. I have lived through some of these issues and can only say I am so grateful I had a HUGE extended family and friend network to help me out. You didn’t even scratch the surface. What about the quickly advancing to Senior Citizen status baby boomers? And so it goes…
This post really makes me shake my head in sadness as it puts women in a war with women regarding a subject they must iron out from within and then engage the greater societal argument. Feminism belongs to each woman. It is from where she derives her identity, her unique gifts and her strength to be that grizzly. It is the perspective from where she will relate spiritually, emotionally and physically.
You point out many valid concerns regarding social policy, but there can be more than one approach to solve the problems that never had a chance to be explored (We need more choices in health care insurance that can be brought about by government actions such as buying insurance across state lines and allowing pools to form based on ideology such as a prolife plan versus a pro choice plan–see who stays healthier.)
Palin, and others like her, have actually dealt with real people’s problems in her capacity in local government and commissions. Though I am not a huge fan of Whitman, and I wish that more conservative women would get opportunities to run for office other than a well healed CEO, these women do have experience to bring to the office, that of being women in business that were in the boardroom. They certainly had more executive and management experience than our current President. To discount that experience as women who pierced the glass ceiling is a very sad commentary.
Finally, those untouchable subjects like abortion and birth control hormones have real consequences for women’s health. Unfortunately, that is the big drug company arena and women need to read between all the lines when it comes to their health (breast cancer, heart disease among other diseases don’t distinguish between who is a feminist and who isn’t). Women need to scrutinize who is behind the big movements of these discussions. The discussion about these issues require a vigourous discussion from all women. You seem to assume all women on the progressive side of the issue are the only ones who have had the experiences of these women’s issues. Let me assure you, that is not the case and many Palin supporters support her because of that very fact.
When it comes to the subject of feminism, let us not be guility of McCarthyism. We need the discussion.
I made a note of this on my facebook page and I hope more women will take the opportunity to leave a civil comment. I am grateful your post opens the conversation one more time.
I guess I am a “wingnuttette” but I have to think there are ways for women to address issues of good health care and good child care that are not, necessarily, government programs. Are women to replace dependence upon earning men with dependence upon government? I can understand that it’s difficult for progressives to hear and understand other points of view … but, really, I find that most women I talk with have the same concerns and compassion for people even when we radically differ on how to push the ball forward toward the goal. Some of us have come to the conclusion that a series of legal and cultural changes have “released” men entirely from care of women they impregnate and the children they sire. While empowering some number of women, these changes account for the astounding increase of single women with children now officially “poor.” The same shift occurred after no fault divorce – and, again, these “freedoms” certainly have been enjoyed by many women, who are educated and know how to make good choices. But an agenda that works great for me, does not necessarily work at all for other women. The failure, for example, of SCHIP in Ca to achieve its wonderful purpose is not attributable to wingnuttettes – but to a program not designed to meet the people in need where they are. This is all worth discussing … but it’s so hard to do when you limit the club to people whose opinions you pre-approve and bar discussion by labeling an entire group of thoughtful, educated women – who care just as much as any progressive woman cares – as not feminists, not even women! Good grief. BTW, if you think that horrid, male attitudes contributed to lop-sided medical coverage for women, children, mentally and emotionally disabled, wait until you see what they can do with the power of male-directed federal government behind them!
[...] for Women is a partisan operation. (Because, you know, men get to vote on the issues, but women can only vote for the similarly-chromosomed. Any hint of voting with something other than our vaginas suggests partisanship.) Others wrung [...]