Just before yesterday’s debate, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Gov. Mitt Romney taking the lead over President Barack Obama. The lead was largely attributed to more women giving their support to the governor. As I wrote yesterday, this suggests that maybe, just maybe, women care about more than “pelvic politics” (abortion, contraception, abortion and abortion).
The debates gave considerable evidence of each candidate’s view of women. When asked about pay equity, Obama started with a personal story about his grandmother and wound up talking about Planned Parenthood. Romney, on the other hand, spoke about what he’d done as governor in Massachusetts. Yes, he made an awkward statement about having “binders full of women.” But his actions resulted in having a state government with the highest number of women in senior positions in the country. He was also explicit that part of that success lay in accommodating the busy lives of women by offering flexible hours.
President Obama, meanwhile, spoke about the Lily Ledbetter law (an attempt to achieve workplace equity). However, his record on acknowledging women as real contributors in his own administration indicates that they may be equal, but they are certainly separate. The Weekly Standard highlights reports from The Washington Post that one of the president’s own debate coaches, Anita Dunn, called the White House “a hostile work environment” for women. Christina Romer, an economic adviser, said that she “felt like a piece of meat.” Amy Sullivan, writing for Time, called the White House a “boys club.”
Two competing visions of women appear to underlie each candidate’s views. The president backed up his efforts by arguing, “Women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family.” While this may be true, do we want to continue to facilitate an economy and a society in which more women continue to shoulder the burdens of family?
In the past 40 years, women have made tremendous gains in the workplace. But in this same period, contraception and abortion have become the norm. As a result, we are now at a point, perhaps never before experienced in the U.S., where single women account for more than 40% of births. Generally, that means that a woman can’t count on the father to do his share of the work in providing for and raising a child. It shouldn’t surprise us that these individual women struggle to do the work of two parents. As a result, being a single mom is one of the strongest predictors of poverty.
Last night, Romney made some very important points which were never refuted by the president. When Obama took office in 2008, 32 million people were receiving food stamps. Four years later, that number has grown to 47 million. Our job increases don’t keep up with population growth (hence, all those college graduates without jobs). One in six Americans lives in poverty. Three and a half million more women are living in poverty than four years ago.
The president responded, continuing his discussion of pay equity, by bringing in contraception and Planned Parenthood. Currently, Planned Parenthood receives about $1 million per day from the federal government. When Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law, testified that birth control, which she estimated at $1,000 per year, was too expensive, fact-checkers quickly found that a month's supply of the pill costs $9 at a drugstore within three miles of her university and that condoms are readily available (there's even an app). So contraceptives are widely accessible regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Nevertheless, the president fixated on contraception and failed to address the question of the economy and what can be done to help everyone, including women, have more financial security.
Unfortunately, the candidates were never asked specific questions about family policy. However, Romney used the question about gun control to go to the deeper issues surrounding violence, particularly the absence of family structure.
The advantages of a two-parent family are not being touted solely by groups like the Family Research Council and The Heritage Foundation. In 2003, the Brookings Institution analyzed the data on poverty and came up with some key solutions, one of which included marriage and family. Just this past summer, The New York Times compared the advantages and disadvantages of children being raised by their two married parents and single parents. Not surprisingly, two people tend to be able to give more to children than one person.
I would suggest that each candidate has underlying feminist beliefs that shape his ideas.
Obama relies on an adversarial feminism that sees women having to fight the world around them. Sadly, this vision suggests a necessary patriarchy in the form of government, whether it be passing legislation about pay equity or making sure there’s a pack of birth-control pills in every purse.
Romney’s actions indicate a feminism of constructive dialogue where women and men work together. He didn’t pass laws requiring the presence of women in his gubernatorial administration. He actively recruited qualified women and hired them for senior positions. He delivered real results.
And, for the record, he’s not planning to take away anyone’s birth control. He just makes the case that individuals and groups who have conscientious objections shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences and pay for someone else’s contraceptives.
Women have multidimensional concerns regardless of their family-planning choices. Yesterday’s poll confirmed this, yet last night one candidate failed to grasp the point.
Pia de Solenni is a moral theologian and cultural analyst. She writes from Seattle.
Comments
Post a Comment
obama wants more back ground checks for gun purchases so the crimals and mentll ill don’t buy guns. The mentally ill don’t kill people. The person in the Aurora Colorado shootings passed all the background checks and got weapons legally.
Move on. That’s all I can say to the pelvic politics as it were. These things have been in place for a half century. Women are highly educatd, skilled and are looking beyond a 1969 argument of reproduction. I get the impression, no woman, aside from pitiful extremists, thinks contraception, etc. is healthcare. They are smart. Know what it is. And know how to use it. So it seems to me that women are swaying (said in my best Monty python voice) “get on with it…start telling us about jobs, careers and how when I do want kids I can balance the two.” But the tedious mantra tells me the ‘defenders of the war on women’ are women’s greatest obstacle.
Hmm…if we can keep them down, they will always need us. But in reality, women are discovering…have discovered, that the workplace stinks. It’s competitive, annoying and poorly run. This isn’t sexism just because men have learned to put up with this b.s. so change it. Women…change how businesses are run to cater more to women. Don’t change women to cater more to a crappy corporate environment. And who women vote for tells me who theya re inside.
If you vote dem it makes me think you women want to change yourself to conform to a male ideal.
If you vote rep it tells me that you are a stubborn s.o.b. who is going to change the company. And I recognize this oversimplification, but women, you don’t need to change who you are. I think God made you perfect as you are. The world can certainly change a bit to accommodate changing ambitions. Lets start by not convincing women to change themselves, but help out by making the world a little better….it will probably benefit all of us.
Excellent article; we need more women to stand up and vocally attack the “pelvic politics” of the progressive left. Men cannot effectively attack the concept. It is unbelievable that progressive men can be perpetrators of the idea without women recognizing the self-serving irony.
As a suggestion, Sandra Fluke should never be mentioned without also clarifying that she is a privileged individual who has been given an education at some of the most expensive universities and will be graduating to only a $160,000 job,; therefore, she needs everyone else to pay for her contraception.
“[Obama’s] vision suggests a necessary patriarchy in the form of government…”
Absolutely brilliant way to put it!
Mr. Obama and his party are only using “women issues” to distract from the real issues. As Christians we need to be do what we can to promote the teachings of Christ. Like this woman, Adriana Gonzales, who followed the lead of the Holy Spirit and is promoting the real women’s issues, starting with Life: http://catholicmom.com/2012/10/05/viral-video-mom-of-seven-impacts-the-nation/ If we all followed the lead of the HS our country and the world would be better off.
Gov. Romney opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Is Dr de Solenni actually arguing equal pay is bad for women because more women are the breadwinners in their families?
When Dr de Solenni writes, “Do we want to continue to facilitate an economy and a society in which more women continue to shoulder the burdens of family?” is she arguing that women shouldn’t have equal pay? What exactly does “facilitating” mean here?
As for Gov. Romney’s binders, if he had had women as part of his campaign’s inner circle and as important business contacts, he wouldn’t have needed a binder. He would have known such women already.
I don’t know why Catholics don’t talk about some of Gov. Romney’s investments. He literally profited financially from abortion. Bain Capital invested in a company that “disposed” (my stomach churns as I write that) of killed unborn children. If that is not a line for people of conscience, I simply do not know what is.
While this may be true, do we want to continue to facilitate an economy and a society in which more women continue to shoulder the burdens of family?
Do the math…Contraceptives = more “recreational” sex = more unwed mothers = more women in the workplace. Responsible sex between married couples = Dad at work + mom at home nurturing children = foundation of society.
I believe in equal pay for men and women. They do the same amount of work,then they should get the same amount of pay. I believe in freedom of conscience. It is a God given right. When those in decision making should take in consideration the Natural Law. Abortion is against the Natural Law.
Thank you National Catholic Register Register for allowing me to make a comment. Right now we must never lose the gift of Freedom of Conscious. If that would happen that a law says you must provide abortions when requested and tell Catholic Hospitals they must obey the law, then that law is against the Natural Law and God’s Law. Remember the Sixth Commandment, oh, and the Fifth Commandment.
Rather than worry about “widely accessible” (including affordable) contraceptive care, the “necessary patriarchy in the form of government” as regards health care should be used to cover “medically necessary” over the counter health care items like adult diapers for individuals with chronic disabilities which can cost maybe $150/mo and are not regularly covered by health insurance.
Bain Capitol and medical waste disposal company Stericycle? Read this: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/left-wing-blogs-falsely-attack-romney-on-abortion-stericycle/
for people in law school worried about money:
instead of contraceptives… cross your legs… and study. That’s free.
Rommney DID NOT actively seek out women for his administration. The “binders of women” were prepared by an independant group prior to his election as governor and given to him. This story can be found in the Worcester(Mass) Telegram&Gazette;. As a retired public university, I can attest to the fact that he was no friend of education - he cut funding for higher education in this Commonwealth. In fairness,I must admit that I am a Democrat but not voting for Obama.
Many times I’ve sat at meetings of far-left feminist women (as a news reporter and then as a pro-life lobbyist at the United Nations). I can remember the women running the meeting looking at me suspiciously saying, “You know not all women are women. You can’t trust all women to support our position (Marxist/Communist/Reproductive Blah—my description not theirs)” These kind of feminists aren’t women. They are people with a particular agenda, who have tried to make it seem like they represent all women. But they don’t. If they get their way in your life you will become a sex slave to some male, who may or may not be your husband, who may or may not give you AIDs, and you will live in poverty, causing your children to suffer. Margaret Sangers’s kids had terrible ends. It was their mother’s fault. And they say that while Stalin killed his millions, Sanger killed her billions. She and her organization, Planned Parenthood, turn people into murderers. It is hard to live with that on your conscience.
But I have lived as a Catholic, and the freedom that has given me is wonderful! I had a career. I married. I raised a son. I gave up the career for the baby, and I homeschooled him. By the Sanger type feminist definition, I am not really a woman. But I wouldn’t trade my happy female humanity for their form of unhappiness for anything. God bless you. Susan Fox http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com
Sects not associated with Catholicism (including “Catholics” who do not agree with Catholic teachings) - those who call themselves Christians and those who do not - seldom profess the same sentiments on abortion, birth control, and sterilization that Catholics do. It has been my experience that many people of other faiths, if they are against these things, have very different reasons upon which to base that decision. Most notably, there is a belief that a wife must obey and submit to her husband sexually whenever he wants - a strict religious law, it seems, that is binding and disabling for many wives and marriages. Getting pregnant under such circumstances may indeed be a horrific experience. The wife being solely at the receiving end of another person’s desires when it comes to marital sexual relations, however, is at odds with teachings of the Catholic Church.
Before I experienced the freedom of Christ’s teachings within the Catholic Church, I had doubts about the intentions behind the pro-life movement because of the seemingly hateful belief that a woman should have her husband’s child whether she wanted to or not because he is the Lord of the family and she must do his bidding. I saw many men who were against abortion, contraception, and sterilization for this reason, and they thought their will (being superior to a woman’s) must be done. Their women were “forced” to have children and were kept from having abortions, using contraception, or getting sterilized under the dictatorship of a tyrannical husband. These husbands stood in picket lines around abortion clinics demanding their way.
Now, it seems the same ugly head of satan that showed himself to me has reared up ferociously against pro-lifers to convince American women this will be their fate - that they will have no control, have no say over these “health” issues, that their freedom will be taken away, and that their lives will be ruined. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the first place, this is a democracy which has laws passed by the people. Tomorrow will not mean no birth control pills, no abortion, and no sterilization; but the fear of an immediate and drastic change is being instilled in women’s hearts by politicians to win votes. Their current modus operandi is scaring women into thinking they will be forced to submit themselves to any man and be forced to have babies. They are being told that “extremists” want to do this to them to ruin their lives and that this will happen if they vote “no” on “women’s health issues”. Pro-life assertions are seductively called a “war on women”.
But, instead (and truthfully), if contraception continues to increase at the current rate, more and more girls will be subject to any man (who know they have been freed from the responsibility of parenthood), men and women will forever lose the freedoms that conceiving in a loving relationship can bring if they are sterilized, and women will forever mourn the death of an infant they chose to abort. Making a woman a mere instrument for the satisfaction of a man’s desires helps to lower moral standards, leading to marital infidelity and mistreatment of women.
Check out an excellent article on Catholic teachings on contraception from Bishop James D. Conley: “The Contradictions of Contraception”
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/8099?CFID=47055271&CFTOKEN=18384179
You’re right. Let’s not talk about women’s issues. They don’t matter, right? Let’s talk about jobs & the economy instead. Under Gov. Mitt Romney, Mass. had one of the worst employment records, with over 200,000 residents leaving the state to find employment elsewhere. They also were left with a huge deficit after he left office. He had a 39% approval rating when he left office. These facts are actually really easy to check through Boston Globe and other readily available sources.
There was a time when my family and I were Republicans. I was President of the Young Republicans club in high school. But today, the once-great GOP is strife with ignorance and extremism. No wonder they’re all for the Ryan budget which calls for a 42% cut in Pell grants. Education is obviously not a priority there.
Meagan I would never trust anything from a daily newspaper in America. We used to have a free press. But sadly I have come to the conclusion that for whatever reaason, brainwashing in the university or editors who do not allow reporters to report, there is no longer a free press in the Mass Media. That is not true for the alternative news on blogs and radio. The truth is underground. I was a newspaper reporter for 12 years. I won many awards for investigative journalism. I remember working for the San Francisco Examiner and sitting at my desk. The pro-abortion reporter who covered abortion issues ran up to one of our columnists and yelled, “Rob, Rob, guess what!” “What?” he said. “I just interviewed the head of the pro-life movement in San Francisco.” “Yeah,” he said, “What happened?” She responded with complete amazement, “She made sense!” It was about 1990 when this occurred.
It has come as quite a shock to me to find that what was once a free press is no longer. It was hard for me to accept, but the reporters in Washington D.C. have recently admitted they all agree on a story line and stick with it. Others have reported being forced to use a “liberal catch phrase” every time they have to report certain issues. Certainly in 1990 I experienced censorship from liberal editors at the San Francisco Examiner, but it was nothing like what they are now undergoing.
Meagan if Mitt Romney were Hitler, which he is not, he would run the economy better than Barach Obama has done so. I have a Master’s in Economics and a Master’s in International Trade and Finance, and my career was in business news. I covered the economy from Washington D.C. Our country faces bankruptcy. Our taxes are likely to sky-rocket next year, yes even taxes for poor people. Anyone who earns a living. My health care coverage and my husband’s retirement have already been sharply reduced for next year because his company—mostly owned by its own employees, what could be more democratic than that?—his company is suffering financially. We had to leave our beloved home, and move to another state so he could stayed employed. He is an electrical engineer. My son is a software engineer with a bachelor’s in Math, and he cannot get work. He is 24 years old. But worse than that, Barach Obama has stripped us of our religious freedoms. Our Catholic grade school is shutting down next year if we can’t overturn Obamacare. This will be magnified 1,000s of times if Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, also close. Obama Care means the government will control who gets health care and how much. The ones rejected will die. Forced euthanasia. Do you think he cares about the poor? They will be the ones unable to afford private insurance, and they will be the first to be offered a drug cocktail to end their lives instead of real medical care. They do it in the state of Oregon already. Sick, want to live? Don’t move to Oregon. The black population has suffered economically in the past four years. They are much worse off now than 4 years ago. The poor are much worse off as well. I know these people and they tell me their stories.
I don’t put my hope in the Republican Party. I put my hope in Jesus Christ. But I can clearly see in politics that Mitt Romney is the lesser of two evils. It’s possible he might do a very good job. We’ll see. God bless you. Susan Fox http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.