Take a look at how President Obama's policies help a woman over her lifetime — and how Mitt Romney would change her story.
Ilyse Hogue, a CNN contributor and a senior strategist to a number of Democratic and progressive groups, states that "it is no longer shocking that Republicans continue to fight against equality; their actions have been consistent and focused on eroding women's rights and economic security." She also observes that: "With or without a man, the truth is that any woman will face most of the situations shown in the slide show at some point in her lifetime and will be at a competitive disadvantage without programs that offer equal opportunity to succeed personally and professionally." I do not disagree with this as I know it to be a statistical fact.
So does William J. Bennett, also a CNN contributor, who was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush. His opinions about the fictional Julia should concern both men and women. I found it interesting that he does NOT disagree with the facts of most women needing assistance in the scenarios presented. What is of most concern to me is his opinions of Julia, which highlights an agenda that unsettles me as a woman.
To start with, he states that Julia "is not your typical all-American girl, but an obviously independent, yuppie liberal woman" (emphasis supplied by me). What he is inferring is that his idea of the typical, all-American girl is a better woman than Julia. To start with, that would mean that dependent women are superior to independent women. Who is it that women should trust to depend upon?
According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, a "yuppie" is "a young college-educated adult who is employed in a well-paying profession and who lives and works in or near a large city". I am not sure if it is the whole meaning of a female yuppie that he is concerned about, or parts. If it is part, I would like to know which fact about Julia that he finds offensive and/or threatening: college-educated, employed, or well-paid? It is clear that he doesn't approve of women who are liberal or independent.
He expresses concern that "she is able to pursue her career because, at age 27, 'her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health'.
At age 31 she 'decides to have a child," with no mention of a father or husband'. Furthermore, he is concerned that "notably absent in her story is any relationship with a husband, family, church or community, except a "community" garden where she works post-retirement. Instead, the state has taken their place and is her primary relationship."
What he appears to disagree with most is that she isn't either making it herself or depending upon that "ever-lovin' man" of hers to supply both her basic needs and career ambitions. Given what I know about government assistance programs, whether from medical, education, or business assistance, that means the man she depends upon (as well as other members in her support system) should be more financially well off then she is in any of these situations as they would be providing the funds that the government now offers her. Not only does he assume her support system has funds for her, he also assumes that they ware both willing and able to pick up the check when she asks. Wouldn't that add the labels of "gold-digger" and "mooch" to her character description? The problem with that agenda is that it allows many women and children to fall through the cracks.
Citizens falling through the cracks compounds the societal problems we already face as a nation. An example from our own history is that of de-institutionalizing the mentally ill. The desired effect was to save costs. Instead, it created more costs because it led to more problems, such as homelessness, medical care costs, and crime. It is short sighted to determine policy by short term budget cuts that lead to more issues that need more funding to resolve them.
Citizens falling through the cracks compounds the societal problems we already face as a nation. An example from our own history is that of de-institutionalizing the mentally ill. The desired effect was to save costs. Instead, it created more costs because it led to more problems, such as homelessness, medical care costs, and crime. It is short sighted to determine policy by short term budget cuts that lead to more issues that need more funding to resolve them.
I also found that his commentary both ignores and oversteps the boundaries of why the slideshow of Julia was written. It was written to show how Obama's policies, and those of the Democrats, are designed to aid women to succeed. Currently the government does not have policies or programs in place to supply spouses, religious affiliations, and community involvement programs for individuals. So there is no need for any administration to address these types of issues. The slide show is only meant to highlight those policies that aid women, not a detailed dream life for women that fills in every blank.
He sums up the slideshow as "a microcosm of Obama's vision for America and emblematic of his view of the government's role in an individual's life." He goes on to state that: "conservatives must make the case that earned success is preferable to government dependency, and that Julia is more likely to achieve success and fulfillment in a good, stable family." He recognizes that "Democratic policymakers realize that in the absence of self-sustaining family units, government can step in and fill the void."
What is missing from his commentary is the Republican rebuttal: their vision of America, their plan of action for individuals. I don't dispute that there is room to argue whether the policies of Obama/Democratics are perfect answers or even the best answers. However, the slide show makes it apparent that they have a plan of action.
I want to view the Republican's concise plan of action.
I want to view the Republican's concise plan of action.
