An Issue of Trust

America’s Women Can’t Be Trusted:

When you strip everything away, that’s the root of the GOP’s campaign against abortion, contraception, and laws that protect women from domestic violence.

"...what’s so striking about so many of the GOP initiatives that implicate women this year is that they betray not a deep suspicion of “politicians who say we should be dependent on government programs,” but rather a deep suspicion of other women. Underpinning virtually every changed rule and policy, every effort to defund and repeal, lies an argument about the ways in which women are trying to defraud the government and simply can’t be trusted....

"I am always, deeply worried about the attempt to pit women against women for political gain. But I think we at least need to be honest about the fact that so many of the current GOP initiatives that seek to free women from the clutches of big government are rooted in the idea that women are systematically trying to cheat the system to get free stuff. You can argue all you want about whether it’s better for women to have access to health care, child care, maternity leave, equal pay, and preventive medicine. But when you base those arguments on rickety old Elizabethan stereotypes about deceitful women and their lying ways, it becomes harder to call yourself the party of women."

From Slate, Written By Dahlia Lithwick  Posted Thursday, May 17, 2012, at 6:54 PM ET

Compare and Contrast: Republican & Democratic Views of Women

This article was accessed at Slate: 

Is the GOP the Real Party of Women?    By J. Bryan Lowder

Posted Wednesday, May 16, 2012, at 2:27 PM ET

"In this election year, there’s no doubt that women are a hot property—like the Boardwalk in Monopoly hot. Both the Democrats and Republicans are falling all over themselves to claim the title “party of women,” while accusing the other of being a charlatan. Politico hosted the latest rejoinder yesterday, when a group of 14 House GOP women (including Michele Bachmann) wrote an op-ed arguing that their “big tent” is where all the ladies want to be.

"But of course, neither party is truly the “party of women.” Or better put, each party serves the interests of different types of women.. So while the piece fails to convince in universal terms, it does present a fascinating profile of exactly who the Republicans think they’re representing" (emphasis supplied by me).

"Let’s just start with the lede:

"There’s an old joke about a married couple that’s asked about their hobbies and interests. The husband says he’s focused on “important things”—like the federal budget, health care reform and peace in the Middle East. The wife says she’s focused on the “small things”—like their household budget, their children’s health care and keeping peace within their family.

"There’s an important truth here. The things that women focus on and the decisions they make are often unappreciated—but they’re the foundation of our society.

"Huh. So controlling their husband and/or children’s intractable spending and bellicose interactions is so preoccupying that women can’t be bothered to think about “important things” like the Middle East? Does that strike anyone else as being almost comically retrograde? Darling, you know I just get lost when you boys start talking business; let me refresh your drink. It’s absurd, and moreover, the rest of the piece, which details all the “important” issues on which the GOP supposedly trumps the Democrats, is even more unhinged since the straw women in question should be too distracted by making sandwiches or whatever to care. If I were a real Republican woman, I’d find all this very condescending … but I digress.

"Beyond this initial fumble, the op-ed traffics in the traditional conservative rhetoric of by-your-own-bootstraps capitalism. “We want an equal chance to succeed—no special favors and no glass ceilings,” the congresswomen write. Obviously we’re all against glass ceilings, but what do Bachmann and company mean by “special favors”? Based on their bashing of our new friend “Julia,” it’s any government program that’s designed to help make up for the structural inequality in our society that still places many women at a large disadvantage, especially economically. It takes little critical thinking to realize that “social issues” like reproductive health are fundamentally tied to economic success and that the popular conservative idea of achieving wealth or middle class stability or what-have-you by one’s “own initiative” is inextricably wrapped up in class, gender, and dare I say it, racial privilege.

"And in the final analysis, privilege (not a favorite word of mine due to its overuse, but unavoidable here) is the perennial Republican blind spot. No one wants to depend on the government for much of anything; we lack the European gene for that. But many women—due to the quicksand of historical injustice, unequal education, institutional sexism, a lack of inherited money or financial literacy and a hundred other factors—need the government at least to extend a branch to help pull them forward.(emphasis supplied by me).

"Unlike the hypothetical “Republican woman,” these ladies do not have the luxury to be unaware of the “important things”; but then again, it’s clear they’re not really invited to the party of women anyway."

The Republican Version of "The Life Of Julia"

The Life of Julia:

Take a look at how President Obama's policies help a woman over her lifetime — and how Mitt Romney would change her story. 

 I read two interesting opinion articles regarding the slideshow: one pro, one con. 

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.

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.