Bush's War on Women: Stealth Misogyny

[subgenius]

Bush's War on Women
Stealth Misogyny
by Richard Goldstein
March 5 - 11, 2003
"Don't watch what we say, watch what we do." That Nixon-era maxim perfectly describes George W. Bush's covert campaign against women's rights. Call it stealth misogyny.

Consider the recent battle over Title IX. The 1972 law that mandates equity for women in educational programs—not just sports—has been a prime target of the anti-feminist right. Modifying Title IX is even mentioned in the Republican Party platform. Secretary of Education Rod Paige formed a commission to reassess the law, but it ended up badly split, and in the face of a high-profile protest Paige declared his full support for Title IX last week. That was the headline, but the real story is in the details.

It seems Paige is devising new guidelines that will allow "a reasonable variance" from the standard of true equity for women. This subtle shift could make a real difference in graduate school admissions, scholarships, and university hiring, not to mention on the playing field. But by committing himself to Title IX even as he moves to modify it, Paige gives the impression that he favors equality. Activists have learned to watch what this administration does.

Advocates for women agree that Bush is acting to reverse the modest gains made under Bill Clinton. But the White House is moving deftly. In the name of budget cutting, it is closing women's offices in federal agencies, defunding programs that monitor discrimination, and appointing people who oppose affirmative action and welfare for single mothers to policy-making posts. "They're not taking legislation to the Hill and putting it up on high profile," says Martha Burk, who chairs the National Council of Women's Organizations. "They're doing it through regs, policy changes, executive orders. All of this is under the radar for most citizens."
...
From the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, now headed by a staunch opponent of affirmative action, to the Food and Drug Administration, which recently welcomed a doctor who advocates prayer as a treatment for PMS, stealth misogyny is making its mark.
...
The consensus among activists is that the women's rights portfolio has been given to the vice president and his wife, Lynne Cheney. She is a board member of the Independent Women's Forum, whose policy papers deny the existence of a gender pay gap and demand the dismantling of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0310/goldstein.php

(All overt misogynists and believers in matriarchal totalitarianism are invited to keep moving along: there's nothing to see here.)

[crackmonkey]

:rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
Consider the recent battle over Title IX.

Is there any thinking person who thinks that Title IX in its current incarnation is worth spit?

[Segnosaur]

Ok, just wanted to make a few points:

I like to think of myself as a fairly middle of the road guy. I believe in abortion rights, and I believe all people should be treated equal. That said, I disagree with many of the points the author wrote:

He talkes about Title IX. From what I understand (I'm not in the U.S.), Title IX requires equal funding for men's and women's sports teams at college, doesn't it? However, isn't one of the problems with Title IX is that it doesn't take into account income from the various sports? (For example, if a mens football team brings in an extra $1 million from gate revenue and TV contracts, they can't use that money against the sports team that generated it.) I think supply and demand should take affect here.

Also, he criticises Bush's record on affirmitive action. Personally, I feel affirmative action is a form of discrimination, and should be avoided. Let people get their jobs based on merit. Otherwise, well, if a woman gets a job because of affirmitive action rather than her abilities, she may get looked down on. (Even if she had the ability to handle the job without affirmative action.)

He also talks about the 'gender gap' in income. Well, I think the gender gap is natural. I don't think it should be encouraged, but I also don't think it needs addressing. Men will probably earn more than women in the forseeable future, but much of the difference is due to biology; men have higher muscle mass on average so can handle heavy construction work ON AVERAGE, men don't take maternity leave (which will cause delays in a woman's career path and promotion), and fields like engineering and computers happen to be dominated by men (and by luck these fields are in demand.)

That said, some of the stuff is a bit scary (like using prayers to cure PMS, and changing some of the 'woman's health' guidelines. I wonder what the libertarian view of this is.

[Troll]

okay. You posted an op-ed of someone's opinion. Yay you for the copy and paste. But before I beat you down, you have to give me your interpretation and opinion of said article. My name is Troll, not Undercover Elephant

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll
okay. You posted an op-ed of someone's opinion. Yay you for the copy and paste. But before I beat you down, you have to give me your interpretation and opinion of said article. My name is Troll, not Undercover Elephant
It seems pretty clear, so I don't have much interpretation or opinion of the article.
As far as the subject of the article, the Bush Adminiistration, I'm appalled at the generally low level of thinking that goes on, and the stealthy, hypocritical way things are done. Before the election a balanced budget was the holy grail.
The appointees are generally religious extremists, with bizarre, dangerous beliefs. Either Bush also shares those views or he is just pandering to that vote.
Its sad to see people try to drag civilization back to what they consider simpler, better times. But this is the way things go.
Hey, I will survive. The Republicans control all three branches of government so they don't have anyone to blame if their policies don't succeed.
Don't beat me down too viciously, I'm already achy.

[Tmy]

Where's Mrs. Bush. You never hear a peep out of her. I mean she doesnt have to be all Hilliary Clinton, but she could at least be Nancy Reganish.

Methinks GW keeps her on a short leash so she doesnt get caught choosing between women's issues and her hubbys policys.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Personally, I feel affirmative action is a form of discrimination, and should be avoided. Let people get their jobs based on merit. Otherwise, well, if a woman gets a job because of affirmitive action rather than her abilities, she may get looked down on. (Even if she had the ability to handle the job without affirmative action.)

I'd question the assumption that the default situation is one where jobs are handed out based on merit.

As opposed to nepotism, intrigue, lies, networking, choice of clothing and whatnot.

Giving a few extra jobs to women is in my opinion unlikely to be a worse system than any other, and it has the benefit that it has a shot at breaking up the monopoly we blokes have on tasty jobs like "politician" and "CEO".

[headscratcher4]

It strikes me that all of the discussions about Title IX are rediculous in light of the fact that there isn't a real discussion about major Universities football programs...scholarships to marginal at best student athelets, exemptions up the wazoo...alumni boosters, etc. The point is, how can we talk about appropriate funding to "amature" sports teams when the real gorilla in the corner is major football and basketball programs...yes they fund a lot of university sports programs, but they also corrupt universtiy "sports" and make a mockery of the word "amature"...Go Duke Basketball!

[subgenius]

It is you, my friend that's making a mockery of the word "amateur.";)
In fact, a sham of a mockery---G. Marx

[Tmy]

Ive always been bothered by the restrictions placed on student athletes. What authority does a public school have to demand that these students not cash in on their fame/skills. They turn these kids into indentured servants, all the while the school makes millions off them. Is there some constitutional violation here??? Do you lose your civil rights once you become a student athlete?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I'd question the assumption that the default situation is one where jobs are handed out based on merit.

As opposed to nepotism, intrigue, lies, networking, choice of clothing and whatnot.


The difference is, all of those other factors still put all people on an equal footing.

With Nepotism, a person can give their daughter a job just as well as their son.

With networking (probably where most people end up getting their jobs), a person makes the choice to meet people in their field or not. If a man stays holed up and never meets anyone, they will have just as hard a time finding work via networking as a woman.

For clothing, both men and women can dress up or dress down.

Of course, if a company makes their hiring decisions on intrigue or lies, they won't be around too long.

[arcticpenguin]

Here's another thread about Bush administration policy on an issue affecting women. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=15119

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Where's Mrs. Bush. You never hear a peep out of her. I mean she doesnt have to be all Hilliary Clinton, but she could at least be Nancy Reganish.


I see her in the news often enough. I doubt its another "Tipper" coverup.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The difference is, all of those other factors still put all people on an equal footing.

With Nepotism, a person can give their daughter a job just as well as their son.

With networking (probably where most people end up getting their jobs), a person makes the choice to meet people in their field or not. If a man stays holed up and never meets anyone, they will have just as hard a time finding work via networking as a woman.

For clothing, both men and women can dress up or dress down.

Of course, if a company makes their hiring decisions on intrigue or lies, they won't be around too long.

I'm guessing you mean "gender equality" rather than "equality". So you're saying that jobs aren't handed out on the basis of merit, but at least the irrational bases used aren't inherently sexually discriminatory.

What I'm saying is that if we can't have appointment on the basis of merit, appointment on the basis of redressing historical injustices will do for me. At least that way the random nature of the system will be biased towards socially desireable outcomes.

[Gregor]

Title IX is a joke - numerically equal scholarships for women and men? Forget the fact that mens' football and basketball (i) require dozens of more participants than ladies' golf and (ii) generate millions for the school. The people attacking Title IX are not the Bush administration, it is the wrestling coach of Michigan, whose program with a 30+ year tradition was canceled for equality, the mens' swimming program at Indiana that was canceled, and the mens' gymnastics program at Tennessee that is gone (I've forgotten the actual school names in the pending federal suit).

If you want your daughter to get a full boat scholarship, teach her to swing a golf club - there are plenty of unused women scholarships at major colleges, thanks to the football programs.

Is it so wrong to allow some economic realities to be considered? If your football program is a net income source to the university, can it have more scholarships?

Now, if you want to argue against college football as an institution, that's fine. That's another thread.

Now, if you want to play the stereo-typical "the Bush admin is full of stupid fundis" - that shows the depth of you analysis. Just like arguing that the Clinton admin was all "a bunch of drunken morality-free womanizers".