What women's rights look like when the two sides come together as one.
What women's rights are when women are no longer manipulated by party rhetoric.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Sexism equals MONEY$$$$$$$

Cynthia Ruccia

Did you see this? The so-called "Republican War on Women"  has proven a fundraising boon to women's groups!!  If there was ever proof that this is a cynical undertaking, this very very selective war on women is helping women's groups rake in the bucks and thus allowing a special group of women retain their jobs. To be fair, this is business as usual, of course. Whatever it takes to keep the treasuries full-----anything is fair game.

However, I can't help but ask myself while all of this one-sided controversy gets stirred up, is it making any real difference in whether glass ceilings are being broken? Is it helping our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc. get a leg up to running some things in this country?

What really got my ire is seeing Sam Bennett, the head of the Women's Campaign Fund, go on Fox and Friends this morning and talk about the Republican War on Women. Why I am holding her to a higher standard than the rest is that the Women's Campaign Fund (WCF) is a non-partisan organization supposedly dedicated to getting more women elected. When I was running for Congress in 1994 and 1996 , I was endorsed early on by WCF, a fact I was very proud of. They flew me and other women candidates from both parties around the country for forums, trainings, and to network with people important to our futures. I remember how scrupulously bi-partisan this group was, and it was great to rub shoulders with women from both sides of the aisle, candidates and supporters alike. As recently as the 90's the feminist ideal that women from both sides of the aisle needed to advance was still alive and kicking.

I've also watched Sam Bennett speak up about the sexism. However, it is a sorry state of affairs that she is going on the air to stoke up the Republican War on Women to raise money without even bothering to mention the disgusting acts of Bill Maher and others on the Democratic side of the fence. I know many of you have completely given up on these lefty women's groups, but if anything they need to be called out over and over and over again with great efficiency for their hypocrisy. If we don't, they go right on with their calcified practices, pretending to speak for women and making sure any progress we could make gets completely blocked.

I'm just shaking my head with disgust that women are now using women against women to raise funds. We've come a long way baby? What do the women who contribute to these groups think they are getting for their bucks? Are we getting any committment from our male leaders (hey----I'm talking about YOU Mister President, that great feminist) that they will put a woman on the ticket with them as VP or appoint an equal number of men and women to be cabinet chairs? The number of female appointments from this Democratic administration is simply NOT SUFFICIENT. I don't really care how much you think that this president has done, he could have done so much more and it wouldn't have cost him a thing politically.

So what if the Republicans are worse? Are we going to choose between which is the less bad and then celebrate the winner? That is what these women's groups keep doing. And they surely don't speak to most of us. In my last post I posited that these groups might constitute 30% of the voting public. However, it appears that that 30% thinks it is getting some bang for its buck. Those dollars will not even begin to stop the real war on women, the one that makes the U.S. 70th in the world in female representation in government. The one that allows only 2.8% of Fortune 1000 ceo's be female. The one that makes sure that we never have a woman president, that only 12% of our state governor's are women. The sad list goes on and on. If you want a link to these stats, see them on the right under the videos.

The dollars being vacuumed up by the "Republican War on Women" are an exceedingly poor investment. That sideshow has to stop. Hopefully, it is on its dying legs. What a joke it is.


  1. Women who go out and attack other women for a group of men's political views, or clean up their messes, or fight their fights:

    Is there a name for them?

    1. Stepford "feminists" They like throwing that at women on the right they don't agree with.

  2. Ugh... And on Woman's month!, Where's our ads on TV, dedicated hour long documentaries, etc...
    On Thurs. A local Shark-tank"type event came to my area. Since I have worked night and day spending buckets loads to bring a Green-Sustainable brand of products and practices to the public, i put in a video entry.
    The hosting show was multi-cultural... It wasn't. Of the 15 contestants 3 were woman, and none of us were chosen for the finals.
    Don't get me wrong...I don't want something I don't deserve? One of the other "not-chosen" contestant's mother(he was a nice 20-something guy) who just met me, expressed outrage that others were chosen, and not me or any of the other ladies. The bar for us is still so high.

    1. good luck with your business. Keep on going-----don't let that kind of setback stop you. Everyone thought Einstein was stupid too.....

  3. Until recently, I had this idea in my head that the only hope for a women's advancement was in the hands of these nonpartisan women's groups. However, the recent success with shutting up the pigs on both sides has been achieved almost entirely by rabid partisans. Well, it worked! So, I'll take it. The whack-a-sexist thing doesn't seem to be going away either. Let it keep on going during this election and let that be a great time for Romney to pick a woman vp!

    Both parties have such a hold on their bases, I'm almost giving up on the idea of nonpartisan working together for any cause, much less women's issues. They won't give up the power of their rabid bases. Why should they when they get votes and money?

    But it leaves most Americans with no voice, one might say. This election, both sides' bases are amped up and ready to shell out money and show up at the polls so it is up to the normal, mainstream American to make the decision. So, they do have a voice and are the main focus. Polls show Romney and Obama roughly split men voters. But Obama has a bigger chunk of women voters. If Romney wants to win, it is obvious he's going to have to try to get some of those women voters from Obama. Is he really going to go for it? Does he really want to win? Obviously, we're not seeing much on that front and won't until the nominating contest is over. But if Romney wants to win, he's going to have to get serious about targeting and getting women voters. General "I'm an economic heavyweight who promises to solve all the economy's problems" talk isn't going to be enough. IMHO, he needs some help in this department. A woman vp who understands the concerns of most American women (not the right/left bases) would go a long way in helping Romney's ticket. Let that woman be the one who develops a message for nonpolitical base women to get them to the polls.

    Right now, the Dems are at an advantage. The economy is improving, they have an edge with women in polls and have incumbent advantage. If Romney passes up an opportunity to have a woman vp, I'm pretty sure we'll have another four years of an obama presidency. Romney needs women and I don't think he has what it takes to get these votes by himself.

    1. Romney has the support of 30% of his party and will need to make a play for the conservative base with his VP selection. Play back to 2008: McCain, unloved by the conservatives, chose Palin the darling of the conservative wing and punditry. If Romney nominates a woman it will be somebody in the mold of Palin, who proved quite the effective attack dog against Obama. But would a Palin 2 do anything for the advancement of women? In my opinion no more than Palin 1, as the track record of conservative women leaders in advancing women other than themselves has been poor. Romney himself has a poor record.

      If Obama is running scared in late August, Biden could discover new interests and Clinton take the VP slot, an excellent development for the advancement of women. But a big if.

    2. don't be so sure that Palin didn't do anything for women. She managed to wake up a sleeping giant in the Republican Party. See this:


    3. @Anonymous -
      How great is that news about ShePac? I'm thrilled and we can thank Palin for starting all this for women on the right.

      @nick -
      Are you joking? Palin has done more for women than anyone in recent history. I guess it depends on what you consider the "advancement of women." If you consider it groveling to the patriarchal government for more free stuff, more chit chat about our reproductive systems, and quotas then no - she won't be helping with that.

      But if you consider financial independence the single most important issue toward the "advancement of women" like most women on the right do - then she has done a lot for us. Women are starting small businesses in record numbers so we actually care about tax reform, the burden of over regulation, repealing Obamacare etc etc etc. She has also done an huge service to women on BOTH sides of the aisle by being a lightning rod for the most vicious examples of misogyny and sexism from both the media and the culture at large that we've seen since Ferraro. We're actually having conversations about it - rather than denying the existence of it - for the first time in my adult life. Not to mention all the women currently running for office who have openly said they were inspired to run and get involved by Sarah Palin.
      I could go on...

    4. @Anonymous & ChristyK

      The fundamental issue of our times, having surpassed 7 billion humans and rapidly moving towards the 9 billion even as we consume the resources of 1.5 earths with growing appetite, is sustainable development. The male leadership has shown itself unequal to the challenge as they are vested in the status quo, and therefore willingly blind. We need to empower a new female leadership to shake things up, change the tone of the discourse, and bring in a different set of values.

      Conservative women have a very important role to play if they appreciate that the things that are worth conserving are social stability and family unity. Worshipping at the altar of unfettered capitalism and of creative destruction is radicalism, not conservatism.

      Being the proprietor of a small business myself I find the discussion about the regulatory burdens rather intriguing. Regulations actually bring business my way and my situation is hardly unique. So I went to the Small Business Administration website [http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/847/6282] and downloaded the recent data on Small Business and the Economy. This is what I found. For 2007, the last year with a complete set, 21,708,021 small businesses are listed which are not-employers businesses with receipts of $991,791,563,000 for an average of $45,688 of receipts per business. Net income is probably half that amount and the tax burden on $23,000 is small. The proprietors if they have no other source of income and are not insured by their spouse's employer are at or near the poverty line and likely cannot afford private health insurance. Small businesses with up to 20 employees are listed at 5,410,367 with gross receipts of $3,975,109,486,000 or roughly $73,500 per employee: assuming that the proprietor nets 10% of the gross receipts the proprietor income is of the order of $75,000, a good income but one with a relatively modest tax burden considering the deductions available. Private health insurance is a major expense at this level on income. The 620,977 businesses with 21 to 500 employees have gross receipts of $7,404,971,198,000 and average gross receipts per business of $12 million, but they are small businesses in name only. Millions of small businesses are started each year and nearly as many fold each year. Very few make it to the 1-20 employee level and fewer yet to the 21-500 employee level.

    5. very interesting Nick. It seems as though the Democrats aren't interested in the subject of small business over-regulation. They aren't making any effort to refute the Republican claims at all. In spite of the SBA statistics, the Democrats are proving the point that small business isn't worth their interest. And THAT is a major faux pas in my book. Why give the entire argument over to the Republicans? It adds to the Republican argument that the Democrats are anti-business.

    6. @ nick

      Nick, here is the problem with your version of our equality. YOU don't get to decide what our "very important role to play" is - WE DO.
      It's called feminism - look it up.

    7. @ nick
      "Conservative women have a very important role to play if they appreciate that the things that are worth conserving are social stability and family unity."

      BTW, I find this entire statement very sexist. I don't care about social stability and family unity - you men can handle that if you are so worried about it.
      Why in the world is that supposed to be Conservative women's "role to play"?
      I'm a businesswoman.