Today’s feminists want women freed from having to rely on husbands or family for support. They pine for a new protector: Uncle Sam.
Dependence on government is not independence.
This political agenda is echoed in women’s studies centers and courses throughout the country. Often the biases aren’t veiled—they’re openly declared and fiercely partisan. Consider this passage from the preface of the textbook, Issues in Feminism: An Introduction to Women’s Studies:The 1990s have given us The Contract on America, the virulent racism and misogyny of the religious and political right, attacks against the poorest and must vulnerable among us—welfare mothers and children—and a deepening backlash that is reflected in a spectrum of elements so bizarre they take one’s breath away—from the anti-woman pseudofeminists, to patriarchy-worshipping “Promise Keepers,” to social “scientists” suddenly discovering and suddenly becoming concerned about absent fathers and negative (or nonexistent) role models.1
This same section refers to Republicans as “overtly opposed not only to women’s rights but to advances in civil rights in general.”2
The author goes on to detail explicitly women’s studies unique role in activating students to enter the political fight—and to fight for a specific agenda: “Women’s studies is faced with a vast responsibility.... We must prepare the present generation for its participation in the women’s struggle, but we must do so in an era of hardening antagonism and diminishing resources.”3
Clearly, women’s studies isn’t a typical academic discipline. In most fields, college classrooms are a forum in which professors present students with information and interpretations, ask them to consider a variety of view points, and encourage them to draw their own conclusions. Women’s studies is proud to thwart these norms and “consciously rejects many traditional forms of inquiry, concepts, and explanatory systems; at the same time, it is developing new and sometimes unique traditions and authorities of its own.”4 In a “feminist classroom,” one is likely to find some alternative projects and methods of evaluation, including “credit for social change activities or life experience, contracts of self-grading, diaries and journals, even meditation or ritual.”5
Women’s studies’ leaders recognize that some students will recoil at these unusual teaching methods, and warn of the potential for “classroom harassment” in a section entitled, “resistance to women’s studies.” What kind of behavior do teachers have to be prepared to confront? The list of offending behavior includes “challenging facts with particularist anecdotes to undermine the credibility of feminist reading materials and instructors.”6
It’s a heavy burden for a teacher to be asked factual questions. This aversion to students questioning facts is particularly interesting given the numerous critiques that have revealed how women’s studies classes often have a loose definition of “fact.” Women’s studies programs are notorious for misusing statistics and repeating misleading information on topics ranging from rape and domestic violence to the prevalence of eating disorders and the size of the wage gap.7
The rejection of academic rigor suggests that women’s studies programs have another purpose. It’s not simply a field of study for college students—an alternative to English literature, history, or politics. Women’s studies is a recruitment device for a political movement. As Shelia Ruth details in her women’s studies 101 textbook, “Today, as in the past, if we lose our rootedness in the women’s movement, in concrete social action, we will lose not only our passion but our heart, our meaning, and our whole point.”8
Selling more than fashion and make-up tips
Women’s magazines aren’t nearly as overt in pushing a political or policy agenda on their readers as women’s studies professors, but they almost always slant to the Left.
Glamour magazine, for example, delved into the world of policy in its June 2005 issue, with a discussion of potential reforms to the Social Security system. They warned readers that the topic may sound like a “yawn,” but it’s terribly important to women. Yet the article’s substance did little to inform readers of the facts about Social Security’s financial crisis and the need for reform. It merely echoed liberal attacks on proposed changes and quoted three “non-partisan” representatives, all of whom came from notoriously leftist women’s groups.
Similarly, the April 2004 Ladies’ Home Journal contained an article titled “Armed and Dangerous.” The teaser for the piece states: “The battle over gun control rages on as lethal weapons become easier, and cheaper, to buy. Are you and your family safe?” The clear answer to the article, which contains stories of a gun accidentally firing and paralyzing a child, the death of a police officer, and terrorists attempting to exploit the “gun show loophole” to obtain weapons, is “no”—your family isn’t safe but more laws will make it safe.
Little discussion is given to the arguments of those on the other side of the gun control debate, such as evidence of how guns are used by law abiding citizens to prevent crime or the failure of existing laws to prevent the arming of criminals. Ladies’ Home Journal could have told the story of a Florida woman, whose home was broken into but who was able to find her gun in the dark and defend herself by shooting the intruder.9 Indeed, there are numerous examples of women who lawfully use guns in self-defense to keep from being victims of violent crime. This article instead closes with a call to readers to visit the website of the liberal anti-gun group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, to find out more on the issue.
Such slanted coverage of political issues is also typical of morning and daytime television talk shows—such as Good Morning America, Today, and Oprah—which echo the agenda of liberal women’s groups on issues like gun control, the environment, and greater government regulation and spending for innumerable programs.
Indoctrination: Women’s Studies
The National Women’s Studies Association’s original constitution, written in 1982, highlighted the link between women’s studies and the feminist movement:
Because
Feminist education is a process deeply rooted in the women’s movement and remains accountable to that community.
Feminist aims include the elimination of oppression and discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age, class, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, as well as other barriers to human liberation inherent in the structure of our society;
Feminist education is not only the pursuit of knowledge about women, but also the development of knowledge for women, a force which furthers the realization of feminist aims;
Therefore
The National Women’s Studies Association actively supports and promotes feminist education and supports the persons involved in that effort, at any educational level and in any educational setting.13
The Media Research Center regularly documents the liberal bias of these shows, such as when Katie Couric interviewed a nine-year-old, Noah McCullough, famous for his political trivia expertise, about his support for President Bush’s plan to reform Social Security. Couric not only challenged him about the policy; she asked his mother if she worried he was “being exploited for political reasons” since the group he worked with had spent millions supporting the president. Did she have difficulty seeing “eye to eye” with her son on the issues, Couric also asked? Her assumption was that this woman couldn’t actually agree with her son’s positions.
In another incident, during a segment in February 2005, Couric extolled the virtues of the feminism movement, repeating the claim that women make 79 cents for every man’s dollar, and never offered viewers a conservative or dissenting opinion.
The feminist philosophy of government
Given that college classrooms and mainstream media tends to echo the agenda of the feminist Left, it’s important to examine their policy agenda. The feminist movement largely has come full circle on this front, abandoning the legacy of the early feminists, who championed the belief that women deserve the same rights as men. Those pioneering women fought
the idea that women are incapable of taking care of themselves and need the protection of a husband or father. They challenged society to give women more access and opportunity to participate in the public realms of business and politics.
Today’s feminists have a very different agenda. While they still want women freed from having to rely on husbands or family for support, they no longer want women to make it on their own merits and hard work. They pine for a new protector: Uncle Sam.
Feminists envision a vastly expanded federal government that collects more taxes, provides more benefits—including subsidizing healthcare, daycare, and welfare programs—and administers a more robust thicket of regulations that dictate what people and businesses can and cannot do. In supporting this big government agenda, feminist groups often make explicitly paternalistic statements, suggesting that women require government to watch over them—reinforcing the harmful notion that women are incapable of surviving or prospering on their own.
Dependence on government is not independence. Women should consider some of the consequences of the feminist big government agenda, which would give politicians and bureaucrats greater control of our lives. By contrast, policies that return control to individuals have the potential to make women more independent and better off.
Taxation
Feminist organizations regularly oppose reductions in tax rates. Their rhetoric implies that there’s no tax too high for women to bear, and that women should prefer government to spend money on their behalf rather than having to make choices on their own.
In many ways, taxes are a necessary evil. The government was established to perform certain tasks that would be difficult if not impossible for individuals or communities to accomplish on their own. This includes maintaining a legal system, protecting individual rights, and defending our country against foreign threats. To perform these vital services, the government needs money and the most efficient way to raise that money is by taxing citizens.
But it’s in the nation’s best interest to keep those taxes as low as possible (unfortunately, today, the average working American loses one-third of his or her income to government each year). When you think about taxes, the real question to ask yourself is “who is going to put that money to better use—the individuals who earned it or the politicians in Washington, D.C.?” One need only look at the federal government’s budget—loaded with ludicrous spending projects that help a few favored constituents or special causes—to see why it’s preferable to keep taxes low and the federal government lean.
Everyone knows that the government is wasteful. Yet even when it spends money on what sounds like good ideas, it often ends up crowding out private initiatives and affecting individual behavior.
Take the example of government investment in new technologies. It may seem sensible for government to invest in the creation of new technologies, because we all recognize that technology plays an important role in our quality of life. But when government invests in new technologies, it tilts the playing field toward certain technologies and companies and away from others. But the bureaucrats picking projects to fund know less than millions of individual investors, so inevitably some inventions will take up resources that could be used better elsewhere. Companies also start focusing on how to please the government and politicians, instead of how to make things that will be most useful to consumers, and therefore, best rewarded in the marketplace.
America leads the world in high-tech innovation because our private market allows individuals and businesses to invest in promising technologies. Those investors, motivated by profit, are diligent in selecting companies that are most likely to be successful producing the best products. Government intervention into this market takes resources from the private sector leaving investors with less money to invest and forcing them to take into account how government is going to pick winners and losers.
The collection of taxes also impacts the choices consumers and workers make. Consider the situation faced by a married woman who has been out of the workforce caring for her children, but is considering getting a formal job. The money she earns is going to be added on to her husband’s income so she’ll typically face a very high marginal tax rate. After paying payroll taxes, income taxes, and state and local taxes, this married woman is likely to take home less than half of the money she earns. The rest is soaked up by the government. She may very well decide that it isn’t worth it for her to take the job.
At the same time, high taxes make it difficult for some families to afford to keep a parent at home. Since government takes such a large portion of income, the money earned by just one spouse may not be enough to make ends meet. As a result, many women who would prefer to be at home raising their children have to enter the workforce to increase the family’s after-tax income.
The negative reactions of traditional feminist groups to policies that would return resources to wage-earners reinforces an antiquated notion of women as wards of the state. But women aren’t just consumers of social services; they are also taxpayers. Women, like men, would benefit from lower tax rates that give individuals—not Washington—control over their money.
Social Security
America’s Social Security system was created in 1935. Today, it faces serious financial challenges. In just ten years, Social Security will begin running a deficit—it will take in less through payroll taxes than it needs to pay out in benefits. By 2041, when today’s thirty-year-olds are getting ready to retire, Social Security will be bankrupt and taking in only enough revenue to pay about 70 percent of promised benefits.
The root of Social Security’s problem is its system of financing. Social Security uses what is called “pay-as-you-go” financing, which is really another term for tax-and-spend. Workers currently lose 12.4 percent of their income to Social Security taxes, which is used to pay benefits to current retirees; nothing is saved for their own future retirement. This system may have been adequate in 1950, when sixteen workers were paying into Social Security for each retiree, but today just over three workers support each person collecting checks. By 2050, only two workers will be paying for each retiree’s Social Security. This means that, if nothing is done, future workers will either see their taxes soar to pay for Social Security or future retirees will see their benefits slashed.
Raising taxes or cutting benefits to make Social Security’s accounts balance would make the system’s other major flaw—that it’s a terrible deal for young workers—even worse. Under current law, many young workers can expect to get a negative rate of return on the money they put into Social Security, which means they would have been better off putting their money under their mattress.
Policymakers need to find a way to address both of these problems, by putting Social Security on the road to long-term solvency and giving workers the chance to earn a better rate of return on their money. The best way to do so is by allowing young workers to use a portion of the money that they already pay into Social Security to fund a personal retirement account, much like a 401(k), which can be invested in stocks and bonds. This would give workers the chance to enjoy the higher rate of return that comes from investing in real assets. It would also begin to fund future benefits, an important step toward financial stability. Instead of relying solely on taxes from future workers to pay future benefits, retirees would draw upon assets built up over prior decades.
Personal account plans don’t instantly solve all of Social Security’s problems. Personal accounts would require an initial infusion of resources and policymakers need to consider additional measures, like common sense benefit adjustments, to make Social Security financial sound. This investment would allow a more financially secure system to emerge—an outcome well worth the initial sacrifice.
Women would particularly benefit from Social Security reform. After all, women live longer and are more likely to depend on Social Security during retirement, so have the most at stake in creating a financial sound system. Women are also less likely than men to work in
jobs that have other retirement savings vehicles, which makes it all the more important that the money women are putting away for retirement—their Social Security dollars—is put to the best possible use.
But liberal feminist groups oppose any measures that would give individuals more control over how their payroll taxes are used. Typically these organization attempt to minimize Social Security’s financial problems and would prefer to put off making any changes, essentially kicking the problem down the road to the next generation. Not surprisingly, when the feminist groups do offer proposals to address Social Security’s financial problems, their rely on raising taxes, which once again result in government expanding and individuals have even less money to spend on their own.
“Free” healthcare
In 1993-1994, Hillary Clinton took a leading role in advocating massive changes to the U.S. healthcare system. Although her proposal was widely criticized and not enacted, how to improve the existing system of healthcare remains an important issue.
American women today live longer and are healthier than at any time in U.S. history. A woman born in 1929 could expect to live to just fifty-nine; a woman born in 2000 can expect a full twenty extra years—living to nearly eighty.
This remarkable increase in longevity is largely attributable to the breakthroughs created within the U.S. healthcare system—a system that is by far the most innovative in the world. The primary driver of American innovation in this field is a market that, while distorted, remains far freer than markets in Europe or Japan. U.S. pharmaceutical and biomedical companies lead the world not because U.S. researchers are inherently smarter, but because they have a profit-motive to develop and deliver new treatments and cures.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism Page 18
