What a Feminist Icon Said:
“The care of the young is infinitely better left to trained professionals rather than to harried amateurs with little time nor taste for the education of young minds.”
—Kate Millet, Feminist author
From NICHD’s own study of children in ten geographic sites who were followed from birth to kindergarten, they found similar results in terms of an association between greater amount of non-maternal care and behavioral problems:The more time children spend in any of a variety of non-maternal care arrangements across the first 4.5 years of life, the more externalizing problems and conflict with adults they manifest at 54 months of age and in kindergarten, as reported by mothers, caregivers, and teachers.... more time in care not only predicts problem behavior measured on a continuous scale but at-risk (though not clinical) levels of problem behavior, as well as assertiveness, disobedience, and aggression. It should also be noted that these correlational findings also imply that lower levels of problems were associated with less time in child care.21
In addition to the evidence on daycare’s links to behavioral disorders and other emotional problems, some researchers have suggested that increased use of daycare—more specifically, the relative absence of mothers in their children’s live—may have contributed to disturbing social trends. In Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes, Mary Eberstadt argues that there could be a link between the increase in maternal absence and growth of social pathologies in American children and teenagers, such as mental problems, behavioral problems, and sexually transmitted diseases.22
Clearly, there are numerous explanations for all of these problems other than the increasing number of working moms. But Eberstadt makes a compelling case that there’s cause for concern and that maternal absence could be a contributing factor. Based on the strong, if only circumstantial, evidence, the link merits more research. After all, this social trend could have serious effects on our nation’s children—something we can’t just ignore in the name of political correctness.
A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read
Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn’t Telling Us, Brian C. Robertson; San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2003.
Eberstadt also casts a new perspective on the debate when she turns the focus away from questions about the long term affects of daycare on children and instead focuses on the experience of young children who are placed in daycare. She highlights how children in daycare centers tend to experience much higher incidents of illness than their counterparts raised at home. For example, an American Academy of Pediatrics fact sheet, “Controlling Illness in Child Care Programs,” lists ailments commonly spread in daycare, from the common cold to gastrointestinal problems to any number of skin and eye infections (impetigo, lice, ringworm, scabies, cold sores, and conjunctivitis, or pinkeye).23
Researchers debate the long-term affects of the increased incidence of illness on children. Some believe that the increased exposure has physical benefits for kids, in terms of making them more resistant to ailments later in life. But Eberstandt urges consideration of the actual experience of the child facing the additional physical discomfort of illness during his first years of life: “Shouldn’t his unhappiness and confusion and lack of fulfillment count for something in the day care calculus, too?”24
Making the decision to work
We all know that children of mothers who work full-time can thrive. The negative research on daycare doesn’t mean that women need to quit their jobs and return home. There are notable benefits to having mom in the workforce, such as a higher household income, but those benefits need to be weighed against the potential downsides of daycare.
Parents need to be aware of existing research as they weigh whether and how much to work. Awareness of these issues may encourage some mothers to take different jobs that allow more time at home, even if they provide lower pay. For other women, awareness of these issues won’t change their decisions to work, but may make them more vigilant about looking for warning signs in their children for problem behaviors.
Chapter Fourteen
POLITICS: ALL WOMEN DON’T THINK ALIKE
Each election season, political pundits discuss the “women’s vote”—the implication being that women vote in mass. The media regularly calls on groups like the NOW to represent “women’s” opinions. But NOW doesn’t represent women—it represents a subset of women on the Left.
Women are politically divided, splitting nearly evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the 2004 election. Women also don’t vote based on so-called “women’s issues”; they are primarily concerned about security and the economy, just like men.
Women also aren’t automatic supporters of female candidates—any candidate has to earn women’s votes, and that’s how it should be.
Women’s political power
1992 was dubbed “the year of the woman” by the mainstream media, due to the historic election of twenty-four new women to the House of Representatives, five to the Senate, and a swell of women voters. While 1992 may be popular cultures’ official “year of the woman,” news stories regularly speculate about the next “year of the woman,” or how women will once again wield such political prowess at the ballot box. There is no “year of the man”—except perhaps 1994, when the mainstream media decided it was “angry white males” who threw the equivalent of an electoral tantrum by voting in Republican majorities to the House and the Senate.
Guess what?
Women don’t vote as a monolithic block in America.
The feminist assumption is that women care about different issues than men. But polling data collected during the 2004 election showed that women’s top voting priorities were remarkably similar to men’s.
Contrary to what most feminist groups suggest, abortion was not a top consideration of most women voters.
Part of women’s fabled political power undoubtedly stems from the politically correct media, which was thrilled with the results of the “year of the woman” in 1992 and was equally aghast by the results in 1994. The dominant media outlets perpetuate the notion of the next year of the woman in hopes that women will help sweep their fellow liberals back into power.
American women, indisputably, wield great political power—even though a woman has yet to be president (or even run for president on a major party’s ticket) and women constitute just 15 percent of Members of Congress.1 According to CNN’s exit polls, women accounted for 54 percent of all votes in the last presidential election. Women were nearly evenly divided between the two candidates—with 48 percent voting for President George W. Bush and 51 percent supporting the democratic nominee, Senator John F. Kerry.
It isn’t just women’s numbers that make them particularly influential. Women remain “undecided” voters for longer and are more open than men to supporting different candidates. Therefore women are considered “swing voters,” or voters who can be swayed by a candidate. As a result, many political messages are targeted directly at women.
Gallup’s tracking poll during the run up to the 2004 presidential election showed that while men’s support varied, men were relatively consistent in giving President Bush between a five and fifteen percentage point edge. Women’s support fluctuated much more wildly. Senator Kerry at one point in the campaign enjoyed a seventeen percentage point advantage among women, but just two months later, women gave President Bush a double digit lead.
What’s the gender gap?
The gender gap refers to the difference in voting preferences between men and women; in recent decades, the gender gap is the result of women favoring the Democratic candidate and men favoring the Republican candidate.
The gender gap became more prominent—and widely discussed—during the 1980s after President Reagan’s election, when women were much less enthusiastic in their support for Reagan than were men. Before that election, men and women’s voting preferences were very similar; and p
rior to 1964, women were more likely to favor Republican candidates than were men. The gender gap shrunk during the election of George H.W. Bush and again with the first election of President Clinton, but reemerged in 1996 and ballooned during the 2000 election.
According to CNN exit polls, the gender gap shrunk considerably between 2000 and 2004, since women were nearly evenly split between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Women gave Kerry just a three percentage point edge, while men gave President Bush an eleven percentage point edge. Therefore, the total gender gap was fourteen percentage points. In 2000, the gender gap was even more pronounced since men still gave Bush an eleven point edge, but women also gave Vice President Al Gore an eleven point edge so the total gender gap was twenty-two percentage points.
Margaret Thatcher:
“Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.”
—1979
“I owe nothing to women’s lib.”
—1982
When political pundits talk about the “gender gap,” they typically are referring to women’s preference for Democratic candidates. Men’s pro-Republican tendencies are seldom covered. As Ellen R. Malcolm, president of Emily’s List, a liberal activist groups that supports the election of pro-choice female candidates, insisted in an editorial before the 2004 election:The gender gap, a factor in every presidential election since 1980, reflects the difference in the voting patterns of men and women. Though the gap has fluctuated over time, its meaning has been consistent. On the issues that women care about—education, health care, job creation, and the economy—women trust Democrats more than Republicans to fight for their priorities.2
True enough. But that analysis overlooks the reality that men are equally fervent—and in the 2004 election were more so—in their belief that the Republican candidates better protected their interests.
Women’s priorities
When political strategists talk about appealing to women, they often refer to “women’s issues.” These typically are seen as issues that directly affect women and their families: abortion, childcare, education, workplace discrimination, and healthcare. President Clinton was seen as a master at using these “kitchen table issues” to his advantage.
In the 2004 election, female strategists complained that Senator Kerry wasn’t doing enough to talk about “women’s issues.” One article late in the campaign stated: “It wasn’t until well into the presidential debates that Kerry began reaching out to women. Finally, to the satisfaction of women’s groups, Kerry firmly established himself as pro-choice and pledged to do something about the wage gap that has women earning about 72 cents for every $1 a man makes.” Gloria Steinem echoed these complaints: “He’s at the mercy of consultants who are worried about the white male vote... so he talks about hunting and military leadership. In the process, the majority of women’s issues are neglected.”3
The feminist assumption is that women care about different issues than men. But polling data collected during the election told a different story: Women’s top voting priorities were remarkably similar to men’s. Women were most concerned about security issues, the situation in Iraq, and the U.S. economy.
A Gallup poll conducted on October 22 to 24 revealed that the economy was the most frequently cited issue for women who were asked their top priority for voting for president. But the situation in Iraq (26 percent) and potential for terrorism (25 percent) together were the top priorities of a majority of women. This poll mirrored numerous polls taken around the election and suggests that men and women had similar concerns when deciding on a president.
Contrary to what most feminist groups claim, abortion was not a top consideration of most women voters. In a Marie Claire poll taken before the 2004 election, only 9 percent responded that abortion would matter in determining their vote, and those who said abortion would matter were twice as likely to be pro-life as pro-choice.
Women support candidates they believe in, not other women
The American public increasingly is comfortable with the idea of having a woman president. Gallup has been asking the question “would you vote for a woman candidate” for president since 1937. And while there have been times in our history when less than half of Americans would vote for a female candidate, today, nearly nine in ten voters say they would consider voting a woman into the Oval Office.
In the latest Gallup poll, men and women were willing almost equally to consider voting for a female president. Eighty-five percent of men and 89 percent of women said they were open to a female president.
However, it’s difficult to isolate the affect of gender, because of political beliefs and ideology. As discussed, men are more likely to support Republican candidates while women are more likely to support Democrats. When asked to think about voting for a woman for president in May 2003, many men and women likely thought of Hillary Clinton, since she is by far the most frequently mentioned female candidate for the office. Many men—particularly conservative men—may have thought specifically about her when they say they would not consider voting for a woman for president.
Research conducted by two professors suggests that Democrats are more likely to vote for women:Democrats and Independents are consistently less likely to believe the Republican candidate (regardless of the candidate’s gender) “shares my concerns,” “is qualified,” “can be trusted,” or “is a strong leader” than Republicans. Republican candidates begin with a big disadvantage, among Democrats and Independents.... the Republican female candidate can make up for some of the skepticism engendered by their Republicanism because of being female.4
It’s impossible to know if this additional support is based on a desire for more women to be in office or greater trust in the personal character of a woman; or if it stems from an assumption that the female Republican candidate will be more liberal and therefore more appealing to Democrat and independent voters than the average Republican.
Similarly, in 2002, pollsters highlighted the important role that party affiliation plays along with gender. While the research revealed that Democratic female candidates tend to get more support from women— even more than Democratic male candidates receive—they hesitated to attribute this solely to gender affinity. They noted that “Democratic women have usually included women’s issues in their campaigns.” In other words, it may be the issues that are attracting women, not feelings of sisterhood.5
Some evidence suggests that Republicans asked to participate in these opinion surveys also may assume that the women candidate is less conservative than a male candidate. One study found that those who identified themselves as “strong” Republicans were significantly less likely to vote for a generic female candidate than a generic male candidate. But the study also indicated that the strong Republican assumed that the female candidate was less conservative than the male, a perception fueled by a media that consistently showcases liberal feminist organizations as the official spokeswomen for all women.6 In other words, once again, its ideology and issues that are at the foundation of the decision of who to support, not sexism.
Political pundits anticipating a surge of support from women voters for a female candidate are likely to be disappointed. As one researcher concluded: “Voters are not automatically drawn to candidates simply because they are of the same sex; party and political position are of greater concern when choosing a candidate to vote for.”7
Conclusion
Women don’t vote as a monolithic block in America. They may skew more liberal than American men, but they’re more politically diverse than the mainstream media report.
Women need to look beyond the mainstream media to get information about politics and policy since the media often shares the sympathies of the liberal feminist groups and candidates. As will be discussed in the next chapter, that agenda has significant pitfalls for women.
Chapter Fifteen
DIVORCING UNCLE SAM
Unfettered abortion ri
ghts may be the centerpiece of the feminist agenda, but the feminist movement also has a robust economic agenda. This agenda would expand the size and scope of the federal government and create incentives for women to conform to the feminist vision of what they think women should want.
This final chapter is an overview of some key policy issues. It provides a vision of government quite different from what’s espoused in women’s studies programs, women’s magazines, and feminist organizations. It dissects the positions taken by most feminist organizations and makes the case that these positions are inconsistent with women’s independence. In fact, many have exactly the opposite effect and are creating a group of women dependent on the government.
The slanted perspective given to women
American women may be politically divided, but so-called representatives of the women’s vote tend to speak with one voice. Groups like NOW, National Women’s Law Center, Feminist Majority, and Emily’s List (among the most prominent women’s organizations in the country) have a common agenda. They want a larger government that’s more involved in redistributing wealth and providing more services for its citizens. They overwhelmingly support liberal Democrats during elections.
Guess what?
Feminist groups want a larger government and overwhelmingly support liberal Democrats during elections.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism Page 17