WARNING: This one\'s political

Apologies in advance if this puts off any of my friends here, but in my mind this is VERY relevant. I know that not everyone here shares my political views, but like most social workers I am fairly liberal, and we can't divorce the issue of women's status from political choices being made in America. If you are not liberal, as I am, that's fine--but read this anyway and ask yourself at the end of it, "why am I supporting a party that is doing this to ME?" ------   So W is for Women? My guess is no, and by the looks of his position on women's issues, I would have to say my guess absolutely is correct. For the purposes of this, I am defining those political issues and policies that are not "gender neutral" - that is, saying issues that are a concern of a gender-based constituency. Therefore, President Bush's stance that the country is safer (which could be strongly debated at another time) isn't defined as a women's issue.   Women's issues are such things as the wage gap, the Family and Medical Leave Act and funding of violence against women shelters. Understandably, these are just a few of the issues affecting women, but I find it amazing that Bush not only falls short of support for at least one of these issues, I don't believe he even knows there are women's issues.   Currently, women receive 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man, as reported by the Census Bureau. In 2000, Bill Clinton signed into law the Equal Pay Initiative, which helped train more than 1,000 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff in identifying and responding to wage discrimination. This initiative also developed public service announcements to educate employers and employees on their right under equal pay laws.   In 2002 Bush cut all funding to this initiative and hasn't even addressed it since. Why, you ask? Because President Bush and his advisers do not believe there is such a gender gap in employee income. I wasn't aware the Census Bureau makes up fictitious statistics, but hey, when you're president and people refer to you as a letter, you can believe whatever you want.  Currently, employees are allowed 12 weeks off for the care of their newborn or adopted child. This is 12 unpaid weeks taken within the first year of the child's arrival and only is available to those who work in offices of 50 employees or in government agencies. This is called the Family and Medical Leave Act and was adopted in 1993. Twenty-seven states introduced a range of proposals that would provide partial-paid leave for workers, allowing them to balance their work and family responsibilities. Sixteen of these states were allowed to fund this by using their unemployment insurance.   Of course, being the compassionate conservative Bush is, he repealed the law, allowing states to use their unemployment insurance. Like father like son - the elder Bush vetoed prior family leave bills during his term.  It is no secret that violence against women affects all racial and cultural backgrounds. It is cited as the leading cause of injury to women - 15-54, according to the Office on Violence Against Women's Web site. Once again, W didn't stand for women when he cut funding for emergency shelters crisis hotlines and other services to protect women from violence in his 2004 budget. The current proposed budget even takes grant funds away from states that could help reduce crimes against women that occur on college campuses. (NOTE: Bush cut funding from Violence Against Women programs again in March of 2008! If you are a woman and a victim of violence, this is YOUR issue.)  George W. Bush's record on women doesn't leap out at you. It's composed almost entirely of little things, small enough to fly well under the media's radar screen, so few of us have any sense of their cumulative impact. But when you step back, the pattern emerges, and it is large, ugly, and unmistakable. Behind a smoke screen of high-profile female appointees and soothing slogans, George W. Bush is waging war on women. One reason you may not have noticed is that W's record on women is getting harder and harder to find. Who knows whether women are doing better or worse? You can't find the information anymore—the Bush administration has simply stopped counting, stopped keeping track, dropped the records. When you go to the places where the government used to keep the information you find the damnedest things—fake sociology, phony science, erroneous health information, and pathetically bad economics.  Okay, but it can't be all bad. I mean, look at the man—he's surrounded by women. Elaine Chao, secretary of labor; Ann Veneman, secretary of agriculture; Gale Norton, secretary of interior, why, that's almost as many women as Bill Clinton appointed to the Cabinet. Except the women in Bush's administration have two important traits in common: They've sworn their allegiance to the corporate world, and they have connections to right-wing foundations that espouse antifemale policies. In April 2001, Laura, the librarian, kicked off the Campaign for America's Libraries. A week later, her husband cut funding for the Library Services and Technology Act, the Reading Is Fundamental program, and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Oops. Laura Bush was most famously used to put a female-friendly face on policy before the war in Afghanistan, when she substituted for her husband in his weekly radio address and spoke eloquently about the Taliban's oppression of women. Unfortunately, the much-heralded Afghan Women and Children's Relief Act, signed by Bush, had no dollar figures attached to it, and only a tiny amount of money was ever committed. Meanwhile, Afghan women's groups consistently report that women are almost as badly off under the renewed rule of the warlords as they were before. At least the Taliban did not commit rape as a matter of policy. Maybe it's better Laura not stand up for anything.   Let's look at a few lesser-known Bushies. In August 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft named two women from the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) to the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. An imaginative move. IWF twice opposed the Violence Against Women Act and continues to lobby against its enforcement. An antifeminist group funded by the usual consortium of right-wing foundations—Olin, Bradley, Scaife, Coors—IWF also vehemently opposes affirmative action; Title IX, which provides for equal educational opportunity; Take Our Daughters to Work Day; and women in combat. Bush appointed Nancy Pfotenhauer, president and CEO of IWF, to be a delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Unfortunately, the IWF "debunk[s] ‘feminist myths' and say[s] reports of rape, wage discrimination, domestic violence, and gender bias in schools are either flat-out wrong or wildly exaggerated." With alert watchdogs like these looking out for women's interests, how can we go wrong? [Did you READ that last paragraph?? If you are a  woman recovering from rape or domestic violence, that parapgraph shouold have you purple with rage!] On the economic front, the case of disappearing information recurs. The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor used to post 25 fact sheets on topics including "Women's Earnings as Percent of Men's," "Domestic Violence: A Workplace Issue," "Women in Management," "Care Around the Clock: Developing Child Care Resources," and so on. These have been replaced by peppy new Cosmo-like titles such as "Hot Jobs for the 21st Century" and "20 Leading Occupations for Women." In a recent report, the National Council for Research on Women further notes that a required study by the Justice Department on discrimination in the insurance industry against domestic violence victims has vanished. A congressionally mandated report on how employers should handle such abused women has also been held up by the Justice Department for more than two years. Without explanation, the Department of Education archived its guidelines on sexual harassment in the schools.  The Bush administration is notorious for secrecy, but this is not some exercise in executive privilege. This information is being disappeared. As was the President's Interagency Council on Women and the White House Office of Women's Initiatives and Outreach. No more. The Pentagon attempted to disband its Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), herself a veteran, managed to save it. However, the committee's work was redirected from issues of employment equity and job access to the effects of deployment on family life.  In April, the National Women's Law Center released a report called "Slip-Sliding Away," on the erosion of women's rights. Among its findings: The Department of Labor—under the steady hand of Elaine Chao—has refused to use tools at its disposal to identify violations of equal pay laws. The Department of Labor has also repealed regulations that allowed paid family leave to be provided through state unemployment compensation funds, proposed new regulations that deprive millions of women of the right to overtime pay, and even provided tips to employers on how to avoid paying overtime when the law still requires it.  Should some poor fool nonetheless seek pay equity—say an employee of Wal-Mart or Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley—corporations need not worry: The Justice Department has weakened the enforcement of laws against job discrimination and abandoned pending sex discrimination cases.  The cumulative effects of broader Bush policies on women are also stunning. Since women are disproportionately poorer than men, the constant erosion of programs that help poor people hurt women more than men. Child-care, early-learning, and after-school programs are particularly critical for women trying to get off welfare. But at least 300,000 children will be knocked off child-care assistance under the administration's new budget, which also freezes funding for Head Start and cuts funding for after- school programs. Meanwhile, the Bushies want to impose new work requirements on families who receive welfare.  Add in cuts to housing subsidies, to prenatal and early childhood nutrition programs, to college grants, to career education, to domestic violence programs, and lower federal grants that result in cuts to public schools, and it all adds up to a mountain of new trouble for low- and moderate-income women and their families.  According to Frank Luntz, Republican pollster and spinmeister, these younger working women with small children are critical swing voters. By dint of focus groups and shrewd professional questioning, Luntz has determined what these women need most—more time in their lives. He seemed to regard this finding as a considerable coup.  When asked on PBS's Now how the Republicans propose to court this demographic, Luntz conjured up an imaginary focus group. "You actually ask the question," said Luntz. "‘So, I want to talk to the ladies in the room'—the women in the room is how I would put it—‘I want you to tell me what really matters to you. What's your greatest challenge? Because I think I know what it is. Ladies here, I'd say that your lack of free time is one of the greatest challenges.' And they'll all sit there and they'll raise their hands and they'll nod yes. At that moment you have bonded with those women. At that moment, when they hear that you understand the challenges that face them, they are ready to listen to your solution." That's the Bush solution for overstressed working moms. No overtime pay, no child care, no Head Start, no after-school programs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But hey, at least he's willing to bond.    Credit to Mother Jones/Molly Ivins