The Mothers Movement Online
www.mothersmovement.org

< back

What’s next for women?

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, author of "The F-Word: Women, Politics and the Future," talks about what it will take to get mothers’ issues on the national agenda.

Interview and introduction by Judith Stadtman Tucker

November 2004

November 3, 2004 was a pretty rough day for me. I dragged around all morning with a bitter taste in my mouth and a nasty mixture of dread and disbelief settling like two tons of concrete in my gut. My heart felt battered and bruised, like the desperate hurt following an especially bad break-up. Over the course of the day, I read and responded to a half-dozen stunned and grief-struck emails from friends and family. I choked back tears when listening to Kerry’s concession speech. I entertained grim fantasies of dousing myself with something flammable and setting myself alight in protest, like a Buddhist monk— and you know things on the national scene have really hit a low point when middle-class, middle-aged moms start contemplating ritual suicide. Gloomily, I predicted our country had passed the point of no return, and started to wonder if America is still a place I want to call “home.” I drank a couple of glasses of red wine and went to bed early. And on the morning of November 4th, I was wide awake and ready to fight. Because the alternative— that those of us who still care about liberty, equality, justice and the future of humanity might let ourselves to become unmoored, that we might become paralyzed by our own down-heartedness and skepticism— is unthinkable. Because then the bad guys win, and there’s just too much at stake.

Like Lakshmi Chaudhry, I agree we need to take some time to sit with the pain. (Chaudhry writes: “I’d planned to get pregnant next year. Maybe I’ll just stay home with the baby – lose myself in motherhood as some women do when defeated in other parts of their lives.”) And like Katha Pollitt, I think a clear-eyed-assessment of exactly what we’re up against— and by “we,” I mean those who consider themselves part of the progressive movement— is probably a warranted. But then I think we need to get going. Like the headline of economist Paul Krugman’s November 5 column for the New York Times— borrowed from a rock-out political ballad by Bruce Springsteen— I say: “No Surrender.” Like social commentator Bob Herbert, I say: it’s time to get “back to work.” Like E.J. Dionne, Jr. of the Washington Post, I say: “Don’t mourn. Organize.” But what really convinced me this is no time to throw in the towel was an essay on the “Optimism of Uncertainty” by historian Howard Zinn from a collection titled The Impossible Will Take a Little While:

In this awful world where the efforts of caring people often pale in comparison to what is done by those who have power, how do I manage to stay involved and seemingly happy? I am totally confident not that the world will get better, but that we should not give up the game before all the cards have been played. The metaphor is deliberate; life is a gamble. Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning.

To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world. There is a tendency to think that what we see in the present moment will continue. We forget how often we have been astonished by the sudden crumbling of institutions, by extraordinary changes in people's thoughts, by unexpected eruptions of rebellion against tyrannies, by the quick collapse of systems of power that seemed invincible. What leaps out from the history of the past hundred years is its utter unpredictability.

Zinn’s insights into the patterns of social change seems particularly relevant to the course of women’s progress in the United States. For long years— decades, even— resistance to women's full equality seems impossible to overcome. And then something shifts. A door opens, and there is a different world waiting on the other side. We “caring people” just need to keep pushing. No surrender.

The MMO asked Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, author of The F-Word – Feminism in Jeopardy: Women, Politics and the Future, to comment on what happened in the November ‘04 election and what lies ahead for women— and mothers— who want social change

November 22, 2004


MMO: During the 2004 campaign season, a number of feminist organizations targeted women— especially single women between the ages of 18 and 29— with aggressive “get out the vote” campaigns. Is there any indication that young women voters turned out in greater numbers this year than they did in the last presidential election?

Kristin: Yes, the good news is that there was an increased voter turnout in people aged 18 – 29 years old in the 2004 presidential election. According to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) at the University of Maryland, turnout of 18 – 24 year olds was about 42.3 percent, which is up from 36.5 percent in 2000. Turnout of 25 to 29 year old was about 58.8 percent, up from 53.1 percent in 2000. As of late November 2004, this data is not yet broken down by sex.

The bad news? Even with the increased youth voter turnout in 2004, 58 percent of 18 to 24 year olds didn’t bother to cast a ballot. There is still work to be done.

Now the numbers that show the youth vote in relation to overall voter turnout get a little tricky, so hang on to your hats. Here goes: Although there was an increased turnout in the younger age groups, the overall voter turnout also increased for all age groups, so voters under 30 constituted about the same proportion of all voters as they did in 2000 (18 percent).

MMO: Were there any significant gains or losses for women in Congress and the states this year?

Kristin: Slightly more women were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2004 elections. According to the Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University, at least 65 women (out of 435 members) will serve in the U.S. House of Representatives when the 109th Congress convenes in January 2005. This means that women will make up 14.9 percent of that body, which is a record high, up from 13.8 percent last year. The U.S. Senate kept the same number of elected women, 14 out of 100 Senators (14 percent).

Here again we find more work needs to be done. More women need to run for, and be elected to, public office. Women make up half the population, and 14.9 percent is hardly half.

Now here’s a tricky question: Is it sexist to say that more women need to be elected to public office? The answer is a solid, No! Electing women to public office, regardless of political party, changes the way women’s issues are addressed. Numerous studies support this fact. One such study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) found that “women’s presence in legislatures and other state-level elected offices is closely associated with better policy for women.”

MMO: In your opinion, what policy or civil rights issues should young women pay special attention to as the Bush administration enters its second term? What organizations and research groups are tracking these issues now?

Kristin: There certainly are some very important issues that all women should pay attention to in the next four years. Restructuring of social security, and U.S. Supreme Court appointments and decisions relating to reproductive rights are at the top of my list these days (eight of the nine justices are 65 or older, so there could be as many as four new appointments in the next several years). Other important issues include proposals for paid family leave, subsidized child care, and health care solutions for families. Many think the gender wage-gap is directly tied to the lack of federal family friendly policies in the United States.

Quite a few organizations are tracking these issues, including: The Feminist Majority Foundation, National Organization for Women (NOW), NARAL Pro-Choice America, and more. The F-word has a list of over 200 resource organizations in the appendix that includes descriptions of the issues each organization covers along with contact information.

MMO: What will it take to get mothers’ issues— such as paid parental leave, paid sick leave for all workers, adequate health care for low-income mothers, affordable, high-quality preschool and after school care, social security, a stronger social safety net to help more mothers get out and stay out of poverty —on the political map before the next presidential election cycle?

Kristin: Good question! Women’s issues were blatantly missing from the national political dialogue in both the Democratic and Republican parties during the 2004 elections.

In a country where women make 75 cents for every dollar made by men, and a full quarter of children under age six live in poverty, there is no excuse for this oversight.

Here’s an example of how women’s issues were missing this last go around: In only one of the three 2004 Presidential debates, was the gender wage gap even mentioned. The statement, “Women make 76 cents to a man’s dollar,” was dropped in the middle of an answer to another question. And it was stated like a bad pick-up line in a seedy bar without real sincerity, depth, or intent to follow through with a commitment.

It’s time to say it again, only this time with the serious attention it deserves: American women make only 75 cents to a man’s dollar. In fact, women have lost a cent between 2002 and 2003, according to the U.S. Census. We are going backward. Women face an entrenched gender wage gap and literally no public dialogue about root causes or solutions.

This issue deserves more than a sentence. It deserves a clear mandate for change. Women deserve more than half-hearted come hither lines from politicians.

And, what many politicians haven’t yet acknowledged is that the voting patterns of American women changed in this last Presidential election, due, in large part, to the oversight of pertinent women’s issues.

In the United States, there has been a significant gender gap in voting behavior between women and men since 1980— with women, as a whole, traditionally voting democrat at a higher frequency than men in national elections. In this 2004 election, there still was a gender gap. But it got smaller.

This time around, 5 percent more women voted Republican than last time in 2000. In 2000, 43 percent of women voted for Bush. In 2004, an increased 48 percent of women voted for Bush. 5 percent is actually a big number. 5 percent can make or break a candidate.

Wondering why women voters shifted away from the Democrats this past election? They weren’t given a reason to stay. Women, their children, and their families face economic hurdles and social inequalities each and every day. And these very same hurdles have been ignored in the national political arena.

Yet the fight has barely started— in part because many people think we are in a time of post-feminism, meaning that women have already achieved full social, political, and economic equality— which is the bland dictionary definition of feminism.

Of course, if these issues were solved, over, and done; if we truly are in a time of “post-feminism,” then there’s no need to talk anymore. But it’s not over and done.

On the social front, violence against women continues at an alarming rate. In the United States, approximately 1.5 million women are physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, or date each year. This is not equality.

Politically, American women are struggling as well. Women comprise a paltry 14 percent of the U.S. House and Senate, despite the fact that they are half the population. This is not equality.

In fact, the United States ranks a dismal 57th (of 121 democratic countries), tied with the Principality of Andorra, in women’s representation in national legislatures.

And, as the one-liner alluded to, economic equality has yet to be achieved. Add the 75 cents to a man’s dollar to the fact that women account for only 5.2 percent of top earners at Fortune 500 companies, despite the fact that women now make up 47 percent of the entire labor force.

This, certainly, is not equality.

Case in point: 82 percent of American women become mothers by the time they are 44, and slightly more mothers than non-mothers are in the workforce. Yet studies show that the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is now larger than the gap between women and men. Single mothers make only 56 to 66 cents to a man’s dollar in a country where childcare costs between $4,000 and $10,000 a year. Do the math, and then think about the direction of public policy and political dialogue relating to these issues.

Frankly, America is striking out on the three big parameters that define equality. Social, political and economic equality are all far from base hits. Alas, there’s no “post-feminism” here.

It’s time for women to remind both political parties that women’s issues are central to the nation (and central to winning electoral campaigns)!

MMO: What else can women do— individually and/or collectively— to expand their political presence over the next four years?

Kristin: One of the first things that women can do is to take stock of where they stand and see what personal issues they have in common with other women. Some examples include the gender wage gap, paid family leave, health care, and social security. It’s time to start talking again. It’s time to share the burden of the economic, social and political hurdles we face, instead of facing them alone.

Many of the issues mentioned can be addressed, solutions presented, and fixes made in the electoral political arena— that means voting, working on legislative issues, and running for office. Let’s look at those three areas and see where women have leverage.

1. Voting:
First of all voting is the basis of our democracy. And women still have tremendous latent political power in this area, particularly young women.

Let’s start with a little history: It took women 144 years from the start of the country to get the right to vote— many endured hunger strikes, jail, forced feedings, commitment to mental institutions, and other horrors in the fight to cast a ballot (and this was just 84 years ago, in my own grandmother’s lifetime). Today’s women only have to turn 18.

Today’s women have the power to put important issues at the forefront of the political arena, not just in presidential election years, but in all the years, cities, counties, states, and local offices in between. It’s not nearly as hard as getting the vote in the first place.

Believe it or not, there is even power in a single vote. Think all elections are bought and sold by a few powerful corporations with money to burn?

Well think again. A ballot is what decides elections in the end. Nearly 19 million young women between the ages of 18 and 34 decided not to cast a ballot in the 2000 Presidential election; an election that was basically decided by 537 votes in Florida. Five hundred and thirty seven.

This 2004 election cycle will show similarly close vote counts. In the state of Washington, a Governor’s race is hanging on just a 158 votes as of this week.

Even if your vote was lost in a sea of opposing ballots for the Presidential race, there is also a lot of power in “down ballot” voting— voting for more than just the President on the ballot— voting for city, county, and state offices. And this is particularly true in “Off Year” elections. “Off Year” elections are held in the years between presidential elections, which only happen once every four years.

Whether we recognize it or not, our personal issues and experiences are impacted each and every day by policy decisions— many made at local government levels— from the safety of the streets, to the cleanliness of the air, to the quality and access to education, job availability, health care and much more.

More than one candidate has been aptly named “Landslide Jane” for winning state or local elections with less than ten votes. Ten votes. That’s you and your friends.

2. Legislative Issue Advocacy:
This brings us right to the next part of electoral engagement: Legislative issue advocacy.

The connection between spending time to volunteer in, say, a soup kitchen to help homeless victims of domestic violence, and working on legislation to prevent people from having to be at the soup kitchen in the first place is not there— even though often more people could be fed by policy changes than passing a plate.

It’s not time to drop the plates; it’s time to add electoral politics. More specifically, it’s time to add advocating for issues in the city, county, state and federal legislative arenas.

It’s a “both and situation,” not an “either or.” 73 percent of young people volunteered in the last year, most more than once. But it’s safe to say that most aren’t volunteering in the electoral arena advocating for issues.

If even 10 percent of that volunteer time was spent advocating for issues that women deem important in the legislative arena, changes would happen, issues would be addressed, and missing perspectives would be heard.

Voting and legislative issue advocacy are just two of the many ways to get women’s issues back into the national political dialogue.

3. Running for Public Office:
Following right behind them is putting more women in the pipeline to direct political power.

More women need to run for public office. Right now, fewer and fewer women are running for office according to the Center for American Women in Politics, Rutgers University.

Don’t be shy. Run for office, or recruit and help someone you think would represent you to run.

Studies show that women tend to need to be asked to run for office, while men will throw their hat in the ring on their own.

To get over this, and the other big hurdle which is fundraising, I advocate starting a rumor and fundraising campaign: Tell everyone that your friend “Jane Smith” is running for office so please send $30 to her campaign. (Of course, Jane Smith will be surprised and delighted by her blossoming campaign!).

Also, there are very few young women in the pipeline to political power. Only 14 percent of elected officials that are thirty-five years old and under are women (86 percent are men). This is significant because over half the members of the U.S. Congress were elected to their first office by the time they were thirty-five years old, and of the past 19 Presidents, 12 held their first office by the time they were thirty-five years old. There simply aren’t enough young women in the pipeline to political power. More women need to run for office.

We need to work to get electoral politics— voting, working on legislation, and running for office— back in the political toolbox each and everyday.

Women’s rights certainly have advanced in the past fifty years. But women still face unequal social, economic, and political hurdles. And though you won’t hear it mentioned in the political arena, there are big problems with the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) never passed. All the rights that women currently do enjoy are embodied in legislation or court rulings— rights which can be changed fairly easily with the election of new representatives or the appointment of new justices (by elected representatives). There isn’t any grounding in the U.S. Constitution.

Now is not the time to rest on our laurels. This struggle didn’t end on November 2nd, sorry to say. No, that struggle is still beginning.

We can do better than this. In a democracy, true power rests in the hands of the citizens, of all citizens.

One of the things I’ve been thinking about lately is the need to call together a national meeting of women of all ages to create a new agenda for a reinvigorated women’s movement— this wouldn’t be a linear agenda, but a “wheel of issues.” Each issue would be a spoke in the wheel and have a caucus of supporters behind it. The issues would then take turns being the top issue so one type of agenda doesn’t preclude others. The wheel would keep turning. (Feel free to contact me at gateway@halcyon.com if you are interested in this idea).

Today’s women have a chance to turn the country on its ear. Not that all women share the same views, or the same political parties, but simply that the act of adding millions of missing votes into the electoral process could move mountains— and bring critical issues forward.

It’s time to start talking again. It’s time to share the burden of the economic, social and political hurdles we face, instead of facing them alone.

It’s time to get involved in the legislative process for shared issue advocacy. It’s time to make our voices heard. It’s time to demand more than empty pick-up lines from politicians. It’s time reclaim the F-word. Because after all, as the saying goes… Democracy is not a spectator sport!

< back

Copyright 2003-2008 The Mothers Movement Online. All rights reserved. Permissions: editor@mothersmovement.org