You're not listening
This is an amazing (by that I mean frightening and shameful) statistic pointed out by the good folk at ladida.org. The women of America feel ignored and underrepresented.
A little snippet:
Broken down by candidate, 51 percent of the women polled said that Bush understands them not well or not at all, and 39 percent said the same about Kerry, reports KRON4.com. Women represent 60 percent of all undecided voters, according to Center for Media Research.Frankly, that sucks. Despite one group being from mars and the other from Venus, men and women have been actively engaged in a gender equality dialogue for a long time now. Maybe not long enough, but certainly longer than I've been alive.
It's not like Feminism is over--the dialogue isn't waning. I often find myself engaged in it. My girlfriend reminds me about the feminist march of progress when I fail to clean up after myself. I remind her about it when she refuses to pick up the bar tab. If not perfectly equal, whatever inequality exists in the relationship is based more on who complains the loudest, not who has the penis. It's about as healthy as two humans living in close quarters can get, I think.
Why then, have the issues and concerns of over 50% of Americans been swept under the rug? Not even abortion is a hot button topic this election year. The ban on partial-birth abortion has been dying a slow, judiciary death for a while now and no one seems to care.
Women's primary issues and concerns, in no particular order, are:
The survey found that women are eager to hear more discussion from the candidates on issues such as violence against women, healthcare, pay equity between the sexes, and access to child care. Reproductive rights and freedom of choice were found to be particularly important issues for younger women aged 18-24.Erm, I count at least three of those that shouldn't just be feminist talking points, but of concern to everyone. Violence against women? Healthcare reform? Pay equity? Access to child care? I'm sure there are almost as many babydaddies looking for affordable day care as there are babymommas.
So that puts the number well above 50%. Why are these issues getting no play? Maybe they are, but not really on a national level. Reasons for this? I don't know, I'll wager some guesses.
This is wartime. Like all other wartimes, war discourse rules the debate. Iraq is a valid topic, I grant. Less valid is the question of service in Vietnam and Texas, respectively, 30+ years ago.
Blame John Kerry; blame moveon.org; blame those insufferable and poorly spoken swiftboat vets for truth; blame their Republican handlers. This is bi-partisan stupidity. It's undercutting the spotlight issues, and completely obliterating the ones talked about in that survey-- each of which should be spotlight issues.
There's also the economy to worry about. People tend to forgo worrying about perks like day care and equal pay when they're unemployed. The essential and valid point that day care and equal pay should be rights, not perks, takes a back seat when no one's getting their paper. There's nothing less equal than unemployment.
I can't see this lasting though. It's going to be a squeaky tight election by all estimates (except Chris Matthews', and it's increasingly hard to take him seriously). If 60% of undecided voters are women, then I would think touching on these topics would be a great way to bolster the bottom line. It would work especially well for a populist like John Edwards.
Hopefully they figure it out. Then, hopefully, whomever figures it out stands by their promises and pushes these agendas. They probably won't, but that's a different problem altogether.
Anecdotally, I find it strange that this poll was conducted by Lifetime Television, yet had nothing to say about whether Valerie Bertinelli's snubbing for a cabinet level position is a factor in the political alienation women feel.
Incidentally, KRON4 are the same hard-hitting journalists who brought you whistle-tips, and the irascible Bubb-rubb and Li'l Sis. Once again I thank them for their vigilance. Woo-woo
posted by Luke @ 10:36 AM
26 comments
26 Comments:
Reproductive rights, equal pay, healthcare, child care; all these things sound like normal -- important -- issues, but violence against women? Was this listed first because it was most important, or just because? I don't mean to belittle battered women (God, all intelligent statements *don't* start with that clause), but is violence against women a huge issue? Is it really that common? I really have no idea. Besides, what does the president do about it? It's already illegal to hit women. The only thing you could do would be to create stiffer sentencing laws, which would amount to hate-crime legislation, which is a pretty hot issue as is.
Also, how are the candidates different on this issue? I'm no Bush fan, but I'm pretty sure I haven't heard him making a lot of pro-abuse statements on the campaign trail. Of course, I haven't seen a lot Kerry's stump speeches, so I guess he could be pro-battery. Hmm ....
--Mike Sheffler
I'm not sure to be honest Mike, Violence against people in general hasn't let up since . . . ever.
I'd like to hear some of the prevailing theories about how violence against women might be averted.
I'm guessing they are talking about types of violence that are usually directed at women: Rape, spousal abuse, intimidation, stalking, public masturbation on mopeds (though that's mainly a problem in Italy). . .
Right, good point Ash. These canditates should be giving them something to get behind though.
Get Out Her Vote
I see that Nia Vardalos is featured at 'Get Out Her Vote.' Do we let Greeks vote? I don't remember ....
--Mike Sheffler
PS: I'm kidding, for Christ's sake. Don't get so upset.
I'm guessing they are talking about types of violence that are usually directed at women: Rape, spousal abuse, intimidation, stalking, public masturbation on mopeds (though that's mainly a problem in Italy). . .Everybody campaigns against these things, and we have probably made progress on the first four issues, but no one wants to believe how powerful the moped masturbation lobby is in this country. Notice how public masturbation on mopeds is curiously absent from the discourse during each election cycle? There will never be progress on this issue until we stand up to those lobbyists in Washingon. Write your congressman today and let him know that you care about public masturbation on mopeds.
--Mike Sheffler
Like I said: //shrug
Anyway I've got an open question over at ladida asking for a little info, hopefully she responds. She's a professor at Eastern so she's probably used to dropping knowledge on ignorant boys.
"I'm sure there are almost as many babydaddies looking for affordable day care as there are babymommas."
According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 4 times as many single moms as single dads:
"12.2 million
Number of single parents: 10 million single mothers and 2.2 million single fathers."
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002265.html
So I'm betting that there are actually far more women than men looking for affordable daycare.
Okay, so there are more women looking for affordable daycare, but that doesn't make it a "women's issue." After all, I think everyone should be entitled to affordable daycare and I'm not any baby's daddy. Doesn't that make it my issue as well?
Still, like you said, more women are looking for this daycare, so I guess something should be said about it to cater to there vote, but the point is that it should be talked about in general because it should matter to everyone. Workers don't work as hard when they worry about their kids. They're less happy if they sink their money into expensive daycare. They miss work when their plans fall through. All those things affect the country and need to be considered.
--Mike Sheffler
Violence against women is a complicated subject. Overall, MEN are the victims of more violent crimes than women, as shown in a report from 2002 (the most recent one available) on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm#gender
However, women are FAR more likely to be the victims of "intimate violence" than men are:
"Intimate violence is primarily a crime against women -- in 1998, females were the victims in 72% of intimate murders and the victims of about 85% of nonlethal intimate violence."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate
The N.O.W. website says this:
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html
If you want to know what the Bush administration has been doing about all this, go here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/
So... why isn't the fact that it's already not legal to abuse a woman enough to combat the issue? For the same reason that it not being legal to abuse a child isn't enough to stop child abuse; because within the home, and within close personal relationships, there's a whole different sort of psychology going on than exists between strangers, a whole different level of secrecy, and, sadly, because there's still, all too often, a different attitude from society, including law enforcement officers.
If a woman gets punched in the face by a stranger in the street, things progress as we think they sould for such a crime; she calls the cops, and they, and everyone she knows, rallies around her. If her husband or boyfriend punches her in the face in their home, though, she has to consider if this is worth ending their relationship for, how she'll live if she's financially dependent on him, whether he'll harm, or even kill, her or her children (this threat is often explicitly made by the abuser), how ashamed she'll be if people find out he hit her... she wonders if this is her fault, and if her family will say that it IS, especially if her father abused her mother... she loves the man, and often hopes that this is just a one-time thing that they can get past and still be together... and on and on.
If she DOES tell, the sad truth is that some people WILL blame her, or at least tell her that this is a minor and private thing that she should in effect just suck up and stay quiet about... if they judge against the man, this can be bad too, because if she forgives him, as so many women do, they wash their hands of her and leave her with no emotional support, or keep picking at her trying to get her to leave him until SHE drops THEM... if she calls the cops, they might not even come, as they know how rarely the woman will actually agree to file charges against the man, and if they do come, and she stands firm about filing charges, she'll often find that it never makes it to trial... and now, he's REALLY mad, and can be expected to come after her again.
What can we do about all this? Aside from having battered-woman shelters available, and trying to educate society and law enforcement about the realities involved... not much.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry for the double post!!
Mike, I agree that the issue of affordable daycare SHOULD matter to everyone; not only would it increase the productivity of parents, it would make it possible for many single parents to work who can't do so now because daycare costs so much, especially with multiple kids, that they couldn't afford to eat if they paid for it... heck, for some low wage earners, daycare would cost more than their total possible earnings.
Quality daycare helps to ensure the safety of children, as well... and this should ALSO be of concern to everyone. Maybe this should be looked at as a "children's issue"?
Omni,
You made some good points about why illegality isn't enough to deter violence against women, but I think you got a little caried away. For instance,
"if she calls the cops, they might not even come, as they know how rarely the woman will actually agree to file charges against the man"
I won't believe -- or, at least, don't want to believe -- for a second that police officers won't respond to a call, whatever the call might be for. I know that, being a hip young liberal, I'm supposed to instinctively hate and fear the police, but come on. Maybe they'll show up and beat everyone to death, I don't know, but you'd better believe that they're going to show up.
Back on track, it's weird that such attitudes -- even given your (hopeful) hyperbole -- about violence still exist. Does anyone our age (I'm 23, your mileage may vary) still automatically think that a women "deserved" it if she gets smacked by her significant other. Does anyone born in the last couple decades believe that. I just don't get it.
Further back on track, all the way back to the campaign trail, when you say things like, "if she calls the cops, they might not even come, as they know how rarely the woman will actually agree to file charges against the man," I just get confused. What is the candidate supposed to do, hand out signs to his female constituency that say, "U R Dumb! Leave, bitch!"
Seriously, though, you're pointing out that there are psychological/sociological problems in the mix, and I don't know how the government plays a role in correcting them. I'm not saying that the government should wash its hands of the issue, I'm just saying that I don't know what the answer should be except to be supportive (to women, not to rapists, abusers, etc :) and wait for enough time to pass that attitudes become more progressive. This is basically what has happened (is happening) with gay rights and gay issues (not withstanding DOMA, anti-gay amendment to the constitution, etc. Some people are just assholes and exist only to slow the advancement of society...).
Besides, for all the policies and ideas we can think up, none of them fit on a sign, or in a ten-second soundbyte, so they no one will campaign on them.
Also, I wonder what campaigning on this issue would do to that (popularly believed to be) crucial NASCAR dad vote? Maybe the candidates should campaign for domestic violence.
--Mike Sheffler
PS: Did you know that, in Washington state, if the cops show up to a domestic dispute, someone goes to jail no matter what? It's kind of a separate 'em and let 'em cool off strategy. I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Mike, believe it or not, I tend to NOT make blind assertions about things that CAN be seen and proven, lol; when I talk about the cops not respondng to domestic violence calls, I'm basing that on articles I've read, interviews I've seen, and my own private interactions with abused women.
As a side note: my friends in the gay community tell me that if a gay or transgendered person, or even a straight person who happens to live in the same part of town, of either gender calls the cops about domestic violence, there's almost NO chance of a cop ever showing up.
Cops do NOT share your liberalism... and, they get tired of making fruitless visits to crime scenes where the victims will refuse to press charges even if they need to be hospitalized for their injuries.
And yes, young women DO still think they're to blame, and/or feel ashamed, if they get hit (in the same way that abused kids blame themselves for the abuse THEY receive)... and they're at the greatest risk of BEING hit, if memory serves. The psychology behind it goes like this: "Either I'm to blame for this, in which case I can change and it won't happen again, OR, I'm NOT to blame, in which case I have no control over my life and evil can befall me at any time based on nothing I've done"... can you see how much scarier the 2nd choice is?
There are a variety of ways that women can be protected, from making the penalties against abuse stricter, to putting more $ towards shelters and other services for victims, to brilliant ideas like making going to jail automatic on a domestic violence call... and the campaign slogan supporting this stuff can be "Stop Domestic Violence Now" or some such thing.
Oh, and as for my "mileage"... I'm 38. Your parents probably have friends my age. {cringe}
"For the same reason that it not being legal to abuse a child isn't enough to stop child abuse; because within the home, and within close personal relationships, there's a whole different sort of psychology going on than exists between strangers, a whole different level of secrecy, and, sadly, because there's still, all too often, a different attitude from society, including law enforcement officers."
That's an excellent insight Omni. It's the mindset of Men, Women and society at large that makes the home a no fly zone for law enforcement, and that needs to stop.
I lived in the ghetto ghettissimo of Spokane WA, and my neighbors were Meth addicts. One night I saw the boyfriend tip a fridge over and do all kinds of intimidating things to the girlfriend. My roommates and I called the cops, no one showed up for two hours, when an ambulance pulled up and treated the boyfriend for a sucking stab wound to the chest. He was sitting in the porch with a steak knife in his side, waiting for them when they got there.
The cops showed up sometime after for a brief Q and A and everyone went their separate ways.
And RE: "According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 4 times as many single moms as single dads"
Forgive my hyperbole. OF COURSE there are more single moms than dads. But also factor in dual income homes to the equation and that's a huge, transgender problem that needs to be solved.
So change "as many" to "a lot" because there are. This should be a topic of discussion.
I still can't believe how this thread exploded. I think you just waited for me to leave work so you could have the blog to yourselves. :D
Omni, thanks for digging up those stats.
Luke, in dual-income homes, what % of the time do you think that the MEN are the ones looking for the child care? Do you have actual PROOF that men are doing ANY part of this search, or are you just assuming that it must be so because they SHOULD be doing it? I ask because the refusal of men to make any effort to care of their kids (and the home in general), much less to do half of the tasks, even when the mother/wife works full-time, is one of the most complained about issues from women... I'm not saying that not even one man is doing it, I'm just trying to point out that the search for daycare is overwhelmingly more an issue for women than for men, because women are actually doing it and know the realities involved.
I'm happy to provide a few stats for you... you let me ramble on about karma. :-)
"Luke, in dual-income homes, what % of the time do you think that the MEN are the ones looking for the child care? Do you have actual PROOF that men are doing ANY part of this search, or are you just assuming that it must be so because they SHOULD be doing it?"
I have no idea, I never speculated, and not knowing in no way diminishes the point I was trying to make--that it should be an important issue for both men and women.
I made no claims about whether they were doing the searching or not, and it really doesn't matter. Jesus.
Even when I agree with you you argue with me.
For the record, my dad handled the daycare for my brother and I, so that's one concerned male. And I'm concerned, so that makes two. So there's your statistic.
Luke, you may well have intended to make the valid point that daycare SHOULD be an issue of concern for all, but what you actually SAID is all I can respond to... and I don't see anywhere that we've agreed on this issue so far, as I dispute your assertions as to the involvement of men and disagree that this should be considered an issue for both genders (because it's overwhelmingly women who are doing the searching).
Also... I hate to tell you this, because your usage was so funny, but "transgender" does NOT mean "concerning both genders," it means:
1. Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member the opposite sex.
2. Of or relating to a transgendered person or transgendered people.
I think the word you wanted was "cross-gender." lol
Now you're just being petty.
All men ever are irresponsible pieces of shit and don't deserve a voice in the day care debate.
Now we agree.
Luke, my posts have been friendly and factual; what is your emotional investment in this issue that makes you react so aggressively to hearing that the facts don't back your assertions? You haven't gotten belligerent at being disproven on other topics; what's the difference with THIS topic?
"friendly and factual"
factual maybe in a staw-man sense, and rarely truly friendly, even when you use emoticons.
"that makes you react so aggressively to hearing that the facts don't back your assertions? . . . You haven't gotten belligerent at being disproven on other topics"
I wasn't disproven, I was misunderstood. I said men ought, and you thought I said men do. That may have been my fault. I corrected myself and stated unequivocally that MEN OUGHT to worry about daycare, you ignored this and continued to represent my feelings as "Men worry as much about daycare as women."
"What's the difference with THIS topic?"
Because women's issues should be of as much importance as men's issues, and an essential step in the march of progress is getting men to realize that. That's how progress works in all cases up til now. Women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, et al.
Feminism has always been about equity and equality, about achieving equilibrium between men and women. It's about gaining rights and understanding, making the issues that affect women specifically as important to men as they already are to women.
So when you say that you "disagree that this should be considered an issue for both genders".
You are propping up the gap in understanding separating men and women. In doing so you're being just as exclusionary as the [male] lawmakers you're complaining about. That's no way to affect change. Change is affected through persuation and empathy, by doing exactly what you say we shouldn't: By making it an "issue for both genders".
That's why I made this blog, in the interest of fostering debate and understanding, not to further the divisiveness.
Luke, there's nothing remotely "strawman-ish" about the stats I've presented, as they can not only not be easily refuted, they can't be refuted at all.
If you think I'm "rarely truly friendly," the person being misunderstood here is ME, as I have ALWAYS been friendly, and I'm frankly offended that you would claim otherwise; when someone uses unswervingly friendly phrasing and smilies, what possible excuse is there to claim that they're NOT "truly friendly"?
You said: "I'm sure there are almost as many babydaddies looking for affordable day care as there are babymommas." Notice that the word "ought" does NOT appear, nor is it implied, and you said "looking," NOT "care about" or anything similar. I replied to exactly what you said; if you meant something totally different, that's unfortunate, but hammering ME for replying to your actual WORDS is not reasonable or fair.
You and I totally disagree about feminism, and I mean TOTALLY, so I won't feed the flames by responding to your comments-we have no common ground on which to discuss it.
My view on how to label issues is to look at them from a #'s standpoint; what % of different groups are affected. Therefore, for example, I look at breast cancer as a women's issue even though some men get it. In this rare instance, I'm with the majority in the political arena, as that seems to be how most people see things; that doesn't make it right, but that doesn't make it wrong, either.
Would you say that your post shows "persuasion and empathy"? Do you think that your comments and tone foster debate and understanding rather than divisiveness? Do you think you can even HAVE debates when personal comment are being used?
You consider picking apart word usage friendly, and in the spirit of honest debate?
And your stats aren't strawmanish, your refusal to accept my clarifications is. I AGREE WITH YOUR STATS, that is now the fourth time I've said it, it's been ignored the previous three times.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
The first time you argued against it, it was valid, because I didn't completely state what I thought. Once I corrected myself and clarified, stating specifically that, regardless of whether men do or do not care about day care, THEY SHOULD CARE, and you continued taking my previous uncorrected statements as being my position, it became a straw man argument.
That's all.
It absolutely IS in the spirit of honest debate to respond to exactly what has been said; what's NOT in the spirit of honest debate are personal comments, claims that what you meant differ radically from what you said, and trying to accuse others of "picking apart word usage" when they're just quoting you.
As to what's friendly; proper debate is perfectly friendly... personal comments are NOT. Since it is YOU who have made the personal comments, and with no hint of contrition, should I take that to mean that YOUR friendliness has been "rarely true"? If so, that would make you a hypocrite.
At NO point did I take your "previous uncorrected statements as being [your] position," or ignore your agreement; I responded to a NEW statement that you made, "also factor in dual income homes to the equation and that's a huge, transgender problem that needs to be solved." That's how a debate works; EVERY line you say is part of it, and an argument doesn't become "strawman-ish" because you mis-spoke, changed your mind, or are saying contradictory things.
Wouldn't this be a good time for you to give some indication that you actually believe in the things you claim to (persuasion, empathy, understanding), and stop this endless carping? We've already learned the things we need to know from this exchange; let's move on to something worthy of our time, shall we?
Here's a thought: Why not do a post on your views on feminism? It would be very interesting, especially coming from a man your age; I don't think I've ever SEEN anything written about young men's views on feminism. *I* wouldn't be able to post on that thread, as we're too wildly opposed, but the insight into where you're coming from would be useful, and I'm sure others would post... I'd be interested in what Ashley, as a young woman, thinks of feminism, too, since the only views I'm familiar with are those of old folks like ME, which isn't the whole picture by far.
These comments have long since been lost to entropy. The POV of both sides has been lost. Both parties feel they've been deeply insulted and their words misrepresented, and nothing productive is being accomplished, so I'm going to close this.
I think we're both able to put down the gauntlets as there's already new discussion going on a different subject with at least a tense civility.
I'll work on my thoughts on feminism Omni. I don't know how forthcoming it will be, I want to discuss it with my girlfriend, who spent more time than I did studying the history of feminism, and work through some of my perceptions. She recently moved to Boston for grad school, so this will be taking place in abortive phone convos.
Regardless, I'd like to hear Ashley's take as well, given her strong feelings on women's issues, her pro-choice stance, and the fact that she's a very strong Republican.
She has an excellent blog.
Let's all be friends.
<< Home