When a Woman Votes...

Today marks the 92nd anniversary of the day when Tennessee became the thirty-sixth state to ratify the 19th amendment. With this, women were granted the right to vote--a right fought for by many from Abigail Adams in her letters to the Constitutional Convention to pioneers like Susan B.Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

The right to vote is indeed an honor granted by the democratic processes of our Republic outlined in the Constitution. It seems though that in the years that have followed since women were granted suffrage that this   great opportunity has been diminished--not that opportunities to vote have diminished, but that more and more it has been viewed as collective statement, rather than an individual's opportunity.

Last weekend, I visited the Illinois State Fair and decided to pop into the Illinois Democratic Party tent. It was pretty much your standard political tent with flags, politicians' photos and literature, but one of the pieces of literature stood out to me-- the Illinois Democratic Women's flyer seen below:

To be sure, any literature from a political party is going to be partisan by default, but I was a bit surprised by the line, "when women vote Democrats win". With the exception of the 2010 election, the majority of women have voted Democratic in elections. However, there are two things wrong with this type of message: 1) it's about party power not about improving the state 2) it tries to make a statement about how women vote as a collective--thus diminishing the individual woman.

I don't particularly identify with any political party. Both parties have made government too big and too full of cronyism and corruption. I grew up in a conservative home, but I've voted Republican, Green Party, and Democrat in various elections in the past ten years--even for Barack Obama when he ran for Senate in 2004 (I was in college--youthful indiscretion). In the last few years, my political ideology has solidified as some conservatarian hybrid. Nonetheless, regardless of whether or not I, as a woman (or as an American in general) identify with a party, I'm sick of how the Democratic party projects their beliefs onto all women as if we're all supposed to walk in lock step. Why did the Illinois Democratic Women assume that women all women vote Democratic? In their laughable attempt to win female votes, why did the Obama campaign's graphic artist depict "Julia" without a mouth?

Is that because President Obama speaks for her, and she's not allowed to speak for herself? Additionally, why does the Obama campaign call Paul Ryan bad for women? For a party that prides itself on "female empowerment", it is certainly hypocritical for them to support the idea that taxpayers should pay for a woman's divorce between sex and personal responsibility. Why does Code Pink think that dressing up as vaginas will help their cause? Are they simply trying to show which organ they will vote with rather than their brains? All of these are examples of projection of party ideology onto individual women.

Women vote across all party lines, and all parties indeed want their vote. However, far too often the Democratic party gives their collectivist answer without asking the question--what do women want? They assume that women want the government to do things for them, rather than to stop doing things to them. In this "war on women", too often women have become the grenades. This is true of both major parties. The Democrats raised money off of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke, and the Romney campaign raised money off of Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney--both in attempts to win the "women's vote". There's no such thing as the "women's vote". There is a woman's vote; there are tens of millions of these across the country--each with a different perspective and different priorities. I'm so thankful to live in a country where I have the opportunity to vote as a woman.  As I wrote this past spring:

The voice of women has made a huge impact at the ballot box, but the “women’s vote” is not a collective declaration. Rather, the “women’s vote” is a collection of individual women’s decisions based upon their priorities. A CNN poll performed late last month indicated that 54% of women saw the economy as the most important issue with 16% and 14% of women stating that the federal budget deficit and healthcare were the most important issues respectively. The remaining 16% of women thought that either the situation in Afghanistan, illegal immigration, terrorism, or gay and lesbian policies were the most important issues. Suffice it to say, each women has a unique set of priorities when it comes to how they vote, and women’s opinions on how these priorities should be as a means of policy fall all along the political spectrum.

While the Democratic party wish to project their views onto all women, it an individual woman's choice to cast her vote how she chooses--just as it is for a man. It's not the women's vote; it's a woman's vote.

Crossposted here and here.

NOW Asserts that They Won't Defend Women of Any Political Stripe

Today, the increasingly irrelevant National Organization of Women (NOW) released a statement as a backhanded, faux defense of Governor Palin regarding degrading comments made by "comedian" Bill Maher. However, in this so-called defense, NOW asserts that they will not defend any women. As the Daily Caller reports:

“Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don’t like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs,” Lisa Bennett, NOW communications director wrote in a statement.

...

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”

Let's see. NOW isn't going to defend unborn baby girls. They aren't going to defend liberal women like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They aren't going to defend conservative women like Governor Palin. The 2010 California gubernatorial race proved that they aren't going to support moderate women like Meg Whitman either. What women are left for them to support? What a great way to celebrate Women's History Month, ladies! Yes, the amount of sexism directed at female politicians is huge, especially the amount directed at Governor Palin even by Daily Caller editor, Tucker Carlson, as we addressed late last month. However, NOW uses a convenient excuse of excessive sexism and supposed conservative shenanigans as reasons to not defend female politicians of any political stripe.

NOW asserts that they want to support "women's rights", but when you look at their stance on women's rights on a global level, they can't hold a candle to how Governor Palin has supported women's rights on this level. In the past year alone, Governor Palin has called for the Obama administration to seriously address the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood taking control in Egypt in part because of how they subjugate women. She has called for the Obama administration to take a stronger stance against Iran in their gross mistreatment of their female citizens exercising their right to vote. Governor Palin has criticized China's human rights abuses,which include forcing women to have abortions.

Governor Palin has additionally supported women in her message of empowerment that women are strong enough to choose life, which also supports unborn girls. Her support for smaller government allows women to prioritize their hard earned money to be spent as they see fit for themselves and their families. Her support for fewer regulations allows women business owners greater opportunity for success and less bureaucratic red tape that would stymie their growth. Her support for addressing entitlement reform and the reducing the massive national debt shows that she supports providing a stable financial environment for future women. Her support for a strong national defense shows she, not NOW, wants to ensure " freedom, safety, and livelihood" of women.

That's just on the level of policy. When it comes to politics, who was the one who helped provide a boost to the election of the first female Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, first female Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, or first female governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin? It certainly wasn't NOW. NOW has asserted that they won't waste their time defending Secretary Clinton or Governor Palin, both of whom stated just last week that it's time for a female president. Female candidates and women in general can officially say, "women need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle".

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin and Women's Equality

Today marks Women's Equality Day, as 90 years ago, the 19th amendment was adopted giving women the right to vote (Governor Palin noted the ratification of this amendment last week). Much has been discussed about Governor Palin's role in a new feminist movement or if she's even a feminist at all. Recently, a pro-abortion group, Emily's list, put out a laughable attempt to diminish the power of Governor Palin's mama grizzlies. Governor Palin's mama grizzly brand has drawn a lot of attention to the conservative female candidates whom she has endorsed. This election cycle has proven to be quite a popular cycle for conservative women as 201 Republican women are running for the House, Senate, and statewide offices including 140 for the House and Senate alone, more than twice as many as in 2008. With the celebration of Women's Equality Day and the surge of conservative women running for office, a yahoo news story states (emphasis mine):

Several Women's Equality Day events are planned across the country Thursday.

In California, a great, great, great granddaughter of suffragist leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton will address a rally near the statehouse in Sacramento. In New York, the Susan B. Anthony List — it backs female candidates opposed to abortion — will host a forum on "pro-life feminism."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said the surge of women running as anti-abortion conservatives reflected a "war over who gets to define what feminism means."

"There's an unsettling of the political apple cart," Dannenfelser said. "Sarah Palin kicked the door open, and a lot of women started going through."

Much has been made of Governor Palin's brush with smashing through the glass ceiling in 2008 and her support of conservative female candidates in this election cycle. However, her support for women has extended far beyond political milestones and into the realm of standing for women on the issues, in spite of the Left's constant lies and misrepresentations to the contrary. The Left has often claimed a monopoly on women's issues, but Governor Palin has chipped away at their political support because she understands what true equality is about. The Left often chooses to hang their feminist hat on the abortion issue. However, Governor Palin has turned the "feminist"argument on its head by on multiple occasions by emphasizing that girls and women are strong enough to bring a child into this world rather than viewing abortion as a choice. Governor Palin chooses to go beyond the Friedan/Steinem one issue feminism to evaluate the whole woman.

This week the Obama administration apologized to the UN on behalf for America's human rights' "failings". While President Obama offers this apology, his administration stayed silent when Iran, a country with extremely anti-women views, was placed on the Women's Rights Council of the UN this past Spring. UN ambassador, Susan Rice, had the opportunity to vote and speak against this specific appointment, but did not. Governor Palin, on the other hand, spoke against this nonsensical decision via Twitter:

U.S. Moms: we are thankful 4 freedom!Despicable treatment of women in Iran(setting U.N.policy on women’s rights)make U.N.credibility a joke

Governor Palin stood against the anti-women policies of Iran while the Obama administration chose to vote present. Governor Palin realizes that women's equality isn't about a dichotomous decision of pro-life or pro-abortion. Women's equality is about speaking out against injustices to women throughout the world. It's about measured support for reforms like Title IX which has brought so many opportunities to female student athletes over the past nearly 40 years. It's about supporting pro woman fiscal conservatism which provides opportunity for female business owners and households. It's about recognizing history and the foremothers who came before us and paved the way so that we could have a political voice.

As we approach the 2 year anniversary of Governor Palin's introduction to the national scene, let us re-visit one of Governor Palin's most underrated speeches of the 2008 campaign where she spoke specifically about women's equality issues--support for female business owners, opposition to global injustices and abuses of women, and a strong recognition of history. Governor Palin has not changed her tune:



Cross posted here and here.