Fifty/fifty Quotas for Congress

Mim Kelber, who was deeply involved in preparations for Non-Governmental Organization's (NGOs) participation in the Beijing conference, is the editor of the book Women and Government: New Ways to Political Power. Former Congresswoman Bella Abzug coauthored the introduction. The book, written explicitly for the Beijing conference, lays out plans for achieving fifty/fifty quotas in all elected offices. In the U.S. this would be achieved by, among other things, rewriting the Constitution to mandate that the Senate be composed of two hundred members, two women and two men from every state [Mim Kelber, Women and Government: New Ways to political power (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), pp. 215-218].

 ...

The most obvious effect of the Marx/Engels/Firestone influence is the demonizing of "patriarchy" as the great evil. Patriarchal has become an all-purpose curse word. It is interesting that many people have accepted that patriarchy is evil without considering the ideological roots of this accusation.

"The advent of democracy based on equal representation will mean not only a turning point in relations between men and women and consequently in the social being of the human race, but also a turning point in the democratic construction process. Equal participation by female citizens in the affairs of the polis will henceforth be considered a sine qua non for the completion of democracy. A democracy without women will no longer be seen as an imperfect democracy but as no democracy at all." [Kelber, p. 33]

...

Economic Effects

One of the arguments made for all women in the workforce is that in order to develop economically, societies need to take advantage of the talents of all citizens. Full-time mothers find this kind of argument insulting. The clear implication is that women who work within the home are wasting their talents and education. Making a human being is the most important work in society, and devoting one's talents and energies to this task should be considered as productive as working in a factory or office.

New research on the brain reveals that the crucial time for the development of language, emotional stability, and reasoning ability occurs from birth to five years. A child who does not receive the proper input during this crucial period is forever handicapped. The child's brain needs precisely the kind of one-on-one interaction that a mother provides. It is interesting that an article in Newsweek discussing the discoveries that led to this conclusion makes almost no mention of mothers as the suppliers of this interaction, Instead, it discusses the need for "intensive early education in a day-center from 4 months" [Sharon Begley, "Your Child's Brain," Newsweek, 19 February 1996, p. 61].

While well-paid mother substitutes could supply the input needed for brain development, the cost would be prohibitive. A woman who works at a low-paying job can't afford to pay a skilled professional to do her mothering. Those who want all women in the workforce recognize this and call for government-subsidized day care, but where would the subsidies come from? Taxes on families -- taxes which force more mothers into the workforce.

Babies come with committed day-care providers who are willing and able to supply the one-on-one interaction needed for brain development -- mothers. Mothers don't need a master's degree in education to learn how to talk baby-talk to babies. Furthermore, babies already have a fully equipped day-care center right at home. And, babies are better off if they are not exposed to sick children, particularly since frequent ear infections in infancy are now blamed for later language problems.

Feminists complain that women are made to feel guilty when they put their children in day care, and this is probably because most women know that even the best day care is a second-rate imitation of a home and mother. And, very few working mothers can afford the best.

Profamily lobbyists argue that instead of subsidies for day-care and child-care tax credits for working mothers, there should be tax credits for all children, or better, significantly lower taxes on all families, so that mothers aren't forced into the workforce.

This solution would not be acceptable to radical and gender feminists, since their version of empowerment requires that all women be employed in paid work and be economically autonomous. The definition of empowerment as economic independence ignores the reality of women's lives. Pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood affect women's workplace participation. When a woman is nor employed because of family responsibilities, she depends on her husband and the father of her children for economic support. This "economic dependence" empowers women to make the choice of motherhood. The emphasis on paid work ignores the desires of women. The pro-family position supports the woman's right to decide for herself whether she will work full-time, be a full-time mother, or choose part-time work so she can devote her energies to her family.

Forcing all women into the workforce has other economic effects. It increases the supply of workers, thereby lowering the demand and lowering wages. If men are unable to support their families on a single paycheck, more women are forced into the workforce, setting off a downward spiral. When women in poor countries are recruited into the workforce for extremely low wages, jobs move to these countries, and the ability of men to support their families deteriorates further.

When both parents are forced to work, the stresses on the family increase. School-age children receive less supervision. This increases the need for various kinds of government programs and the taxes to pay for them.

One way families cope with these stresses is by limiting their families to one or two children. While most people believe that the world is suffering from an uncontrolled population explosion, the major economic problem in the next century will be the birth dearth. An aging population dependent on expensive government health and retirement programs will demand increased subsidies from a shrinking pool of workers. This further increases the tax burden.

Feminists insist that women who work outside the home gain economic autonomy, but if the majority of a woman's salary is eaten up by higher taxes, day care, and the cost of additional services, a woman may be only marginally better off. Some women argue that a woman at home has true autonomy. She is her own boss, running her house, organizing her time, and making her own decisions. Very often, she manages the family income and makes most of the spending decisions.

Feminists are very concerned with who makes decisions. They want fifty/fifty quotas on all decision-making positions, particularly high-level decision making. But, most women do not feel more liberated if the bureaucrat or politician making the decisions that influence their lives is a woman. What they want is to make their own decisions, or to have decisions made at the lowest level of government where the voices of ordinary women can be heard.

The big government solutions envisioned in the Beijing platform take decision making away from the local level and invest power in bureaucracies. Power is taken from the people and given to the government. Mandating quotas on bureaucracies will not return power to ordinary women.

The Future

I am sometimes asked if I think the Gender Agenda will succeed. It is certainly possible, given its momentum and the power of the Gender Establishment. Universities, educational establishment, government bureaucracies, the media, and big businesses are already falling in line.

The Gender Establishment, no matter how hard they try, however, will not be able to change human nature. Men and women will continue to be different. Women will find ways to mother, but the Gender Agenda, if implemented, would undermine the family and society and increase unwed pregnancy and divorce. The children raised in the ensuing chaos would become dependent on governments whose resources are already strained, emotional and economic debtors draining the accounts built up by their fathers and mortgaging their futures. If the sexual liberation promoted by the Gender Agenda is not checked, sexually transmitted diseases and sexual addictions will spread throughout the world. And, when these things happen, the Gender Establishment would undoubtedly view the havoc their policies caused and see only justification for more funding, more control, and more "gender sensitivity training." But, no matter how much control they have, no utopian sex/ gender classless society will ever appear.

"This generation of feminists, although they would be loath to acknowledge it, have benefited from the good will of a generation of men raised to respect their mothers and, by extension, all women. Feminism would never have won so easily if men had not been trained to be polite. The next generation of women may not be so fortunate. They may have to face hordes of unmothered, father-deprived men who will be far less sympathetic to women's concerns. Teachers are already remarking on young men's sullen resentment to "gender sensitivity." The violent rap music coming out of the welfare ghettos, which glorifies rape and uses the most vulgar terms to refer to women, reflects a world where fatherlessness is a way of life.

Exposure

What can be done to stop the Gender Agenda? The first step is obviously exposure. Gender feminists have left a paper trail, and they must be made to eat their words. Gender feminists who hide behind family language need to be exposed. A perfect example of this kind of deception is Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village, which is full of wonderful, apparently profamily wisdom. Underneath, however, one finds the gender feminist ideology. The book should be titled It Takes a Federal Bureaucracy because the village Mrs. Clinton envisions isn't a close-knit community where neighbors share common values and support one another, but a place where families are dependent on government programs.

Mrs. Clinton may pay lip service to stay-at-home moms, but she pushes "government subsidized day care." And, underneath the homey little stories, there is a pure gender feminist, who writes: "It may be that women will achieve economic and social parity with men only when mothers and fathers fully share responsibility for rearing their children and other household tasks" [Hillary Clinton, It Takes a Village (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), p. 212].

 ...

The supposedly sexually liberated become addicted to sterile sensations, always seeking ways to increase the thrill because what they do can never satisfy the human person who has been made for the private pleasures of a faithful marriage and the joys of children.

 ...

I consider myself very fortunate that I was able to be at home with my children while they were growing up. I have seen the pain in the faces of young women who are forced to work and leave their babies with others, and I have seen the economic sacrifices that other women have made to be at home with their children. If wisdom is knowing the difference between what must be accepted and what can be changed, then the wisdom for today must be that the present situation does not have to be accepted. Every woman should have the right to decide for herself if she wants to make motherhood her primary vocation and to have the opportunity to care for her children for as long as she thinks is necessary -- not as long as an employer or the government gives her leave.

It will take more than exposure and brilliant arguments. If this is a culture war, then it must be fought with culture as well as arguments. The warriors should be writing stories, singing songs, and creating images that communicate the truth about the human person.

 ...

And, it will take calculated rudeness. The feminists have relied on the politeness of men. They have demanded that dangerous nonsense and utter stupidity be treated with respect. The Gender Agenda cannot be defeated until people are willing to stand up and say, "No more inclusive language, no more politically correct speech." We must refuse to say "gender" when we mean "sex." Those who are offended by reality and human nature will just have to live with it.

Women around the world have been standing up and saying loud and clear, "These feminists don't speak for us." Local, national, and international groups of grassroots women have organized to fight various aspects of the Gender Agenda. I met many of these women in Beijing and know that each one of them represented thousands more at home.

The Gender Agenda reminds me of a giant balloon in a small room. So long as everyone treats the balloon with respect, it continues to expand, and, eventually, it will suffocate the people in the room. But, all that is needed to stop the balloon is one sharp pin. This book is intended to be that pin.