A Teachable Moment for the Republican Party
March 27, 2010
by Kitt
|It is no secret that the Republican Party is committed to recruiting women candidates. They even have a website dedicated to women which is linked all over the official GOP website. According to a National Journal article earlier this year, the GOP acknowledges they are “woefully underrepresented” among women. RNC co-chair, Jan Larimer, heads up the party’s efforts to address this problem. Here’s what Ms. Larimer had to say:
“We’re working with the women in Congress … to empower the women in their states to get involved and to participate,” Larimer told Hotline OnCall in an interview at the party’s annual Winter meeting in Honolulu.
“Women sometimes need a little more handholding, or they need their friends to help them make a decision. And by our going in and talking to them and recruiting and educating and training them to either get involved in a campaign or become a candidate, we’re giving them the tools so that they can do that on their own,” Larimer added.
The RNC has held 2 workshops for women so far, and the party is producing training manuals aimed at enticing women candidates into more contests.
I commend the party for taking these steps and look forward to voting for many of their new women candidates. However, someone sent me a link to their FireNancyPelosi website which has some wording which runs counter-productive to these efforts. The Republican Party has created this special website to motivate people to donate money and volunteer on campaigns to replace 40 Democratic seats in the House. 40 is the magic number necessary for the Republican Party to gain a majority. Catchy lines such as “Who Wants to Fire Speaker Pelosi the Most?” sprinkle the home page. All this is to totally acceptable and to be expected from the minority party in an election year. However, there is one line which made me cringe: “40 Seats Means No More Madam Speaker”. “Madam” is the title used to address women in leadership positions in politics. And there are VERY few Madams out there.
Here’s the teachable moment: These words are sexist. They send a bad message to women who may be considering running for office. They send the wrong message to little girls who aspire to be leaders in government one day. It sends a message which is counter-productive to the party’s strategic goals of recruiting more women to run for public office.
Do Michael Steele and Republican Party know this? I honestly do not think they do. That is why this is a teachable moment. Was it intended to be sexist? Was it intended to send negative messages. I doubt it. However, I believe we should hold our parties and their leaders to a high standard. When crafting advertisements, web sites, speeches and the like, our parties should be sensitive in choosing their language. They should ask themselves “Is this sexist? How would a little girl perceive this?” They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing this.
If you agree, please contact Michael Steele and Jan Larimer. Ask them to please change the wording on their website. Ask them to be sensitive to sexism. Encourage them in their goal of recruiting more women.
Thank you.
Contact RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Phone: 202-863-8700
Fax: 202-863-8820
Email:Chairman@gop.com
Contact Jan Larimer, RNC Co-Chair
310 First Street
Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone: 202.863.8500
Fax: 202.863.8820
Email: Info@gop.com
Send her a message via Facebook
Halane,
Great discussion. At first glance it seems innocuous. However, it is this kind of insidious sexism that is most harmful, as it makes us internalize sexism without even noticing it. This subtle sexism through phrases, words, and even jokes, that seem harmless, make our sexist culture acceptable. When you challenge them, people feel you are over reacting as “it was just a joke”, or, in this case, “it was just referring to Nancy Pelosi, not to all women”. However, I don’t think they would have said “No Mr. Speaker any more”
It is still a long way from the sexism displayed by the Democrats in 2008 first with their sexist mocking of their own female candidate Hillary and then with their Sarah Palin mockery which still continues and let’s not forget the way they communicate with female voters using fear of losing their reproductive rights which Obama just recently signed away for no reason. I don’t see this ad as a problem. And I applaud the fact that Republicans actually recognize they have a problem with female voters and are trying to do something about it.
Frankly, I don’t see the problem with asking for “No More Madam Speaker” when they’re pointedly talking about Nancy Pelosi. The entire ad is specific to her and the position which she currently holds. Why in the world would anyone think the RNC is implying no more women in congress in general when her picture is right there?
“Women sometimes need a little more handholding, or they need their friends to help them make a decision.”
Really?? I don’t know any woman who needs “a little more handholding” or “their friends” to decide where they stand on an issue. In fact, her statement is incredibly sexist, inferring that women (as compared to men, presumably?) need more handholding and their friends to help these little ladies make a decision.
And…..that kinda says it all about the RNC and, indeed, the current Republican party. They’ve regressed from the national scene to nothing more than a small, Southern regional party. They don’t know how to appeal to women (or minorities, for that matter) because they really don’t like women (or minorities) all that much. They know they need them, at least the women, hence their attempts to bring them into the fold. But their efforts are clumsy and awkward because they don’t really care about women or issues that women care about.
I understand women today who are registered Democrats. I understand women who are registered independents. I am baffled by any woman who continues to identify with a 21st Republican party that has 19th Century platform, policies and ideologies.
Oh, and as to this particular ad about Pelosi, I don’t think it’s really all that offensive.
If you want to see a REALLY offensive and sexist ad by the RNC, watch their riff on the James Bond character, Pu$$y Galore, featuring (natch) Nancy Pelosi. Now THAT’S something to get upset about. And illustrates perfectly the Republican attitude toward women.
http://crooksandliars.com/nico.....ssy-galore
(yes, I know it’s on crooksandliars.com, but it’s one of the few sites that still has the ad since the RNC has scrubbed it from everywhere else)
completely agree with Halane,
the ad is certainly meant for a particular woman with policies the republicans hate. but i have no doubt there are plenty of males and maybe some females who are not happy with any Madam speaker. you like or dislike Nancy Pelosi, but she broke a glass ceiling. I personally be a lot on the disagreeing side. for not supporting the exemplary qualified fellow female candidate in 08, I am still boiling. but the hate language against her reminds me a lot of the hate language against Bush from the democrats. and there is a definite misogynist undertone. is not circumstantial that the catch phrase is “NO MORE MADAM SPEAKER’. this affirms the negative attitude to women in power, being shrill, behind your back, not truthful and so on, as if the male speakers had not used all kind of political tools to their advantage.
Really?? I don’t know any woman who needs “a little more handholding” or “their friends” to decide where they stand on an issue. In fact, I find her statement incredibly sexist, inferring that women (as compared to men, presumably?) need more handholding and their friends to help these little ladies make a decision.
And…..that kinda says it all about the RNC and, indeed, the current Republican party. They’ve regressed from the national scene to nothing more than a small, Southern regional party. They don’t know how to appeal to women (or minorities, for that matter) because they really don’t like women (or minorities) all that much. They know they need them, at least the women, hence their attempts to bring them into the fold. But their efforts are clumsy and awkward because they don’t really care about women or issues that women care about.
I understand women today who are registered Democrats. I understand women who are registered independents. I am baffled by any woman who continues to identify with the 21st Republican party, with their 19th Century platform, policies and ideologies.
Oh, and as to this particular ad about Pelosi, I don’t think it’s really all that offensive.
If you want to see a REALLY offensive and sexist ad by the RNC, watch their ad from last year based on the James Bond character, Pu$$y Galore, featuring Nancy Pelosi, natch. Now THAT’S something to get upset about. And illustrates perfectly the Republican attitude toward women.
You have to use the google to find the ad – the RNC wiped it from most places but it’s still online…….
“I am baffled by any woman who continues to identify with the 21st Republican party, with their 19th Century platform, policies and ideologies.”
The 19th century platform was anti-slavery. The early feminists got their roots through abolition, and thus the Republican party was more amenable/agreeable to feminism than were the Democratic party. Their were no such concepts of pro-life or pro-choice in the 19th century. Everyone – feminists and anti-feminists – believed abortion was a sin.
Oh, and we did protest the PussyGalore ad.
Your point is well-taken, Karen. I should’ve said,
“I am baffled by any woman who continues to identify with the 21st Republican party, with their 20th Century platform, policies and ideologies.”
Also, I didn’t say no one protested the Pussy Galore ad…..just that these kinds of ads are now standard for the RNC, and any woman who thinks the Republican Party cares about women or women’s issues is crazy, IMO.
“We’re working with the women in Congress … to empower the women in their states to get involved and to participate”
I appreciate Dot Parker’ perspective on this sentence.
However, another way to look at it is that We need more hand holding because there is actually very little. Man are very good (because they have practiced for centuries) at networking and mentoring each other in politics. Women have to learn to do this. It is not that women per se need more, but given the state of affairs, we do need more of this right now. The environment is quite hostile, and the overwhelming atmosphere and numbers against show we need that hand.
20th century… first president to go to the early feminists and talk with them about voting rights was a Republican. Around that time, suffrage was actually being discussed in Congress. Unfortunately, due to a four-way presidential race (unique, I know), a Democrat was elected. We got the right to vote due to Alice Paul and others protesting and marching. The Democrat had no interest in suffrage until we were marching on Washington and gaining lots of media attention. He was forced to act.
The Democratic party had an all-white primary until the late 1960s; that made it the most racist and bigoted party for over half the century. Abortion remained a non-issue on all sides until the early 1970s, by that point, the 20th century was already 2/3 over. What is your point?
Dot: Obama just signed away women’s right to choose an insurance policy that covers abortion if needed and there was no reason for him to do that since Dems control both houses and the bill was passed already. The Dems plan to tax you, call that tax money “Government Money” then give you back some “Government money” to spend on your health care policy with the restriction that you can’t by a policy that covers abortion. Dot, any woman who continues to think that the Democrat party cares about women or their needs is crazy.
Oh and let’s not forget the Democrat misogyny from the 2008 election. Hillary was basically told to sit down and shut up at the convention, She was called shrill and every other coded anti woman insult by Democrats and when they won the battle of Hillary they switched their sexist tactics to Palin and they still continue that effort apparently completely tone deaf to how out of touch and sexist it makes them appear. The sooner Democrat women recover from their blind allegiance to party and stand up and demand that women’s issues be dealt with effectively the sooner our country and women can move forward. I am sick of rhetoric if the Dems want my vote they will have to actually do something for me and change their sexist blather and I don’t mean establish another do nothing commission on women. I see the Republicans admiting they have a problem and working on it I see the Democrats continue to slander Palin and take away women’s hard won progress.
I know I am one of the few males who write regularly here,and maybe I miss this one, but no “More Madam Speaker” in the context of the website doesnt refer to future Madam speakers, it refers to Pelosi. 40 seats removes her from her post. You must read their phrase 40 seats in connection with the phrase Madam Speaker, and you will undertstand that 40 seats takes away a Democratic majority. To be frank in 2012 the GOP will possibly run the first woman nominee from either party as a presidentail candidate, and I look forward to hearing often Madam President.
Bes – I’ve offered no spirited defense of the Democratic party here. Neither party gives a crap about women or women’s issues (well, the Dems maybe give *half* a crap. Maybe).
While I think this healthcare bill basically sucks, it’s better than doing nothing. And at least the Dems tried in good faith (too much good faith, IMO) to work with the Repubs to craft a bipartisan bill. Even after Obama accepted some Republican ideas and incorporated them into the bill, the Repubs still obstructed and stonewalled. They stonewalled ideas that just a few years ago were their own!
So…. yes, the bill has lots of flaws. No, it’s not especially helpful to women, esp on matters of reproductive health and Obama definitely deserves some of the blame for that. But the Republicans deserve blame as well. Why? Because they unilaterally decided to oppose this bill no matter what, making it that much harder for Dems to craft a decent bill that would pass. Also, Obama was a little too keen on bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake, not realizing apparently, what he was up against with the Congressional GOP.
Let’s hope that’s one thing he takes away from this: don’t waste time trying to work with the Repubs when they’ve made it clear they have no intention of doing so.
The sexism Hillary faced during the campaign was disgusting, as all sexism usually is. But it wasn’t just the Democrats saying demeaning things, it was the GOP as well.
My point about the RNC ad above, tho, was that this is standard fare for the GOP. As are racist ads. When was the last time you saw the Democrats regularly churning out sexist or racist ads?
Btw, I’m not a Democrat. I’m a registered Independent.
Oh, one final thought: yes, Palin was also subjected to sexism during the campaign. But remember when Palin criticized HRC a few years ago, saying she “whines” too much about sexism? Isn’t that funny and ironic? Because now, whenever Palin’s criticized about anything, she cries “sexism!” In fact, she has only 2 responses to legitimate critiques against her: they’re either “sexist” or she’s being “victimized by the liberal elite media.”
Dot, I thought it was obvious from the beginning that the Republicans were never going to vote for Congress’ bill. The Democrats ended up with the bill that the Democrats wanted.
Dot, also in regard to Palin on Clinton, two things:
First, Palin did not say that Clinton whined but did say at the outset that complaining about sexism can be perceived (by the media and such) as whining. Which it is. But she soon learned that not ignoring sexism and not addressing it does little to help and she started to acknowledge it herself. She talks about this in her book and said that she was wrong to critique the way that Clinton handled it and that now after being under the gun of so much sexism herself, she understands so much better the complexities of dealing with sexism.
Frankly, I’d like to see links to video or true quotes of Palin actually “whining” about sexism becasue I don’t believe I ever remember her doing so. Now, grant you, she is quite willing to go into Mama Bear mode if anything is directed at her children and is quite vocal about how women should be treated, but that’s not the same as addressing how she been treated. Which considering all the things that are floating around out there, she could’ve done quite a bit of whining.
OTOH, addressing the way the media consistently twists her political message and spins it around is quite another issue. Why is it “whining” to simply want to set the record straight and for things to be reported accurately?
I am baffled by anyone who would continue to be identified as a democrat. BAFFLED and appalled.
…by an ex-democrat voting straight ticket republican until every democrat is out of office and then she is voting for independents and hopefully women!!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/c.....L&
Very interesting comments from the Daily Beast on the new Health insurance reform bill. I am sure this will be the first of many realities to hit the Democrat dreamers in the face. And from now on when one of Sarah Palins supposedly outrageous quotes is tossed off please give a solid link to the quote. I am tired of Democrat imaginary outrages being tagged to Sarah.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...