Elizabeth Cox

    Tea Party No Party for Women

    Posted November 1st, 2010 by Elizabeth Cox

    With the election nearly upon us, it’s almost impossible to pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV without hearing about the Tea Party.  What began as a collection of protests in early 2009 has exploded into a runaway political movement, with all American eyes fixed on the Party’s candidates in Tuesday’s Midterm Elections.  With a clear shift in the landscape ahead of us, what can we learn about how the election of these candidates will impact American women?

    As early as March, Politico‘s Kenneth Vogel was pointing out the central role of women in the Tea Party, with participants stating how much they enjoyed the grassroots nature of the movement, and the freedom it allowed them to make their own decisions of how to run the party in their geographic regions.  Indeed, many of the Tea Party’s key figures — Michele Bachmann, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin — are women.  How ironic, then, that so many of the Tea Party’s policies are so vehemently opposed to giving women more control over their own lives.

    While the movement itself purports to want less government interference on everything from health care to the financial system, the Tea Party’s point of view on the rights of women is markedly less hands-off.  Candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell are anti-choice, and the majority of the movement’s members believe that fewer rights should be extended to women when it comes to reproductive rights.  Indeed, there is no doubt that a woman’s right to her own body is under siege from this movement.

    Beyond reproductive issues, the Tea Party embraces conservative Christian values, including the notion that women are subordinate to their husbands, including in financial matters.  By advocating to repeal health care reform, for example, they implicitly call for women to depend on their spouses for health care. After all, many women require flexible work hours and consequently seek employment that often does not provide health care coverage. A call for privatization of Social Security would disproportionately hurt women who depend far more heavily on this government program as their primary source of income in retirement years. This viewpoint clearly damages a woman’s rights in her own home and undermines her autonomy.

    In the workplace, women still make cents on every man’s dollar, even when doing the same job.  Between work, home and the doctor’s office, it’s no doubt that the Tea Party is not a party for women (no matter how many are at its helm).  And with the outcome of Tuesday’s election just around the corner, it may very well be that the future for women in this country will be anything but a party.

    * * * * *
    Permalink

    3 Comments

    November 3, 2010 at 1:51 pm by Anna

    I see pictures of Harry Reid all over this website! He is also anti-choice! Take a look at the Democratic Party before singularly pointing your finger at The Tea Party. More government does not give women more autonomy, but ultimately just makes them more dependent upon government. Why would we want public policy that makes women look like a liability to companies? I’m sure that’s what every women needs in this economy, a sign that says I’m a walking lawsuit. I don’t even know how to respond to this post fully because there is so much rampant ignorance concerning social security, the wage gap, etc. I would recommend starting with this op-ed http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-10-20/women-need-to-vote-for-their-own-freedom-veronique-de-rugy.html
    You would really benefit from reading more studies concerning the true origin of the wage gap, which is not discrimination. You could also read studies concerning the way labor laws have affected women in the private sector in other countries. Sweden, for example, a country rife with labor laws aimed at creating gender equality have ultimately all but run women out of the private sector.

    [Reply]

    November 2, 2010 at 11:02 pm by Richel Lupkin

    Elizabeth – I absolutely agree with you. Furthermore, the Tea Party is run by highly organized subgroups with backing from big business and the wealthy. The people at the top of the Tea Party are hurting the people at the bottom. For 8 years the Republican Congress and George Bush created a devastating deficit which continues today. It did not stop when the Democrats took over. It takes time for policies to become affective. The Democrats can not bring us up out of that deficit in 1- 2 years – that is not possible. Men and women of the Tea Party are taking us backwards.

    [Reply]

    November 2, 2010 at 10:34 am by Common Sense

    “Anti-choice” huh? That would make your position “Pro-Murder” or “Pro-Infanticide?”

    At what age do you condone the murder of children?

    [Reply]

    Leave a Comment

    Your name is required
    An Email address is required

    Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail

    x
    READ OTHER MOMSRISING STORIES