This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. THE GETTING IT GAZETTE January 20, 1993 WHO SHOULD BE CELEBRATING AT THE BEAN COUNTER'S BALL by Jane O'Reilly and Anne Mollegen Smith At Bill Clinton's party convention he had half the delegates (the women) standing and cheering because he seemed to have thought about the systematic inequities that keep American women excluded and poor. During the campaign, he talked about fairness, about opening up the government, of sharing power among diverse groups. He said that people who play by the rules ought to be rewarded. He promised to be a President of consensus, of inclusion, and of opportunity. Bill Clinton's government, he pledged, would look like America. That was how he got elected. That is what we asked him to do when we asked that a major portion of his top appointments go to proven women leaders whom we know and can trust to carry out our agenda. They should be highly qualified, talented and experienced, of course--we don't want fools or mediocrities running the country, that's why we voted out the Bush League. The National Women's Political Caucus immediately passed on 100 names of such women, and their files were still full. Some such women were actually on the transition team. It was exciting: This time, we knew, it would be different. Silly us. Fooled again. We got Clinton's promises in person, on paper, and on videotape. We cast six out of every ten votes that went to elect the man whose inauguration is being celebrated today. And what have we got? Lloyd Bentsen, Leon Panetta, Robert Rubin (Where are Benton, Barton, Osborne, etc.?) Of course, we do have Donna Shalala--proven, talented, can be trusted to see our half of the human race taking up our share of space in the Big Picture. We have hopes of Carol Browner, though we'll miss Madeleine Kunin. We regret the all-too-predictable attacks on Johnetta Cole, the distinguished educator and courageous trailblazer. We'll miss her in D.C. We're glad Zoe Baird's babysitter is on the green card list at last, and her social security paid up, too. That small step is a gain for womankind. Hazel O'Leary, Laura Tyson--welcome to the nations's top team. Madeleine Albright, Alice Rivlin, how good to have you back. For all of the Cabinet, and for Bill, too, our advice is: Beware of Phallic Drift, that insidious tendency (in the absence of feminist pressure) to revert to male-defined values, to confuse the male point of view with the "real" reality, to hear only what the guys are saying even though some smart women in the room are telling a different story. Remember the women, the women who elected this president and who are counting on you. Bean counters? Us? For every six Senate seats we win, we want another ladies' room. Women in the Cabinet Count The Wall Street Journal discovered in Clinton "a compliant streak that could lead to difficulties in the often harsh world of government. Even though he publicly lambasted women's groups [as "bean counters"] for demanding a larger role for women in the cabinet, he ended up giving them most of what they wanted." Is that so? Let's have a look. Cabinet bean count: 3 out of 16 = 19% (which is the same as Bush, Reagan and Carter) Benefit-of-doubt count: 6 out of 23 top jobs = 26% Parity is 50% of 16, which is 8; or 50% of 23, which is 11 plus on job-share with a man. Representation in proportion to women's support of Clinton, which is 60%--that is, six out of every ten votes that elected him: 10 out of 16 cabinet jobs, or 14 out of 23 top jobs in his administration. Ultimately what we want is simply our fair share. WHAT'S GOOD FOR WOMEN IS GOOD FOR AMERICA by Ronni Sandroff Hail to the Chief? And hail to the American women voters who threw the old bums out and elected Bill. Wasn't it largely on his Mama's fine recommendation? Now, son, we've got to make sure that women-folk get the support and respect we need so that the New World Order can stop resembling a dysfunctional family. Ready for a strong economy? The number of educated women in the workforce is one of America's strongest competitive advantages in the world market, according to Fortune magazine. Make sure jobs for women are an integral part of all jobs programs. Organize a national teach-in to eliminate sexual harassment. This will help strengthen the economy, as well as the families working women go home to. Need better schools? Let's look back to how American mothers kept the public schools on track in the 1950s and 1960s by being active in Parents Teachers Associations. In recent times, so many of us went to work, that we had to abandon that volunteer role, the schools suffered and no one worried about how to replace us. Why not encourage grandparents, post-parents and other PTA alumns and concerned adults, who aren't so overwhelmed with the young family/job two-step, to get active in the schools? And how about some public recognition and support for women's work in taking care of children and the elderly, before problems in those areas become acute? Want advice on how to juggle competing interests? Ask a working mom! Want to clean up the environment? Reach out to women. We could cause a packaging revolution if we deployed our supermarket dollars to certain products and away from others. Tormented by aggressive lobbyists from health-care special interests? Ask women what they want from a health care system before changing it. It starts with respectful, unbiased treatment from doctors who know our names. And Bill--you, too, should please call us by name. We're so used to the phrase "American people" applying only to white males that unless you specifically mention women, we don't know you're talking to us. Formulating a foreign policy that we can all be proud of? Remember that at least half of the population in every other country is female too. Reach out to them and give peace a real chance. And please, Bill, encourage your female appointees to become true advocates for women's interests, rather than just making the switch from field to house slaves. Government women should proudly point out the 'women's angle' and approach to important issues. Women know how to build consensus rather than clash swords. Our way can help your administration avoid the doomsday "the problems are overwhelming" approach of the Carter administration. But hey, we know you can't do everything for us. We women also need to take citizenship seriously. We need to batter our way into local government and party politics, valuing our own insights and perceptions, and making sure that elected officials respond to women's needs. Women activists should stop talking only to each other and reach out. Feminist circles and women's groups have often not been inviting to new members. Why not start church-style welcoming committees? If we don't recruit and activate a broader group of women, the religious right will do it for us. We need the equivalent of an Emily's List for training women as lobbyists, activists in local politics, grassroots organizers, and workplace agitators. And we need to leave the unjust past behind. We haven't got time for the tears. It's a small world after all. And it needs work! TALKING POINTS by Lynn Phillips DEBATING ECONOMIC EQUITY Use the Getting It Gazette's prefab comebacks to push the consensual envelope Argument: Regardless of earnings, women's control of national funds should equal men's. At Issue For Women: In a capitalist society equal economic clout is the basis for equal autonomy, freedom, efficacy. Guideline: THEY talk impracticality, socialism, irrelevance. YOU talk justice, validity, general benefit. THEY SAY: Equal pay for equal work,--okay; but to split control of the economy is loopy! YOU SAY: Alas, as things are now, even equal pay for equal work would be a big step forward. Particularly if men and women had equal power to decide what equal work is. But women also make enormous contributions to society that are unpaid: child-rearing, domestic labor, elder care and community volunteer work. In single parent situations we assume more than our share of the costs of parenting. It's wrong that the reward for our altruism should be that we're less able to finance campaigns, fund lobbies, influence national and consumer expenditures or define philanthropies. THEY SAY: Even if you took control of the GNP and split it down the middle, women wouldn't necessarily spend the money on candidates, philanthropies, etc. They might spend it on cosmetics, vacations and Nintendo. YOU SAY: The point is that women be equally free to choose where it goes. THEY SAY: Well and good, but how would you accomplish economic parity? YOU SAY: Bit by bit. Start with pay issues: make laws against workplace discrimination more comprehensive and easier to enforce. THEY SAY: You mean like wage police? Business won't stand for it. Besides, even if they did, what if women--thanks to culture, hormones, whatever--never equal men's earnings in a free market economy? DO NOT SAY: I knew it! Deep in your heart you think we can't compete! Instead, you DO SAY: All the more reason to stress equal economic control. All the more reason to issue vouchers for volunteer community work that can be redeemed as extra services: child and elder care, health-care and tuition. All the more reason to deduct child support from non-custodial parents' wages. All the more reason to mandate that even if women never participate in, say, scientific feats or the military at the same rate or wage levels as men, we always have equal say about how funds are allocated and priorities set in those fields. Stuff like that. THEY SAY: Even if you could get it, economic parity wouldn't buy happiness. YOU SAY: No, but we'd have a fair run at it. Thanks to M.J. Tully, D.F. Smith, who do not necessarily endorse the views expressed herein. The Getting It Gazette, 451 West 24th Street, New York NY 10011. (212) 229-0763.