On The Women's Issues

Via Bitch, Phd., the Big Brass Blog writes about women's issues:

Similarly, there are "issues"—Social Security, Bankruptcy Bill, etc.—and then there are "women's issues"—fair pay, abortion rights, etc. (and then there are other secondary issues, like gay rights, civil rights issues, etc.). Ignoring the oft-asserted claim that women don’t blog about issues such as Social Security, which I hope by this point can also be put to bed after women across the blogosphere provided links to their plethora of posts on the subject, I’ve seen the argument made by male bloggers that an issue like Social Security is of concern to everyone because it affects everyone’s bottom line, but that “women’s issues” are somehow distinct to women. I would argue that women still making $.80 on the $1 affects the bottom line of every household that’s got a working woman in it, which as we know includes some of the big dog bloggers, yet it is relegated to the realm of “women’s issues,” and is not addressed with the regular frequency that Social Security is. Likewise, most of those things designated as “women’s issues” can clearly be seen as practically significant to both sexes; men are simply choosing to designate any issue that primarily effects women as a secondary issue.

I think that's worth responding to, because there's a lot going on in that passage and it contains a lot of truth, but also I think some falsehood.

First off, a couple of asides. For one thing, I think there's a bit more of a two-way street than's being acknowledged. Social Security is an issue that primarily effects women. Women (on average) live longer than men and (on average) earn less and (on average) experience much more income instability over the course of their lives. Privatization would produce winners and losers, and women would be very disproportionately included among the losers. Medicaid cuts, on the table last week in congress and perhaps to return to the table again, likewise primarily effect women, though for different reasons. I also think that the bankruptcy bill's negative impact would be primarily felt by women, though I'm not sure about that. So I don't think it's the case that issues primarily effecting women are designate as secondary issues. In fact, the overwhelming majority of public policy debates disproportionately impact women. Debates about children (health care, education, etc.) primarily effect women because women are assigned primary responsibility for child care. Debates about protecting people from economic risks primarily effect women because women are significantly more economically vulnerable than men. Debates about poverty primarily effect women, because in this country poverty (and especially adult poverty) is overwhelmingly female. And debates about the regulation of sex primarily effect women, because, basically, conservatives are bastards and choose to always use the regulation of female sexuality as the main policy lever.

So I don't think it's the case that issues that primarily impact women are relegated to second-tier status. Rather, what happens is that the highly-gendered nature of these policy debates is regulated to second-tier status. Or, better, the highly-gendered nature of these debates is almost entirely obscured in high-profile discussion of them. The fact that Social Security privatization would, among other things, constitute a massive wealth transfer away from women and toward men is neglected. In addition, while one hears a lot about the purported fact that privatization would be good for African-American men, one almost never hears aboout the absolute catastrophe privatization would be for African-American women or the even bigger catastrophe it would be for Latina women.

This situation is in part caused, in part re-enforced, and in part exacerbated by the fact that the people discussing these issues are primarily men. It's highly doubtful to me that a commentariat that was 80 percent female would wind up talking about Social Security in the way that the male-dominated commentariat does. Even the inclusion of some high-profile woman commentators does little to mitigate the situation, because to continue to be a high-profile commentator you need to be participating in the discussion that's already taking place and that discussion is heavily shaped by the overwhelming male-ness of both political journalism and the most relevant sub-fields in economics.

Which brings us to equal pay for equal work. Social Security is a topic I've addressed a lot in my writing. The difference in men's and women's earnings is a topic I've implicitly addressed on occassion (it impacts, as I've been saying, the Social Security debate, the bankruptcy debate, and other things) but only directly addressed on a handful of occassions. Is this because it's less important an issue than Social Security? No. It's a vitally important issue. Indeed, it's impossible to properly understand most of the policy debates I do write about without understanding the earnings gap. Rather, the reason Social Security and the bankruptcy bill get more attention from this blogger is that there are powerful political forces pushing privatization (and bankruptcy "reform," and tort "reform," etc.) onto the top of the political agenda. As a pundit, I'm to a large extent a victim of circumstances. I write about what's getting talked about in congress and in the White House. If the time came when there was a high-profile, credible legislative effort underway to address the pay gap, I would write about it. Such a debate would provoke tons of think tank reports I would read, policy briefings I would attend, op-eds I would critique, tactical arguments I would participate in, etc., etc., etc.

But there is no such effort, so that stuff doesn't happen, and I don't wind up writing about it. This, at the end of the day, is why the underrepresentation of women throughout the political system -- not just on the op-ed pages, but in the Senate, in the House, in the think tanks, in the broader power structure, etc. -- matters. A world where women had a preponderance of the political power would be a world in which these issues were placed at the center of the public debate, and, therefore, a world in which those of us whose interests are basically parasitic on those of the broader political class would be addressing the topic constantly. And it would be, frankly, a much better world.

What it isn't is the world we live in. Instead, we live in a world where someone -- man or woman -- who spent less time on Social Security and more on the pay gap would simply be marginalizing herself in the public debate. Missing opportunities to weigh-in on, and to a small degree influence, the course of ongoing disputations, and gaining only the opportunity to write things that will basically get ignored. This, at the end of the day, is what makes the impact of entrenched gender-privilege so insidious. It's impact is so all-encompassing, and so structures everything we do, that individuals have very little ability to do anything about it. Indeed, it's extremely hard for a lot of people (most men, but including women, too) to even see that anything's going on. It just looks "natural."