Female Gap

Even before the GOP candidate circus started winding down there were random comments about the lack of enthusiasm for any of the potential nominees among women voters. Now that it seems all but decided that Romney will be the Republican candidate, the talk of a "female" gap has increased. Unfortunately, the majority of media pieces on this aspect of the presidential campaign are incredibly superficial. Virtually all of them have focused on perception and strategy. The various pundits, politicians, and journalists have been talking about how to more effectively sell the Republican platform and/or Mitt Romney.

It is sad that no one in the mainstream media is even bothering with assessing whether the platform is bad for women. Even when a brief comment gets made that women voters are wary of a given issue the line immediately goes into how this view can be changed rather than whether the view has merit or not. Personally, I see the platform and all the candidates as being very bad for the well being of everyone, especially women. Regardless of anyone's personal opinions the media should be assessing the issues and encouraging discussion rather than always playing up the strategy and marketing.

Another point that no one is bringing up at all is the role that religion has played in encouraging sexist policies and political positions. I do not think it is a coincidence that the major candidates all belong to denominations that are patriarchal and outright sexist. Just look at the last four contenders for the GOP nomination. They include two Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum), a Lutheran (Paul), and a Mormon (Romney). Though in theory each of these has liberal factions, the majority and, more importantly, the leadership is very conservative and quite sexist. None of these denomination allow for women in leadership positions or even in the clergy. The closest any of them come to female clergy are Catholic Nuns. Currently nuns are being rebuked by their own religious leaders.

A lot has been said lately about Romney's wife, Ann. Whether, women choose of their own accord to fulfill what are considered traditional roles is not really the issue. I am in no position to guess whether Ann really does like being a "homemaker" or not nor do I particularly care. What is not being examined is that the Mormon faith pushes women into those traditional sexist roles. According to the Latter Day Saint's (Mormons) doctrinal Family: A Proclamation to the World, "... father's are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The Catholic Church is not that far from this position either. The entire gang of GOP candidates seemed to subscribe to the mentality that women should be barefoot and pregnant in kitchen.

Maybe, just maybe, that "female gap" exists for a good reason. The convergence in each of the candidates, Romney included, of the conservative movement and the religious right ideologies is just plain horrible when it comes to women.

Public Faith = Public Problem

I am more than happy to concede that Reverend Howard Bess is an intelligent well intentioned gentleman. However, it is rare that I agree with much he writes about for Consortium News. Recently, I found myself agreeing with him on one important point but with an equally important caveat. In "The GOP's Unasked 'Religious' Questions" he points out that since all the candidates have at some point emphasized their faith that the public has a right to know how that faith will impact policy decisions.

He is absolutely correct that since they have made their faith so public that the public has every right to ask questions about their faith. However, Bess implies a number of things in the course of the article that I would take issue with. The title itself is somewhat pointed. Putting religion in quotations implies that the candidates may not be as faithful as they claimed. I see no reason to do that. Just because their views are not the same as Bess' does not mean they are less religious. Bess also does not seem to have a problem injecting his own faith into public policy. It seems to come down to the false notion that only "true" or "authentic" faith should be used to make policy.  That is the caveat I referred to above. Faith should be left out of public policy entirely. It should be a completely private matter. It should not matter what a person's personal religious views are unless those views are going to be used in a way that will end up affecting others.

I say let people believe whatever they want so long as they do not use it harass others or make policy that will impact others.