At a speech
Dec. 11 to the National Press Club on how women
should respond to the war on terrorism, NOW President Kim Gandy
excoriated "people who cynically take advantage of a tragedy to
their own ends." She went down a list of shame, a list of people
who attached their own agenda to Sept. 11: Jerry Falwell, Rush
Limbaugh, Laura Schlesinger ...
Gandy then explained the proper political response to the war
on terrorism: Demand justice for the women of Afghanistan,
advocate the right of women soldiers to have abortions abroad,
speak out for gay and transgender soldiers.
It is intellectually stunning for Gandy to suggest that her
proposals are not part of a political agenda. Especially when
NOW's cash-starved hand is reaching out to snatch at the federal
relief money intended to aid people in the recovery from
terrorism.
The grab for the relief money began innocently enough. NOW's
Legal Defense and Education Fund produced a video entitled The
Women at Ground Zero, which highlighted female rescue workers
and volunteers. But the agenda behind the video soon became
clear as intense lobbying on Capitol Hill commenced. Sen.
Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., expressed the video's goal: "Just as
women played a crucial role as firefighters and rescue workers
at Ground Zero, they will be technicians and contractors,
working to rebuild the city."
In fact, women played less than a crucial role at Ground
Zero: Only 25 of New York City's 11,500 firefighters are female.
NOW wants to correct that imbalance. As the Dec. 28
Washington
Post commented, NLDEF's president, Kathy Rodgers, "views these
federal resources as the best chance in years to move tens of
thousands of women into higher-paying jobs." NOW wishes to use
relief funds to promote affirmative action of women to
nontraditional recovery-related jobs, such as firefighter and
police officer, in which women comprise less than 25 percent of
workers.
NLDEF has declared its willingness to file gender
discrimination suits to get at the funding. It is prepared to
legally complicate and possibly delay the recovery process in
order to assert its agenda. After all, rebuilding after
terrorism is what Rodgers calls "the demonstration project of
the decade" and she clearly wishes it to demonstrate her brand
of feminism. Why should widows, orphans and others devastated by
tragedy impede her vision? Of course, Rodgers expresses the hope
that legal action can be avoided. But she expresses this only
after making the threat.
Rodgers could be dismissed if she were not part of the
transition committee of New York City's new mayor, Michael
Bloomberg. The feminist grab for 9/11 funds could be ignored if
it was not receiving support. But it is. Rep. Jane Harman — the
ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Homeland Security — has been airing The Women at Ground Zero.
Her office has issued a
press
release stating that the role of
women "has been overshadowed" by reports about the "heroic men."
Harman intends to monitor recovery money spending to ensure
gender fairness.
Harman's version of fairness assumes that any imbalance in
female to male rescue workers is proof positive of
discrimination in employment practices. In short, an inequality
of results is said to indicate an inequality of access. It
doesn't matter that standards and qualifications for entry into
such occupations have already been diluted to allow access for
qualified women. If there are fewer women than men, then
prejudice must exist.
The fact is that an equality of access often yields unequal
results. Women and men often choose widely divergent career
paths, especially in regard to dangerous "muscle" jobs or ones
with irregular hours. Why? One reason is that biology matters.
It's not a trivial fact that women give birth. This biological
difference may alone explain why, statistically, women prefer
jobs that allow them to juggle family commitments. This is not
true of all women, certainly. But it is true of enough women to
account for much of the gender "imbalance" in hazardous
occupations.
An imbalance in the gender of firefighters, however, may
indicate nothing more than the fact that women freely choose to
work elsewhere. But hurling statistics and accusations are all
that NOW has to offer. And why not? That approach has worked
handsomely in the past. Statistics mixed liberally with
accusations have been enough to intimidate people in the past.
And the stakes are higher now than ever before. Gender
feminist organizations like NOW are starving for funds. At its
30th birthday last month, the impoverished Ms. announced a
merger with the Los Angeles-based Feminist Majority Foundation.
The news Web site Women's E-news, created by NLDEF, just went
independent with an immediate appeal for funds.
NOW is so desperate that, at a time of national crisis, it is
willing to divert money from its intended recipients. Thousands
of people died at Ground Zero. Tens of thousands more have been
emotionally devastated by the tragedy. The relief funds were
meant for rebuilding and healing. They were not attached to a
gender agenda; they were not slated for affirmative action. The
threat of tying up relief funds in discrimination suits is
beyond cynical. It is obscene.
