Women and their rights seem to have two advocates these days, atleast on the surface. Of course I’m referring to presidentialhopefuls George W. Bush and John Kerry. So let’s comparenotes.
George W. Bush, or as the catchy slogan found on his website,www.georgebush.com/women, articulates, “W stands forwomen,” is tastelessly mocking his benefactor, women.
I find it interesting that, apart from the title, even the wordwomen was only written three times, primarily as an afterthought.Compare this to Kerry’s site,www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/, where the count reaches in thedouble digits of at least 12 times.
Content analysis also emphasizes significant differences in thetwo sites. Kerry’s site devoted to women begins with,”In America, women should be able to go as far as theirtalents will take them,” whereas the Bush site lingers onthoughts about the women in his life, primarily focusing on whatwomen do for Bush and the current administration.
The Bush site, at least in my opinion, is just another emphasison his disheartened vision for America, and I quote, ” A Votefor Bush is a vote for a safer, stronger and betterAmerica.”
Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do withwomen’s rights?
So what is at stake? Kerry offers support for women’srights. He works to expand college opportunities for women withsupport for Title IX, while the Bush administration has shownattempts to block this.
Kerry wants to help women balance work and family with theexpansion of after-school programs and tax credits for the middleclass.
Bush has, in the last four years, cut the equal pay initiativeand made significant cuts to programs that promote genderequality.
In perhaps one of the most significant issues at hand, Kerry isthe original co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Equity Act; hewants to protect women’s health and the woman’s rightto choose. In contrast, Bush blocks access to contraceptives while”stacking the courts” full of judges clearlyanti-choice; one more appointment in this format could reverse Roevs. Wade altogether.
It must be something to do with the simple life according toBush: take away jobs, no problem, women don’t needindependence, take away education from women, sure we don’tneed brains, and take away our civil right to choose what happensto our own bodies.
There are too many choices in life anyways, right? This begs thequestion, what is W really standing for? I guess I’m too muchof a lady to say.
Maybe I’m just another underrepresented advocate forwomen’s rights who is searching for the better candidate tosupport me. Or perhaps I’m just a ball-bashing feministlooking to even the playing field or at least get in the game. Welllet me leave you this final thought, what would you choose, thesimple life Bush lays out for you so eloquently, or the ability tothink for yourself?