THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, April 18, 1996 TAG: 9604180361
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Charlise Lyles
LENGTH: Medium: 73 lines
Who qualifies as the ``women's candidate''?
Bill Clinton or Bob Dole?
``Tweedledum or Tedium?''
That's what economist and syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux called the presidential contenders Tuesday night as she raised the question: Is there any such thing as a ``women's agenda''?
The MIT Ph.D. spoke to about 120 people at the Old Dominion University Friends of Women's Studies annual meeting. Her style - close-cropped red hair, mismatched earrings and pointy glasses atop a button-to-the-throat suit - is as sharp and daring as her intellect.
She perforated her remarks with an ice-pick wit. On Hillary Rodham Clinton: ``Why discuss a smart woman in terms of the length of her bangs?'' On Clinton's inner circle: ``He has an all-male posse. What does that mean in terms of public policy?'' On O.J.: ``Between me, you and the gate post, I wouldn't get in an elevator with O.J., either.''
Call them Malveauxisms. You know, like Rousseauisms.
But while aerobicizing her wit, Malveaux made clear that women did not exactly race to the polls for the 1992 presidential election, though nationally, 62 percent of eligible women voted, versus 60 percent of eligible men.
In November, women are not likely to break a sweat to cast a ballot.
Why? Malveaux wonders.
Could it be that, despite their clamor over reproductive rights and the minimum wage, candidates are not addressing the issues that deeply affect the lives of women, regardless of race, class or creed?
According to Malveaux, a 1992 study by the Ms. Foundation and the Center for Policy Alternatives showed that the leading concerns of women were flexible time for work and family, along with the availability of child care and elder care.
Next came pay equity. From low-paid service workers to high-earning executives, they want the law to ensure equal pay with their male counterparts.
Another high priority was Social Security and retirement age.
Because of their unique multifaceted roles as primary child-rearer/care-giver/wage-earner/homemaker/relationship caretaker/lover/and snack mom, the women surveyed brought an entirely new perspective to the political agenda, Malveaux said.
Will that perspective rewrite the traditional patriarchal approach to government and business?
In other words, Malveaux asked, ``Do we women want a bigger piece of the pie? Or do we want to change the recipe?
``Should women replicate what men do, or will we bring other models for leadership and entrepreneurship?''
Studies like the Ms. Foundation's can attest to women's unique concerns.
Only dialogue across lines of race, class and creed can give birth to a gender agenda. For there are issues of race and class that can potentially mute commonalities of gender. Those need to be thoroughly analyzed and discussed, said Malveaux.
But dialogue is difficult. If the truth be told, outside of work, black and white women have little social contact. Harsh work hours forbid women in low-level service jobs from gathering with middle- or upper-class women whose jobs sometimes allow more flexibility.
So far, groups like the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus have made efforts to bring women together, said Malveaux. Women's studies programs have united women in academia. But the bonds don't extend beyond the classroom.
Girlfriends, what are we waiting for? Let's start talking now, and maybe there will be a gender agenda for presidential 2000. by CNB