Independent Women's Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Independent Women's Forum
Independent Women's Forum (logo).jpg
Founded 1992
Founder Rosalie Silberman, Barbara Olson, Anita K. Blair
Type 501(c)(3)[1]
Focus Women's rights, equity feminism, property rights, free markets, democracy, foreign policy,[1] domestic violence, campus issues, health care, labor policy[2]
Location
Area served
United States, Iraq, Afghanistan
Method Educational programs, awards, grants, political commentary
Key people
Sabrina Schaeffer, Carrie Lukas,[3] Heather Higgins, Christina Hoff Sommers, Lynne V. Cheney, Wendy Lee Gramm, Midge Decter, Kate O'Beirne[4]
Revenue
$1,317,157USD in 2004[5]
Slogan "All Issues are Women's Issues"
Website IWF.org

The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is a politically conservative American non-profit organization focused on policy issues of concern to women.[6][7] The IWF was founded by activist Rosalie Silberman to promote a "conservative alternative to feminist tenets" following the controversial Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1992.[8]

The group advocates "equity feminism," a term first used by IWF author Christina Hoff Sommers to distinguish "traditional, classically liberal, humanistic feminism" from "gender feminism", which she claims opposes gender roles as well as patriarchy.[9] According to Sommers, the gender feminist view is "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders"[9] and "thrives on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex.'"[10] Sommers' equity feminism has been described as anti-feminist by critics.[11]

In the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, the IWF took a vocal stance against Barack Obama on its website and in a series of political ads comparing the President to a dishonest boyfriend.[12]

Origin and history[edit]

Founded in 1992 by Rosalie Silberman, Anita K. Blair, and Barbara Olson,[8][13] the IWF grew out of the ad hoc group "Women for Judge Thomas," created to defend Clarence Thomas against allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. By 1996 the organization had some 700 dues-paying members who met regularly at luncheons to network and share ideas.[14] Silberman was the IWF's first president; subsequent leaders have included Nancy Pfotenhauer and Anita Blair. The current executive director of the organization is Sabrina Schaeffer.[15] The IWF has been described as "a virtual 'Who's Who' of Washington's Republican establishment."[14][16] In 2006, the organization had 20,337 members and a budget of $1.05 million.[6]

Opposition to other feminist groups[edit]

The IWF opposes many mainstream feminist positions, describing them as "radical feminism". IWF-affiliated writers have argued that the gender gap in income exists because of women's greater demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers, rather than because of sexism. In an article for the Dallas Morning News, IWF Vice-President Carrie Lukas attributed gender disparities in income to "women's own choices", writing that women "tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do. Men disproportionately take on the most dirty, dangerous and depressing jobs."[17]

Conservative commentators have praised the IWF; Linda Chavez credited Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, a 1999 book published in part by the IWF, with "debunk[ing] much of the feminists' voodoo economics."[18] Writing in Capitalist Magazine, John Stossel cited Michelle Bernard's 2007 book Women's Progress as evidence that "American women have never enjoyed more options or such a high quality of life."[19]

Some writers have asserted that feminist rhetoric is used by the IWF for anti-feminist ends.[20][21] A New York Times editorial described the IWF as "a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women."[22]

Domestic policy and programs[edit]

United States healthcare policy[edit]

In 2009, IWF produced a political advertisement run on YouTube and in eight states arguing that "300,000 American women with breast cancer might have died" if U.S. healthcare included a government-funded option.[23][24] Independent fact-checkers labeled the IWF ad false and manipulative of women's fears, finding that the IWF ad relied on "old statistics, faulty logic and false insinuations."[25]

Education policy and campus programs[edit]

The Forum is active in education policy discussions and focuses on a number of different issues both in primary/secondary education and higher education.

Title IX enforcement[edit]

Since shortly after the organization's inception, the IWF has joined with groups like the National Wrestling Coaches Association in opposing the manner in which the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has enforced Title IX gender equality legislation. The 1972 Title IX law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."[26] According to IWF senior fellow Christine Stolba, the law has resulted in a number of negative, unintended consequences.[27] Elaborating on the group's position, Stolba asserts,

The (women's forum) is often accused of opposing Title IX. But we don't oppose Title IX.... What we're opposing is the way the Office for Civil Rights chooses to enforce Title IX. Given their regulations, colleges are enforcing statistical proportionality.... Common sense and poll data suggest that men are more interested in playing sports than women. But there are more female students than male. It becomes a numbers game, where the number of athletes has to be proportional. The easiest way to do that is to cut men's teams.[28]

In support of the group's claims that absent current Title IX enforcement, men are more likely to enroll in collegiate athletic programs than women, the IWF conducted a 1998 survey that examined the percentage of students at all-women's schools participating in athletics compared to the percentage of female students participating in similar programs at undergraduate schools generally. The survey found that female students at co-educational schools are far more likely to be student athletes. Jeremy Rabkin cited the survey in an April 1999 article in the American Spectator, asking, "If 'discrimination' keeps down the proportion of women athletes at co-ed schools, what accounts for overall participation rates that are half of the national women's average at Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, and Smith?"[29]

In a January 2012 article remarking on the 40th anniversary of Title IX, IWF executive director Sabrina Schaeffer described her "hope [that] feminists will begin to accept that men and women--no matter how balanced the circumstances--maintain different strengths and preferences. Because what is very clear is that legislation in the name of "gender equality" does not actually make men and women the same."[30]

Advocacy for school choice[edit]

In response to falling test scores in American public elementary, middle, and high schools, particularly among young boys, IWF created its Women For School Choice project. The effort targets in part what the organization describes as the negative results of the Women's Educational Equity Act. According to researcher Krista Kafer, whose report was published by the IWF,

WEEA is a solution without a problem. The program wastes money that would be better spent on actual crises--boys' literacy for example--or returned to taxpayers.... Girls are more engaged and ambitious in school, while boys are more likely to suffer academic and behavioral problems.[31]

The creation of this project was also largely a reaction[32] to the National Organization for Women's vocal opposition to single-sex schools, which decried such arrangements as unacceptable modern examples of segregation.[33]

2006 Duke University lacrosse case[edit]

The IWF criticized media coverage of suspects in an alleged rape case at Duke University.

After rape accusations against Duke University lacrosse players surfaced in March 2006, the IWF was quick to call attention to the fact that the parties involved in the case were receiving much attention in the press, something that would be harmful to their reputations regardless of the ultimate legal outcome. In April 2006, Carrie Lukas of the IWF said,

At Duke, a woman has accused three men of raping her. Two have been indicted. We know the names of the accused; we've seen their pictures; their lives will never be the same.... Perhaps the evidence will show they... committed the heinous crime of rape. If so, they will be and they should be severely punished. Yet the media so quick to sensationalize the accuser's account and condemn the lacrosse players now is revealing facts suggesting that the accused might be innocent of this crime.[34]

Columnist Michael Gaynor, writing for Alan Keyes' organization Renew America, noted IWF's early criticism of the school's and the district attorney's mishandling of the case, saying, "The Independent Women's Forum's Charlotte Allen figured out early that the real scandal was the way the players were mistreated and her posts during April 2006 on the IWF website showed a commendable concern with due process and evidence instead of rushing to an erroneous misjudgment."[35]

Campus programs[edit]

The organization emphasizes traditional family roles and cultural norms as essential for civil society. In particular, IWF encourages young women to embrace what it presents as a healthy attitude towards dating, courtship, and marriage.[36] This emphasis is reflected by high-profile, sometimes controversial[37] work on college campuses where IWF sponsors advertising campaigns and literature distribution to promote its views. One such effort included the running of advertisements with provocative headings such as "The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths."[38] IWF also offers internships in its Washington, D.C. offices[39] and sponsors an annual essay contest open to full-time female undergraduate students.[40]

As a reaction to reports of growing promiscuity on college campuses[41] and the V-Day movement founded by Eve Ensler, IWF created its "Take Back the Date" campus program to "reclaim Valentine's Day from radical feminists on campus who use a day of love and romance to promote vulgar and promiscuous behavior through activities like The Vagina Monologues."[42][43] Specifically addressing the controversial play, IWF's "Take Back the Date" release states that, "although the play raises money for a good cause, the hyper-sexualized play counteracts the positive contributions of the feminist movement and degrades women."[42] The IWF program's advice for Valentine's Day states:

Guys: Take women out. Open doors. Buy them flowers. Women: Let guys take you out. If you like a guy, ask him out yourself. Pass out IWF's [literature] on campus as a way to restore chivalry and personal responsibility among students.[42]

In an article in The Guardian, one critic claimed that the program was merely "[r]evamping outdated notions of femininity and positioning them as cutting edge."[44]

Right to keep and bear arms[edit]

Individuals affiliated with IWF have advocated for the right of members of the public to keep and bear arms. Allison Kasic, director of the Forum's R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies, wrote an article for Townhall.com praising Antonin Scalia's District of Columbia v. Heller decision, in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. Kasic described her enthusiasm for the manner in which the court resolved the case by noting, "as Justice Scalia pointed out in his opinion, 'the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.' All citizens of D.C. should rejoice at their new found freedom. But for women especially, guns are the ultimate equalizer in self-defense."[45] In January 2012, Anna Rittgers, an IWF senior fellow writing in support of federal legislation that would guarantee interstate reciprocity for concealed handgun permitholders, asserted that this issue is of particular importance to women because,

In many cases, women lack the physical ability to defend themselves against or outrun would-be assailants. Intangible factors that make women vulnerable are heightened when traveling because of a tourist’s lack of familiarity with her surroundings and local trends in crime. Taking away a woman’s access to effective means of self-defense makes her an even more attractive target.[46]

International programs[edit]

Condoleezza Rice speaking to an IWF audience in 2006 after receiving the organization's "Woman of Valor" award.

Since its founding, IWF has sponsored numerous conferences, panels, and other programs designed to promote its message to an international audience. These primarily include activities and events discussing or taking place in the countries of Iraq[47] and Afghanistan, and focus on promoting female participation in democracy.[48]

In October 2004, the Feminist Majority Foundation objected to the U.S. Department of State's decision to award part of a grant to IWF for "leadership training, democracy education and coalition building assistance" to women in Iraq, claiming that, "the IWF represents a small group of right-wing wheeler-dealers inside the Beltway."[49] IWF's work in Iraq is in concert with that of the American Islamic Conference and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank.

Sources of funding[edit]

The IWF operates through funds provided by donor organizations. It has been described by the think-tank monitoring group MediaTransparency as being "largely funded by the conservative movement."[50] Sources of funding include three of Richard Mellon Scaife's four Scaife Foundations. A full breakdown[50] of foundation donors is given below:

Body Donations Total (USD)
Sarah Scaife Foundation* 10 1,675,000
Brady Education Foundation 6 1,604,000
Randolph Foundation 14 1,559,000
John M. Olin Foundation 11 776,000
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation 15 490,000
Castle Rock Foundation 5 300,000
Carthage Foundation* 3 300,000
Jaquelin Hume Foundation 6 265,000
William H. Donner Foundation 5 200,000
Scaife Family Foundation* 1 100,000
JM Foundation 5 95,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation 4 70,000
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation 6 61,000
Gilder Foundation 1 50,000
Earhart Foundation 2 35,000
Lovett and Ruth Peters Foundation 1 25,000
Roe Foundation 5 22,500
Hickory Foundation 4 17,500
William E. Simon Foundation 2 6,000
Total 106 7,651,000

* Scaife Foundations

Board members[edit]

IWF Chairman Heather Higgins appearing on Real Time with Bill Maher.

The board is chaired by investment fund executive Heather Higgins with other members Mary Arnold, Carol T. Crawford, Jennifer Ashworth Dinh, Randy Parris Kendrick and Larry Kudlow. These staff are complemented by 'directors emeritae'; these include Second Lady of the United States Lynne V. Cheney, neoconservative writer Midge Decter, Kimberly O. Dennis, the Mercatus Center's Wendy Lee Gramm, Elizabeth Lurie, Washington editor of National Review Kate O'Beirne, and Louise V. Oliver.[4]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Independent Women's Forum." GivingExpress Program. GuideStar. [1]
  2. ^ "The Voices of the Independent Women's Forum." Independent Women's Forum. IWF.org. [2]
  3. ^ "Staff List." Independent Women's Forum. IWF.org
  4. ^ a b "Board of Directors." Independent Women's Forum. IWF.org
  5. ^ "IRS Form 990: Independent Women's Forum." Hosted by the Foundation Center. 26 July 2005. [3]
  6. ^ a b Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics by Ronnee Schreiber, Oxford University Press
  7. ^ See also:
    • Washington Post - "The idea for the IWF was to provide a conservative alternative to feminist tenets."
    • The Conservative Voice "However, our visitor from another planet would be surprised to discover there are many groups out there that represent conservative women who believe in equality but shun socialism and big government. One of those organizations is the Independent Women's Forum."
    • Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Oct, 2002 by Ronnee Schreiber "In this article I examine two national conservative women's organizations--the Concerned Women for America (CWA) and the Independent Women's Forum (IWF)--to show how conservative women leaders link gender identity and policy preferences. I describe these organizations below. Like feminists, these women, through their organizations, not only act collectively as women, but also bring a "woman's perspective" to policy issues. Although some scholars have not denied the impact of right-wing movements on feminist goals and activities (Conover & Gray, 1983; Klatch, 1987; Marshall, 1995), others have characterized conservative women as victims of false consciousness, pawns of conservative men or right-wing funders (Dworkin, 1983; Hammer, 2002), or women's auxillar[ies] of the conservative elite" (Kaminer, 1996), thus diminishing the attention and serious consideration appropriate to such a political force."
    • RECIPIENT PROFILE - Media Transparency
    • Source Watch
  8. ^ a b Holley, Joe (February 21, 2007). "Rosalie Silberman; Created Independent Women's Forum". Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2013. 
  9. ^ a b Hoff Sommers, Christina, Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women (Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, 1995), p. 22
  10. ^ "An Interview with Christina Hoff Sommers, Allison Kasic." Independent Women's Forum. 9 February 2007. [4]
  11. ^ Pozner, Jennifer. "Female Anti-Feminism for Fame and Profit." Excerpted from Uncovering the Right on Campus. Center for Campus Organizing. 1997. [5]
  12. ^ "GOP ad asks women: 'Is Obama the boyfriend you need to dump?'". Christian Science Monitor. September 6, 2012. 
  13. ^ "IWF Celebration Dinner and Woman of Valor Award". Independent Women's Forum. May 27, 2005. 
  14. ^ a b "Independent Women; Independent Women's Forum Members speak out on their views of feminism vs. the traditional". 60 Minutes. August 11, 1996. 
  15. ^ McVeigh, Karen (January 10, 2012). "Does the GOP have a problem with women?". The Guardian. 
  16. ^ Ronnee Schreiber, 'Pro-Women, Pro-Palin, Antifeminist: Conservative Women and Conservative Movement Politics', in Crisis of Conservatism? The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, & American Politics After Bush, Gillian Peele, Joel D. Aberbach (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 134-135
  17. ^ Lukas, Carrie (April 15, 2007). "Women's own choices may be behind wage gap". Dallas Morning News. 
  18. ^ Chavez, Linda (April 6, 1999). "How to spend Equal Pay Day". Jewish World Review. 
  19. ^ Stossel, John (December 5, 2006). "Women's Progress: Damsels in Distress?". Capitalism Magazine. 
  20. ^ "Sarah Palin: New Face Of Feminism?". All Things Considered (NPR). September 7, 2008. 
  21. ^ Schreiber, Ronnee (2008). Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195331813. 
  22. ^ "Dangerous Gun Myths". New York Times. February 2, 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2013. 
  23. ^ Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC (Microsoft and NBC Universal). Retrieved 2009-09-17. 
  24. ^ Kurokawa, Nicole (August 20, 2009). "IWF in the News: Battling Cancer Under Obamacare". Independent Women's Forum. Retrieved 2009-09-17. 
  25. ^ "A False Appeal to Women’s Fears". FactCheck.org. September 4, 2009. Retrieved February 4, 2013. 
  26. ^ 20 U.S.C. § 1681
  27. ^ "Transcript: Interview With Scott Palmer, Christine Stolba." Sunday Morning. CNN. 30 June 2002. [6]
  28. ^ Benson, Dave. "Taking a Hit." Fort Wayne News Sentinel. 2007
  29. ^ Rabkin, Jeremy. "Gender Benders." American Spectator. 1 April 1999. Hosted by the Center for Individual Rights. [7]
  30. ^ Schaeffer, Sabrina. "Title IX and the Trouble With Quotas." The Huffington Post. 18 January 2012. [8]
  31. ^ Lips, Dan. "Outdated Federal 'Gender Equity' Program Illustrates Need for More School Choice." School Reform News. Heartland Institute. 1 June 2007. [9]
  32. ^ Lukas, Carrie. "Anti-Choice Extremists!" National Review Online. 11 March 2004. [10]
  33. ^ "NOW Opposes Single-Sex Public Education as 'Separate and Unequal.'" National Organization for Women. NOW.org. 24 October 2006. [11]
  34. ^ Lukas, C (2006-04-27). "One in Four? Rape myths do injustice, too". Independent Women's Forum. Retrieved 2009-05-16. 
  35. ^ Gaynor, Michael. "Duke case: Fair, smart and right from the start independent women." Renew America. 16 March 2007. [12]
  36. ^ Fletcher, Michael A. "Campus Romance, Unrequited." Washington Post. 26 July 2001. [13]
  37. ^ Morse, Anne. "A Little Beige Controversy." Boundless
  38. ^ Young, Cathy. "Ad Anger." Reason. 31 May 2001. [14]
  39. ^ "IWF is Searching for Junior Fellows!" Independent Women's Forum. IWF.org. [15]
  40. ^ "Mrs. Cheney Honors IWF Essay Contest Winners." Independent Women's Forum. IWF.org. 23 May 2006. [16]
  41. ^ Denizet-Lewis, Benoit. "Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall." New York Times. 30 May 2004. [17]
  42. ^ a b c "She Thinks Campus Corner: Take Back the Date." Independent Women's Forum. IWF.org. [18]
  43. ^ Harris, Lynn. "Broadsheet: Take Back the Date." Salon.com. 7 February 2007. [19]
  44. ^ Valenti, Jessica. "Chastity is Chic." The Guardian. 28 July 2006
  45. ^ Kasic, Allison. "DC Gun Ban Lift Empowers Women." Townhall.com. 7 July 2008. [20]
  46. ^ Rittgers, Anna. "Pistol Packin' Mamas." Washington Times. 3 January 2012. [21]
  47. ^ "Project: Women in Iraq: The War in Iraq, The War Against Terrorism, and The Fight for Democratic Freedom." Independent Women's Foum. IWF.org. "[22]
  48. ^ Lukas, Carrie and Lida Noory. "Afghan Optimism." National Review Online. 9 February 2006. [23]
  49. ^ "State Department Funds Anti-Women's Rights Group To Train Iraqi Women." Feminist Daily News Wire. Feminist Majority Foundation. 5 October 2004. [24]
  50. ^ a b Recipient Grants: Independent Women's Forum, Media Transparency, accessed 19 May 2008

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

This article uses content from the SourceWatch article on Independent Women's Forum under the terms of the GFDL.