Why are women running as Republicans?

Dredging up the old "Is the GOP pro-women, or feminist?" debate of the "You betcha!" 2008 presidential race comes news that more Republican women than ever are vying for congressional seats, motivated by their faith that the GOP truly represents their interests and their anger toward the administration's current policies.

So far this year, 107 Republican women have filed for House and Senate elections, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee. It's a big boost from the previous high of 91 in 1994, although they still trail behind Democrats, making up less than half of the 270 total women who've filed. (Far more women overall have filed for House seats than for Senate, at 239 and 31 respectively, according to data from the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics.)

The increase stems from rising anger among Republican women "about health care, their jobs, how to pay for their children's education," said Jan Larimer, Republican National Committee Co-Chairman. She told the Washington Post they "are giving the GOP a second look and realizing that our policies, principles and vision make sense and work for their families."

Perhaps these women need to take a hard, third look. It's tricky, often problematic territory telling a woman that her set of beliefs is indeed not feminist or pro-woman, as she believes. Except, of course, when they decidedly are not. The GOP is not pro-woman (nor is the Democratic Party in many instances, but that's another post). Republican policies continue to undermine the low and middle classes, hamper health care reform for the benefit of all, make family life more difficult and strip away at equal rights. In many states, including New Jersey, Republicans have supported policies that scrap public programs that provide after-school and day care, and have advocated cutting teacher and other education jobs that benefit women, especially mothers. Several states have recently enacted Republican-led legislation that chips away women's reproductive rights, especially those of low-income women who are more likely to seek or need help receiving contraception or abortions. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to prioritize war over education, health care and other human needs--it spent about half its budget on war; since 2001, about $1 trillion has been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq--which fails to make the U.S. any safer and puts American soldiers at risk (women soldiers are especially at risk; reported military sexual assaults of men assaulting women rose 11 percent last year). Most Republicans ardently oppose same-sex marriage and gay rights, which at their hearts lie issues of freedom of gender expression and identity. The list goes on. Of course, Democratic policies are far from perfect, though they're certainly closer to pro-woman which may explain why more women continue to file as Democrats.

But regardless of policies, it's the process and requirements of running for federal office themselves that remain rather unfriendly to women. Relatively few women overall enter the race--numbers have increased only slightly since 1992, when 222 women filed to run for the House and 29 for Senate contests. Women in politics face the same roadblocks to promotion as women in other professional realms do. They also face additional roadblocks, such as the long hours required of the job (without much attention to child care). It takes an enormous amount of privilege, financial or otherwise, to overcome these roadblocks to campaign and serve. Without greater representation of progressive women --sorry, Palin--we're far from policy change to truly reflect women's interests. -Jean Stevens

Jean Stevens is a freelance journalist, blogger, promoter, event planner and novice photographer whose work focuses on issues relating to gender, race, class, sexual identity, food culture, U.S. foreign policy, and feminism. You can learn more about Jean at www.jeanmstevens.com.