Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Entrepreneur Political Analyst Business Advisor Illinois Review

According to Ralf Seiffe, noted radical feminist Gloria Steinem (pictured) should love President George W. Bush, why doesn't she?

Thursday, February 3, 2005

By Ralf Seiffe

OPINION - Two events in the past couple of weeks prove George Bush to be the world’s most effective feminist. The National Organization for Women won’t be raising a statue anytime soon but nevertheless, their cause may be best served, in the broadest sense, by the president’s approach.

The first reminder occurred at one of those interesting symposia so popular in academia. The pointy heads held one such meeting recently titled “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities and their S. and E. Careers”.

Among its purposes was to investigate the disparity between the sexes in the number of tenured professorships in science and engineering.

Organizers invited Harvard President Larry Summers to be provocative by wishing the attendees well with a few remarks. They assumed, no doubt, that the former Treasury Secretary would stay within the bounds of academic orthodoxy and political correctness.

Instead, he surprised the 50 attendees with the audacious suggestion that there were might be some fundamental differences between men and women’s mental processes.

Summers’ wondered if “innate differences” or “natural ability” might be responsible for the disparity. He speculated that the differences the conferees set out to investigate might not be entirely due to social factors.

Apparently, his position conflicted with the attendees’ tenet that some nefarious force must be operating to keep women and minorities out of science and engineering.

Taken seriously, Summers’ speculation not only challenged that idea, it tests the whole foundation of victim-based feminism. So, the instant Summers’ words vibrated, organized feminism and its allies had to strike back. Adult professors attending the event confessed the vapors; the Boston Globe ranted and its columnists invoked the ghost of Martin Luther King while blubbering stale, Euro-centric social prescriptions.

The very presence of Nancy Hopkins, a Harvard graduate and now a tenured biology professor at MIT torches the notion that women can’t compete in the scientific or engineering professions. The real problem for these scientific proselytizers is not that their targets are unfairly treated; it is that they are uninterested.

These Cambridge folks switch inclination for acrimony because at stake is $25 million of the public’s money; educrats intend to spend it on increasing “underrepresented” women. If the conventioneers can’t identify an evil to battle, there’s no reason to spend the money.

A better use of that $25 million might be to find out how we can nurture our children to instill the interest and ability to compete internationally in hard subjects like math and science. Americans face a declining living standard because we aren’t producing enough scientists---of either sex.

That’s not likely to happen. If it did, scholars might find that the now-penitent Larry Summers had a point. They might find that recognizing our “innate” differences and structuring society to exploit them might provide much bigger and more valuable payback than breaking glass ceilings in law firms or counting houses. They would have to face up to the fact that promising business women increasingly choosing to stay at home to nurture their children and explain why.

The second event that demonstrates why George Bush should expect a place in NOW’s pantheon are events in the Middle East.

The vast vision he outlined at the Inauguration is a reflection of the man and it follows some remarkable accomplishments in Afghanistan and Iraq of interest to women. His faith in democracy translates into self-determination that has changed women’s status from property to partner. By insisting that women make up 33% of these new legislatures, the president has made Iraqi and Afghan women more powerful in their legislatures than they have ever been in ours.

Even more interesting is the possibility that the president intended to exploit those “natural differences” so odious to the Bean town intelligentsia. His own experience should allow him understand that men’s quarrelsome, contentious and sometimes self-destructive nature can be attenuated by women.

It was no accident that Laura Bush’s two guests at the State of the Union speech were from women from Afghanistan and Iraq. Injecting them into the politics of these two countries is like putting boron rods in a nuclear reactor; it lowers the heat of reaction and minimizes the chance of an uncontrolled explosion.

George Bush and his predecessor both started as flawed men. Bill Clinton indulged his shortcomings while George Bush took Eleanor Roosevelt’s advice and faced his demons.

As a result, George Bush is producing a spectacular legacy for women. He did not do it alone, however. Laura Bush, wife, mother and school librarian and from all indications, a woman of traditional values, tamed the man who would be president. Would this have been possible if Laura had been consumed with “making partner”?

There difference between professional feminists and George Bush is this: they seem to have reversed roles. They meet in Boston to dispute human nature and leave in a combative huff when a contrary but speculative opinion arises. They are contentious showboats and accomplish little.

He acts with a grace that values family above all and he exploits its natural expressions. That attitude has led to more liberation in more profound ways than NOW or the League of Women Voters ever has ever accomplished. In this, George Bush must be judged the first feminist president.

© 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader.