Independent Women’s Forum is an anti-feminist organization founded in 1992 by Rosalie Silberman, Anita K. Blair, and Barbara Olson to promote a conservative alternative to feminist tenets following the controversial Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. IWF supported the Thomas nomination despite allegations of sexual harassment from Anita Hill, his former colleague at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The IWF has a sister organization, Independent Women’s Voice, that works to impact key policy, legislative, and political battles.
Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)’s Reporters’ Guide “exposes the groups’ leaders admitting to — and boasting about — their true role for what it is: finding ways to sell right-wing policies and candidates favored by their funders to reach independent women voters under the guise of neutrality.” Heather Higgins, the President of the Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) and the Board Chair of the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), said this in a speech to potential 2016 donors at a David Horowitz Freedom Center retreat: [Source] “Being branded as neutral, but actually having people who know that you’re actually conservative puts us in a unique position. Our value here and what is needed in the Republican conservative arsenal is a group that can talk to those cohorts [women who are not Republican conservatives] that would not otherwise listen but can do it in a way that is taking a conservative message and packaging it in a way that will be acceptable.” Mission Statement IWF’s mission statement page is a little vague these days, so for more context on their purpose as a group, it is useful to take a look at the evolution of wording over the years: Circa 2010 they said "IWF focuses on issues of concern to mainstream women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy.” Around 2011 this was revised: “The Independent Women's Forum is dedicated to building support for free markets, limited government, and individual responsibility. IWF … seeks to combat the too-common presumption that women want and benefit from big government, and build awareness of the ways that women are better served by greater economic freedom.” Updated wording circa 2012 stated “The Independent Women's Forum is on a mission to expand the conservative coalition, both by increasing the number of women who understand and value the benefits of limited government, personal liberty, and free markets, and by countering those who seek to ever-expand government in the name of protecting women.” Around 2016 their statement was simplified to “IWF's mission is to improve the lives of Americans by increasing the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty.” Today this mission statement has morphed to: “...dedicated to developing and advancing policies that are more than just well-intended, but actually enhance people’s freedom, opportunities, and well-being. … We support policies that reduce government red tape and return resources and control to people, so that we have healthy communities and people can pursue their own visions of happiness.” Funding Independent Women’s Forum is predominantly funded by right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch brothers' Claude R. Lambe Foundation. Read More:
Good to Know From Conservative Transparency: The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is a “research and educational institution” that describes its mission as working “to improve the lives of Americans by increasing the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty.” Among the issues that IWF focuses on are the “culture of alarmism” and “women at work,” although they oppose the Paycheck Fairness Act and the FAMILY Act, and have claimed that “the ‘gender wage gap’ – the idea that women are only paid 79 cents for every dollar a man is paid – is terribly overstated.” They also opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. In addition, IWF has taken extreme positions on many other issues, such as claiming that unemployment and other social security programs “discourage work and ultimately harm those they are intended to help.” IWF described diversity training at the University of Missouri, implemented after “accusations of widespread racism” on campus, as “indoctrination” and “mandatory bullying.” They have criticized Stanford University’s decision to prohibit hard alcohol from undergraduate events on campus in an attempt to curb sexual assault as “regulation run amok.” IWF published a blog post that criticized President Ronald Reagan for signing a law that “requires hospitals to treat everyone,” as well as an op-ed praising Trump’s “wisdom” on “race, law, and order.” IWF senior fellow Gayle Trotter testified before the U.S. Senate that “guns make women safer” and “nearly all mass shootings have occurred in ‘gun-free’ zones” because they are “soft targets.” IWF also wondered whether diversity would lead to “the brink of a new apartheid.” The executive director of IWF is Sabrina Schaeffer, who started her political career with the American Enterprise Institute, an organization that has been called the “epicenter” of the American neoconservative movement. She accused Sheryl Sandberg of “grasping at straws to stay relevant” for Sandberg’s comment that gender stereotypes can be taught in childhood, writing that “most women don’t want to be leaders at a Fortune 100 company.” Following the 2014 shooting in Santa Barbara, California, Schaeffer wrote that “the modern feminist movement today was in ‘need’ of a horrible tragedy like the Elliott Rodger killings,” claiming that “contemporary ‘feminism’…regularly pits men and women against one another” and “need women to remain victims in order to justify their raison d’etre.” Schaeffer told Glamour Magazine in 2013 that abortion and gun safety are issues she wishes “would just go away.” The IWF has a “sister organization,” the Independent Women’s Voice, that works to “impact key policy, legislative, and political battles.” IWV claims an 86% campaign success rate, and ran ads before the 2012 presidential election encouraging female voters to view President Obama as “a boyfriend that didn’t work out.” From SourceWatch: The Independent Women’s Forum and its 501(c)(4) affiliate, the Independent Women’s Voice, market themselves to the media and voters as “non-partisan,” “independent,” and “neutral.” An investigation of the groups by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reveals them to be anything but that. Joan Walsh wrote for The Nation, "IWF and its political arm, Independent Women’s Voice, have become aggressive players in Republican politics, embedded in the network of organizations backed by Charles and David Koch, advocating for the Koch brothers’ myriad concerns, and playing on their 'independent' label to elect GOP candidates.” [Source] From Wikipedia: Equity feminism The IWF also argues that feminists manufacture domestic violence legislation that "is misleading because it is premised on and means to advance feminist ideology.” This falls under their larger belief that "feminists ... lie about data, are opportunistic, construct men as the enemy, and cast women as helpless victims.” [Schreiber, Ronnee (2008). Righting Feminism: Conservative Women & American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 67.] 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.” [Source] Writing in Capitalism 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.” [Source] Some writers have asserted that feminist rhetoric is used by the IWF for anti-feminist ends. [Source] [Source] 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.” [Source] United States healthcare policy 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. [Source] [Source] FactCheck.org labeled the IWF ad "a false appeal to women's fears", finding that the IWF ad relied on "old statistics, faulty logic and false insinuations.” [Source] Title IX enforcement 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 legislation requiring sex equality in public educational investment. Campus programs The organization emphasizes patriarchal sex 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. [Source] This emphasis is reflected by high-profile, sometimes controversial [Source] 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.” [Source] IWF also offers internships and sponsors an annual essay contest open to full-time female undergraduate students. [Source] More Key Points
#Independent Women's Forum #IWF Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
Archives
Header image by upklyak on Freepik
|