Independent Women's Forum - R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies

IWF Announces 2008-2009 College Essay Contest

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:26:00 EDT

Washington, D.C.-The Independent Women's Forum's R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies is proud to announce its fourth annual college essay contest. College women enrolled in any four-year college or university during the 2008-2009 school year are invited to enter this competition. Deadline is December 1, 2008.

This year, students are asked to answer this question in 750 words or less:

While there are differing views among scientists regarding global warming, do you believe the potential costs to the American economy in terms of diminished economic growth, jobs and higher costs for goods and services are worth the cost of proposed climate policies to address the issue? If so, why? Or, do you believe this money should be spent on other priorities (and if so, where and why)?

To date, IWF has awarded more than $30,000 in prize money to students through its essay contest. "This contest is an excellent opportunity for students to think critically about the most important issues facing our country and have the opportunity to win valuable financial assistance for their education in the process" said Allison Kasic, director of the Silberman Center. "IWF, and our panel of all-star judges, look forward to reading students' perspectives on this important issue."

For the 2009-2009 application click here

For more information visit www.iwf.org or email essaycontest@iwf.org.

Get the Facts: Regulation of Media Content

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:20:00 EDT

Parents are increasingly concerned with the level of indecent materials available in the media. A common reaction to the prevalence of adult material is to support greater government restrictions on content. But concerned parents should be wary of government involvement in this area. Private sector services and parents are much more effective in keeping indecent material out of the hands of children.

Growth of the Media:

The increase in technology and the advent of cable has created the opportunity for a wide array of media content. In recent years, we have seen the growth in realistic and gritty content on television. Some programmers are creating more adult entertainment to suit the palettes of a changing society.

However, there has also been growth in high quality educational and news content. Many channels such as C-Span, CNN and the Discovery Channel have all emerged from this innovative process. Internet video streaming, websites, and pod casts are able to target niche groups with niche media. Therefore we see an increase in the good content that makes viewers interested and informed in their world.

Blame the Media:

While many commentators complain that the new wave of vulgar media has a negative impact on children, studies are unclear about the actual long-term effects of exposure to this content. One study found a 10 percent correlation between aggression and viewing habits, but found a 50 percent correlation between aggression and family habits. Another researcher concluded that, "The power of parents is so much greater than the power of the media that any reasonably good parenting renders any media influence insignificant."

Problems with Government Action:

Out of fear for children's mental health and stability, many seek direct censorship of the media as the response to adult content on television. Yet debates instantly crop up about what should be censored. Is nudity or sexuality okay in medical documentaries and serious movies but not ok in light soap operas? Should slapstick comedy be censored entirely so some parents who prefer their children not watch it can be protected? These questions highlight the problem of trying to fit a one-size-fits-all government solution and the threat to the concept of free speech that would be posed by such regulation.

Private and Market Response:

Today's parents have a lot more control over their children's program viewing than in the past. Channel blockers and the V-chip remove children's access to certain channels. Computer games and game consoles now carry parental code inputs as well as sophisticated labels to warn parents of the kind of content in the game. Music CDs and downloads too have explicit labels, etc.

Responsible parenting renders media influence insignificant. Top-down government mandates are unlikely to be effective and seem to imply that parents aren't responsible for their children. Families-not the government-are best positioned to decide what media content is appropriate for their children.

All content can be found in No Responsibility without Freedom: Why Government Should Leave Media Content Alone, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum found at iwf.org.

Get the Facts: Title IX Athletics

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:52:00 EDT

Get the Facts: Title IX & Athletics

Title IX was created to outlaw sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funds. However, through skewed interpretation of this statute, feminist groups have used Title IX to push a radical agenda in schools. Consequently, current Title IX enforcement has institutionalized discrimination against men and demeaned legitimate athletic and academic accomplishments of women.

What is Title IX?

In 1972, Title IX was passed as an education amendment. It was written to outlaw sex discrimination in schools. While Title IX applies to all educational programs, its impact on athletic programs has been the most pronounced. Though Congress specifically stated the intent of Title IX was not to establish gender quotas, that has been the effect in the athletic arena and schools have often cut men's athletics in an attempt to comply with Title IX.

The pressure to cut programs comes from Title IX's proportionality requirement, which requires a school's athletic gender breakdown to match the gender breakdown of the general student body. For example, if 60% of the student body is female, 60% of the athletes must also be female to meet Title IX's proportionality test-the only requirement with a clear, quantitative test that can shield schools from litigation. With female students making up an increasingly large percentage of the undergraduate population, schools are struggling to achieve proportionality. The only options are to add programs for women or cut them for men. Once other concerns, like the budget, are taking into account, cutting programs is the easiest road to take.

Supporters of Title IX claim that schools can create opportunities for women without cutting men's opportunities, but the evidence shows otherwise. In spring 2007, a study by the College Sports Council (CSC) found:

From 1981 to 2005, the number of male athletes per school declined 6% and men's teams dropped 17%. In the same timeframe, female athletes per school rose 34% and women's teams rose 34%.
Men's tennis, wrestling, and gymnastics have faced the most cuts. For example, men's gymnastics has less than 20 varsity programs left in the country.

The Solution:

The common sense alternative to proportionality's one-size-fits-all gender quota is to measure student interest and abilities. This approach would offer schools more flexibility in catering to the preferences of the student body. It is also important in this approach to measure the interests and abilities of both men and women. Under current Title IX requirements, schools are only responsible for meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Schools should be held accountable to all of their students, not just women.

It is important to celebrate the advances women have made in the athletic arena. However, it is equally important not to discriminate or punish men by replacing one form of discrimination for another. The proportionality rule of Title IX is long overdue for a reform.

All facts taken from Title IX & Athletics: A Primer, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum, available at iwf.org

Get the Facts: The Wage Gap

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:47:00 EDT

Politicians and feminist activists often cite the existence of a "wage gap" as evidence of continued discrimination against women and the need for greater government intervention to protect women. A closer look at the numbers shows that discrimination is not the primary cause of the wage gap and it is individual choices that are at the root of differences in what men and women earn.

What is the Wage Gap?

The wage gap refers to a statistic provided by the Department of Labor that compares men and women's earnings and shows that that women make about 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This is based on a single-variable comparison of the earnings of the median full-time working man and the median full-time working woman. Critics claim that this differential is caused by gender discrimination in the work force. In reality, several other factors are at play.

What Accounts for the Wage Gap?

A variety of factors affect compensation levels. Among the key variables left out of the wage gap statistic are type of occupation, number of hours worked, education and experience levels, and personal choices, among others. Once these factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap shrinks.

Key differences between the sexes that contribute to the wage gap include:
- Women on average take more time out of the labor force and work fewer hours per week than do men.
- Women tend to avoid jobs which require intense travel and relocation.
- Men assume more high-risk jobs than women.
- Women are less likely than men to negotiate their starting salary and to ask for raises.
- Women place a higher priority on personal fulfillment than men when looking for a job.
Even groups that sound alarm about the wage gap, such as the American Association of University Women, admit that discrimination is not the main factor at play. The AAUW claims that 75% of the wage gap can be accounted for by factors such as experience and career decisions, not discrimination.

Politicians are quick to jump in and try to fix the "problem" of the wage gap through legislation such as the "Fair Pay Restoration Act." But before taking government action-particularly since that action can make the workplace less flexible and stifle job creation-politicians should consider all of the factors contributing to the wage gap. To the extent that the gap is a result of personal preferences and the different choices that men and women make about work than it is not a problem for government to solve.

All the facts are taken from the articles "A Bargain at 77 cents to a Dollar" and "Equal Pay Day was in February" by Carrie Lukas and can be found at iwf.org.

Get the Facts: Female Faculty in Math and Science

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:40:00 EDT

Although women have made significant gains in representation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) classrooms, their growth in STEM faculties has been much slower. However, it is unlikely that discrimination is the primary cause of the discrepancy between the number of men and women in STEM faculties. Thus, government intervention that attempts to artificially increase the number of women in STEM departments may only serve to erode the quality of teaching and research in universities-as they could be encouraged to hire based on sex, not merit.

Representation of Women in University Professorships:

In 2003 one in four full-time professors at four-year colleges were women, compared to less than one in ten in 1972.
Since 1988, the percent of women entering faculties has grown across disciplines. For example, from 1988 to 2003 the percentage of women in humanities faculties grew from 37% to 52% and from 22% to 31% in natural sciences. Engineering and computer science have seen the fastest rates of growth.
However, across disciplines women account for larger proportions of associate and assistant professors rather than full professorships, and the percent of female students far outweighs the percent of female faculty.

Causes for Low Female Representation on STEM Faculties:

Role of tenure and family pressures:
- Professors seeking tenure have a limited amount of time to prove they deserve the appointment through producing important research, being published, and teaching.
- Because the rigorous tenure process usually coincides with the years women are most likely to give birth and raise children, the perceived (and real) conflict between achieving tenure and family life contributes to the underrepresentation of women in professorships. For example, women in graduate school cite the challenge of balancing career and family as one reason for a dwindling interest in pursuing careers in academia.
Interests:
- Many studies, including personality-inventory tests, reveal that women's interests may be a root cause of their underrepresentation in academia. For example, the University of California found that it hired women in proportion to the percentage of women in their applicant pool. However, the number of women in the applicant pool was always much lower than the number of women receiving Ph.D.'s.
Discrimination:
- Where overt or subtle discrimination occurs in STEM faculties, institutions should stop that discrimination and work to create a positive environment for all. However, it is crucial to note that different participation rates among men and women in STEM faculties are not themselves evidence of discrimination. For example, even at prestigious all-women's universities where sex-discrimination is unlikely, women are often minorities on STEM faculties.
- A recent study found that 91% of the discrepancy between men's and women's faculty salaries is due to differences in experience, work patterns, seniority, and education levels. Some argue these differences are themselves discrimination. However, they are likely in part due to women's greater interest in working with people than men's.

All information taken from Excellence, Not Gender Parity, Should be Priority for STEM Faculty, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum, available at iwf.org

Get the Facts: Female Students in Math and Science

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:26:00 EDT

Get the Facts: Female Students in Math and Science

Different rates of participation among men and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines at U.S. colleges and universities are not a problem as long as they reflect individuals' talents and interests and are not merely caused by discrimination. Innate differences in aptitudes, temperament, and interests likely contribute to greater numbers of men pursuing STEM disciplines than women. To the extent that sex discrimination does still exist in STEM disciplines, it should be remedied by institutions. However, attempting to achieve a politically correct gender balance in STEM disciplines that ignores students' preferences could leave students and these disciplines worse off.

Women's Participation in STEM Disciplines:

In 1970 women accounted for just 42% of undergraduate students compared to 56% in 2005. Women not only earn the majority of all Bachelor's degrees, but receive 59% of conferred Master's degrees and nearly half (47%) of all doctoral degrees.
Despite these impressive gains, women are still a minority of students in STEM disciplines. For example, women earn just 28% of computer science degrees and 20% of engineering degrees. However, women have made considerable progress in these areas. The number of doctoral degrees awarded to women in computer science grew from 2% in 1970 to 18% 2001 and 1% to 18% in engineering.

Possible Causes of Different Rates of Participation Include:

Innate differences in aptitude: Scientists have documented a wide range of structural, chemical, hormonal, and functional brain differences between men and women.
- In many cases men and women are capable of completing the same tasks or solving the same problems, but use different brain circuits to do so.
- Structural differences between male and female brains can influence aptitude for certain tasks. For example, studies suggest that men have an advantage in engineering and science tasks that rely on complex 3-D images because they use different parts of their brains than women do for spatial understanding. Likewise, women have an advantage in solving mathematical problems in a verbal format because of more highly developed language centers in their brains.
Innate differences in temperament and personality:
- Males score higher on most measures of direct competitiveness and have a greater preference for physical and nonphysical risks while females exhibit more nurturing behavior both inside and outside the family.
- These temperamental differences are reflected in occupational affinities as measured by Strong Interest Inventory and the Self-Directed Search which assess occupationally relevant aspects of personality.
Innate differences in interests:
- The presence of estrogen and other hormones in females causes a desire for communication and connection while males are more often content with solitary work. Women's greater interest in communication and emotions could be one reason they gravitate towards disciplines that offer greater social interaction-like humanities rather STEM subjects.

The general differences discussed for men and women are not meant to predict the abilities of individuals, but do suggest that sex discrimination is not solely responsible for differing rates of participation among men and women in STEM disciplines.

All information taken from Studying Women in Science, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum, available at iwf.org

Recreational Hook-ups or Emotional Hang-ups?

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:29:00 EDT

The Herald-Sun

By Kylie Harrell
August 17, 2008

This week the incoming freshman at Duke will be attending The Real Deal-a mandatory orientation event that purports to "help you make responsible social decisions at Duke." No doubt this event will be just as rousing as it was when I was a wide-eyed freshman. I admire Duke's efforts to begin conversations about sexual behavior and abuse. However, this shocking presentation-that features everything from how to use a condom to the infamous "orgasm girl"-left me wondering what kind of social scene I had entered.

Three years later as I begin my senior year at Duke, I know too well the campus culture around me. What started with The Real Deal continued with other Duke-sponsored events like Safer Sex Week and the infamous Sex Workers Art Show. It's not just the events that bother me. It's the culture they sustain and the effect they are having. Too many of my friends and peers have fallen victim to the notion that hooking-up is simply a fun weekend activity. Unfortunately, experience teaches otherwise.

Every weekend, girls across Duke's campus wake up sad and confused. The previous night's choices have not left them fulfilled or content. My girlfriends always seem hurt while the guys easily move on to their next fling. Why are the women upset? After all, it was supposed to be just sex-just one of the "responsible social decisions" discussed in The Real Deal. Without an explanation for their emotions, my friends are left feeling used and embarrassed. All I could do is sit with these women while they let painful tears flow.

Our women's center and sexual health groups failed to tell us the whole truth. They may warn of the physical risks of "unsafe sex" but tend to ignore its emotional toll which also has biological roots. Research suggests that a hormone called oxytocin plays a role in the feelings of attachment and trust that women feel for their sexual partners. Female mammals primarily release oxytocin while giving birth and breast feeding and the hormone facilitates mother-child bonding. Oddly enough, the same hormone is also released during sexual contact causing a sense of attachment. In men, oxytocin's effects are neutralized by the release of testosterone.

Did you catch that ladies? There is a biological explanation for the way you feel and the way he
doesn't feel.

I had always thought casual sex had different consequences for men and women. Now, based on
scientific evidence, I know it does. College women at Duke are suffering emotional pain that's not
only avoidable-but, predictable.

Why weren't we told this three years ago? Why was this important science-based information absent from The Real Deal? Of all the resources on Duke's student health website including women's and sexual health information, oxytocin is not mentioned once.

The explanation is a radical feminist agenda that has a foothold in women's health discussions. As Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA suggests in her book, Unprotected, "I once assumed campus medicine and psychology had one priority: student well-being. I'm no longer so naive. Radical politics pervades my profession, and common sense has vanished." To propose that "safe" sexual experimentation may not be emotionally healthy and may be more dangerous for women than men is not politically correct. It jeopardizes the sexually liberated culture Duke and radical ideologies bolster. At Duke, it seems sexual freedom trumps sexual health.

The Real Deal fails to give women all the information they need to make good sexual choices. Encouraging the use of latex, getting tested regularly for Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and having Plan B on hand just in case may protect a woman's physical health but does not protect women's emotions or psyche. In attempts to control the negative consequences of its hook-up culture, Duke simply encourages students to practice "safer sex." But it fails to realize that sex without commitment cannot be "safe" at all.

I will continue to sit with my girlfriends as they work through their heartache. At least now I have the essential information that's needed to make "responsible social decisions at Duke."

Maybe this year the incoming freshman will hear something new. Maybe this year, The Real Deal will give them the whole truth and actually accomplish its goal.

Kylie Harrell is a junior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and a senior at Duke University.

Title IX's Assault on Swimming

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:42:00 EDT

As the Olympics kick off this Friday, all eyes are firmly set on one athlete: Michael Phelps. Not only does Phelps have the chance to win a record eight gold medals in a single Olympics, he is also practically assured of passing Jenny Thompson's mark of twelve career medals to become the most decorated Olympic athlete in American history. Not bad for a 23 year old.

Luckily for Team USA, Phelps isn't the only star in the swimming pool. In the few events that Phelps doesn't swim, the United States will be represented by world class swimmers such as Aaron Piersol and Brendan Hansen. And, of course, the women's team has stars of its own, including Katie Hoff and Natalie Coughlin, who are expected to take home multiple medals.

With Team USA poised for greatness in Beijing, one might assume that the state of swimming is strong on college campuses. After all, many of America's Olympic swimmers are either college students or train on college campuses. But such an assumption would only be half right.

Like many women's sports, women's swimming has thrived on campus in the post-Title IX era. Only 3,038 women competed at the Division I level in 1981. By 2004 that number was up to 4,899-a 61.25% increase. Such an increase is no doubt a positive development. Unfortunately, men's swimming is a different story. Only 3,568 men competed at the Division I level in 2004, down from a 1984 high of 4,372-a -18.39% decline. It's not just the men who don't have the opportunity to compete who suffer when these programs are cut; women swimmers also lose their teammates, training partners, and biggest supporters.

Why have so many men's swimming teams been cut? A primary reason is Title IX. Title IX supporters will tell you that the statute makes no requirements for gender quotas; it simply bans sex discrimination in schools receiving federal financial assistance. Yet the trouble lies in how Title IX has been interpreted by bureaucrats and the court system.

In 1979, a Policy Interpretation from the newly formed Office of Civil Rights outlined the infamous "three-prong test," allowing schools different options to comply with Title IX. While three options were presented, only one option-proportionality-provided a quantitative measure that could shield schools from Title IX lawsuits. It is no surprise then that colleges overwhelmingly seek to achieve compliance through proportionality.

Proportionality is essentially another term for a quota. To achieve "proportionality" a school's gender breakdown among athletes mirror the gender breakdown of students. For example, if 57% of the study body is female, 57% of the athletes must also be female. With women now taking almost 6 in 10 undergraduate spots nationally, schools often struggle to meet proportionality's demands.

To meet proportionality's gender quota, schools can add women's programs or cut men's programs. All too often, once other considerations, such as the budget, are taken into consideration, schools opt to cut men's programs. Men's swimming has been one of the hardest hit, along with other non-revenue sports such as tennis, wrestling, and gymnastics.

Even when entire teams are not eliminated, schools often institute roster caps that limit the number of male players that can participate on a team. The female equivalent teams rarely have such limits. In either circumstance-cuts or caps-schools are taking away valuable opportunities from their students in the false name of gender equity.

A better approach would be to move away from proportionality's one-size-fits-all system and allow schools more flexibility in how they meet the interests and abilities of their student body. A simple starting point would be to institute interest surveys and ask the student body if they are interested in playing athletics. Schools could then take that information and craft a customized athletic program that fits their school's needs.

So this August, when the spotlight is on Michael Phelps and the rest of the elite athletes on Team USA, let us not forget about the thousands of other talented athletes who have been robbed of the opportunity to compete through the misapplication of Title IX. Title IX's enforcement mechanisms are long overdue for commonsense reforms. What better time than the Olympics to bring this conversation to the forefront.

Get the Facts: Sexual Harassment Policies on Campus

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:09:00 EDT

The Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education (OCR) defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature."

There are two types:

Quid pro quo sexual harassment is fairly straightforward. If a professor or other person with authority "conditions an educational decision or benefit on the student's submission to unwelcome sexual conduct," quid pro quo sexual harassment has occurred.
Hostile environment sexual harassment is less straightforward. It depends on the type, frequency, duration, and context of the conduct and is generally defined as action that "denies or limits a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the school's program."

The OCR states that "the offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by some students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a sexually hostile environment under Title IX."

The Problem:

University administrators are often confused as to the precise definition of sexual harassment. Consequently, university sexual harassment policies are often vague and overly broad, forcing administrators to selectively enforce the policies according to political correctness. For example:

Davidson College outlaws all "comments or inquiries about dating, marital status, sexual activities, or sexual orientation" as sexual harassment.
Roger Williams University encouraged the feminist supported V-Day, but a proposal for a "P-Day" ended in the revoking of the College Republicans' club charter.

These overly broad policies:

Incur a chilling effect on campus, as students fear retribution for what would otherwise be normal interaction
Make legitimate sexual harassment harder to identify and deter
Foster a culture of dependency in university women by teaching them that someone will always protect them from what they may find distasteful

The Solution:

Schools must align their policies with the Office of Civil Rights' Guidance on Sexual Harassment, and then actively educate students on what does and does not constitute sexual harassment.

All facts taken from When Policies Cry Wolf: A Look at Sexual Harassment Policies on Campus, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum, available at iwf.org

Get the Facts: The Living Wage

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:03:00 EDT

The living wage is a controversial issue on many college campuses. Strikes, sit-ins, and fasts have plagued the University of Miami, University of Vermont, and Georgetown University, among others. Student activists are demanding that their colleges raise minimum compensation for full-time employees so that they can afford what students perceive as a dignified living. These students overlook the detrimental consequences attached to living wage mandates, which can hurt the very people they are trying to help.

Unintended Consequences:

Like federal and state minimum wage laws, the living wage serves as an employment tax. Once it has been implemented, employers must bear the burden of paying higher wages.
This can result in layoffs and frictional unemployment. Hence, these employment costs can reduce opportunities for the very workers activists are trying to help.
Living wage mandates discourage employers from hiring prospective low-skilled employees. If a University raises its wages per hour from $9 to $11 it will draw a more skilled workforce. The people who could have obtained employment at $9 are now displaced by workers with better skills. The reduction means fewer entry-level, skill-building opportunities for the workers who require them the most.

High Costs of Living Wages:

In 1996, when the city of Chicago considered a living wage ordinance to require a 79% increase in the wages of contracted government workers and firms in the city, a study conducted by the Employment Policies Institute revealed that:
- The ordinance would have cost the city approximately $20 million per year.
- Labor costs to the firms would have increased by $37.5 million and the city faced a loss of at least 1,300 jobs.
- The living wage ordinance would have led to a pay increase for approx. 8,470 workers, a small portion of the workforce compared to the costs of millions endured by taxpayers.
Similarly, student activists argue that college endowments should provide for the extra expense. However, endowment contributions go towards specific projects, usually pertaining to student needs. Academic institutions have to adhere to the guidelines set by their donors and monetary sources on how to use funds.

Universities have failed to provide a rational discussion about the pros and cons of living wage ordinances. This leaves student protestors with good intentions but incomplete information. Students must realize that increased regulations are not the best ways to help campus workers and staff, and can end up harming their intended beneficiaries.

All facts taken from Waging Blame, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum, available at iwf.org & Employment Policies Institute at epionline.org.

Get the Facts: Energy Prices

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:46:00 EDT

Download the IWF Energy Prices Fact Sheet below.

As the average price of gas climbs higher than ever before, Americans feel increased economic pressure while waiting for prices to come back down. Unfortunately, the options being discussed by the Majority in Congress will only serve to make the situation worse. Nationalizing the oil industry or raising taxes on oil companies will not encourage a decline in prices and might drive them up even further. Greater government regulation or intervention in the energy industry is not the solution. Allowing the market to operate without needless intervention in order to increase energy supply is.

Why are gas prices higher than ever before?

In June 2008 average gas prices hit a historical high in the U.S., exceeding $4/gallon.
Similarly, the cost of crude oil has hit record highs exceeding $125/barrel.
Global demand for crude oil, the primary determinant of gas price, has risen dramatically over the last decade as countries like China and India continue to develop. For example, China's demand has increased by more than 730 million barrels/year in the last five years. This increased demand for oil is typical of a country as its economy grows and expands into a highly developed nation.
Global supply of crude oil has not risen in proportion to the increase in demand. Since 2006, the average daily demand for barrels of oil has exceeded the average supply.

The rise in crude oil and gas prices may be reversed with an increase in oil production.

Because other oil producing countries have been unwilling to increase production, the U.S. must focus on developing its own natural resources.
- Saudi Arabia, the world's number one oil producer, has consistently resisted U.S. calls for a substantial increase in production. From 2006 to 2007, OPEC reduced its yearly production of crude oil by almost 160 million barrels.
- Congress has passed legislation banning the drilling of many oil rich areas in the U.S.
  - The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent State waters are estimated to hold an average of 10.4 billion barrels of oil, possibly the largest oil field in the northern hemisphere. The Senate has consistently passed legislation blocking its development.
  - The Federal Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain an average of 86 billion barrels of oil. However, 85% of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.
  - Shale oil reserves in the Green River Formation hold an estimated 800 billion gallons of recoverable oil, more than three times the proven amount of oil in Saudi Arabia. The 2005 Energy Act called for the development of technologies to extract shale oil, however a Congressional moratoria on the leasing of shale-oil land has halted this effort.

While alternative sources of energy are likely to have an important role to play in our future energy markets, Congress needs to reverse the destructive policies that prevent the exploration and refining of fossil fuels in order to increase domestic supply of energy.

Information taken from the U.S. Geological Survey (www.usgs.gov), the Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov), and GovTrack.us.

Get the Facts: The Un-Examined Cost of Education

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

What is a good education worth? This is the question that American families must answer when making decisions about their child's education. How parents choose to answer that question tends to affect nearly every aspect of their lives, from where they live to their family finances.

The Effects of Location-Based School Assignment

Generally, a child is assigned to a public school based on where they live. Parents dissatisfied with their child's school can move locations, pay to enroll in a private school, or home school. Many policymakers across the country have recognized the need for greater parental control and more options so they have created programs, such as charter school laws. However for most students, the school they attend is a result of where they live.

Most of the debate about education reform centers on the effect that the public school system has on education quality. However, it is also important to consider how this affects families and communities in other ways. For example, the desire of parents to buy homes in jurisdictions with public school systems with a good reputation has lead to escalating home prices in these areas. For example, one study found that a one-point increase in a standardized test score creates a $4,600 house price increase.

As a result, many families make significant financial sacrifices to afford to live in these desirable areas. This includes taking on larger mortgages and depending on two salaries to pay for necessities, leaving them more vulnerable to serious financial hardship.

How School Choice Can Alleviate Financial Pressure on Families and Improve Communities

School choice programs give parents more ways to choose their child's school. This would reduce the pressure on families to live in areas with the best public schools, which would allow families to buy homes more within their means and consider other factors. There are numerous benefits of easing financial pressures on families, from creating greater piece of mind to allowing more opportunity to save for retirement, college, and times of need. In addition, in some cases, reduced financial pressure may enable some families to opt to keep one parent at home or reduce their work schedules.

In addition to helping more families achieve their desired balance of work and family time, enabling more parents to stay home has the potential to positively affect communities. Having more parents available during the day can help change the dynamic to benefit children not only in a given family, but within the community. Stay-at-home parents serve as volunteers for school fieldtrips and act as neighborhood watchdogs, helping make the streets safer for children to play outside and prevent inappropriate behavior. It could also discourage the trend of families with children leaving urban areas, which drains these areas of their tax base, reduces property values, and robs them of some of their most active and concerned citizens, which can be detrimental for crime rates.

All facts taken from More than a Classroom: How School Choice Affects Families, a publication by the Independent Women's Forum, available at iwf.org

Get the Facts: Cap and Trade

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:51:00 EDT

Download the IWF Cap Trade Fact Sheet below.

Although advocates describe "cap and trade" as a free market approach to environmentalism, in many ways it is worse than a tax. In addition to imposing costs on businesses which will be passed on to consumers, a cap-and-trade system is wrought with unintended consequences. This type of system can significantly impede economic growth, as it decreases the number of available jobs and average gross domestic profit.

Let's Not Gloss Over Title IX's Faults

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:05:00 EDT

The Christian Science Monitor

Washington - Title IX has done wonders for women by opening school athletics to them throughout the nation. And as the landmark gender discrimination legislation turns 36 this week, it might be tempting to use the occasion to laud those wonders. But we need to move beyond praise and address the unintended negative consequences the legislation has had on men and on gender equality in general - without erasing the gains women have won.

The problem lies not with the statute itself, but rather its enforcement.

When Title IX was being debated in Congress at its inception, several sponsors assured their fellow members that the bill would not be used to promote gender quotas. Sen. Birch Bayh said that such quotas were "exactly what this amendment intends to prohibit." Quotas might not have been intended for the original law, but, in effect, were later added by government bureaucrats.

The original law simply 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."

Title IX rightly outlaws discrimination in educational programs. And its language does not require enforcing strict gender quotas in athletics. But that's just what's happening and it's a practice that threatens math and science programs, and attacks voluntary, single-sex education programs.

So, how did we get here? The scope of Title IX has expanded dramatically through a combination of court cases and government policy interpretations (mostly through the US Department of Education).

A 1979 interpretation established a three-prong test to show Title IX compliance. Schools could provide proportional representation in their programs based on enrollment, show a history of expanding programs for the underrepresented sex, or demonstrate that their programs meet the interest and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

Proportionality, however, is the only prong that provides a quantitative measure for schools to prove compliance. For example, if 51 percent of the student body is female, a school is considered to be in safe harbor if 51 percent of its athletes are female.

The other prongs are viewed more as temporary measures. They are also more subjective and leave schools vulnerable to lawsuits. It is no surprise then, that schools overwhelmingly see proportionality as the way to prove compliance.

But recent demographic shifts have made it increasingly hard for schools to meet proportionality's demands. Women now account for nearly 6 in 10 undergraduates nationally. That means that to achieve proportionality schools need to have nearly 6 in 10 of their athletes be female. Historically black colleges and universities have an even tougher challenge, as most have a near 2-to-1 female-to-male ratio.

Even when there is ample demand for female athletics on campus, there is often equal, if not greater, demand for men's athletics. Schools are often forced to cap roster spots for men or cut men's programs entirely to balance the numbers. Nonrevenue men's sports, like wrestling and gymnastics, have been particularly hard hit, while large-roster women's sports, like crew, have flourished.

In the long run, it is a disservice to gloss over Title IX's negative effects on male athletics.

A 2007 study by the College Sports Council looked at collegiate athletic participation data from 1981 to 2005. The numbers confirm Title IX's positive impact on women: female athletes per school rose 34 percent and women's teams per school rose 34 percent. On the flip side, men's teams dropped 17 percent while male athletes per school dropped 6 percent. The total number of women's teams has exceeded the total number of men's teams since 1995.

Thankfully, common sense reform measures could restore the original intent of Title IX. The Bush administration took a step in the right direction by offering a model survey to measure student interest in 2005, but it did not go far enough.

The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights should work with schools to develop further guidelines for interest surveys and allow schools to base their programs on the results. In doing so, schools should meet the interest and ability of both sexes rather than just the underrepresented sex.

In the meantime, schools need to be more open about the effects of Title IX. Too often, schools hide behind factors, such as budget constraints, and will not even debate the issue.

Our students deserve a policy that is fair to both sexes. Only then will we have true gender equity.

• Allison Kasic is director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

Illiberal Liberals and the Postmodern American campus

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:46:00 EDT

Campus Report Online

"Who thinks that the United States has a responsibility to promote democracy around the world?," the Barnard professor asked. My hand shot up. I looked around at my fellow students. I saw hesitation in some hands and disagreement in most. The professor responded, "Wow. I thought this campus was full of liberals."

That moment confirmed a troubling observation I have about modern campus liberalism. Certainly Barnard, the women's college of infamously liberal Columbia University, is full of self-identified liberals both in the student body and faculty. But, today's liberal students aren't buying the U.S. democracy-promotion role once championed by Democratic Presidents such as Kennedy and Carter.

What changed on this core concept so that today's liberal students stand apart from their predecessors? It's a mix of current politics and postmodernist cultural relativism that has redefined what it means to be a campus liberal.

A professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz, Barbara Epstein, identified this trend ten years ago in an article in New Politics: "There are many academic departments...in which the subculture of postmodernism holds sway...These programs tend to draw bright students who regard themselves as left, progressive, feminist, concerned with racism and homophobia." This postmodern subculture is alive today and profoundly affects campus politics and activism.

It is a combination of the increasingly popular anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, anti-U.S. politics of today and the philosophy of postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault, who became popular in the U.S. in the late 70s and early 80s. The postmodern student says that we all have our own versions of reality, so no one version is any better than any other; no one person (and no one nation) is in a position to judge or force a policy onto another.

The postmodernist concept ‘it's all relative' was a philosophy championed by many activists because it proclaimed that power (especially that of the West) was oppressive.

Now, on prestigious university campuses it has merged with reactionary, anti-interventionist politics to create a new sort of subculture and student leftism. University liberals once protested human rights violations and made the case that the U.S. needs to intervene in non-democratic countries to protect innocent civilians. Today, they are eager to listen to the dictators of the world. After all, from their perspective, who is to say that our system is superior to theirs?

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, came to speak at Columbia last fall, the student protestors were minimal and were predominately Jewish or conservative. Yet it should not be a partisan or religious issue whether Ahmadinejad's statements are outrageous and Hitler-like. It should be an American issue. This man, and his statements, should have been offensive to all. But the issue quickly became defined by political leaning. The liberal majority of the campus was making it a political statement, saying, "Let him speak" and "We want to hear why he says those things."

Many claimed that they were unwilling to protest the invitation in the name of free speech. But, why were they so eagerly listening instead of yelling blame for human rights abuses against Iranians or in support of Israel's mere existence? Essentially, their response conveyed: "He has an opinion too, and it's all relative, so let's hear what he has to say"-who are we to judge?

Some of Senator Obama's recent statements hint at an affinity with this campus liberal perspective. When speaking to AIPAC, the Israel lobbyist group, a couple weeks ago, Senator Obama called for an Israeli "undivided Jerusalem." Two days later on CNN-after seeing the reaction from Arabs and particularly Palestinians-he took it back. He back peddled saying Jerusalem was still up for negotiation.

The postmodern mindset is a dangerous one to bring to international politics: it creates not just appeasement but the potential for the abandonment of liberalism in the name of being ‘relative' and ‘open-minded.' Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is likely to lead to unimaginable civil and regional wars, experts say. But, that may be perfectly justifiable from the postmodernist perspective: we should let the Iraqis fight it out because who are we to tell them how to run their country?

In his March National Review article, Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president stated, "Postmodernism may sell at Columbia University and Harvard Law School; it doesn't sell nearly as well in the rest of America." Here's to hoping that is still true.

Sarah A. H. Morgan is a junior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum and a senior at Barnard College in New York City.

Title IX Strikes Again

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:45:00 EDT

National Review

This summer, the Olympic Games in Beijing will highlight the best athletes in the world. Some Olympic sports, like basketball, will feature professional superstars in a modern day "dream team." But most sports, true to the Olympic tradition, will highlight the best amateur athletes in the world. Colleges have long served as a training ground for elite amateur athletes, but, unfortunately, several Olympic sports have been under attack on colleges across the country. Sports - especially those like men's gymnastics and wrestling - are endangered species on campuses where few programs remain and more get cut each year.

Athletes at Arizona State University are the latest victims of this disturbing trend. In May, the school announced that it was cutting three men's sports: wrestling, swimming, and tennis. Following public outcry (see SaveASUwrestling.com) and a massive fundraising campaign, wrestling has since been reinstated. ASU swimmers, tennis players, and several coaches were not so lucky.

ASU sports fans were rightfully caught off guard by the recent string of events. The men's wrestling program has logged numerous NCAA championship appearances and a national championship in 1988. The program is one of the only Division I wrestling opportunities in Arizona for the over 5,400 high school wrestlers in the state. The men's swim team also has a history of success, including generating four Olympic gold medalists. The team recently picked up one of the top recruiting classes in the nation for next year. Now those athletes will have to follow their dreams elsewhere.

But perhaps nobody was more surprised by the cuts than the coaches themselves, who were not consulted before the announcement. The school insists that the decision was not a hasty one, so it seems odd that they did not involve the coaches and other official bodies, such as the relevant sports associations and the NCAA, in the search for solutions other than full-scale program cuts.

ASU claims that the primary reason for the cuts was budgetary. However, when one looks at the numbers, that simple explanation seems dubious. Arizona State has an athletic budget of $42 million. The cuts will save the school an estimated $1.1 million - a small sliver of the overall athletic budget. The fact that the coaches and athletic community were not consulted before the cuts (when they could have started to preemptively find endowments for the programs) is suspect. Swimming coach Mike Chasson expressed the team's frustration: "When you're pressed against the wall, people step up (financially). In this situation, we didn't have an opportunity to do that, and that's what the team is upset about."

The latest cuts are not the first time that successful programs have been dropped at Arizona State. In 1993 the school eliminated three men's sports including a competitive gymnastics program that won a national championship in 1986. Like the present-day cuts, the sports had a minimal effect on the athletic budget, saving the school only $350,000 annually.

So, if the budget impact is minimal, what other factors are at play? A release from the school says the cuts were made on the following criteria: financial impact, potential competitive success, conference/regional support and gender equity. The programs were competitive on a national level and popular in the region. That leaves the gender equity - a veiled reference to Title IX - which looms over the heads of every athletic department in the country. Arizona already offers more sports for women than for men. After the cuts the school will offer 21 sports: nine for men, 12 for women.

Title IX proponents have long stated that schools can comply with the law by adding sports for women, without a negative impact on men's teams. Unfortunately, reality tells a different tale. With the current enforcement measures for Title IX, the easiest way for schools to demonstrate compliance is to cut teams to achieve a politically-correct gender balance. The cuts at Arizona State are simply the latest in a long, unfortunate history of program cuts.

It is a shame to see Arizona State shy away from discussing Title IX's role in this decision and lay the blame entirely on the budget. Where budget issues truly are a concern, let's hope that more schools consult with coaches and potential funders to avoid these kinds of cuts. And if Title IX is the real cause, university officials need to speak up so that the public understands the full consequences of the current Title IX enforcement regime. That's the only way change will ever take place.

- Allison Kasic is the director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

First Place Winner, 2007-2008 IWF College Essay Contest

Tue, 06 May 2008 10:07:00 EDT

By Cassidy Bugos

Whether a Democrat or a Republican, the president-elect who takes the oath next January will not have won by the male vote alone, but will have judiciously curried the favor of female constituents nationwide.

Any 2008 Presidential-hopeful who peddles him or herself to women by endlessly touting "reproductive rights," exploiting his supposed boyish charms, or appealing to their mutual sex insults the intelligence of female voters. To lock up the female vote, candidates must prove that they will defend true American values-the same values that have done so much to liberate women in America and around the globe.

The fact is, American women have more to think about these days than how wonderful it is to be female. Consequently, those who vote for Hillary Clinton will not be voting for her simply to celebrate her womanhood, but because they agree with her policies. Those who vote against her will do so because she swings afield of the values of the majority of Americans.

Today more American women want a government that is practical, efficient, and self-limiting, because more American women ascribe to a feminism that is practical, efficient, and self-limiting. A candidate who defends the basic principles of limited government, free markets, affordable health care, choice in education, and a strong, effective foreign policy and national defense is a candidate who defends the interests of American women.

Indeed, these issues especially resonate with female voters since so many women seek their happiness in motherhood while at the same time striving to succeed in challenging and fulfilling careers. Hence women have historically shown a slight preference for big-government Democratic platforms that pledge more services. But this gender gap has narrowed in recent elections, a reflection of the fact that American women are more educated and more financially independent than ever before.

In 2008, all issues will be women's issues.

The candidate who knows what concerns cut across age, income, and education is a candidate who operates on the principle that no welfare program can replace the family. No doubt it would be too much to ask a far-left candidate to promote heterosexual marriage, but as president he or she would be faced with the responsibility of arresting the social and economic decline that started with the breakdown of the family. A candidate who advocates reforming no-fault divorce and making divorce harder to obtain, as well as the removal of the marriage penalties in the tax code, is a candidate who as president would go a long way toward arresting decline. Likewise, reforming the public school system so that parents are free to choose their child's school would be a giant step toward defeating the deterioration of American education.

Women voters know that concrete measures like these, designed to protect the family, would also give long-term stability to the economy. They will be skeptical, however, of candidates who offer straw-man quick-fixes to the problems faced by women, particularly poor women and single mothers. For instance, many Democrat contenders want to increase the minimum wage and mandate more employee benefits, but some women are wary, realizing that an employer who is forced to pay workers more may also be forced to make cost-cutting decisions such as lay-offs and salary reductions. The candidate who understands what women want will promise instead to make tax cuts, increase job opportunities by removing undue regulations, and devise Social Security and pension systems that increase women's opportunities to save and invest their money as they see fit.

Stay-at-home mothers, working mothers, and single women all share in the American spirit of free enterprise and self-reliance. Women represent the greater proportion of purchasing decisions made in the United States, thus benefiting directly from global free trade. However, unlimited expansion does not benefit women if it comes at the expense of stable family life and a healthy moral culture. Increasing political and economic individual freedom is the American way of preserving this balance.

Democrats have a tradition of pandering to women as a bloc, but it is a safe bet that in 2008 they will only be using their usual stale catch-phrases of "reproductive rights" and "equal pay," shaking their fists at imaginary foes while neglecting to address the issues with which American women are most concerned. The ball is in the court of the GOP contender who can show himself tuned in to the real needs and concerns of the female population, and who has realistic solutions to the unique problems faced by women pursuing the American dream.

Second Place Winner, 2007-2008 IWF College Essay Contest

Tue, 06 May 2008 10:03:00 EDT

By Lauren Migliore

The election of 1994 sent shockwaves through the country when it was revealed that the Republicans had captured a majority for the first time in decades in both the House and the Senate from the previously "unbeatable" Democrats. The GOP, which was even referred to as the "Permanent Minority," had defied all odds. A former Democrat-turned-Republican, Newt Gingrich, led the Republicans to this victory with his innovative ideas that championed the free market and were presented on a unified, national level. It was beautifully orchestrated, but, as recent events have shown, victory was short-lived. This important moment in history can serve as a lesson to contemporary Republican politicians looking to turn the tide back to the right. The year of 2007 could be like 1993, when people felt the tremors underfoot of a revolution already underway, or it could resemble 2005, when Republicans who were continuing to drift away from their core principles of a free market and limited government had the rug pulled out from under them (except this time, the rug might be the White House). The secret to a new revolution and prevention of a Democratic takeover: The Women's Vote.

Democrats like to consider women their "Permanent Majority" and count on women voters to move as a single block to sweep their supposed candidate, Hillary Clinton, into the White House for another eight years. Democratic candidates are well aware of their edge on the women's vote and exploit it daily in their rhetoric on the campaign trail and taskforces giving lip-service to "women's issues." In order to curb the Democratic momentum, the GOP must pay attention to these subjects-not only because it will aid Republicans in victory, but because women's issues and their principles go hand in hand.

The GOP has the opportunity to redefine the debate over women's issues this election. Democratic oratories propagating issues that were dominant at a time when bras fueled bonfires and radical feminist diatribes against alleged Republican chauvinism were rampant are no longer resonating with female voters. This is evident in the closing of the gender gap between male and female voting records. To reinforce this trend, the Republican candidate must show women how the Democratic Party is out of touch with the ideas of the 21^st century when technology and a service-driven economy reign supreme. Democrats are still rooted in the post-industrial politics of the New Deal era-a time that catered to labor unions and big bureaucracy. Voters reward policy innovation and new ideas and are growing tired of the age-old rap appealing to "equal pay," "the right to choose," and the ERA.

The women's issues of the 21^st century have evolved significantly over the past 50 years and truly have underlying parallels to the conservative agenda. The woman of the new millennium is a working mother and wife who cares about the financial stability of her family and the society in which her children grow up. Basic economics teaches us that free markets bring about wealth and economic prosperity, which in turn bring about stable families and communities. Here Republicans have an opportunity to show women voters their appeal. For instance, the flat tax would eliminate the "marriage tax" and progressive tax codes that punish married working women. Republicans also champion new innovations such as "flex time" that promote flexibility in the workforce and have championed freedom with other issues like healthcare options. President Bush tried till he was blue in the face to articulate how Americans would benefit from the freedoms of private Social Security accounts-only to be blocked by Democratic obstructionists. School choice and voucher programs have been advocated by the Republican administration. All these programs are designed to help families and restore freedom and a culture of ownership back into American society.

Women's issues are Republican issues. The GOP does not need secret war rooms to devise a strategy to appeal to women voters. They already have it-their platform! The deficiency does not lie in the message but in the execution of the message. Republicans need to wake up and smell the opportunity. Perhaps they need another strong visionary leader, like Newt Gingrich, to capitalize on such opportunity. Or perhaps soccer moms toting briefcases will storm the steps of the Capital to bring about a second coming of 1994. Regardless of how it happens, one thing is for sure, a second Revolution for the Republicans, led by women voters, is within reach. All they need to do is claim it.

Third Place Winner, 2007-2008 IWF College Essay Contest

Tue, 06 May 2008 10:00:00 EDT

By Sara Elizabeth Walter

When I walked into the ballroom of the Pennsylvania College Republican State Convention Dinner last spring, I had prepared myself to be a woman in a sea of men. I was pleasantly surprised to see that about 40% of the attendees at the convention were female-and many of them holding important positions within their College Republicans chapters. I have been told by feminist professors and teachers for years that women were incredibly underrepresented in politics, and that this was because the system was inherently chauvinistic (particularly on the conservative side). Was I, along with the rest of the women present, merely succumbing to this misogynist view? I tend to differ in this viewpoint. Women shouldn't be treated any different than men (which is what I thought the entire goal of the feminist movement was in the first place), and this applies to politics too. I have never been looked upon as "revolutionary" or "different" because I am a woman in Republican politics-unless it's a Democrat who is doing the looking, in which case I am a rare bird who must be insane to put up with the constant misogyny which they believe is so prevalent within the conservative movement.

In this election cycle, with Hillary Clinton and so much emphasis on women as a powerful bloc of voters, I question whether women should have separate issues. If feminism is succeeding, then shouldn't the left recognize that women as a whole most often prioritize the same issues as men when deciding whom they will vote for? The news media often report how Clinton will sweep the female vote because she is female. The left cries that if you don't vote for Hillary, you don't want to give a woman the chance to be president. Such claims are pure hogwash, designed to make women not empowered, but ignorant and apathetic. By using scare tactics to make women think that they can only support a fellow woman for president, the Democrats are making a dangerous assumption-that women feel alienated by men. However, by and large, women won't vote for a woman merely because of a hatred of men-a myth that the feminist movement has trusted for far too long.

"Women's issues" is quite a vague term unto itself, although almost every Democratic presidential candidate has hired staff for just this topic. Generally, included in this category are abortion, health care, welfare (particularly for single mothers). But what Democrats aren't saying, and what Republicans haven't quite cashed in on yet, is that these are not uniquely women's issues-men care just as much. And even more so, the conservative capitalist, free market economic policies would benefit women (particularly married women-a demographic oft-ignored by feminist groups as traitors) and give them more freedom and opportunity through financial independence based on tax breaks. Also, since many health care decisions are made by women, the health care plans proposed by Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani should be lauded as another way to place more power in the hands of women in determining how they would like their health care plan. Instead, conservative candidates thus far seem to be focusing on exactly what you would think the feminists (in theory) would love-there are no women's issues, only issues which affect women as well as men.

In the movie "Little Women," Jo March says of women's suffrage, "I find it poor logic to say that women should vote because they are good. Men do not vote because they are good; they vote because they are male, and women should vote, not because we are angels and men are animals, but because we are human beings and citizens of this country." Thus, women should not vote for Hillary (or for any other candidate, for that matter) because they represent "women's issues." In truth, there are no "women's issues"-no more than there are "men's issues." There are only American issues-and these are the issues we should be focusing on in this election cycle. By alleging that candidates should have staff to deal with "women's issues," they are only perpetuating the myth that women should be treated separately and differently than men. Perhaps if the Democratic candidates focused on the real issues this election cycle, we would have a much better dialogue and better-developed policy proposals.

IWF Essay Contest Winners 2007-2008

Mon, 05 May 2008 12:11:00 EDT

The Independent Women's Forum is pleased to announce the winners of the 2007-2008 IWF College Essay Contest. IWF received hundreds of essays for this year's contest. Full-time, female undergraduate students were asked to submit an essay no longer than 750 words, answering the question: What role should "women's issues" play in the 2008 elections and how do you define women's issues?

The awards include: First Place Award - $5,000, Second Place Award - $2,000, Third Place Award - $1,000, and Ten Honorable Mentions - $250

The winners are:

1^st Place Cassidy Bugos, Christendom College

2^nd Place Lauren Migliore, Kalamazoo College

3^rd Place Sara Elizabeth Walter, Lafayette College

Honorable Mentions:

Ashley Amidon, George Mason University

Kyli Archibald, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Marina Buryak, Stetson University

Catherine Helsley, Randolph College

Jeanette Moll, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Courtney Parry, Saint Mary's College Notre Dame

Megan Proehl, Ohio State University

Jessica Richman, Stanford University

Morgan Wilkins, Indiana University Southeast

Jiayi Zhou, University of California, Berkeley

Congratulations to all of the winners!

V-Day Comes to New Orleans

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:03:00 EDT

Townhall.com

Watch out, New Orleans: "Vagina Warriors" are headed your way. This weekend V-Day will celebrate its 10th anniversary with a two-day festival in New Orleans, or "the vagina of America," as V-Day board member and actress Rosario Dawson called it at the luncheon announcing the festivities. Why New Orleans? V-Day's website says, "We need to celebrate New Orleans, cherish it, protect it, just as we do our vaginas, and make sure it goes on and on."

Celebrities, including mega-stars Katie Holmes and Oprah Winfrey, have signed on in droves to attend the vagina festival, but one wonders if they know what they are really supporting. V-Day's mission is to end violence against women, surely a noble cause. But when you look at the activities done in the name of V-Day, it's clear that this about more than just ending violence. On campus, V-Day groups sell vagina-shaped lollipops, chocolates, and t-shirts with slogans like "I love Vagina" and "A vagina by any other name would smell just as sweet." They parade around campus in vagina costumes, or in the case of the George Washington University, have a four-foot-tall "living vagina" named Joan on display. If ending violence is really the aim, V-Day's organizers have some bizarre tactics.

The New Orleans celebration is of a similar nature. The Superdome will transform into SUPERLOVE, "a place to heal, gather, celebrate and activate to change the story of women." During the event, V-Day organizers say they will "reclaim the dome, transforming it into a place of empowerment and action." Activities will include everything from slam poetry (a staple at leftist events), a parade, storytelling, and art to free massages, yoga, meditation, and makeovers. If you favor more blatantly political activities, you can celebrate "everyday activists doing extraordinary things" which will feature liberal political activists like CODE PINK co-founder Jodie Evans, or take in a panel on race and gender issues in post-Katrina Gulf South or discuss "the connections and parallels between our treatment of the earth and our treatment of women's bodies." And for those attendees who just like to boogie, Gabriella Roth will lead an "ecstatic dancing experience for all attendees."

Of course, the event will end with a performance of The Vagina Monologues, including a new monologue to be performed by Oprah Winfrey. The Monologues have always been the centerpiece of the V-Day movement, so it's worth taking a closer look at the play's content. Some people are taken aback by the often vulgar nature of the play (shouting "c*nt" on stage over and over, for example), but the material is just as disturbing.

For starters, the play is extremely anti-male. Nearly all of the men featured in the play are despicable characters. The only "positive" male character is "Bob," who enjoys staring at vaginas. It's difficult to see how that is a redeeming quality, but in the context of the play he stands out as the most worthy male.

You might not be surprised that men are stereotyped, but women are too as they are constantly treated as sex objects. The plays message, after all, is that women's path to empowerment is "embracing" their vaginas. They should aim to "be" their vaginas and discover themselves through sexual acts. The Monologues blatantly promote promiscuous behavior-a message that could be easily construed as socially irresponsible in an age where sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise among young people and women are especially vulnerable to STDs.

The women of New Orleans have certainly had a rough time recently with the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. It's hard to see how a vagina parade or slam poetry session will help them recover, let alone stop violence against women (there are after all, other ways to hold a fundraiser). The women of New Orleans-women everywhere actually-deserve a positive message about women and relationships. And if V-Day's past behavior is any guide, they are not capable of providing that message.

Allison Kasic is the director of R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

2007-2008 Essay Contest Finalists

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:12:00 EST

The Independent Women's Forum is pleased to announce the finalists for the 2007-2008 college essay contest. Full-time, female undergraduate students were asked to answer the question: What role should "women's issues" play in the 2008 elections and how do you define women's issues? First prize is $5,000.

These outstanding essays have been forwarded to our prestigious panel of judges who will award the prizes among this group. Winners will be announced later this spring and the winning essays will be featured on IWF's website.

Ashley Amidon - George Mason University

Kyli Archibald - Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Cassidy Bugos - Christendom College

Marina Buryak - Stetson University

Laura Duszynski - Marquette University

Rachel Elsner - University of Houston

Caroline Gaorman - St. John's College

Catherine Helsley - Randolph College

Lora Hines - Friends University

Tiffany Lanham - University of South Florida

Melissa LeDue - University of Wisconsin

Jeanette Moll - University of Wisconsin

Lauren Migliore - Kalamazoo College

Courtney Parry - Saint Mary's College Notre Dame

Megan Proehl - Ohio State University

Jessica Richman - Stanford University

Courtney Silver - University of Florida

Sara Walter - Lafayette College

Carol Warner - New York Institute of Technology

Morgan Wilkins - Indiana University Southeast

Jiayi Zhou - University of California, Berkeley

Take Back the Date

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:14:00 EST

Townhall.com

Valentine's Day has something for everyone: elementary school children can exchange Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Winnie the Pooh valentines; couples plan romantic dates; flower sales surge; groups of friends get together to watch the latest romantic comedy on DVD; and, there is always candy. Everyone likes candy. Even cynics can rejoice in their hatred of Valentine's Day - there is a growing market for "anti-Valentine's Day" products, such as candy hearts and greeting cards with snarky messages about relationships.

On campus the holiday has become a more ominous occasion, serving as a striking reminder of just how dysfunctional the collegiate dating scene has become. Gone are candlelit dinners and a night out on the town. Dating, in general, is an endangered species on campus. In its stead is the hook-up: casual physical encounters, ranging from kissing to sex, with no expectation of commitment.

The hook-up culture has real harmful effects, especially on women. Women are more physically vulnerable to sex, running the risk of getting pregnancy and more likely to contract many sexually transmitted diseases. Many also face emotional distress associated with casual sex-women may tell themselves that it's no big deal, but their bodies and hormones signal otherwise. Many young women are left feeling confused and depressed.

Thanks in large part to several books on the subject, the negative effects of the hook-up culture are making their way into popular dialogue. Laura Sessions Steep, author of Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both, sums up the hook-up scene in this way, "Love, while desired by some, is being put on hold or seen as impossible; sex is becoming the primary currency of social interaction. Some girls can handle this; others...are exhausted physically, emotionally and spiritually by it. They struggle largely outside the awareness of parents who either don't know what is going on or are vaguely aware but don't know what to do."

One would expect campus feminists to rally on this issue and protest a culture that could be properly cast as demeaning. But you'll be lucky to hear a peep from most campus feminists on the issue. They are too busy parading around campus with a 4-foot "living vagina" named "Joan" (That's at George Washington University), hosting a "Panty Drop Sock Hop: Benefiting Vagina's Everywhere" party (University of North Texas), selling "I love Vagina" t-shirts (Bucknell University), or playing a rousing game of "sex toy bingo" (University of Delaware). They might also be busy performing The Vagina Monologues (which visits hundreds of campuses each year) or hosting a performance of the Sex Workers Art Show (which is scheduled to visit at least 14 campuses this spring).

If it were men's groups that were promoting these events, no doubt they would be visited with sit-ins, protests, and would eventually be forced off campus. But it's women's group sponsoring these events that either play into the hook-up culture or blatantly promote it. The Sex Workers Art Show is a "celebration of whore culture." Performers (strippers, porn film stars, sex phone operators, etc.) parade around stage in little, if any, clothing engaging in a series of R-rated skits. The Vagina Monologues glorifies promiscuity and treats women as sex objects. Women should "embrace" their vaginas, "be" their vaginas. Women are literally defined by, and reduced to their genitalia. Women on campus deserve better from these so-called feminists.

Luckily, all is not lost. Students don't have to buy into a hyper-sexualized Valentine's Day and feminist movement. Students fed up with the hook-up culture can "take back the date." If you like someone, ask them out on a real date. Celebrate romance. Reject the notion that it is empowering to detach sex from emotion. The power to transform the hook-up culture rests with individual students, and there is no better time to start than Valentine's Day.

Allison Kasic is the director of R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

Free Cupid

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:06:00 EST

Download IWF's "Free Cupid!" flyer in time for Valentine's Day.

For more information on IWF's Take Back the Date initiative, click here.

Student Activism Ideas

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:37:00 EST

Free Cupid:

Pass out IWF's "Free Cupid" flyers on your campus. The provocative ad is sure to cause debate on your campus. Simply print the flyer on bright paper and post it around campus on bulletin boards. Download the flyer here.

Write Something:

Send a letter to the editor to your school paper voicing your concern about the dangerous messages that V-Day promotes. More people read the letter to the editor section than any other section in the newspaper, so lots of people are bound to hear your ideas. If you write for the school paper, do a Valentine's Day themed op-ed. Encourage students to take back the date from radical feminists.

Raise Money:

Show radical feminists that it is possible to raise money to support women's charities without performing a vulgar and demeaning play. Several student groups have had success selling flowers (a romantic gesture!) as a fundraiser. See the "student stories" section for more details.

Teach Self-Defense:

V-Day's goal is to end violence against women, yet they do little to actually reach this goal. Show that you are committed to this important goal by actually doing something productive. Organize a self-defense class. Teach female students how to safely operate a firearm-by far the best method of self-defense. Invite V-Day members to participate. If they decline, point out their hypocrisy.

Host a Speaker:

Bring an expert to campus. Invite Christina Hoff Sommers or an IWF expert to campus to discuss V-Day, The Vagina Monologues, and radical feminism. If you can't bring in an outside speaker, organize a student debate. Invite two V-Day members to debate two V-Day opponents.

Talk to Your Friends:

Spark a debate with your friends. What do they think of V-Day? What do they think of the campus "hook-up" culture? These are important issues. Start the debate on your campus!