Will we soon see the enforcement of a burqa law on K Street?

Apparently not only is the far right group now commonly known as the Republican Party trying to impose Taliban-like laws and policies on women in the United States (limiting access to contraception and abortion, opposing paid sick leave, maternity leave, and fair pay, promising to repeal minimum wage laws and gut social security, questioning the need for insurance coverage of breast exams, maternity care and other women’s health concerns, for example) they are now acting more and more like the men in ultra-orthodox religious societies.  They’ve decided women are so dangerous and tempting to men that House Minority Leader John Boehner has, according to Erin Bradford writing in The Hill, “instructed male Republicans to avoid getting drunk and partying with female lobbyists or even meeting privately with them.” 

She asks:

Is this an attempt to avoid the “appearance of impropriety” and preserve “family values”? Or is this just an attempt on the part of the Republicans to ensure that no scandals arise prior to November’s elections that might harm their chances for the sweeping victory they are hoping for?

It may be all of the above, but the comparisons are clear: Embedded in fundamentalist societies–whether among ultra-orthodox Jewish communities or fundamentalist Islamic ones–and increasingly in our own culture–is the notion that the woman is temptress and the man is highly vulnerable to her wiles.  It’s Adam and Eve all over and over and over again.

I agree with Radford that “whatever the real motivation behind the act…”

[T]he result is clear – women lobbyists already disadvantaged in the male-dominated world of the federal government will be put at an even greater disadvantage.

So instead of seeing women professionals as (wait for it) professionals who are women, the Republicans see them as a threat.  They aren’t strong enough to resist temptation so they don’t even bother with the usual trappings of the old boys club (male-only basketball games, golf games, meetings in the gym sauna).  Instead, they just don’t do business with those gals for fear or distraction or, temptation so great it causes a pre-election scandal threatening their power to, among other things, further control women.

Radford finds irony in the fact that this policy, which “essentially puts the entire responsibility for preserving the family on the female lobbyist – even when it’s someone else’s family,” is endorsed by Concerned Women for America (CWA). 

She asks:

Is it not the responsibility of the male legislator to not cheat on his wife?  This policy essentially paints the female lobbyist as the temptress and, by applauding his decision to remove the temptation entirely, forgives the male legislator’s behavior entirely, as if he is unable to resist her allure.

Unfortunately it’s not ironic; it’s the main point. In traditionalist and fundamentalist societies women win power when they support the male agenda, even at their own peril.  This is why, for example, women are found enforcing female genital mutilation in parts of Africa, why surveys show women often feel they “deserve to be beaten,” and why in some societies women withhold health care and food from themselves and their daughters in favor of their husbands and sons.  In the U.S., its the Sarah Palins, Christine O’Donnells, Phyllis Schlaflys, Sharron Angles and the Concerned Women of America groups that are the female enforcers of the patriarchy.  Its how they win acceptance.

And in the world of sexist thinking and conservative values–guided by implicit or explicit religious dictates–women are the temptresses, men the victims.  The men “can’t help themselves.” Which is why to CWA, Boehner’s decision makes sense.

And these notions not only are reinforced by conservative women, they are being reinforced at every level of our society through, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage education the past 15 years.  Many programs supported by groups like CWA, Focus on the Family, the National Abstinence-Education Association, among others, teach girls that they are the enforcers of chastity and the guardians of virginity.  It is their duty to protect their virtue and hold that guy off until he produces a ring.

The same principle is inherent in the charade that happens every time a male politician “strays” from his marriage and then goes through the kabuki theater of public apology and forgiveness.  The guy’s a guy: He can’t help himself.

Yes, as Radford states:

Rep. Boehner’s directive places the entire responsibility on the woman in these situations, as women legislators have not been told to avoid private meetings with male lobbyists.  It implies that the women, whether lawmakers or lobbyists, do not need to avoid temptation, as they are the temptation.  Whether the interaction remains professional seems to be entirely under the woman’s control, and therefore responsibility.  Additionally, this policy maintains traditional stereotypes about sex and gender further by completely ignoring the possibility of homosexual lobbyists or lawmakers.  Also, how common are unprofessional interactions between lobbyists and lawmakers?  Are they really suggesting that appearances alone are enough to justify discrimination against one class of lobbyists?

But aren’t the very same notions inherent in the culture of rape apologists, the flood of laws against women’s access to contraception and abortion, and episodes like the one we recently saw with Krystal Ball?  Women are sexual beings men can’t resist.  They are only “good” women when they control their powers and act in the best interests of male norms.  Men are powerless and ultimately, ultimately blameless.

So of course, as Radford notes, female lobbyists are the ones who are cut off from the majority of lawmakers, while male lobbyists are hardly affected.

Of course, as Radford states, “Boehner’s policy could have the negative effect of essentially keeping women out of the lobbying profession entirely, though about one-third of lobbyists currently are women and their share of the profession has been increasing rapidly in recent years.”

Lobbying firms primarily made up of women would of course then be at a distinct disadvantage and could be forced to close down or begin hiring more men in order to continue to be effective.  Are we really suggesting in this day and age that there are certain jobs that should be considered inappropriate for women?

And of course as she says:

Given the extremely low percentage of women in Congress and the historical dominance of men in lobbying, women lobbyists have always been forced to play by the rules determined by men long ago in order to have a chance of being taken seriously.  Shouldn’t we be looking at changing the rules instead of blaming women for not fitting neatly into the mold?  It seems very hard to justify in 2010 maintaining a system where lobbying a lawmaker for a certain position on an issue must include “drinking and partying.”

But the fact is this: Equitable opportunities for women writ large are not a concern for the Republican majority.  Never have been.  Women–even those like Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Carly Fiorina–are only useful to the male majority when they are in fact useful to the male majority.  After that they are dispensable.

Radford states that:

Creating a system by which lobbyists have access to lawmakers while maintaining integrity and professionalism at all times would benefit all parties involved and not require any discrimination against women.

True.  If you were concerned about creating such a system.  John Boehner is not.

And if those female lobbyists make enough trouble, they might be asked to wear burqas on K Street so there’s absolutely no question the important men like Mr. Boehner are not distracted from their mission of stripping the rest of us of our rights.