Maria Shriver’s ambitious report, The Shriver Report — A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything, has grabbed our attention and focused us on a national priority of the highest importance. Women’s equality is, I believe, an even greater priority than health care reform, because closing the gender gap is necessary for the success of a sustainable, productive modern society. The report is interesting, often provocative, and in some ways groundbreaking. It surely requires the attention of anyone who cares, even a little bit, about women’s issues — which should mean just about everyone. Women’s issues, like men’s issues, affect us all in the most far-reaching and, too often, unimaginable ways.
In a blog posting, I reacted against the optimism of the feminist movement, a movement of hope and promise that has teased us for more than three decades. But with publication of the report, I must acknowledge that the elephant in the room can no longer be ignored. The Shriver Report is a seriously committed, highly visible, complex take on the heretofore relatively academic and unsexy discussion of women’s rights and gender discrimination.
But the fanfare surrounding the report’s arrival must be accompanied by more than cheerleading and self-congratulatory rhetoric. AAUW has provided some concrete policy recommendations, but policies can only serve to guide actionable solutions implemented through tight timelines that must result in substantive, measurable change. We have enough evidence that our inaction is harmful. We cannot waste one more year, month, week, hour, or minute of precious resources — our women.
At more than 400 pages, the report has the feel of a comprehensive study, but that is not the case. It covers so much ground that it necessarily paints with a broad brush. Health care is one area in which I would like to see a more complex understanding of the effects of gender disparity on our society. Not just for women physicians who take care of men, women, and children, but also for women patients and women caregivers, the latter of whom currently bear the bulk of responsibility for the ill and infirm.
Let’s not think of this quest as a road to women’s equality in health care. Let us think of it as a journey that results in a mutual lift of both men and women from the reality of today to a more ideal place where both can realize their highest potential in multiple roles tomorrow. Let’s not assume that where men are today is the place that women and men want to and need to be tomorrow.
“From the Real to the Ideal” is a series of blogs for the AAUW audience (who should think of joining this great organization if they don’t already belong). How do we see where we are — the “real”? How do we measure it? What is worth reporting and measuring? And what would be our “ideal”? Is there even a place for one point of view? Clearly not, but can we identify a set of shared ideals that are incontrovertible no matter where you stand on the political, social, religious, or socioeconomic spectra?
I intend to examine the Shriver report in terms of the gender gap in health care. My intention is to inspire realistic, actionable steps that can then be implemented with firm resolve and without delay to carry us from the real closer to the ideal. Together, let’s start this journey now.
This post was written by Dr. Linda Brodsky, Pediatric Otolaryngologist and advocate for gender and pay equity. Dr. Brodsky also blogs at The Brodsky Blog.
Note: While we welcome open dialog, the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of AAUW.
Abortion rights is the single most polarizing issue for women’s rights in general. This has been detrimental even to the pro-life movement.
If women are to succeed in having the ability (and courage) to direct their own destiny, then we have to find common ground so that pro-life, anti-abortion, and pro-choice feminists can work together on other issues.
Abortion is terribly sad, especially for someone like me who has dedicated her life to the health and welfare of children. I do not know the answers for all, I am not even sure I know the answers for myself.
For better or worse, the emancipation of any ethnic, gender, minority, subjugated group is dependent on choice. And for better or worse, it is a woman’s body that has to bear the unborn child. Thus there is a conundrum that I won’t even try to solve in this column.
You make many good points, but let’s stick to what change we can effect and what choices we can enhance together.
I’m all for equal pay, and women’s health rights, but I draw the line at abortion rights. A pre-born baby is still a baby. Roe V. Wade was decided upon the right to a woman’s privacy, thus avoiding the issue of the rights of the unborn child. If we don’t value ALL human life, then we deteriorate as a society and will start down the ‘slippery slope’ of deciding who’s life has more value than whom.
Come one, does it make sense for a women to be able to put an end to the life of her own baby; but, punish someone for destroying a Condor egg? And, how many women are aborting children suspected of having Down’s Syndrome, or some other birth defect. Do we really believe the message that a disabled life is not a worthwhile life?