Independent Women's Forum
The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is an American conservative, non-profit organization focused on economic policy issues of concern to women.[4][5] IWF was founded by activist Rosalie Silberman to promote a "conservative alternative to feminist tenets" following the controversial Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1992.[6] IWF's sister organization is the Independent Women's Voice (IWV), a 501(c)(4) organization.
"iwf.org" redirects here. For the .uk site, see Internet Watch Foundation.Founded
1992
Women's rights, equity feminism, property rights, free markets, democracy, foreign policy,[1] domestic violence, campus issues, health care, labor policy[2]
- 1875 I Street NW, S-500
Washington, D.C. 20006
United States, Iraq, Afghanistan
Educational programs, awards, grants, political commentary
Sabrina Schaeffer, Carrie Lukas, Heather Higgins, Christina Hoff Sommers, Lynne V. Cheney, Wendy Lee Gramm, Midge Decter, Kate O'Beirne
$5,680,509[3]
The group advocates "equity feminism", a term first used by IWF author Christina Hoff Sommers to distinguish "traditional, classically liberal, humanistic feminism" from "gender feminism", which she says opposes gender roles and patriarchy.[7] According to Sommers, the gender feminist view is "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders",[7] and "thrives on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex.'"[8] Sommers' equity feminism has been described as anti-feminist by critics.[9]
Origin and history[edit]
Founded in 1992 by Rosalie Silberman, Anita K. Blair, and Barbara Olson,[6][10] the IWF grew out of the ad hoc group "Women for Judge Thomas," created to reinforce Clarence Thomas against allegations of sexual harassment and other sex-based illegal behavior and in his stance as EEOC Chair refusing to enforce of laws against sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.[11] By 1996 the organization had some 700 dues-paying members who met regularly at luncheons to network and share ideas.[12] Silberman was the IWF's first president; subsequent leaders have included Nancy Pfotenhauer and Anita Blair. The current president of the organization is Carrie Lukas.[13] The IWF has been described as "a virtual 'Who's Who' of Washington's Republican establishment."[12][14] In 2006, the organization had 20,337 members and a budget of $1.05 million.[4]
Equity feminism[edit]
The IWF opposes many mainstream feminist positions, describing them as "radical feminism", but rather focuses on equity feminism.[7] IWF-affiliated writers have argued that the sex gap in income exists because of IWF women's greater demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers, rather than because of sexism. In an article for the Dallas Morning News, IWF Vice-president Carrie Lukas attributed sex disparities in income to "[IWF] women's own choices", writing that [IWF] women "tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. [IWF women] tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do. Men disproportionately take on the most dirty, dangerous and depressing jobs."[15]
The IWF also argues that feminists manufacture domestic violence legislation that "is misleading because it is premised on and mean to advance feminist ideology."[16] This falls under their larger belief that "feminists ... lie about data, are opportunistic, construct men as the enemy, and cast women as helpless victims."[16]
Conservative commentators have praised the IWF; Linda Chavez credited Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, a 1999 book published in part by the IWF, with "debunk[ing] much of the feminists' voodoo economics."[17] Writing in Capitalism Magazine, John Stossel cited Michelle Bernard's 2007 book Women's Progress as evidence that "American women have never enjoyed more options or such a high quality of life."[18]
Some writers have asserted that feminist rhetoric is used by the IWF for anti-feminist ends.[19][4] A New York Times editorial described the IWF as "a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women."[20]
Domestic policy and programs[edit]
United States healthcare policy[edit]
In 2009, IWF produced a political advertisement run on YouTube and in eight states arguing that "300,000 American women with breast cancer might have died" if U.S. healthcare included a government-funded option.[21][22] FactCheck.org labeled the IWF ad "a false appeal to women's fears", finding that the IWF ad relied on "old statistics, faulty logic and false insinuations."[23]
Funding[edit]
Donors to IWF have included Donors Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, the Randolph Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.[38][39][40] Another major sponsor is the Charles Koch Institute, while Facebook, Dick DeVos and the Walton Family Foundation have also given money to the organization.[41]