Institute for Policy Studies  –  www.ips-dc.orgPolitical Research Associates

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Independent Women’s Forum


Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

About

The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), originally an ad hoc organization called Women for Clarence Thomas, was founded in 1991. Barbara Ledeen, wife of Michael Ledeen, was its first executive director. The IWF is the neoconservative counterweight to the progressive National Organization for Women (NOW). IWF is fighting the culture war against the inroads of the women’s liberation movement by challenging efforts to establish women’s equity in sports and by opposing the Violence Against Women Act and the Women’s Educational Equity Act. Its mission statement states that the IWF “is dedicated to advancing the spirit of enterprise and self-reliance among women, and supporting the principles of political freedom, economic liberty, and personal responsibility.” (1) (2)

The IWF is well connected to the Bush administration through various public figures, such as Elaine Chao, labor secretary, former Heritage Foundation fellow, and wife of Christian right leader Rep. Mitch O’Connell (R-KY). Lynne Cheney, who was until recently an IWF board member, is wife of Bush’s vice president; Paula Dobriansky was a board member before joining the administration as undersecretary of state for global affairs; and IWF member Lynne Munson is deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The International Women’s Forum is using its high-powered media staff and publications connections to ensure that the issue of boys’ rights and the perceived repression of boys by the women’s movement become the leading civil rights issues of this decade. Internationally, the Independent Women’s Forum, along with religious right and right-wing social conservative organizations such as Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, International Right to Life Federation, and American Life League, have either been granted or are seeking NGO consultative status with the United Nations with the encouragement of the Bush administration. (2)

Among the many other administration connections include Gayle Wilson, wife of Defense Policy Board member Pete Wilson; Wade Horn, an IWF adviser who directs the National Fatherhood Initiative joined the administration in the Department of Health and Human Services; Barbara Olson, a founding member, is the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson; and Michael Ledeen, husband of Barbara Ledeen, is a close adviser to Karl Rove among others in the administration. (2)

The IWF opposes affirmative action and Title IX programs (designed to prevent sexual discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal dollars), and believes that the over emphasis on women’s rights has resulted in fraudulent and exaggerated charges of rape, wage discrimination, gender bias, and domestic violence. The George W. Bush administration appointed the IWF’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer, to the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. Pfotenhauer opposed the Violence Against Women Act along with IWF’s Margot Hill, who was also appointed to the committee. Pfotenhauer was also appointed delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, commissioner of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, and Secretary of Labor’s Committee on Workplace Issues. (3)

According to Media Transparency, the only valid part of IWF’s name is that it has women members. Its claim of independence, according to Media Transparency, is a dubious one considering that it receives most of its funding from conservative foundations. Neither can it claim to be a “forum” given that it voices only represents right-wing viewpoints concerning the status of women. (4)

Funding

Since 1994, the IWF has received over $3 million dollars from the following foundations: Sarah Scaife Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, JM Foundation Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, The Lynde And Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., Scaife Family Foundation, and The Carthage Foundation. (5)

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Please click the following link to bookmark this page:


If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.

Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.

Close
Independent Women’s Forum News Feed

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Sources
(1) Independent Women's Forum
http://www.iwf.org/

(2) Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, “Women’s Forum Challenges Feminists, Gains Influence,” Washington Post, May 1, 2001.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25123-2001Apr30.html

(3) Bill Berkowitz, “TeamBush to abused women: Fuhgedaboutit! Right-wing appointees spread their wings across the Beltway,” Working for Change, October 25, 2002.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=13980

(4) Media Transparency: Independent Women’s Forum
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/iwf.htm

(5) Media Transparency: Independent Women’s Forum Funding
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?163
Latest Feature Articles
Whither the Liberal Hawks?

Jim Lobe | January 31, 2012

Tehran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with mounting threats from hawks in Israel and the United States, has brought the possibility of war sharply into view. But a number of influential members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including several prominent liberal interventionists who supported the invasion of Iraq—are warning against further escalation.

Rise of the Vulcans Redux

Peter Certo | December 19, 2011

The purported “end of the neocon consensus” has hardly meant an end to hawkishness in the GOP fold. With the Republican candidates virtually all gunning for Iran, backing right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and stabling a passel of neoconservative advisers (Ron Paul excepted), voters have plenty of clues about what the foreign policy of a new GOP administration would look like. And while some of the candidates have expressed wariness with neoconservative notions of armed democracy promotion, all the signs indicate that if a Republican wins next year, we will likely be in for a bit if George W. redux.

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

Michael Flynn and Peter Certo | December 13, 2011

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The China Divide and the Future of the GOP

Robert Farley | November 08, 2011

The issue of whither U.S. relations with China is an important test case for observing the divide between the free market and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. Thus far, the GOP presidential candidates have largely failed to articulate a vision of China that comes anywhere close to reflecting the complexity of U.S.-Chinese relations. Among the leading candidates, Mitt Romney has arguably been the most aggressive in his discussion of China policy. Yet, his embrace of a hawkish line towards Beijing would appear to indicate that President Obama’s would-be challengers have not yet found an alternative vocabulary for talking and thinking about one of the critical foreign policy issues of the 2012 election. It seems clear that even though neoconservatives lack grassroots support, they offer what is effectively the only option for an “establishment” GOP candidate, a fact that could have lasting impact both on the viability of any Republican Party foreign policy platform as well as future U.S. decision-making vis-à-vis other hotspots like Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

Right Web | rightweb.irc-online.org


1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036
USA
|
|
202-234-9382

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Right Web is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies; www.ips-dc.org