I am looking for an organization that rolls-up it sleeves and breaks through partisan policy disagreements and makes policy recommendations that benefit women

Again, I’m not a TNA member but as I understand TNA rolls up its sleeves and breaks through partisan disagreements on sex discrimination issues. I guess you’re searching for feminist non-partisan work on other issues as well. If you find an organization that does that I’d appreciate it if you’d post their name here.

Good ideas and suggestion. I am assuming TNA reads its own blogs so I will leave it at that. Given your thoughts, I would change the mission statement to read:

“The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home by supporting women who run for public office, or aspire to leadership roles in corporate America and by identifying and boycotting individuals and organizations that foster sexism in the media. TNA is non-partisan and does not take stands on governmental issues but relies on the dynamics of having more women in office and within leadership positions to foster policies that promote female equity, equality and advancement.”

Well, while I know you do not represent TNA, the statement above is a clear and actionable mission statement. It specifically tells the reader what you will and will not do such that they can support TNA.

Although this mission is not quite what I am looking for right now (I am looking for an organization that rolls-up it sleeves and breaks through partisan policy disagreements and makes policy recommendations that benefit women), it is very admirable.

I was curious and now I have a better idea.

Good fortunes TNA!

TNA is non-partisan and does not take stands on governmental issues but relies on women in office and within leadership positions to develop and implement policies that foster female equity, equality and advancement.”

When I said feminism should prioritize increasing women in leadership jobs to represent our proportion in the population, I didn’t necessarily mean that that would solve inequality solely because of more decisions by women. What happens is that once women have equality, it changes they dynamic of overall leadership. For example, a group of 59 men and 1 woman would have a dramatically different dynamic than 30 men and 30 women. Men often make different decisions when in the presence of women, especially when women are a large part of the group. For example, Peggy Reeves Sanday studied dozens of gender equal societies and found that rape was virtually nonexistent in societies where women had equal power as men:

http://journaloffeministinsigh.....-rape.html

In some ways you are supporting my point regarding TNA’s mission. As I have reviewed the web site, there are many articles focused on sexism in media reporting. As I said, I believe stopping sexism in the media is a valid purpose and mission. It is clear and actionable. TNA followers know what to do: find and make noise about sexist portrayals of women in the media.

There are also a lot of articles highlighting and supporting women in public and corporate leadership. This second goal is also actionable: regardless of party affiliation, vote (or support) female candidate (and women business leaders) because more women in office (and in the corporate executive suites) likely means legislation and corporate policies that benefit women.

From the various articles, it appears TNA also wants to pick and choose the issues that are partisan but has not laid out a clear criterion for that determination. This is confusing. My background is strategic planning and finance. An organization’s mission should be actionable which means that members can clearly state the organization’s reason for being and their role within that organization.

For example, I could envision, the actionable TNA mission being:

“The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home by supporting women who run for public office, or aspire to leadership roles in corporate America and by identifying and boycotting individuals and organizations that foster sexism in the media. TNA is non-partisan and does not take stands on governmental issues but relies on women in office and within leadership positions to develop and implement policies that foster female equity, equality and advancement.”

Now this statement is longer but I know what I am getting into with TNA:

1. You want people to support women running for public office and within leadership roles

2. You want people to fight sexism in the media and

3. You want people to be non-partisan (i.e., leave the policy debates to women the organization helps get elected).

What I don’t understand is how you choose what is partisan and what is not? In some sense, all issues can be debated in a partisan manner, and usually are. So the third goal could be changed to “analyzing partisan issues and determining the pros and cons of both sides in support of women.” I think an all, or nothing decision has to be made: either you take positions on policy issues or you do not. At a minimum, you must lay out the criterion for partisanship.

Is making domestic violence against women a hate crime, a partisan issue?

If TNA has a “parking lot” of issues that do not get discussed (e.g., abortion, healthcare, etc.) because they are perceived to be partisan, how do you determine what goes on the list and who decides what goes on the list? I am not quite sure how you are picking and choosing what issues are partisan?

GPat, your questions above were for Karen but since you mentioned hate crimes which is the subject of my article, I will address this issue. As I previously said, I’m not a TNA administrator but I’m a regular reader. The hate crimes article was my first article for TNA. All articles have a disclaimer stating that the content of the articles does not necessarily reflect the opinions of TNA. Sexist hate crimes is an issue that is specifically about hatred of women and my article is about the media’s sexist reporting of that crime, unlike healthcare which is not solely a women’s issue.

You’re correct that there are certain aspects of healthcare that affect women, but the issue itself is primarily about funding for healthcare of people in general and the way it is debated is almost always as a partisan issue between the liberal and conservative ideas about the extent that government should fund health care.

What if certain health care policies help women get into and advance within the government and corporate fields? For example, better, or expanded, child care or dependent care benefits since women tend to have two jobs – managing their professional life and home. Also, isn’t a women, partly leading the discussion on health care reform? If Kathleen Sebelius does right by the country and women with respect to health care reform wouldn’t she be an ideal candidate for VP in 2012 or President in 2016? I am not advocating for her and it would be great if a women also ran against her but it seems like Ms. Sebelius is at the leadership fulcrum on this issue.

Is affirmative action, ensuring that companies take proactive steps to advance women within their company, or EEOC enforcement, partisan issues? Is making domestic violence against women a hate crime, a partisan issue?

If TNA has a “parking lot” of issues that do not get discussed (e.g., abortion, healthcare, etc.) because they are perceived to be partisan, how do you determine what goes on the list and who decides what goes on the list? I am not quite sure how you are picking and choosing what issues are partisan?

I get TNA advocating women voting for women and stopping sexism in the media. It is a simple and tight mission. With this mission, you find, recognize and support talented women of all parties as they pursue public office and you identify, shame and may be even boycott individuals, companies and organizations that promote sexist images of women. This purpose is operational.

Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned in my first post, it sounds like “TNA basically is about getting women in public office and fighting sexism in the media.” Those are obviously valid and admirable objectives.

I will look elsewhere for a discussion on how governmental and corporate policies should be changed to advance women in politics and business, may be one of the organizations I identified or NOW, Catalyst, the Center for the Advancement of Women, NAWBO, etc.

Thank you,

GPat

Not quite sure yet whether I can agree that Healthcare Reform is not an exact feminist issue (isn’t feminism the promotion of clear actions that provide women with respect, fairness, equity and equality in society) and strictly a partisan one, or that simply the cheapest system is best for women, if one expects the full coverage of women’s medical conditions and children’s health because women make the vast majority of medical decisions for children.

I’m not an administrator of TNA, only a blogger, but I have read this site often and from what I understand, TNA focuses on ending gender inequality first and foremost. A key goal is to increase women in leadership roles and in order to do that it is necessary to be tolerant of different views women have on the issues and to focus mostly on increasing women’s leadership to the point where we have an equal amount as men. An example of this is that TNA defended and supported Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Sarah Palin even though they are on opposite sides of the left/right spectrum.

We can argue what is a feminist issue forever. However, what is clear is that we live in a patriarchy which Webster’s describes as “control by men of a disproportionately large share of power.” A purpose of feminism is to end the patriarchy, so as I see it feminism is more about female power in relation to male power than any specific issue. What this means in practical terms is that feminism is more about women getting equal power as men than it is about promoting a specific issue.

Focusing on partisan issues at the expense of promoting women in leadership causes division and weakens feminism. That is why unity is important because it strengthens feminism. You will find that The New Agenda is different from mainstream “feminism” in that respect because mainstream “feminism” alienates a lot of people who aren’t left-wing, but here all are welcome who respect women as equal to men and work to create gender equality.

Healthcare is on the front burner now and can either be reformed to limit or benefit women. If left up only to men to decide, without pressure from groups like TNA, I am sure we will get a system that limits women.

Of course, and that’s why feminism promotes women leaders so that it’s not just men who decide how to reform healthcare. Women should have as much decision-making power as men. Women’s life experiences inform their decisions about what the best healthcare program would be.

Appreciated your feedback. I am going through the following material to form an opinion. You might find it useful:

http://www.nationalpartnership.....rm_landing

http://www.workingmother.com/w.....#038;sp=94

http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/research.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/doc.....tices.html

Not quite sure yet whether I can agree that Healthcare Reform is not an exact feminist issue (isn’t feminism the promotion of clear actions that provide women with respect, fairness, equity and equality in society) and strictly a partisan one, or that simply the cheapest system is best for women, if one expects the full coverage of women’s medical conditions and children’s health because women make the vast majority of medical decisions for children.

I think sexism begins as a state of mind that is then translated into deliberate actions by men and women (sometimes consciously and other times unconsciously) that limit a woman’s options in life (e.g., portrayals of women stereotypes in television programs, sexist media coverage, governmental legislation, corporate policies and practices). What makes sexism so tough to beat is that it is systemic; it has tentacles everywhere and is supported structurally in society. It is for this reason that more women politicians and business leaders are needed, to break down these structures.

Healthcare is on the front burner now and can either be reformed to limit or benefit women. If left up only to men to decide, without pressure from groups like TNA, I am sure we will get a system that limits women.

Just my thoughts. I am definitely no expert, I am looking for answers.