Constructive Feminism and the Third Wave
August 30, 2010
by Anna Belle Pfau
|Remember the 1990s and the Clinton scandals? Remember how, after a while, all the media attention was like so much white noise and it became a chore to pay attention? Remember how most people you knew wished those spittle-flecked Republicans would just STFU already? Maybe you don’t. Maybe you recall those as the Bush years and you and your friends just wished all those spittle-flecked Democrats would blow it out their ears for once? The point is that a constant barrage of hyperbolic negativity often has the opposite effect from what was intended. It doesn’t breed agreement; it breeds apathy and discontent.
So it is with the subject of Sarah Palin. She is constantly under attack and disrespected by feminists on the left, who often don’t know much about her other than what they hear in the echo chamber that is the left-blogosphere. The noise level has ratcheted way up since she started describing herself and her conservative sisters as feminists and “Mamma Grizzlies.”
As a writer who teaches people how to write, I can tell you that you’ll lose your audience if constant negativity is your opening strategy, which is why I almost didn’t finish reading the NYT op-ed by Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister, A Palin of Our Own. It droned on and on for nine solid paragraphs (out of 15 total) of negativity and bad logic, using few, if any, examples or citations to back up questionable partisan speculation about Sarah Palin.
I’m glad I did finish it though, because it is the most promising sign yet that feminists on the left are finally willing to address their #1 problem: internal issues regarding women and the Democratic Party. For a while now feminists on the left have been engaged in a profoundly destructive focus, clearly seen in the various campaigns to tear down Sarah Palin, the vitriol directed at her and other Republican women, and the impulse to, ironically, defend feminism against expansion. It’s a weird dynamic akin to xenophobia, and it has cost them the ears, hearts, and minds of many women of every generation, but especially those of us who didn’t get to go to the best colleges or didn’t go to college at all, and who don’t live in fabulous urban areas. In other words, most of America. The kind of internal focus promoted by Holmes and Traister in their article will be a necessary step in creating a constructively focused feminism that can attract these women back.
The buried thesis of the op-ed is that Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for Palin meeting a need the Democratic Party only pays lipstick service to. This thesis is correct and, unlike with their caricature of Palin, they actually back it up. They cite Hillary Clinton’s treatment during the campaign, which I must admit, is quite a turnaround for both of them (consider that Traister was saying this in 2008 and Holmes published this ugly diatribe, among other truly troubling posts, at Jezebel in 2008). They also cite the trade-off of “reproductive rights” for “Democratic majorities and progressive legislation.” They don’t hold Pelosi accountable for the trade-off of those rights for health care, saying the decision was “forced” on her. But they do hold both Clinton and Pelosi accountable for not wanting to “mount a Palin-style girl-powered campaign.” Oh, and for not wearing miniskirts.
Holmes and Traister do have points about reproductive rights, the signature issue for feminists on the left. They’re also correct about the expectations of the largely male hierarchy of power within the Democratic Party that women will be good and play nice, and that any attempt to secure too much power will result in painful and ugly verbal attacks (and probably back-room maneuvering, though they don’t say that). And they’re finally aware that Palin’s success is as much a result of “the obvious national appetite for female leadership” as it is of Palin’s own charisma. That realization in the context of this largely negative opinion piece is merely a baby step for Holmes and Traister, but it could perhaps create a giant leap forward for feminists on the left. One can hope, anyway.
Holmes and Traister end their article by suggesting that women of a different (read: younger) generation will have to “come to terms with (and [invent]) new models.” Though they think it’s “twisted,” perhaps Palin can serve as a kind of inspiration for that new model for the left. The longest paragraph in the piece, the second to last, is their fantasy of what a Palinesque Democratic candidate might look like, taking to Twitter and Facebook to proudly proclaim her womanhood and who isn’t afraid to get sassy. Here we get to the heart of Holmes and Traister’s point. This is what they have found to admire about Palin—her willingness to publicly own her femininity and exploit it for gain on social networks.
But there’s so much more to politics—and to Sarah Palin—than the internet! Maybe one day Holmes and Traister will come to know that. Right now it’s their job to churn up political noise on the internet, so that’s the world they know and that’s how they understand political power. As third-wave feminists, exploiting their femininity for gain is how they navigate the world, thus it informs their understanding of the world and the women in it. They don’t yet understand that progress for women will necessarily be predicated on the increased participation of women, all women, and that numbers, not consensus, equals power.
In the end, it’s ironic that Holmes and Traister would call Sarah Palin a “dim, opportunistic, mean-girl prom-queen,” when they are the ones to simultaneously attack the older women in their party and smear Palin with their ignorant caricature of her person and achievements. Mean girls, indeed. It’s also ironic, because they stand on the shoulders of those older women, who currently hold the power and would make excellent allies, just as they accuse Sarah Palin of building her success on the work of such women. Sadly, they fail to realize that it’s the tone of so much of their rhetoric that outsider-feminists, whether they are liberal, conservative, or independent, find so alienating. Is it any wonder, then, that young left-feminists have a problem creating networks and attracting support? Of, in short, having a Palin of their own? Who needs enemies with friend like these?
Still, in a twisted way, their article gives me hope. It’s about time women on the left started taking a positive tone and talking about themselves, rather than attacking and denigrating women they don’t approve of. And it’s okay with me if that dialogue starts on Twitter and Facebook.
~This article has been cross-posted from Peacocks and Lilies.
Very nice post.
You nailed it Anna Belle. If I were to ever send an article to a leftist “prom queen hating” friend who suffers from PDA it would be this. These women don’t need to approve of Palin’s positions – wouldn’t dream of asking them to. But the left absolutely can and should use Palin as a role model. Palin emulates the girl power energy that was so popular with my generation in terms of cropped t-shirts, cute glittery gen X stickers and Lilith Fair but has yet to grow into any real sort of movement in terms of REAL power.
Palin is after real power for conservative women and uses a woman power collective mantra to galvanize. Meanwhile the left seems simply embarrassed to grow from girl power to woman power organizing. Never would a female power mantra extend from their lips! But it should…
They have a lot to learn!!!
Thanks Anna Belle. I am glad you took the time to read and review this. I wouldn’t have made it past the first few sentences. Liberal elitist feminists like to talk about esoteric crap among themselves not engage the dirty riff raff people. I don’t mind that they exist but we can’t allow them to represent the needs of women who have real political needs. I don’t see them ever coming around, they strike me as religious fanatics, but maybe you are right and they are waking up.
I don’t see them ever coming around, they strike me as religious fanatics, but maybe you are right and they are waking up.
That is a very astute observation. Scary, but astute.
“consider that Traister was saying this in 2008 and Holmes published this ugly diatribe, among other truly troubling posts, at Jezebel in 2008″
So in other words, the reason why there is no decent feminism on the left is because of these two chuckleheads who are currently trying to explain why there is no feminism on the left.
*fixed stare*
Okay, let me see if that makes more sense when I stand on my head and say it …
Sorry, but I don’t share the negative views of the article. I’m one of those left leaning feminists who left the Democratic Party after it demonstrated indifference, even disdain for gender equality in 2008. The failure of party leaders to condemn sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton from without and within the party destroyed any trust and respect I held for it.
I voted for McCain/Palin, and defended her against the rampant sexism delivered by MSM, DNP, and yes, some in the RNP, as well. And, I applaud TNA’s willingness to defend Palin, or any other female against sexist attacks.
However, I believe, at some point, it does become necessary to address the issue of reproductive rights. Granted, it cannot be the only issue. But to pretend that a female political figure, who aligns herself with conservatives does not represent a threat to reproductive rights is to evade reality. Obviously, the Democrats have certainly been the enemy in their recent actions against abortion rights. But, I don’t trust the Republicans to do any better in this regard.
While I appreciate Sarah Palin’s celebratory remarks regarding the anniversary of women attaining the right to vote, I feel that her characterization of herself and her fellow conservative female followers as “feminists” exploits the term and the historical movement it represents.
As I noted, reproductive rights can’t be the only issue with which feminists concern themselves. But, given the alarming rate at which gains in this area are being eroded, at this point, it has become a very significant issue.
While I will defend Palin or any other female against sexism and misogyny, I won’t support her for political office again, unless she supports reproductive rights.
I don’t expect this opinion to be popular, here, as it has become a more conservative venue. But, I appreciate having the opportunity to express my views on this.
I’ve brought this up before, but freespirit, she never once acted AGAINST abortion. She doesn’t like it, she hasn’t ever had one … but she never once legislated or acted against it, and as a chief executive, she had the chance.
Compare that to the party that has done more to set back abortion rights than any other — with Barky engraving the Hyde amendment in stone, appointing anti-choice Dems to various positions. Which party is REALLY your friend on this? What matters more, voting for the person who SAYS they are your friend and stabs you in the back, or voting for the person who never stabbed you?
I am also pro-choice, and I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, so I don’t know why you are assuming that this is a conservative space. You won’t find me defending Dick Nixon or calling global warming a communist hoax, and I am and always have been one million percent behind same-sex marriage. I’d love to see single-payer health care. I’ve got no problems with a welfare state.
What feminists cannot get through their skulls is that the constant focus on abortion-abortion-abortion is what has caused it to erode. Yes, you read that right. Constantly fretting about it, fearing it, shrieking about it from the housetops, and choosing candidates based on what they say about it (as opposed to what they do) is what has brought us to this point.
Because the powers that be hear us freaking out over it and know that it’s the perfect handle to manipulate us by — the more they erode it, the more they take it away, the more loyal we get.
Oddly, I think that voting for a purportedly anti-choice candidate (Palin, in this case) would be better for choice in the long run. Why? Think about it:
1) Once again, she never once attempted to do away with choice in Alaska. Not once. NEVER.
2) Women putting a Republican in office will put the fear of Gawud into the Democrats to the point where they will actually have to start delivering on their promises instead of just letting the thin rope of choice fray more and more and enjoying watching us get all fizzy over it, knowing that the more frayed and threadbare it gets, the more loyal we become.
Seriously. If you WANT choice, don’t keep screaming over it because all that does is let the biggest liars know exactly where your buttons are. If you want to be viewed as pro-choice, and if how you are perceived matters more to you than actually ensuring choice, that’s another matter. Many people are like that, and many of them are on the left. These are the kind of people who will buy dozens of anything to prove how into sustainability they are, but would never dream of cutting back on buying to actually BE more sustainable.
Ultimately, the problem with choice is that women on both sides of the issue are left to begging, scraping, and prostrating ourselves before men to implement whatever we happen to agree with. Electing women — all women, any women, without fail — will mean that women get to decide. And I want that. I am just not going to swallow a man’s bullshit anymore about how signing XYZ legislation “is the first thing I’ll do. The first thing I’ll do, honest ladies, and don’t you all look lovely today. No seriously, I’ve had a vasectomy, I swear, baby …. ”
The constant terror over choice is why it’s hanging by a thread today. The willingness to be shamelessly manipulated based on that one thing is what’s caused us to slide so far backwards on it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, your attitude about choice is what is destroying choice. All you’re doing is letting the Democrats know, “Attention! If you want to manipulate and frighten men into obeying your every word, here’s the perfect hot button to push!” And they’re pushing it. Shove the motherfuckers the hell out of the way and we’ll do it ourselves, and if that means a few women you disagree with are among them, then so be it.
Janis,
Your remarks are very well stated and I agree 100 percent. Obama and the Dims have done more to destroy choice in 2 years than the last 3 republican presidents, 2 of which held office for 8 years.
They certainly have.
It is a hard thing to wrap one’s head around, though. Even Repubs in various other spaces seem to think that because I support Palin for pro-woman reasons, that they have a new convert to the camp, and they start to tell me all about how wonderful Rush Limbaugh is and how Nixon was railroaded.
It’s hard to get one’s brain around what pro-woman means. We have no previous experience with anything like this. For someone who is very used to the left having some automatic claim to anything feminist, a space that says it’s here for everyone can look very conservative by comparison just because it’s trying to be neutral. TNA’s definitely neutral, and while I don’t agree with the anti-choicers, I am not going to get in any woman’s face if she’s running for office. Women winning Republican primaries is better for women in general than if Republican men had won them.
Like I said, voting 100% women all the time in the recent spate of primaries would have resulted in four out of five fairly good candidates, and one nutjob. Those are fine odds, much better than you’d get voting on supposed “issues.”
Janis, I always love your comments, but this may have been your best, and I’m not just saying that because you didn’t cuss.
Seriously, I couldn’t agree more. While I appreciate freespirits right to her opinion and beliefs, I immediately wished she could have provided an example of how I am evading reality by being pro-choice enough to respect Palin’s choices. The reality is third wavers hate her because it’s cool to hate her, and because they have been whipped into a shallow intellectual frenzy by the likes of Holmes & Traister (& many more), who are the rush limbaughs/ Keith olbermanns of their generation and associated media.
I share freespirit’s opinions on most things, I’m just about positive. Sustainability, choice, same-sex marriage, welfare, single-payer … I am a stone-cold atheist and an FDR liberal and will be one until the day I die.
I do not see that when I look at the Democrats. I’ve never seen it looking at the Republicans. Palin is about as close as they come, and AFAIC, not liking abortion and yet steering clear of legislating against it or criminalizing it IS PRO-CHOICE. Pro-choice means butting out of other people’s business. I won’t do it, but I won’t keep you from doing it, even if I disagree with you.
And just to bring it back around to the topic of the article — the only reason there is no Palin on the left is because lefty boys and girlz stabbed her in the back. Let a lefty feminist icon rise up, and Traister and Holmes will trip over one another for the honor of being the first one to put a knife in her back. They did it once. They’ll do it again.
I’d love to sit Holmes down and make her read that entire foul article about Hillary out loud from beginning to end and then ask her, “What were you feeling and thinking when you read that? What did you think was your motivation in writing it? Lastly, why should anyone believe that you won’t write the same thing about the next unlucky left-wing feminist icon to appear</I, no matter how sterling her liberal cred?"
These women shot themselves in the foot and now they're all whining that there's blood all over their Jimmy Choos. I'll tell you, if I were stupid enough to run for public office, I'd do it as a Republican at this point. They protect their own. If I ran as a Democrat, I'd get sabotaged by a bunch of catty, insecure brats going out of their way to flay me alive to prove to their loser BFs that they aren't vagina-voters. Traister, Holmes, and their clan are not the sort of people you want in your foxhole.
Crap, had a comment eaten …
Anna Belle, what a great analysis of this Times article “A Palin of your own”. I had great difficulty getting through it for the same reasons as you, but figured they finally realize there is something to the mama grizzlies and kept being curious.
I love your description “feminists on the left, who often don’t know much about her other than what they hear in the echo chamber that is the left-blogosphere”. who cannot relate to the deafness one experiences with the old friends from the left when it comes to Palin. So the beginning of a turn around and realization of any values in her is a surprise.
jani might be right. if we had another female star in the left, quite likely the ladies would tear her down again.
really interesting strategic comments on abortion issue. I never liked the pro-choice label. to me the issue is more our bodies ourselves, a small government, small church and anybody take their hand away from our lives. and Palin is probably not far from this opinion. it would explain her actions as governor. one can strongly dislike abortions as I do and not interfere with the decisions a woman has to make. I do think the problem starts with unwanted pregnancies, not with the unfortunate situation later. but one could not make a campaign issue out of “unwanted pregnancies” because this would have to do much more with male behavior.
freespirit, I understand your concerns, because we can guess what Sarah Palin would do if she were president but of course we don’t know.
“I feel that her characterization of herself and her fellow conservative female followers as “feminists” exploits the term and the historical movement it represents.” I cannot agree with this sentence.
the history of heroic females, suffragists feminists is full with women from the conservative and liberal, democratic side. no side can claim the historic mantle.
for sure Susan B Anthony and Alice Paul and many from the first wave were republicans and it goes on with the ERA movement and Betty Ford. but there were equaly heroic females from the sozialist side, just think of our martyr Inez Millholland. the advent of birth control and Margaret Sanger brought tremendous relief to millions of women, just think what Elizabeth Cady Stanton could have done if she did not have to stay home with her 4 children. She certainly would have traveled with Susan B Anthony, what force that would have been. just 70 years later in 1915 Sara Bard Field left her 2 children with her divorced husband and traveled with many thousand of signatures for the amendment for women to vote from San Francisco to Washington in a car on dirt roads without a map, collecting signatures along the way and giving speeches. but we also got the curse of the abortion issue.
Janis, I appreciate your passion, and if you’ll check my comments again, you’ll notice that I made the point that the Democratic Party has launched this latest attack on abortion. No argument there.
No argument either with the fact that Palin did not attack reproductive rights in AK, and stated when running with McCain that she would not seek to do so as VP. It was her stance on the issue that enabled me to justify voting Republican for the first time in my life.
I take issue with your accusation that my attitude is what caused the problem with feminism. In fact, I flat-out resent it. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that for decades the Dems used reproductive rights as both a carrot and stick to garner women supporters. Many of us refused to allow that to continue to happen when we refused to vote for Obama in the 2008 GE.
However, reproductive rights are in more danger, now, due to the Dems, as we both noted. And, I believe it’s imperative to actively work to ensure further erosion doesn’t occur. Are you saying Palin will do that? I don’t believe she will. Sure, as a VP candidate in 2008, she said she would not work against reproductive rights, but that’s very different from working to protect them.
Additionally, in 2008, she was running with a moderate at the top of the ticket. Her stance was more centrist. That’s not what I’ve seen from her lately. In more recent months, she has aligned herself with a more conservative base. In fact we’ve seen a shift to the right in the Tea Party movement, itself.
If memory serves, Sarah Palin was pretty vocal in her condemnation of reproductive rights when addressing a group of ultra-conservatives at the time of the Tea Party Convention. If she intends to run in 2012, she’ll likely be forced to move to a more conservative position.
I found it necessary in 2008, to take a stand against the Dem Party, and to set aside the issue of abortion for that purpose. And, I was only one of a multitude of women who did the same. We reached out with a moderate hand, seeking middle ground. But, that does not mean the issue of reproductive rights can be ignored from now on. If we’re not vigilant, we’ll lose them completely.
In my opinion, following the 2008 election, there was a golden opportunity for the Tea Party to pursue the moderate path. They had the opportunity to set aside the issue, and take it off the table, entirely. They had the opportunity to be inclusive. Many PUMAs and PUMA types, of which I am one, attended rallies, tried to form alliances with leaders, and encouraged them to actively focus on attracting moderates from both parties. We were not successful in those efforts. And, while some pockets of the country may boast moderate Tea Party movements, that is certainly not the case nation-wide.
I had hopes for Sarah Palin following 2008. I thought that she would withdraw a little from the public arena, and take some time to deepen her understanding of this country, the world, and the issues we all face. My hope was that she would re-emerge with the substance to match her undeniable charisma and style. That, however, was not what happened. She remained in the spot-light, offering short, simple answers to complex, multi-faceted questions and problems. Her celebrity status has continued to grow, but I haven’t seen her develop into a candidate I can support. At least not yet.
While I certainly support female candidates, gender is not my number 1 criterion. We have certainly seen how badly an inexperienced president can damage our country. For me, it’s imperative that a candidate possess extraordinary ability, experience, understanding – in other words, be highly qualified.
It’s equally important that I agree with the candidates ideology and views on issues.
Third on the list is gender. I so want that highly-qualified, candidate whose views I can support to be a woman. But, for me, gender can’t be the only concern. We’ve seen what can happen when people vote for someone base primarily on race. From now own, we need to take our country’s needs more seriously, and make damn sure our leaders can do the job.
Women candidates deserve to be judged on their abilities, their beliefs, and qualities other than gender. To do otherwise diminishes them.
Freespirit,
The problem is that the democratic party continues to screw women over on reproductive rights, equal treatment, equal pay, etc.. The truth is that it doesn’t matter whether the candidate is a democrat or republican. The democrats are NOT trust worthy on women’s rights either. I agree with Janis, that voting gender as a long term strategy will at least create an environment where women actually have representation. When that is achieved, and only when that is acheived will we begin to see legislation that is designed to acheive gender equality and addresses women’s issues.
Just stop and think of all the democratic DICKS that you have voted for that are morons and don’t have any better grasp of the issues or solutions than Sarah Palin. The only reason we all are so acutely awere of her ineptness is because male media assholes beat that drum to death, while sheilding male candidates like Obama from being exposed about their ineptnesses.
Palin is not my cup of tea either, but neither is Obama, John Karry, or most of the democratic morons with penises that I’ve pulled the lever for through out my voting years.
We can’t hold out for super women. We came dam close with Hillary Clinton, but the boyz wouldn’t have it. Just think about it for a minute. The democratic leadership/dnc actually rigged an election to ensure that NO woman would sit in the oval office. That doesn’t sound like people who care about women’s equality to me. For women to continue to eliminate women candidates because they “aren’t good enough”, while continuing to settle for men who aren’t good enough is gender suicide. At that rate, we will never have proportional representation, and you can kiss any notions of gender equality good buy. Yeah, the dems will spout a few lame statements at election time, and then either screw us over or ignore us after the election. We are always the first constituency they throw under the bus. This is precisely why we are still fighting to retain a vestual of our reproductive rights and have gotten NO WHERE on the ERA or equal pay.
Additionally, we have to be careful not to hold women to a higher standard then we do for men. The point is, in the end we ALWAYS SETTLE for the not good enough guy. Why is it so hard to do the same for women?
Freespirit,
The new Democratic party cannot be trusted with the economy, war, or social security, and they are just as much in bed with the banksters as the republicans. Basically, they have all become the same party, so why not inject some estrogyn where ever possible?
We are living in a time where both parties put their corporate/bankster masters ahead of what’s good for the country. So for all the talk about qualifications, and extrodinary ability, the only real thing that seems to matter is who is the most willing to allow them to loot the treasury and rob the middle class.
I think it is important for us to make clear that we want proportional representation in government, the courts and in the political parties because it is clear the boyz and their ladies auxiliary don’t actually get it. That means we want half of the idiots in government to be women. It means we want half of the people in government who could be convicted of felonies to be women. It also means we want half of the competent people in government to be women.
I want ALL the people in government to be women. Every last one, 100%. They had 100% for over a century. It’s our turn now.
100%. Not a single point less.
Women candidates deserve to be judged on their abilities, their beliefs, and qualities other than gender. To do otherwise diminishes them.
So the other side, the sexist, will not vote for a woman period. Your side might, but might not — and might be more sensitive to accusations of vagina-voting such that you feel you need to prove that you aren’t voting for the woman because she’s a woman, so you will vote against her.
They WON’T do it. You’re UNLIKELY to do it. And we wonder why we can’t pass go?
I want ALL the people in government to be women. Every last one, 100%. They had 100% for over a century. It’s our turn now.
100%. Not a single point less.
Our turn? Regardless of qualifications? Regardless of experience? Give me a break. Why not just install a dictatorship while we’re at it and just tell everyone who’s going to be put into every office.
There’s also something to be said for sharing the load, people. Sheesh.
It truly amazes me that people so adamate about “choice” for women on one issue can’t see that a large part of stiving for equality in the first place is the right to be independent and make our own decisions in life, starting in the voting booth. To deny that “choice” is to betray those early suffragettes in the worst possibly way.
Which leads me to precisely the reason I don’t generally get involved in abortion discussion and am only trying to make a point now. I’m conservative and I have absolutely no problem with women being in control of their own bodies. But I also expect men to be in control of theirs, too, which is where constantly screaming that it’s about the woman’s choice and ommitting the male’s, er, contribution from the equation leaves me scratching my head and always has.
I’m not talking about taking away her choices. Her decisions.
I’m talking about holding HIM accountable for his actions. Whoever he is. Which is what’s aways struck me as somewhat odd, unbalanced, if not downright anti-woman about many pro-abortion/pro-choice arguments. By insisting (screaming?) that it’s all about her, it seems he’s relieved of all responsibility for the act that started the process in the first place.
Just like always.
How is that progress?
Please note, I will “listen” to your response to this but I probably won’t respond to them. As I said, this is not an issue I’m comfortable getting into a long discussion on. Sometimes one can’t help asking the occasional question, though.
Hey Freespirit, ‘sup girlfriend?
I want to get as many women to run for each available office as possible. Open the damn floodgates. I want more than one woman running in a primary against 7 men. I want so many women running that when we look at the least of all evils it turns out to be the gal! YAY! Because you all know that most of the time, it is the least of all evils that we look at. Politicians by nature are not perfection personified. Many of the men who run for office are by far the bottom of the barrel in human form. If we are inundated with many choices of women then the probability of them winning a primary goes up. If both parties have women winning their primaries and we have gal vs. gal then it is a win/win!
Increase the number of women participating and the number that will ultimately get elected from either party goes up. But currently the Dems are not doing their part to increase the number of women running for higher office; they want you to think they are but they aren’t. City council or Town Supervisor maybe, but not Governor. Just look at the statistics for most states that have never had a woman Governor or Attorney General, etc.
I will go out of my way to encourage as many of my Pub female friends to run for US Congress, Senate, etc. because that is within my circle of influence. And I will do it without slamming the Dem women who might consider running.
BevWKY: I am not sure if I understand what you are saying but I took it to mean that by just having an abortion rather than giving birth to a child and charging the man/father for child support you are letting men off the hook. Have you raised children? Because let me assure you that financial support is the smallest of worries and I don’t see how child support covers much. The parent who has the kids needs to rent a bigger more expensive space, has to plan the job they take around the child’s schedule and can not take employment risks hoping for advancement, Has to always have a meal plan in mind and then when the kids get sick it is 24/7 duty. Some piss ass check for $400. a month doesn’t help that much. Women have to be in the frame of mind to be ready to do all of this on their own even if they are married because when push comes to shove they ARE going to be doing it all on their own. Do not have babies hoping to force responsibility onto a man.
However I love being a Mother and it is the most rewarding job I have ever had, but I was ready when I became a Mother.
BevWKY, they are shooting for 100%. We have to shoot for 100%. It’s equality of motivation, and if you’re playing a team that’s aiming for your endzone while you’re aiming for halfway, you won’t settle out at the 50 yard line, ever. You need to shoot for it all — especially if the other guys are shooting for it all. That’s just how it works. NO woman should EVER neglect to run for office because there are already half women in there, or 40% women, or whatever.
BevWKY, they are shooting for 100%. We have to shoot for 100%. It’s equality of motivation, and if you’re playing a team that’s aiming for your endzone while you’re aiming for halfway, you won’t settle out at the 50 yard line, ever. You need to shoot for it all — especially if the other guys are shooting for it all. That’s just how it works. NO woman should EVER neglect to run for office because there are already half women in there, or 40% women, or whatever.
Ummm, while I agree that we should encourage as many women as possible to run for office and then support them as much as we can, I have an extremely difficult time with the concept that the “other guys” are shooting for 100% – as in making this a war between males and females.
To my mind that’s always been the major problem with whatever wave of “feminism” which always seems to espouse that particular mindset. Frankly I don’t keep track of the so-called waves so I don’t know how to label it. It’s hard enough to figure out what I believe and don’t on any given day.
Anyhoo, the problem with making it a war between the sexes is that whole “been there, did that, didn’t work so well the first time” thing. Kind of like the whole abortion argument. We’re so far past that it feels like going backwards to even go there. There may be a certain percentage of women who will nod and cheer the concept but, quite frankly there are a lot of us who think, oh, not again. Pul-lease, can we just get busy actually electing people who just might happen to be women instead of fighting that particular battle endlessly?
Now, having said all that, I’ll grant you that actually getting women to run in the first place is a major problem and I can definitely see the temptation to play the percentages game. I mean, conceivably, the more who run, the more who can be elected.
It can work.
But does it truly prove anything about equality?
Bes, I’m in my fifties with two children, one twenty-something and one thirty-something.
But, just to clarify I wasn’t talking about any future financial responsibilities. No, I was actually talking about “his” responsibility in creating the need for an abortion in the first place.
That responsibility.
BevWKY, I hear you. women fighting for the choice to abort sounded always so wrong to me. the problem is the unwanted pregnancy and the guys who are not held responsible for producing them. the question is how to turn the problem to them. and of course alimony is not the answer.
I read several month ago that a high percentage probably like 30% of young males in a European country may be Italy admitted in an anonymous questionaire, that they had raped a women. I think I saw it in the Guardian. what about getting data from young men anonymous what they think about forced sex/rape, about unprotected sex, what remedy they would choose, do they have the morning after pill with them, would they pay alimony or push the girlfriend for abortion. don’t you think these numbers would be interesting.
Hey, Optix. Good to see you. Did ya bring pie?
I think we’re all pretty much making some of the exact same points. That’s a good thing.
I would like, once again, to reiterate what I said in two previous posts about not supporting the Dems. I feel the need to do so because so many keep pointing out that the Dems are not about women’s rights. I have said repeatedly that the Dems have not supported women and have harmed reproductive rights. I hold absolutely no loyalty to the Dem Party any longer – and haven’t for two years. I did not and will never vote for Obama.
I will support the candidate whose views are closer to my own – particularly when it comes to reproductive rights. As I’ve said, in my view, we have to be concerned about further erosion of those rights. They are at greater risk now than in 2008.
I would love to see moderate women of either or both parties running for every office in the land. That’s what we all want, I believe.
But, I plan to be more careful than in 2008 about ensuring that the candidate I support is at least not against abortion rights. We do not need to regress further.
I see the issue as more than just about a woman’s right to self-determination with regard to reproduction – although heaven knows, that’s important enough on it’s own. IMO, government efforts to control reproductive rights is just one more component of the general attitude that women are “less than”. It’s this attitude that is at the core of violence against women, job discrimination, lower pay for women, servitude and oppression in the name of religion. It’s about power and control. Men have historically either taken it from women, or women, believing that they have no choice, have given their power to men.
Of course we need more women in power. As a life-long feminist I would never argue with that. But, the women need to be moderate. And, we must find a way to deal with the abortion issue. It’s not going away.
As Hillary has pointed out, no one is pro-abortion. It’s not about abortion. It’s about one’s personal right to control one’s body and reproductive system. A very basic, fundamental right.
It is important, and to lose that right would be a giant step backward, IMO.
Anyhoo, the problem with making it a war between the sexes is that whole “been there, did that, didn’t work so well the first time” thing.
Whether you want to admit it or not, men have been waging war against women for millenia. When women have acknowledged that, they have fought back and won some freedom and rights. When they have run away from that realization, their gains have stalled or reversed. It is only this realization that will make women support other women and take power in our own hands. Otherwise we will always be depending on men to do the right thing and be disappointed and exploited like suckers over and over again.
But, I plan to be more careful than in 2008 about ensuring that the candidate I support is at least not against abortion rights.
In that case, be sure to consider their past actions, not their words or party platforms.
Whether you want to admit it or not, men have been waging war against women for millenia. When women have acknowledged that, they have fought back and won some freedom and rights. When they have run away from that realization, their gains have stalled or reversed. It is only this realization that will make women support other women and take power in our own hands. Otherwise we will always be depending on men to do the right thing and be disappointed and exploited like suckers over and over again.
Are there men and even societal structures that seek to dominate and control women? Sure.
However, do all men do so? No.
A battle for hearts and minds, maybe, but no one ever said it wasn’t that. A neverending educational crusade, yes. But a war? Only if we admit that just as many women are also on the side of the enemy. And therein lies the problem with calling it a war, particularly a war of the sexes or even a war against women.
Again, it always amazes me that people who are so adamate about the use of language and words, such as choice and war to wage their propaganda battles on so many issues, are so blind to how they can be a problem in others.
I am not at war with men. I am steadfast against idiotic attitudes and mindsets that keep anyone and everyone from achieving equality and independence.
Sometimes that even includes men.
Big difference.
“I have an extremely difficult time with the concept that the “other guys” are shooting for 100% – as in making this a war between males and females.”
I have a difficult time with it as well — the problem is, it’s true. They are shooting for 100%. It never, ever, ever occurs to a male to stop halfway. Not once, never has, never will. We need to acknowledge that or else just sit here and say, “Well, I’m not willing to do what needs to be done to gain equality.” I’m not talking about open warfare, I’m just talking about not setting limits in yourself. Where am I talking about bombs? Guns? Knives? Blowing things up? That’s warfare, and it’s a sad day when a woman just saying “stop putting limits on yourself to make other people happy” comes across as no different from a man saying, “Bomb the bastards!” and then actually doing it. That’s a pretty amazing double standard.
Janis, you hit it again this amazing double standard in respect to violence.
Alice Paul and the NWP were labeled the militant arm of the suffrage movement.
there was nothing militant, all there was was demanding from the president, not sitting back, not being polite, call him out on his inaction for women’s vote. there was even throwing of stones, but nevertheless this nonviolent fight for women’s vote is still in so many books, movies referred to as militant. here a quote from Gene Roberts on the new biography of Alice Paul “nearly a half century before martin Luther King brought Gandhian methods to bear on racial segregation, Alice Paul used nonviolent protest to win full voting rights for American women, but few Americans know her.”
I read a Gandhi quote several years ago where he explicitly cites British suffragists as his inspiration for his non-violent resistance to the British occupation. He is called a “Mahatma”, i.e. “great soul”. The suffragists in Britain and their counterparts in the US are called militant, shrill, angry and all kinds of insults. At the same time their achievements are downgraded and ignored.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
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. More...