The Big Tent
A couple of days ago I mentioned one of the projects I’m involved in that’s part of the burgeoning Fourth Wave of feminism. It’s called The New Agenda. I’m one of the founders of the group and the editor of the website.
Amy Siskind, the group’s leader, likes to describe The New Agenda as a “big tent.” It’s a useful metaphor, and one that helps me in my thinking about what we’re trying to do.
Imagine a big lawn party with lots of little booths and kiosks staffed by different groups. This lawn party is Feminism. Over in one rather large booth we have the liberal feminists; they’re wearing power suits and carrying Blackberries. In another part of the lawn the cultural feminists are holding court in their Earth Mother skirts, with some womyn-only music playing on the speakers. A group of radical lesbians have set up a kiosk and are selling Hothead Paisan books and T-shirts. There are Christian feminists and Jewish feminists and Muslim feminists and Buddhist feminists, all with their own booths piled high with literature. The stay-at-home moms have a booth, of course, and they’re graciously sharing their brownies with everyone. The NARAL crowd is out in force, while at the opposite side of the lawn some pro-life feminists have set up a kiosk of their own.
In the middle of the lawn is a big blue tent with a sign saying, “The New Agenda.” This is the tent where women from all the different booths and kiosks gather to work on the issues they agree on — which, as we all know, is not every issue. They don’t stop being themselves when they go to The New Agenda tent, and they don’t abandon their beliefs. They just put aside their differences long enough to talk about the things they do agree on.
Pro-choice women will never agree with pro-life women on abortion, but they do agree on equal pay and healthcare and domestic violence. In The New Agenda tent, those are the things they can work on together. The Hothead Paisan lesbians and the feminists-for-Christ probably won’t be joining each other’s social clubs anytime soon, but in The New Agenda tent they can put their heads together to figure out how to combat sexism in the media.
The idea is to create a place where we can join forces on the many issues that unite us, instead of remaining always divided by the issues that separate us.
What we’re talking about, of course, is a coalition. It’s a concept that is unfamiliar to many Americans, particularly young Americans (including young feminists) who seem to believe that they can only cooperate with people who resemble themselves in every respect. A coalition, on the other hand, necessarily involves people who disagree on certain issues, but have chosen to ally themselves on the causes they share.
Think of it this way: let’s say you have a neighbor who agrees with you on almost everything affecting your neighborhood. She’s with you when it comes to the homeowners’ association covenants, the new speed bump, the walkway to the school, the proposed hike in property taxes. The one thing she disagrees with you about is the permit for the new fast food place, and on that issue you two are at loggerheads. She thinks it will fundamentally ruin the neighborhood; you think it’ll be a good addition. You can’t come to an agreement at all. Does that mean you won’t work with her on all the other things?
45 Responses to “The Big Tent”
-
anna says:
I hope you will reach out to men as well. Not to be all “what about the men?!!!” but I think including men in feminism is important so that people can see it is about equality and not women ruling the world. And also men need to be liberated from always feeling as though they have to be the big strong provider etc.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm EST -
Violet says:
The New Agenda is open to men, absolutely. And a significant percentage of our mail is from men who say they sympathize.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
Violet:
Nice mental imagery.
And brilliant concept, one that feminism has needed for someone to articulate for a LONG time.
BTW- where’s the tent for us guys who are feminists?
Best regards,
YZ
-
Yanni Znaio says:
And did you see Camille Paglia’s piece in Salon today?
-
Violet says:
I do not read Camille Paglia. She’s about as much a feminist as Rush Limbaugh (whom she admires, by the way).
Just because people like Paglia and Limbaugh and, for that matter, Karl Rove are suddenly lauding Sarah Palin doesn’t mean that they’re feminists. These are the same people who viciously and relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton in the most misogynist terms.
-
Broce says:
You need a tent for those of us 50 and over…and my recommendation is to put it right next to the third-wavers. ;-)
-
PhilosopherP says:
Nice idea — as long as everyone realizes that the opportunity to make choices about what we do includes the risk that some of us will make choices the others think are ‘wrong’.
-
Sis says:
Over at my tent we’ve got your moose meat chili, and caribou kabobs for lunch. You also might like my moose hair embroidered deer hide moccasins, or maybe, a felted wool ear flap hat with wolf pom pom ties.
All home made and hand made by an elderly indigenous woman.
-
atheist woman says:
Oh Violet that is genius. If this works… (excited/happy for the first time in months)
Broce I am falling off my chair.
-
Infidel says:
A coalition is not unAmerican. Still a coalition must be about non-jingoistic humanism to elicit the kind of feminism that works for a man. Sadly I might be drawn to a woman’s bust before I had a chance to communicate. Human nature? Stewed in free love social influence. My body is a temple that transports my eyes. I see too well. Scripture deems I should rip my eyes out, they do sin. I haven’t the courage or resolve for that. That would be sick. I am sick. I look again at the ladies in your tent pic. Their eyes look back at me. We men are fundamentally not women and that seperates us. It is as if we are another type of being and we are. We share language and we share our lives, but our differences put you in the tent, the big tent where only women belong. Men can never know how they have treated women and only men can treat a women as a woman can feel treated by men.
I have a story you might pick to pieces about how it felt to be in love with a woman. General complications have no place in individual feelings and vice versa. There is no juxtaposition so pronounced as two humans together. And the canvas we are all painted on reeks of the injustice of male conceit. -
Violet says:
a felted wool ear flap hat with wolf pom pom ties
I want to see a picture.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
I don’t necessarily AGREE with her, either.
I just asked if you’d read it.
Sorry,
YZ
-
Sis says:
I’m thinking something like this, but you thought I was going to give you my pattern? Nuh uh.
http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_f.....408987.jpg
Much of the fur trim used on Arctic clothing is dog. Was that too much information? They use the hackle fur.
-
orlando says:
I think this is a womderful project, and I hope it blossoms into something vast.
On a side note, I see Infidel is having another “it’s all about me” fit.
-
simply wondered says:
how can anything not be about infidel? - he is everybeing and unlimited; that’s why we love him/her/it (well, i do at least)
-
myiq2xu says:
Somebody needs to send this column to Rebecca Traister at Salon.
She calls herself a die-hard feminist, but thinks feminism is only for certain types of women.
I agree with Violet, but what do I know, I’m a guy.
-
ElleR says:
I agree with Broce — let’s include some over 50 women in the tent — and represent them with some gray hair in the picture.
Also, I went to the New Agenda website and looked at the goals. They are admirable, but I would like to suggest a few more:
(1)restructure the workplace and the work-day, week, year, etc. to accommodate the exigencies of women’s lives
(2) restructure social security so that women who stay home for a few years with their children are not penalized in their retirement years
(3) reform welfare reform. In the poor county where I live, where there are many single mothers, children are often taken away from their “unfit” mothers, who are then required to pay child support to whomever Children’s Services placed the children with. So, women who only make minimum wage — if that, if they can find a job at all — are required to pay a significant portion of that wage to support their children. Of course, they can’t live on what’s left and so the whole system breaks down. I guess I am less concerned with women at the top of the economic heap than I am with those at the bottom, since single mothers and their children so often end up below the poverty line. This situation has nothing to do with the absence of a father (the conservative take), and everything to do with the absence of money.
We women desperately need a New Agenda — and a new set of values which are woman friendly. Thanks for your work on our behalf.
-
octogalore says:
“particularly young Americans (including young feminists) who seem to believe that they can only cooperate with people who resemble themselves in every respect”
Word. The Rebecca Traister article in Salon, where she asks how can she, “a die hard feminist,” can be “terrified about a woman in the White House”? My answer: Rebecca, easy answer for you: you’re not really a feminist. Be terrified about policies you don’t like in the White House, if you want (although they’ve been there before and you didn’t mention terror, wonder why?). If you’re going to be terrified about “a woman,” then you’re not a feminist.
-
Level Best says:
A feminism of alliance and of cooperative work upon common needs and issues is EXACTLY what I would love to see. That’s how the “other side” does it and manages to splinter us to ineffectuality too often. Park my old butt by the 3rd wavers and Broce!
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Here’s a coalition thought.
On the day BO is meeting with Bill C in Harlem, 10 min ago Biden announced that “maybe” BO should have picked Hillary as VP!!!???!!!!
They are searching for a way to dump him and get her on the ticket but it is too late and the misogynists fundraisers in the party might still oppose it but as BO sinks in the polls they are desperate and it shows. HA! This is REALLY interesting.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
As for the coalition of feminists, I thought we always were a coalition when we were a movement. I think Violet is correct in that if it were a FORMAL coalition, maybe more people would understand how to get feminist policy and programs implemented. In other words,policy politics instead of identity politics.
So have you decided on common campaign targets or are you in the honeymoon stage?
-
Ciccina says:
“The NARAL crowd is out in force, while at the opposite side of the lawn some pro-life feminists have set up a kiosk of their own.”
Way, wayyyy far out on their respective sides of the lawn, I would think…
{tee hee hee}
-
kenoshaMarge says:
Wonderful post and wonderful idea Dr. Socks.
I have been appalled at the number of vitriolic rants against Sarah Palin by so-called feminists.
That cretin Traister is it, at Salon and another at the same toxic waste site are not, IMHO feminists.
Feminism to me means women, all women, whether I like them or agree with them or not. Otherwise feminism descends to just being another arm of some damn political party. And I’ve had enough of that to last a lifetime. In fact it’s pretty much lasted my lifetime.
-
Hazel Stone says:
I have never met a pro-life feminist. Do they exist?
-
Greenconsciousness says:
It is a front. They say they are feminists to co-op the movement. They are never active in any feminist campaigns. It is a tactic often used by left groups to takeover grassroots organizations. In this case it is being used by the right. Just as the right sets up pregnancy “counseling” agencies to get govt funding to preach religion and guilt trip desperate women.
-
Sis says:
Yes, they do exist. I know a few French-Canadian, Catholic (well, born Catholic anyway) women who are not pro-abortion. They really just don’t speak about it, but are very much activists and leaders in the women’s health movement, with a very feminist perspective.
-
anna says:
There is a group called Feminists for Life.
Perhaps the picture for the New Agenda (I mean the picture above, which is also in the New Agenda web site) should be photoshopped to include some men? Just a thought.
-
Violet says:
I have never met a pro-life feminist. Do they exist?
Yes, they do. I know several Catholics (including nuns) who are staunch feminists but who cannot countenance abortion.
On the other hand, it is true that some so-called “pro-life feminists” aren’t really feminists, but anti-feminist moles trying to co-opt the movement. But that’s a problem with a number of branches of feminism (and other movements). For example, quite a few “sex-positive” feminists who pretend to represent sex workers are actually pimps and madams.
-
Greenconsciousness says:
Violet
If you think Nuns can be feminists and still deny women the right to control their bodies then I can be a feminist and give men the right to veto pregnancies and demand abortions. That position being closer to equal reproductive rights than the nun’s. Good! Because I do believe men should have the right to veto pregnancies. I am Feminists Against Forced Breeding.
-
atheist woman says:
I agree with 28. I have met women who because of the catholic thing just will not have abortions but who do believe uphold the equality of men and women in their daily lives.
-
ginmar says:
Sarah Palin’s a member of ‘feminists’ for life. They’re not feminists and their positions cause women to die.
-
Sis says:
When men can bleed, then I’ll call them feminists.
Until then, I think they should get a women’s rights org going that is only for men, and work for, among other things, change in how male children are raised to be chauvinists. They should get involved with the work that Stan Goff and Robert Jensen do. But they shouldn’t get membership in women’s feminist organizations. -
Violet says:
Ginmar, I can’t speak about the organization called Feminists For Life, but that women exist who are feminist AND anti-abortion is true, incoherent as that may seem.
I look at it this way: we already have in the feminist movement women who defend sex slavery and push incest porn. They’re not my kind of feminists, by any stretch of the imagination, but as a rule I don’t make it my business to quarrel with them on whether they’re really feminists. I figure I can do the same for the many women who support feminism but can’t bring themselves to support abortion rights. At least in the context of The New Agenda, that is.
-
Infidel says:
The two opposed positions each require leaders to get others to go along with them. Some so sincere they really believe what they are trying to get others to go along with. The belief that making the rich richer makes everyone better off has its leaders and followers. The belief that making everyone better off requires the rich to enable the leaders to help make everyone better off has its leaders and followers. The beliefs have legitimate reason. The belief that building democracies where leaders who have majority following should have the power to determine policy within laws that can be agreed on by all has its merits. I cannot agree to laws that limit the legitimate belief of a woman to freely determine the future course of any physical condition pertaining to her own body including pregnancy. The law that she can is one in which I wouldn’t mind such a majority following to have the power to decide the policy under. War, declared war against a nebulous idea circumvents the most basic American law by self delegating the power of a well trained militia to a leader, followers not withstanding, who cannot, will not, and could never define the enemy or the terms of victory.
-
Violet says:
Actually, let me correct myself: I don’t think it’s a matter of accepting people’s self-identification as a feminist. The New Agenda doesn’t really care. It’s about working together for women’s rights, and if you support women’s rights and can contribute to the effort, good on ya. Welcome aboard. We’re not checking IDs.
-
octogalore says:
I think working together makes a lot of sense. I feel strongly that the pro-life position is not a feminist position. I do know pro-life women who hold other feminist positions. If they are willing to work with me on the latter, and it helps women, I don’t see the point in rejecting those efforts.
Here are some thoughts as to why the feminists who are so shockingly aghast at how bad Palin is for feminism might want to do a little feminism cred check themelves:
-
cellocat says:
I suspect that there are people who are pro-life but willing to acknowledge that they can’t legislate other people’s lives and choices. I myself am strongly pro-choice, but I personally think that, except in cases of rape or health of the mother circumstances (and maybe there are others I’m not thinking of - pretty tired right now), abortion should be extremely rare. Certainly, once the fetus is viable, I have a hard time thinking it right to abort it; I value the desire to preserve and support life. I would not impose these views on other women, but I hold them with a fair amount of strength myself.
Does this mean my feminist cred is called into question? I should hope not. I can and do understand that people’s concept of what is right varies pretty radically, and it’s not my right (so to speak) to decide that my concept of right is better than anyone else’s. But that doesn’t stop me from feeling that adoption is a better option than late-term abortion in most cases.
I think that rather than getting caught up in the dichotemy of good/bad, we should concentrate on being genuine, truthful, authentic. A Catholic nun who’s fiercely passionate about women’s rights, social justice, etc, and who also is pro-life given her religious views, is being authentic. Who are we to say she’s not a feminist?
90% of women who discover themselves to be carrying a fetus that’s got Down’s Syndrome abort that fetus. I happen to think that there are various things wrong with that. But I’ll neither judge them for that choice or try to take it away from them. I just won’t make that choice myself.
This reminds me, in a way, of an article I read in college that discussed the fact that women who’ve been raped sometimes judge each other’s experience; women raped by a stranger thought that there expereince was worse than that of a woman who had raped by someone they knew.
We all have values, beliefs, etc. As long as we make our own set of rules more right than someone else’s, we’ll be arguing over whether other women qualify as feminists. I like the idea of the New Agenda’s Big Tent, because, goodness knows, we have to start working together better!
-
Branjor says:
***I do believe men should have the right to veto pregnancies.***
The only way men have the right to “veto pregnancies” is via condom use or abstention. If she deosn’t want to use female birth control or is already pregnant and wants to keep it, then he has no such “veto” rights.
-
Sis says:
Absolutely agree with you Branjor. Men getting to veto pregancies is just another way for them to control our uteri instead of themselves. This is not equal rights, this is status quo.
I think we have to make a distinction between women who don’t choose abortion for *themselves* and women who would support or enact legislation preventing abortion. So I support Palin’s right to birth a Down’s Syndrome child, but would be against her supporting legislation to prevent other woman to abort in the same case. I also expect Palin to support universal health care and government funded schooling and support programs for families who have Down’s Syndrome children, and children with other disabilities.
-
Boudicca says:
Brilliant! I’m going there to check it out now. I love that everyone is included. I’m tired of hearing feminists telling other feminists that they’re not really feminists.
-
donna darko says:
I think working together makes a lot of sense. I feel strongly that the pro-life position is not a feminist position. I do know pro-life women who hold other feminist positions. If they are willing to work with me on the latter, and it helps women, I don’t see the point in rejecting those efforts.
Palin’s representation of women already had an effect. Republicans are opposing sexism!!!!!! If Palin is VP, Republicans will oppose sexism and that, my friends, is half the battle. I was never beaten or raped in my life but the last eight months is the first time I felt beaten or raped. Fuck Roe v. Wade. How many abortions will I need anyway? Basic respect for women is the first step in feminism. Maybe policies will follow.
-
Alex Curylo says:
Heh. Well, good luck with that, Violet. However, I don’t think you’ll get too far.
See, as I’ve mentioned before, I’m pretty out there politically from most people’s perspective — in case you doubt that, see in Wikipedia the record of my one formal foray into electoral politics, the 2001 provincial election, 2.75% of the vote whilst running for the Marijuana Party (with an endorsement from the Libertarian Party too — freaks AND whackos, I’m your man!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver-Point_Grey
but one thing I’ve been struck by constantly over some 25 years of tangential involvement in politics is that right wingers get the whole coalition thing and left wingers just plain do not. The most rockribbed social conservatives you can imagine are happy as clams to work with me on guns and taxes whilst politely ignoring my wildeyed enthusiasms for drugs, obscure pagan religions, and so forth. On the other hand, my all but universal experience with lefties is that the INSTANT they catch a whiff of you having an opinion that deviates from their currently preferred brand of groupthink in the SLIGHTEST, it’s demonization and reeducation camps for you buddy. Quite striking, really. I think there’s a good psychology doctoral thesis waiting there for someone to look into just why things are this way…
-
Hazel Stone says:
Pardon me if this has been covered already.
V said:
“Actually, let me correct myself: I don’t think it’s a matter of accepting people’s self-identification as a feminist. The New Agenda doesn’t really care. It’s about working together for women’s rights, and if you support women’s rights and can contribute to the effort, good on ya. Welcome aboard. We’re not checking IDs.”The problem is not as simple as “not checking IDs.” The Sierra Club was recently almost taken over by a faction of anti-emigree types who were pushing concerns about over-population to justify some very xenophobic positions and actions.
You have to be clear on what is and isn’t OK when you run a c3 or c4. Otherwise your organization can be taken over. Not trying to be paranoid, but believe me if your position on choice is “whatever, let’s just work for equal pay” your group will be vulnerable. Bog willing it will never be a problem, but it is a risk.
Just sayin’.
-
Violet says:
Thank you, Hazel. I admit, I don’t know jack about setting up the 501(c)3. I will forward your comment to the team that’s doing that part.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
Setting up a 501(c)(3) is complex and arduous process which can take a long time- up to several years to get a final determination from the IRS.
Seek professional help.
And I don’t mean that in a psychological context, although there might be a wag or two who would say that would also be appropriate.
I’m sure you have some attorneys, and better yet, perhaps an attorney/CPA in your coalition.
Haven’t gone over there to look, but I’d bet that the folks over there are just as intelligent as [most all] the folks over here.
Best regards,
YZ
