What a couple of radical feminists are doing in a place like The New Agenda
My friend and co-editor at The New Agenda, Sheryl Robinson, wrote a post the other day that does a good job of explaining what our coalition is all about. In The game is rigged. Stop playing, Sheryl observes that ratification of CEDAW has been blocked in this country by fears that the treaty could be “construed as creating a right to abortion.” As she says:
Once again, American women’s rights are held hostage to the issue of abortion, and women on both sides of the aisle are trapped behind the logjam this issue creates.
So…what if a bunch of us elected to put the abortion issue aside -– not giving up our personal positions, but choosing to work together on other fronts, fighting any number of other fights for women? What if we decided that getting more women elected and addressing violence against women and equal pay for women and sexism in the media were issues that could be tackled by women from both the left and the right, while we refused to play with the political football that the abortion issue has become?
Don’t get me wrong — I don’t mean to trivialize reproductive rights, but let’s consider the lesson learned from CEDAW, which is that the issue of choice separates women and drains away our power.
Our government is comprised of 83% men. The status quo will naturally keep giving men a disproportionate degree of power, and choice is a convenient way to keep women divided and block any meaningful progress that we can make on the 80% of issues that impact all women — the issues that, if resolved, would give us more seats at the table, and shift the balance of power in our favor.
It’s 2009. CEDAW is 30 years old. The game is rigged against us. The old agenda doesn’t work. This is The New Agenda.
Like me, Sheryl is a radical feminist who, needless to say, is pro-choice. In fact, all the original founders of The New Agenda are pro-choice, a little known fact that might surprise those who think we’re a front organization for Scaife. The point of The New Agenda isn’t to capitulate on choice or rewrite feminism to remove abortion rights as an issue. We’re just trying to create a new political alignment that can move women forward on other issues, issues that women from all segments of American society can agree on. As I wrote back in September:
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?
It seems like a simple concept to me, and The New Agenda has grown so fast that apparently a lot of other people get it, too. One of the most interesting aspects of our group (and one of the most challenging, to be honest) is the heterogeneity of the membership. We have everybody from radical feminists to Republicans in our mix, and it can be awkward at times to steer clear of the shoals. But what we all agree on is the need to get past the logjam that has kept women’s rights stagnating in this country for a couple of decades now. Stagnating, hell — more like moving backwards. Definitely time to try something new, wouldn’t you say?
35 Responses to “What a couple of radical feminists are doing in a place like The New Agenda”
-
Sheryl Robinson says:
I love the graphic. People are always asking me if I’m a political lesbian. No, I tell them, I still like dick too much to give it up.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:24 pm EST -
Violet says:
Hothead Paisan makes me wish I were a lesbian. Greatest Comic Ever.
-
Nina M. says:
Beautifully put, Violet. Now I miss everyone!
-
RKMK says:
*cheers*
-
CoolAunt says:
Yep. When we have adequate representation in Washington, then we can split into two teams, one pro-choice and the other pro-life, with our elected women representing each side.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
When we have adequate representation in Washington, then we can split into two teams, one pro-choice and the other pro-life, with our elected women representing each side.
The problem is that reproductive rights aren’t just about abortion. They’re about women’s right to bodily sovreignty. I’m reluctant to say, “Let’s just not worry about abortion until we have 50% women in government,” because my fear is that in the meantime, reproductive rights will be decimated even more. Already women are barred from obtaining their legally prescribed birth control. Some states are trying to restrict abortion altogether. Others make women sit through “You’ll regret killing your baby!” videos.
We all know that schools are still teaching “abstinence only” which is a crock. Look at Tim Kaine, as your previous post pointed out: perfectly poised to strip away even more rights.
This idea makes me uneasy.
-
Honora too says:
I know that you are right, but I still feel like I am ‘cheating’ on abortion rights. It is such a core belief for me, I don’t really believe women can be free without it.
-
sister of ye says:
Now with a place where there aren’t constant debates regarding abortion, I’d like to see those on the “pro-life” end actually be pro-life on more than insisting that babies be carried to term. That is, push as hard for universal healthcare, environmental standards, consumer protections, quality public education, ending economic disparaties, and a whole host of other issues that impact quality of life for people once they’re born.
Concern about those issues isn’t limited to women. But they impact us significantly because we tend to be more involved in caring for our families, and because lower women’s incomes (including the high numbers of women in poverty) give us fewer private options to deal with them.
I hope conservative women come to see that the politicians and judges they push for their anti-abortion stances generally have abysmal records on the above issues, and issues directly addressing women’s issues like equal pay.
That’s why I respect Sarah Palin, though we disagree on many issues. She wasn’t a hypocrite who quietly hustled her daughter to an abortion clinic, but is helping her raise her child. She works to give assistance to other women having financial and other difficulties carrying and raising their children. That’s part of choice.
-
Sis says:
I really don’t get what’s stopping you from working on your abortion beliefs, pro or con, with some other group. I received an e-mail about a recruitment drive for a sexual assault and rape activist group the other day. Gee, not a word about working toward getting more women in parliament. Am I to shun them then, or pester them with what they ’should’ be doing?
By the way, do men do this? I think it’s very unconstructive.
-
sister of ye says:
Forgot to say - I love that cartoon! There are days when that captures my mood exactly.
-
yttik says:
It is nearly taboo to even discuss abortion within feminism, but over the years I’ve seen how it’s become a real stumbling block for women’s progress. Politically both parties exploit the issue in order to manipulate their base. Pro-choice and pro-life women are kept busy fighting over it so they have no time to advocate for much else. This suits the system well, for over 40 yrs they have refused to strengthen Roe or pass the ERA or do anything to settle the issue. The controversy benefits them.
It has also become an unhealthy political attitude, as if the Gov bestows us our rights out of the goodness of their hearts. The truth is, abortion is a non negotiable demand, it’s not a right granted to us by a bill or a law, abortion has existed for thousands of years. Women had abortions before Roe and even in the most oppressive regimes, women continue.
And from a radical feminist perspective, I view abortion as an unacceptable bandaid for the problems of rape, child sexual abuse, lack of access to BC, the porn culture, low self esteem in young girls. In an equal world it would be a criminal act to invade a woman’s body and create an unwanted pregnancy. The abortion discussion has stalled at men’s responsibility, so we now have a situation where men benefit from abortion, they have no need to respect women or women’s bodies. There are many men today who think nothing of putting a woman thru an abortion, one we hope is safe and easy, but even under the best of circumstances it is still a violation of her body.
I don’t even like to refer to abortion as a “right”. If men had the “right” to an invasive surgical procedure on their private parts every time they were raped or their biology was carelessly ignored, or birth control failed, I don’t think we’d be calling it a “right.” We’d be doing everything we could to to prevent men from having to go thru this.
-
octogalore says:
Well put and the concept makes a lot of sense.
Sis makes a good point. There are plenty of places to go to work on the choice issue.
In a way, the insistence that one group include every issue and that focus=exclusion does seem more endemic with women, possibly because we are expected to work both/all shifts. Feminisim continues to get a bad rap for not encompassing all justice movements, whereas other movements are encouraged to focus. That TNA is unapologetic about women’s rights is truly groundbreaking.
-
donna darko says:
It’s inclusive except women of color like to focus on racist sexism which inevitably turns into discussions of racism and feminism bashing. Not sexism. Most sexual assault and domestic violence is intra-racial and this is universal. This is true in all countries.
-
donna darko says:
Men of color love to focus on racist sexism too because it takes away their accountability so they can bash whites and women of color.
-
Violet says:
I know that you are right, but I still feel like I am ‘cheating’ on abortion rights. It is such a core belief for me, I don’t really believe women can be free without it.
I agree with you. I don’t think women can be free, either, without complete ownership of their own bodies. But there are plenty of ways to work on that, plenty of organizations and avenues to address choice. Does EVERY women’s rights organization have to be about abortion?
-
Sandra S. says:
I understand why TNA has distanced itself from the abortion issue, and I support that stance. At the same time, I feel that I need to work on abortion issues as well, through another organization.
But which organization should I be supporting? It seems like all of mainstream feminism and every pro-choice organization abandoned us by supporting Obama. Isn’t there one out there that I can support? Didn’t the LA branch of PP or NARAL or something support Palin?
Basically, what organization can I support that is A) Pro-Choice, and B) having of integrity?
-
ea says:
I must address a theme that tends to appear in discussions about abortion–that it is something that happens to women, another violation. I think people still have an image of cold, sharp, metal that simply is not the case and has not been for decades.
Medical abortions have existed for centuries. In the United States and many other countries, pharmaceutical options exist for women who take pills to end unwanted pregnancies. In many cases, this is done in her own home, at her own convenience.
Further, I agree that there is a global assault on women. It is true that some women will destroy other women for the approval of men, which is often short-lived. I think the key is to get to young girls early and provide the knowledge, confidence, and sense of integrity to be able to withstand the onslaught of the virgin/whore duality, covert and overt misogyny, and devaluing of women’s skills that is directed toward them in the pre-teen and early teen years.
Not sure how we do it.
-
Sis says:
Obviously ea, neither do millions of mothers, then and now. Everytime I read something like your statemtn (don’t mean this was your intent) I see the spectre of mother-blaming. Or the cry of “not my dad we were raised to believe we could be whatever we wanted” (as though they lived somewhere orbiting the earth).
Every feminist mother I’ve ever known or just read, has had that as a goal, lived and worked it. But many of us children who betray our plans for them once they hit puberty. The time stamp may vary, but it’s almost a given: your kids will not be what you want them to be, and especially, what you have modelled. With exception, of course.
-
CoolAunt says:
Ah well, tinfoilhattie. I usually manage to put my foot in my mouth somehow.
Those, like Sis, who responded to suggest that women’s reproductive rights can be worked on via orgs other than TNA are right. I do hope, however, that one day at least half of our lawmakers will be women. Then, whatever decisions that are made on behalf of women and for women will be made by women.
-
ea says:
Upon further thought…
Another, more insidious, force at work is the concept and widely accepted notion of the nuclear, male-headed family being the ideal. This hits girls and boys from the time they are born. I think in many cultures it is pounded into females that they should WANT to be married and have kids and have their kids, especially if they are “stuck” with daughters, be well-married. I hypothesize that this leads to many females seeking male approval.
Also, I wish to point out in my own post that I stopped short of indicating that we should also be getting to boys early and instilling in them that they are not automatically better than girls and that they should not automatically be given preferential treatment compared to girls. It is not okay for them to think they can do whatever they want to girls and women, even if their friends think so. I have met two women who told their sons, that if they (the mothers) ever found out their sons assaulted or abused or raped a girl or woman, they (the mothers) would personally cut off their sons’ balls.
-
Sasha, CA says:
I appreciate and support what The New Agenda is trying to accomplish, especially at a time when the established women’s rights organizations are advocating for every left-wing cause from anti-racism to veganism, thereby diluting their focus and making more conservative women feel excluded. I am, however, ambivalent about The New Agenda’s refusal to take a position on abortion, in large part because I question how many otherwise pro-feminist women are anti-choice (not to be confused with being anti-abortion). I personally don’t know any. I do know women who aren’t comfortable with the term “pro-choice” because they associate it with being pro-abortion, and I even know a woman who calls herself “pro-life” because she wouldn’t have an abortion under any circumstances but ask her if she believes the government should outlaw the procedure and her answer is no. Even my mother-in-law, a Christian fundamentalist and Republican from Alabama but also a strong woman who has always had her own career and is furious that she’s been a victim of gender-based employment discrimination, is pro-choice. The only anti-choice women I know are anti-feminist pretty much across the board.
While I don’t doubt that there are some women who’ve managed to convince themselves that their pro-forced pregnancy/birth stance is not inconsistent with a general belief in women’s autonomy and equality, I question whether there are enough feminist-leaning anti-choicers to warrant not even taking a position on the issue. It’s one thing for The New Agenda not to make abortion one of their main concerns given that other organizations are focusing exclusively on reproductive rights, but I’m concerned that by not even taking a position on abortion, we risk sending the message that even feminists are deeply conflicted about and in disagreement over this issue when that just isn’t the case.
What makes the anti-choice position particularly indefensible is that outlawing abortion doesn’t stop it — it just drives it underground. Study after study indicates that abortion rates in countries that outlaw abortion are just as high (and sometimes higher) as abortion rates in countries that don’t. The difference is that when abortion is illegal, thousands of women end up dead, maimed, or in need of emergency medical treatment (often having to make the decision to seek potentially life-saving treatment at the cost of getting themselves or friends/family into serious legal trouble). How can anyone who cares about women be in favor of that?
Instead of pretending that abortion rights are an issue that reasonable people can disagree on, I think it would be better to take a clear stand in favor of keeping abortion legal while working with those who oppose abortion to reduce the need for the procedure. That way everybody wins.
-
yttik says:
“I don’t think women can be free, either, without complete ownership of their own bodies.”
Totally agree, but ownership of our bodies does not begin and end with abortion. I think a lot of younger feminists missed that piece, the part where the founding mothers were speaking out against abortion, not because they wanted women to have less rights, but because they viewed abortion as a symptom of several crimes against women, poverty and rape for example.
The right to an abortion does not grant women ownership of their bodies. It only grants them the right to end an unwanted pregnancy. There is so much more work to be done.
-
Sis says:
I’m not saying I’d work with women who were anti-choice if they brought it into whatever other issue. And if it was rape, or sex slavery, or women’s welfare issues (what a redundancy), well, I don’t want any s**t from them there, definitely. It’s just too closely related to body autonomy. They should probably phone it in.
-
Branjor says:
***I have met two women who told their sons, that if they (the mothers) ever found out their sons assaulted or abused or raped a girl or woman, they (the mothers) would personally cut off their sons’ balls.***
That’s an empty threat. Everyone knows the mother would be jailed if she actually cut off her son’s balls. They should have said that if they found out the sons had assaulted, raped or abused a girl or woman, they (the mothers) would no longer be their mothers.
-
gxm17 says:
After we outlaw war, capital punishment and killing in self-defense, then I’ll listen to the argument to make abortion illegal. Seriously, anti-choicers need to work on those first three and then we can talk.
We’re fighting a land war that’s been going on since the beginning of civilization. And the land we’re fighting for is the female body. I doubt it will ever end, but I have to believe it will get better.
-
gxm17 says:
Sasha, I embrace the term pro-choice. Because if you take away my choice to have an abortion, then you take away my choice to not have an abortion.
-
Kiuku says:
I agree that abortion is being held hostage by democratic men and the misogynist majority, in exchange to keep male privilege going. Men do not see abortion rights as a threat to the Patriarchy because a lot of men would like to be able to tell a woman to have an abortion. Abortion rights are integral to women’s rights, but we can’t let men remain in the majority because they have Roe hostage. We must demand everything. immediately.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Cool Aunt, I didn’t mean to imply that you “put your foot in it.” Your comment crystallized for me the fear I have around taking our eyes off abortion for one second - it’s such a slippery slop.
AND, I do see the value in having equal representation in government, because I think it would be a lot harder to push through some of this crap.
I saw an anti-abortion protester holding up a sign that said, “Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” That speaks volumes, doesn’t it? Clearly once the baby is born it ceases to be a “problem,” or maybe even a concern of any kind.
Also: Was it here we were discussing how odd it is that anti-abortion folk never talk about the trauma involved in giving up a baby for adoption, but insist on trying to add “abortion trauma” to the official list of psychological/mental/emotional conditions?
-
Alwaysthinking says:
Before the election, I told one of my closest friends, who is “pro-life,” that the overarching emphasis on choice/anti-choice was making women ineffective in the political system, a constant political football. (I didn’t mean abandoning the issue, however.)
By the way, here is a view from a male in Africa who is trying to address the horrible and historical abuse of women there, often carried out by women. He talks about his practical approach to raising awareness and also teaching women about new gender discrimination laws. Recognizing the 30 per cent rule, some Africans also are trying to elect women to office to improve the lives of themselves and their families. It takes enormous courage for them to participate in changes there. http://standardtimespress.net/.....3019.shtml.
-
angelasmith says:
I might ramble a bit here, so please forgive it.
I was delighted to see you identify yourself as a radical feminist! Me too. I see right to self autonomy over one’s body as the first right, and the most important right. I did cross over after Hillary was tanked by my ex-party and I did vote
M/Palin. I thought P’s remarks on choice were hopeful because I felt she might open a dialogue and not be a barrier to pro choice. I do feel queasy about letting pro choice not be at the forefront of any fem org. I did appreciate your opinions on where you stand with that issue. One thing I found good about watching Palin at rallies was the changing expressions on the women in her audience. When she was introduced as VP candidate, the women looked a bit hardened, confused. I saw many, many women start to get this kind of almost ashamed enthusiasm and then almost euphoria on their faces. By having a woman be in such a position, I think it gave those women something they’d not had before– a sense of possibility and pride in themselves perhaps.
(actually the main reason I thought many in the repub tanks turned against her was because of just that– her ability to help women rise.) So I’ll admit I’m still sitting on the fence…yes, a bridge, a unity between us repubs, dems, etcs
on issues we can agree with… but also a strong fear to move from pro choice as being our cornerstone. -
ea says:
Branjor–try being a bit less literal. I think you missed the point.
I have heard parenting described as “the art of hollow threat making.”
-
Branjor says:
And the point is?
What’s the good of a hollow threat against something as horrific as rape, assault and abuse? She might as well have given them permission to go out and do it. The threat needs to have teeth in it.
-
awfisticuffer says:
Women should not be mothering to males who rape and assault women anyway. I think your idea is sound Branjor
-
ea says:
Okay, I’ll explain it S-L-O-W-L-Y. Forgive the snark, but really.
These women wanted their sons to respect women and raised them to do so. However, recognizing that many influences exist outside of their own on their children, they wished for their sons to understand that abuse of women is serious and not a joke and will not be tolerated. Making such a graphic statement drives home the above points. Maybe it is a generational thing–if you don’t get it now, then never mind.
-
Branjor says:
You don’t need to explain it S L O W L Y or at all.I understood perfectly what the “reasoning” was behind it, I just don’t agree that making a threat that is empty and hollow will actually make the point that woman abuse is serious and “won’t be tolerated” no matter *how* graphic it is. What would she REALLY do if he committed rape?
