NOW conference infiltrated by NOW members
The fallout from the NOW election is proving very amusing. Over at Viva La Feminista, Roni writes breathlessly:
There have been comments flying in the blogosphere and Twitter that the Palin people were a rumor. I took pics of at least one of them.
She took a picture! Of “at least one of them”! I’m giggling here like Charlotte Corday in Marat/Sade, and I haven’t even started in on tonight’s Mexican Mudslide.
This is a slightly cropped version of Roni’s photo, snapped no doubt from a moving Land Rover as Jim Fowler readied the tranquilizer dart:
The woman at the mike is Dr. Lynette Long, lifelong feminist activist, NOW member, and a delegate to the conference. Roni labels this photo, 'Palin supporter disrupting #NOW09 plenary.'
Now look: I like Roni, and the few dealings I’ve had with her have been entirely friendly. I don’t mean to get on her case at all. Nothing personal. But this whole episode is like a moving diorama of How Younger Feminists Have Lost Touch With Their Roots.
The label Roni put on the photo reads: “Palin supporter disrupting #NOW09 plenary.” The woman in the picture is actually Dr. Lynette Long, a good friend of mine who is a lifelong feminist activist, prominent Democrat, long-term NOW member, and a delegate to this year’s national conference. I’ll let Lynette summarize her feminist credentials in her own words:
“I have worked an entire lifetime to further feminist causes. My first professional job was teaching remedial high school math to girls. I started a web-based business called Color Math Pink to promote math achievement for girls and I was selected by the American Girl company to write Mathsmarts, a math strategy book for girls. If I am anything, I am a feminist.
“I have researched sex-role stereotyping and gender issues and published dozens of articles in trade and professional journals including Working Mother, Essence, and Ms. If I am anything, I am a feminist.
“I have fought for the rights of women every single day of my life. I point out the dearth of photos of women in the New York Times to the lucky person who sits next to me on an airplane, the lack of pictures of women on money to the wait staff at a diner, and I have been in a decade-long fight with the United States Post Office to put more pictures of women on postage stamps. If I am anything, I am a feminist.
“I coined the term ‘latchkey children’ and defended the rights of women to work on the national level. I have assisted numerous projects to improve the quality of childcare so that mothers could work and not worry about the safety of their children. If I am anything, I am a feminist.
“I am passionately pro-choice but I also think that it is not always a psychologically free choice. I have written a play which deals with the psychological complexities of abortion entitled, One in Two, which has been performed in New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC. If I am anything, I am a feminist.
“I have spent decades coaching women on how to achieve more power in their personal relationships and in the workplace. If I am anything, I am a feminist.”
Lynette isn’t normally in the habit of reciting her resume, but the context for that little bit of credential-waving was the campaign last fall, when she decided to support Sarah Palin’s bid for VP. That’s right: Lynette really did support Palin. Cue head-explosions.
Why would such an adamant, devoted, thoroughly pro-choice feminist support Sarah Palin?
Well, two reasons: one negative, one positive. The negative reason is that Lynette, like me and like a lot of other people, was immensely disturbed by the way Obama and his allies in the DNC treated Hillary Clinton last year. Lynette also spent the late spring and summer of 2008 investigating the reports of caucus fraud by the Obama campaign. What she found turned her against Obama completely. (I worked with her on the caucus stuff, and it had a similar effect on me. I went from planning to vote for Obama while holding my nose, to vowing I would cut off my hand before voting for that crook.)
But Lynette also had a positive reason for supporting Palin: because she understands the importance of role-modeling. Lynette is a psychologist and an educator who specializes in empowering girls. In her essay The X Factor, she wrote:
Yes, policy is important but who decides and delivers that policy is even more important. As Marshall McLuhan profoundly noted, “The medium is the message.” Children incorporate many of their perceptions about gender by age five. Little girls won’t understand if Sarah Palin is pro-life or pro-choice, believes in gun control or is a member of the NRA, but they will know the Vice-President of the United States of America is a girl and that alone will alter their perceptions of themselves.
What she’s talking about here is representation. The power of role-modeling. The importance of seeing women and people of color in positions of power and prestige.
Now, the funny thing is, Third Wave feminists — and I’m talking now about the Third Wavers who are virulently anti-Palin and consider the words “Palin supporter” tantamount to the mark of the beast — understand the importance of representation very well when it comes to voting for, say, Barack Obama. (We all got the message loud and clear last year that no matter what Obama did or didn’t do, simply the fact of the man, in all his biracial glory, was enough.) They understand it very well when it comes to advocating for, say, Latifa Lyles as president of NOW; as one woman said, “I want to see the face of a young woman of color” representing feminism.
The only time Third Wave feminists don’t understand representation, it seems, is when the proposed representative is someone they personally don’t like. Then it becomes a ridiculous argument that only stupid old dried-up battle-axes make and jeez, could we hurry up with the ice floes already?
The fact is, there were good feminist reasons last year for voting for Obama or Palin or McKinney-Clemente. Many of my friends voted for Obama, and I completely understand why. I supported the Green ticket, myself — an exercise in futility, I know, but it fit my conscience. And quite a few genuine, hardcore, lifelong feminists voted for McCain-Palin, either because they were eyeing the glass ceiling or protesting the Democrats or both. As I wrote at the time:
Politics isn’t an exercise in purity.
Many women right now are feeling that the best thing they can do to advance women’s status in this country is to elect a woman to the highest office possible, even though — paradoxically — that woman doesn’t share one of the key planks of American feminism. (Though she does share most of the others, an extremely important fact that should not be overlooked. It makes a difference that she explicitly espouses a belief in gender equality.) These women feel that the symbolic value of shattering the glass ceiling is worth it.
For my part, I’m aware that there are many different ways to advance women’s status. Policies are one. Representation is another. They both matter. Neither is sufficient alone.
You may not agree with that calculus, but you should at least understand that different feminists may come to different conclusions when assessing the best way to advance feminist goals. Especially in a year when the two most prominent women in American politics were reduced, respectively, to a nutcracker and an inflatable doll.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Forgive me for saying that I think part of the issue with some Third Wavers is just youth. The older women get, the deeper and broader their understanding of how this whole patriarchy thingamajig works. Older women have lived through countless betrayals by male fellow-travelers who proved to be less interested in equality than we thought. They’ve discovered that conservative women can sometimes be invaluable allies in the fight for women’s rights. (Sandra Day O’Connor is a Republican, and a pretty conservative one, but she held the line when it mattered.) And they’ve realized the crucial importance of having role models and path-breakers to ease the trail.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that a woman with Lynette Long’s life experience might make a different calculus about the 2008 election than a 25-year-old female Barack Obama fan. Feminism is a broad path.
Which brings me to another thing: Third Wavers also talk a lot about inclusiveness, about having a movement that includes many different ways of doing feminism. Really? Really?
Okay. So start. Start by not demonizing feminists like Lynette Long.
130 Responses to “NOW conference infiltrated by NOW members”
-
Sis says:
It couldn’t be funnier. She took a photo of Lynette?
I don’t know…youth. I still think it’s because they don’t know the difference between gossip and fact. Marshall McLuhan, indeed.
I have to get Lynette’s mailing address. She needs some Canadian stamps commemorating the Famous Five. All old women.
http://www.ncwc.ca/aboutUs_five.html
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:19 pm EST -
myiq2xu says:
What were Jim and Marlin Perkins doing at the conference?
Stalking wild PUMAs?
-
Nora says:
I consider myself a lifelong, hardcore feminist, but I no longer consider pro-choice to be necessary to call oneself a ‘feminist’. This last election caused this shift for me.
I would much rather see us broaden our definition of feminism or create a class of feminism where abortion is not included. These women who voted for Obama clearly didn’t really care about the issue or they would not have voted for that crook. I would like to see NOW reach out to Palin supporters. I would like to see the 3rd wave feminists dropped because I don’t think they are feminists. I’ve read some of their posts, and just being pro-choice doesn’t make you a feminist. These women seem clueless.
-
AniEm says:
Thank you for citing the many accomplishments Dr. Lynette Long. Governor Palin has LIVED feminism (whether or not she ascribes to the label) if we look at her achievements and I find it difficult to fathom that membership in NOW is entirely predicated on who does/does not support Palin. This is an extension of the never-ending Obama-Drama and I am one bitter old lady who is infuriated by it.
The lock-step mentality and slanting is unbelievable and contradicts everything feminism is about. The blind allegiance to what is currently masquerading as the Democratic party is deplorable. I hope Terry O’Neill succeeds in breathing new life into an organization that is dead to its own principles.
-
SYD says:
Wait….
I need to pour me a mudslide too. The laughing…. it kills….
This is by far the *best* entertainment going!
Thanks a bunch, Dr. Socks.
SYD
-
Alibe says:
Reading these comments is putting the biggest smile on my face since Hillary won all the biggest states and even stomped Obama in Puerto Rico.
Those Bots might fool the young fools but they can’t fool us PUMAs. -
taggles says:
the other woman she identifies as a “palin supporter” at the link to her twitpic site is Pauli Abeles.
Pauli and her group did not endorse Palin. The viva la feminista’s need to understand the people who make up their membership body.
I understand Lynette Longs reasoning for supporting palin outright. That would not be my choice and it wasn’t, but I did damn well expect women’s organizations to speak out against sexism anywhere and everywhere.
-
Gayle says:
“Forgive me for saying that I think part of the issue with some Third Wavers is just youth. The older women get, the deeper and broader their understanding of how this whole patriarchy thingamajig works.”
You’ll never be forgiven for that statement, lady. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from reading Third Wave blogs it’s that third wavers, unlike mere mortals, were born knowing absolutely everything and don’t need any further education from the likes of us. They are also completely aware of everything and don’t need their consciences raised because they live in a vacuum and are utterly unaffected by culture. Everything from the shoes they wear to the TV shows they watch is picked with full knowledge of all possible feminist implications.
I believe they were born that way.
-
Carmonn says:
To the Third Wavers, that just proves Dr. Long is not a feminist. She advocates on behalf of equality for girls and women? A) Gross B) Victim Complex/Denial of Agency C) What about the menz? what about other countries where almost everyone is worse off than here? What about…. D) She supported female candidates, when the feminist way is to support supremely unqualified men and draw men’s attention to the fact that you are doing so and the fact that you tend to almost invariably find female candidates distasteful and hold them to much higher standards.
-
deborah says:
“Especially in a year when the two most prominent women in American politics were reduced, respectively, to a nutcracker and an inflatable doll.”
Doesn’t that just say it all. It pisses me off all over again.
-
Puma for Life says:
Good to see that Dr. Long is still actively working for women. She disappeared from her blog. I am really sick of this fascination with “youth” and I am so glad a bunch of old white women who are WISE WITH AGE AND EXPERIENCE finally got back to work and won this NOW election. I believe the most important issue for women is economic equality and that the most important thing we can do is elect a woman to the Presidency, I don’t care about her policies. I was a Hillary supporter who went with McCain/Palin and I am continuing to support Palin. Electing her to the presidency, if she should decide to run, will be the most important thing we can do for women’s equality. You go Dr. Long and all old white women…we can do it.
-
yttik says:
ROFL! Oh dear, this really is getting kind of funny.
I’ve admired Dr. Lynette Long from afar for quite some time now. She is definitely what a feminist looks like.
I like Palin, too. Just yesterday she signed Domestic violence/Sexual Assault legislation. Not long ago she appointed a pro-choice former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme court. She’s not a big scary boogeyman, she’s just a rather successful politician who has actually done some rather feminist things.
-
Violet says:
a bunch of old white women
I do want to make clear that it wasn’t just “old white women,” no matter what the Lyles supporters say.
Terry O’Neill was supported by prominent NOW members as well as rank-and-file voters. Carol Moseley Braun, Patricia Ireland, and Olga Vives were the most prominent supporters, so obviously we’re not talking about just “old white women.”
Also, Terry’s team is diversified in terms of youth and race: http://feministleadershipnow.w.....-allendra/
People supported Terry because a) the organization is in a mess and Latifa, as membership VP, has presided over a 40% drop in membership and revenue; and b) Terry and her team have a specific plan and are very hard-headed and action-oriented.
-
octogalore says:
At the advanced age of 41, which as you discussed yesterday is 287 in third wave feminist terms: hell yeah.
RE “Third Wavers also talk a lot about inclusiveness, about having a movement that includes many different ways of doing feminism. Really? Really?”
Third Wavers talk a lot about inclusiveness, but what they actually mean is diversity of race, class, ability level, orientation, etc (all of which is great, although imperfectly handled in practice by many). They do not mean diversity of viewpoint (even if folks with diverging views all ID as feminists). In fact, the enforcement of groupthink is ever-increasing.
IMO,that is why all those annoyingly gleeful Double-X, Slate, Jezebel-type articles about whether feminism is obsolete. When something becomes an exclusive club with high entrance barriers, membership tends to drop off.
-
fif says:
Great job Wise Women! Now let’s use this as an example of organizing our power and knowledge to effect true change for women. Last year, we were not unified in time to make a difference. If we use the time available to us now, we can ROAR when it counts!
-
SM/sm77 says:
Dr. Violet Socks, been reading you a looong time. Been agreeing with what you say for a looong time as well.
But here’s the catch: Third Wave Feminism only involves upper middle class to very rich white women.
First, Second, and thanks to you pushing it, FOURTH wave feminism involves ALL WOMEN.
-
Marcy says:
Dr. Socks, since you’re dead, I was wondering if you have superpowers; and, if so, could you revive the National Women’s Party?
-
m Andrea says:
” consider myself a lifelong, hardcore feminist, but I no longer consider pro-choice to be necessary to call oneself a ‘feminist’. This last election caused this shift for me.”
Perhaps you meant that you could agree to disagree while working on other issues together? Or did you really mean that someone who would eliminate the reproductive freedom of others is a feminist?
-
Violet says:
Dr. Socks, since you’re dead, I was wondering if you have superpowers
Yes.
-
Violet says:
They do not mean diversity of viewpoint
Unless that diverse viewpoint comes wrapped in an appropriately diverse package. Remember a couple of years ago when it was all the rage to agree with WOC bloggers that the pro-choice movement was racist?
-
Marcy says:
Thank you for clearing that up, about the superpowers, I mean; but that wasn’t the important part of the question. What about the National Women’s Party? We’re just fooling ourselves if we believe either party cares about women’s rights. We’re apparently living at a time when violence against women is no biggie. A Chicago policeman was given probation and a little community service for beating the crap out of a female bartender; somewhere in California, they are having money problems so have chosen to cut back on DNA testing in rape cases. It’s considered perfectly acceptable to level gender-based insults or jokes against women by people who would be rightly horrified if such comments were made toward someone based on race or ethnicity. I’m pro-choice, but centering the entire women’s movement on this one issue does not seem to have gotten us anywhere except several giant steps backward. I’m tired of the Democratic Party holding us hostage on that one issue.
So, could you use your superpowers to revive the National Women’s Party?
-
Shannon Drury says:
Thank you for using your blog to counter what’s been written in Viva La Feminista. I too am a fan of Veronica’s writing, but I am distressed that the national media is quoting her opinions about the conference and presenting them as fact.
If there is any doubt about the seriousness of NOW’s financial situation, a journalist ought to call their bank. This election had less to do with Palin than it had to do with Kim Gandy’s refusal to admit that this ship hit an iceberg and has been taking on some serious water. Gandy’s handpicked successor, Latifa Lyles, suffered for it.
-
Lynette says:
We have to take back the women’s movement since it’s obvious these third wavers can’t get the job done. When it comes to sexism, sexual harrasment, and violence against women,my attitude is TAKE NO PRISONERS. Only when they are afraid of us, will they respect us.
-
Violet says:
Note to new commenters: On this post, as on every other post on this blog, I will not approve comments that perpetuate the anti-Palin misinformation that was spread by the Obama campaign. If you want to repeat the lies that Palin is anti-contraception or pro-abstinence-only, or that she made rape victims pay for their own kits, you’ll need to find another blog. Those allegations are FALSE and I will have no truck with slander.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
O’Neill’s election to head up NOW has actually given me hope that NOW won’t join the feminist dustbin of irrelevancy. (I had all but given up on NOW long before this unfortunate election.) All this consternation over her election from certain quarters has raised her stock substantially as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know that the root cause of the consternation is just youth and stupidity, but I’m with Bette Davis on this one:
“If you want a thing done right, get an old broad to do it.”
-
no pasaran says:
I say Viva La Violeta!
-
Sis says:
So I went to the New York NOW site and browsed around. Found photos of members. All old and wow, what fashion sense. I want that t-shirt on the right:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2.....068298502/ -
Sis says:
Viva…yes. I see her striding through the water, lightening shooting from her cane, alpaca in the background getting frizzy.
-
octogalore says:
Violet, re #20, good point. How could I forget? I agreed, much to the chagrin of the gang I was then running with, with the one WOC blogger (a Planned Parenthood board member) who said it wasn’t.
But hey. Many of the major pro choice orgs have regained favor with the third wave because they more vocally and enthusiastically supported the preferred Democrat over the female one. Guess her platform wasn’t “youth-led” or “cutting-edge” enough.
-
KendallJ says:
Great blog Violet, And, I’m thrilled that new leadership will be taking over NOW. It sounds like O’Neil isn’t afraid to challenge the Democratic establishment. I don’t want to get into trashing the 20 and 30 somethings, but I am glad the a more experienced candidate won the NOW presidential election.
The thing about NOW that I hope people understand is that they didn’t oppose the sexism that was perpetrated against either Clinton or Palin. I’ve heard people say how NOW only defends liberal women. What we saw last year is they didn’t stand by the liberal women either. I think it was their allience with the democratic establishment. And We all know that the democratic establishment didn’t want either of these women to be elected.
Also, NOW has taken on everyone’s cause except women’s. They totally missed the “equal treatment doctrine” during the campaigns. I realized how ineffective they were when they didn’t speak out about the misogyny and sexism. They seemed to lack any desire and ability to draw public attention to it and to forcefully denounce it. They flatly failed to call it out. YES I’M ANGRY ABOUT IT! They were not there for the much needed political push-back against the sexism that should have been forseen by them. They should have organized and protested. They should pushed the issue.
-
david in iowa says:
This story is aging worse than the Miss Calif non-story
I was at the conference. I am a 27 year member and this was my 8th elections conf. All in all it was quite tame. Sometimes it got a bit heated. Really? Wow, you put over 600 feminist together for 3 days and expect them to join hands and sing Kum-by-ya the entire time? Ain’t gonna happen.
Debate is NOT a bad thing. To disagree is NOT a bad thing. To have an opinion is a VERY good thing and feminists have lots of opinions.
and as I have said before. Terry O”Neill is the new NOW President. She will be (at least) until the 2013 conference. I’ll see you all there.
in unity
david
-
donna darko says:
I love the picture of Lynette.
It’s like the adults finally showed up after an 18 month nightmare.
-
Briar says:
“I love the picture of Lynette.” Yep. Of course in this country (the UK, which did for Menzies Campbell precisely on the grounds that he was older, wiser, more experienced, and, worst of all, *polite*) she would be caricatured as a skull with a zimmerframe - especially if her speech identified her to be articulate, educated and courteous. “Yoof rulz” don’t ya know. Cruel is cool. Anyone over 40 here is past it.
-
SYD says:
“It’s like the adults finally showed up after an 18 month nightmare.”
18 months of “Lord of the Flies.” That’s what it was. And… now he is swatting them?
Perhaps it is a good omen???
Yeah! Lynette is back!!!
SYD
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
Uh-oh. I don’t support Palin AND I don’t support feminists who don’t support feminism, regardless of age, years in movement, etc. Could someone please direct me to the line I am supposed to stand in? Thenkyew.
-
Nessum says:
Love your blog Violet. Reading you and your commenters is very informative – and educational.
Not being a feminist myself – though I vigorously and loudly oppose sexism wherever I meet it – I see that there are certain requirements for being named a feminist. I’m confident that I myself would have no problem being perceived as one, should I so chose. But I have wondered lately if a Muslim woman, who strives towards the same goals that feminists do, could do the same. Or would the fact that she adheres to a religion that is oppressive of women – and maybe even displays obvious orthodoxy – disqualify her?
1) Would she be accepted as one if a Muslim woman in America calls herself a feminist? (As there definitely would be a difference in the definition of a feminist in a Muslim country and in America.)
2) Would a Muslim woman wearing a scarf covering her hair – perceived by her to be in accordance with her belief – be welcomed by feminists?
And could she possibly join NOW? Just wondering.
-
taggles says:
I know that feminists can disagree on many things, but this is the type of reason I could not politically support Sarah Palin:
“She cited in particular the role of Susan B. Anthony, the feminist pioneer who was also staunchly anti-abortion.
The women’s movement, she said, contains “a common thread of desiring protection for women – for me that includes our youngest sisters – that’s girls in the womb.”
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....0dRK&D
She said this earlier this month when she visited Seneca Falls. I strongly believe that for women to have full equality, we must have control over our own bodies. Statements like that from Sarah Palin, make my stomach cringe.
Even though it makes my stomach cringe, no woman should be subjected to sexist attacks. And women should defend other women who are victims of sexism no matter political ideology. That doesn’t mean one has to support them politically. One can defend and be critical without being sexist. This is not rocket science.
-
SYD says:
What is Nessum talking about?
I know of several Feminist nuns. In both the Buddhist and Catholic traditions.
When have Feminists ever said women can’t make choices about what religion they belong to?
Susan B. Anthony, herself, said:
“I have worked 40 years to make the Women’s Suffrage platform broad enough for Atheists and Agnostics to stand upon, and now if need be I will fight the next 40 to keep it Catholic enough to permit the straightest Orthodox religionist to speak or pray and count her beads upon.”
Of course there are Feminist Muslims! In case you haven’t heard, Nessum, they are dying on the streets of Iran as we type.
SYD
-
SYD says:
Oh… and “David.”
Are you the same David that is over at The Confluence calling for the PUMAs to be confined because they are “crazy?”
Just wondering…..
Cuz the “get over it” schtick is getting a bit old.
-
RKMK says:
To the Third Wavers, that just proves Dr. Long is not a feminist. She advocates on behalf of equality for girls and women? A) Gross B) Victim Complex/Denial of Agency C) What about the menz? what about other countries where almost everyone is worse off than here? What about…. D) She supported female candidates, when the feminist way is to support supremely unqualified men and draw men’s attention to the fact that you are doing so and the fact that you tend to almost invariably find female candidates distasteful and hold them to much higher standards.
Oh, Carmonn. How I giggled.
Sigh, Third-Wavers. Technically, my generation, but somehow I avoided being indoctrinated by backlash. My second-wave mother taught me the value of tough old broads, and personally, I can’t wait to become one. (I kind of am now, actually, at the age of 28. But I think I need some more street-cred, the kind that twenty-odd more years in the trenches will give me.)
-
Gidget Commando says:
The older women get, the deeper and broader their understanding of how this whole patriarchy thingamajig works. Older women have lived through countless betrayals by male fellow-travelers who proved to be less interested in equality than we thought.
This, EXACTLY. For example, when you’re younger, it’s easier to believe that you didn’t get the promotion because you’re not experienced enough, or that someone else had a better resume, or whatever. It’s easier to believe that a woman was treated poorly because of her individual behavior or circumstances, and that you might do better than she did. After a certain amount of life experience, however, you just can’t attribute ALL of the accumulated insults, unshattered glass ceilings, and wounds to isolated, individual causes.
I’m glad someone with a real plan took over. Might be time to get out my checkbook and join.
-
samanthasmom says:
So for those of us who let our NOW membership lapse in protest or for people who have decided to join for the first time to support Terry and her VP’s, do we get out our checkbooks now, or send the money on July 20th - the day that Terry takes over?
-
Sis says:
Uh oh No Blood for Hubris. If you don’t understand that when they call her a cunt, they are calling you a cunt…maybe you’re not a feminist? Because it’s not possible to be a feminist (in the line I stand in) if you don’t defend (not necessarily support) *any* woman who is called a cunt, a bitch, an old hag, slut, nut-cracker.
Fine distinction. But you’ll get it I know. I’ve read your blog. Some of the sharpest best writing I’ve ever seen.
-
sister of ye says:
Well, David, I suspect you’re new to these parts, or you’d know many feminists shouted as loud as we could to defend Clinton. What we ran into is the lame defense, “But it’s not that she’s a woman, she’s just that Evil Clinton Woman.”
When the sexist attacks came against Palin, the pattern was clear. So we jumped up to defend Palin against those attacks - which is not a defense of all her positions, anymore than one had to buy all of Clinton’s positions to defend her, though most of us did.
Through the years many us have voted for a lot of male politicians who did the “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I’ll respect the law of the land” dance. Till Palin makes a push to enact her beliefs into law, which I’ve seen no sign of, she falls in that same category for me.
The feminism I grew up with was as committed to supporting women in caring for children as it was to ensure that they could choose not to have any. Advancing women’s economic and professional status means helping those who are mothers balance work and child care.
If Palin is going to follow thru and push for universal health care, parental leaves, more flexible work schedules, equal pay, and a host of other measures that would help women who are mothers, you know, I can live with that.
-
Lynette says:
I say wait until July 20th to open your checkbooks so we make sure the new team gets the money.
-
gxm17 says:
The (very) little that I have read of Muslim feminist writing and apologetics is quite lovely and thought provoking. (More so than the so-called third wave!) A Muslim woman can absolutely call herself a feminist.
-
Nessum says:
SYD, your way of dismissing me – referring to me in the third person – is the kind of patronizing attitude that keeps me from wanting to participate in any womens organisation. I was only just wondering if Muslims would be welcomed into American feminist’s organizations.
And yes I do know, that women are killed all over the world, feminists or not, thank you very much.
I’ll now slide back into lurkerdom.
-
taggles says:
I have a question. Can I belong to this new 4th wave feminist movement? I happen to feel that being able to choose an abortion is the cornerstone for equality for women.
Will I be told that I shouldn’t let abortion divide us any longer and watch Roe v. Wade be nibbled around its edged until it no longer exists as the law of the land?
Obama has been saying we need to seek common ground on abortion. Like reducing the number of abortions, contraception and sex education. Sounds great,huh? But who is it we are suppose to be seeking this common ground with? It’s not women who are personally opposed to abortion but believe in choice. The common ground with that group has already been achieved. So who is it we are to seek common ground with? It’s the anti abortion crowd. The people who do not want a woman to have an abortion for any reason. It’s the people who believe that abortion is baby killing. What common ground is there to achieve with people who will not compromise? With people who do not believe in contraception, with people who do not want sex education taught.
I use to be of the mind that abortion was a dividing factor among women, yes it is and it should remain so. There is no common ground to be found with the people we are being asked to find it with. They are using our good will, our common sense solutions to eat away at Roe v. Wade. To participate in finding common ground with this group is to give them standing on this issue. It’s like saying we feel abortion is wrong. It is giving them our ground.
Is there room for someone like me?
-
octogalore says:
Nessum — in my view, the answers to your questions, beginning with the one you labeled (1), are:
Yes
Yes
Yes
That said, why don’t you consider yourself a feminist?
-
octogalore says:
taggles: I think the disconnect with what you are saying and what those who are advocating a nonpartisan feminism is the following.
The latter group aren’t advocating that you shelve your pro choice principles or retreat to a “common ground” midway position on choice. I happen to agree with you, and disagree with President Obam, on the ability to do the latter without encroaching on choice, which I too feel is critical. The idea is simply to ally with and work with feminists on issues on which there IS common ground.
If one is to agree on everything before one can work on isolated issues, then the group that can work together and use critical mass in its favor is unproductively small.
If you work with anti-choice feminists on equal pay, anti-sex-discrimination, calling out sexist/ageist/racist memes specifically perpetrated against women, etc., nothing is preventing you from also working with pro choice groups.
In my case, I have common ground on pretty much all social policy issues with other feminists. Many of them see things differently on economics, however. You may feel economics isn’t as much of a cornerstone issue, but I believe it is certainly a feminist issue, as I see regulated capitalism as a flawed but clearly superior way for women and other marginalized groups to break out of second class citizenship. However, I understand others have principled reasons for disagreeing and many of these others are not only feminist allies but close friends.
Nobody who believes in Roe (as I and you do) should sit and watch it erode. But how does working with anti-choice feminists on mutually supported issues do that? There is a bizarre sense of “if I hang out with people who like strawberry ice cream, I will be killing the market for pistachio ice cream” within the feminist movement.
Obama is doing something different. He’s not simply trying to find common ground with Republicans on issues on which there is legitimate common ground. He’s trying to create some kind of abortion no man’s land where there really isn’t one. Choice is pretty much a boolean issue (save for the area of late term in which many on either side do find common ground). His equivocation, as in his answer to the question about when life begins at Saddleback, as in his refusal to have choice be a litmus test (as Clinton did) for S.Ct. nominations, shows that he really is in the middle on this issue. That doesn’t mean you or I have to be.
-
taggles says:
I guess the concern octo, is this. People who feel so strongly that abortion is baby killing, will not join us on any issue they happen to agree with us on. they will see it as working with the mortal enemy.
I just don’t see how it works.
Is this all just a matter of semantics? i don’t know.
What is the real division anyhow? I have always been of the mind that you must stand for something. Equivocations weaken organizations, the anti abortion crowd understands this concept.
-
samanthasmom says:
taggles,
The way I look at this issue is that with the exception of a woman’s right to make a decision about having an abortion, I agree with women who oppose abortion rights on every other issue. We all believe in equal pay, stopping violence against women, etc, etc, etc. So I work with them on the issues we agree on, and I join another group to work on abortion issues. Many of the women who agree with me about abortion rights disagree with me on another hot button issue - pornography and prostitution, but that doesn’t keep me from working with them on other issues, too. If we limit the people we will work with to advance women’s rights and status in society to only those we agree with totally, we will have a group of women who support abortion, but not pornography and prostitution, a group that supports both, a group that opposes both, and a group that opposes abortion, but thinks pole-dancing is dandy career for their daughters to aspire to. And we’ll all be throwing rocks at each other as we stand in the get-your-burqa-here line. And the women at the head of the line should women who think that the right to wear a burqa is more important than the right not to. I personally think that the schism over abortion rights stalled the second wave. We shouldn’t let it stop the “second wave squared” from ever getting off the ground. Could you be part of a wave of feminism that supported making abortion “legal, but rare”?
-
taggles says:
Samantha, I am confused. You say that you join different groups that you agree with. Then you say if we don’t all join hands we will become one there will be too many groups throwing rocks at eachother.
I am not saying that anti choice women must join a pro choice group. What I am saying is that those anti abortion groups will NEVER work with a pro choice group even if they agreed on every sigle other issue. Why is the compromise only working one way?
-
octogalore says:
Well, for people who cannot join and work on issues of mutual concern, it’s kind of a moot point, no? Then you don’t need to worry about if/how to work with them since the option isn’t on the table. I don’t think it’s accurate to say none of them would work together with women. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example, is anti choice and voted for Ledbetter.
Not sure what you mean re semantics. I don’t think one should be squishy on words, they matter. It’s perfectly clear and “standing for something,” IMO, to be unequivocally pro choice, unequivocally pro women’s rights and be willing to work on areas of mutual interest with anyone willing to lend a hand.
As an example, a former friend recently tossed me under the bus because we agreed on some items but disagreed on others. I believe she felt very stand-up and pure for doing this, and gained some short term brownie points from the groupthink crowd. As a result, though, her support system, both present and future, is now weaker. Whom does that help?
-
taggles says:
Octo, it feels like the compromise is being asked of the women who are pro-choice. What is there to compromise on? And who are we compromising with?
Of course I could work with women’s group on DV, Equal Pay, etc but aren’t we already?? The only people we are not working with and are being asked to is the anti abortion crowd. And they will never work with us, but we are suppose to with them, to find common ground, reduce pregnancies etc. When their end goal is nothing short of outlawing abortion.
-
Beet says:
First of all I want to apologize for being the poster claiming that Palin is pro-abstinence only. When I made that claim I was honestly under the impression that she was unambiguously pro-abstinence only. I understand the suspicion that comes with “new commenters”, but it was not my intention to slander or spread lies about anyone. I had a long post that many a number of points, and the abstinence only claim was only one very, very small part of that.
I hope that we as feminists can accept competing viewpoints in a spirit of dialogue and debate about what’s best for women, regardless of which “wave” we identify with or even if we identify with any “wave”.
The counterargument to the whole “role model” argument is that a comparative approach to looking at countries where women have become heads of state does not support the idea that it improves the lot of women.
Women have been heads of state in countries like India and Pakistan where women’s rights are vastly inferior to the United States and in many cases virtually absent. Benazir Bhutto, a woman, was President of Pakistan in the late 1980s and early 1990s and might have been again, but throughout her tenure the Hudood ordinances, which required 4 witnesses to prove a rape was in place making rape effectively legal. Even today it is legal to stone a woman for adultery.
Women have been heads of state in countries throughout time including England, Spain and Russia, but these brought no improvements to the lives of ordinary women.
Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 11 years, the longest time of any British PM of the 20th century and yet today, there are virtually no women on the Conservative backbench and virtually no prospect of another woman as PM soon. Feminist activism in the UK is no stronger than in the US, and the rape conviction rate was allowed to drop to a shocking 5%. But undoubtedly Thatcher’s tenure was used as an excuse to show how feminism is ‘no longer needed’ and that women have ‘made it’ in society.
Palin’s strong anti- choice stance is not her only anti- feminist stance. She opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act, and she refused to even accept a petition by MomsRising calling for family and medical leave, afterschool programs, and flexible work options.
In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons conservatives support her so strongly is that she is an anti- feminist female who they can use as a role model to other women. Feminism is partially a battle over women’s choices. Anti- feminists know that if they can only win if they can convince women to abandon feminism. If women voluntarily choose to emulate Palin by turning to conservative social politics, giving up abortion rights and other issues in the name of an inspiring role model, they can actually win. In fact, they probably realize that only a Palin Presidency gives them the “cover” to overturn Roe vs. Wade without seeming anti- woman. Like Phyllis Schlafly and the ERA, “if a woman is against it/for it, how could it possibly be sexist?” On the other hand, if women stick to issue feminism, there is no way the anti feminists can win in the long run due to the nature of American society. I guess that’s one reason to be optimistic.
-
sharon says:
Wow. I feel so…stunned. You know, for years, I’ve ignored NOW as some sort of unimportant legacy women’s group…that didn’t really do anything for me.
That’s scary, as a woman who faced bitch-slapping for years in the predominantly male high tech world. NOW just seemed concerned with abortion and gay rights, and I was in a whole other reality where those weren’t even the important questions. Getting access to the top jobs, equal pay, and ending discriminatory practice around mother’s leave was my battlefield. NOW had nothing to offer me, really.
And isn’t that sad? A woman’s rights groups with nothing to offer…women.
Violet’s recent spate of posts, and the change in leadership in NOW, along with everyone on the national scene getting a good look at the kind of sexism corporate women have been facing for bloody ever, well, maybe I might think about joining NOW again.
Maybe.
-
Kelly says:
Dr Socks, your site is always - ALWAYS - the best read of the day.
Thanks for keeping company in these wild, wild woods.
Feels like these kids are talking to hear themselves talk - swooning to their own song of “openness” as they try to slam the door shut.
Joke’s on them, cause it’s not their door, not their house.
-
votermom says:
I wonder if anti-choice women can find common ground with pro-choice women in agreeing that the issue of abortion should be decided upon by women.
I think (probably naively) that if the issue were discussed and decided solely by women, it would be less contentious than it is now, with male religious and political leaders continually ranting and raving about it.
That’s one more reason I think it’s so important to reach parity in the number of women in politics. More women on the SCOTUS, more women in congress, and one day a woman in the WH. Who cares if the woman is pro- or anti-choice — at least if she is a woman she has a uterus, which gives her personal stake in the discussion. -
Kali says:
I guess the concern octo, is this. People who feel so strongly that abortion is baby killing, will not join us on any issue they happen to agree with us on. they will see it as working with the mortal enemy.
Firstly, not all conservative women feel that strongly about abortion. For example, several Republican women have crossed party lines to vote for pro-woman legislation such as Ledbetter. Secondly, even among those who do, there may be several who care about equal pay, violence against women, sexual trafficking, etc. enough to overcome their distaste about abortion. Why reject their support on the former by assuming that the latter is an unsurmountable barrier?
-
taggles says:
Kali, I never wrote a word about conservative women. I wrote about people who are anti abortion.
I agree with you, and the common ground with those conservative women has already been achieved.
I am making a very narrow argument about finding compromise on abortion, because I have been reading and hearing about the division abortion creates among women. If there really isn’t any division, great!
-
octogalore says:
What Kali said.
Also, who (aside from Pres. Obama) is asking us to compromise on abortion? The fourth wave discussion here doesn’t ask that, but simply to work together with feminists on issues of common concern, without putting up arbitrary rules that if one doesn’t agree on X, one cannot work together on Y.
-
Kali says:
I don’t think anyone in the fourth-wave is asking pro-choice feminists to compromise on abortion. That should absolutely not be the condition for working together with anti-abortion women, I agree.
-
taggles says:
I just think the semantics is something we need to be very aware of. Abortion divides. Yes it does. That doesn’t mean it should be something we agree to compromise on to achieve more members.
And it’s all cloaked in this common ground stuff. Reducing abortion, education and contraception. stuff that we agree with, but only problem is is we are compromising with ourselves. The other side will not compromise.
Politicians divide us using abortion true, but agreeing to let it slide because we feel manipulated by politicians is not the answer.
All of the other stuff, equal pay, DV, healthcare, day care etc we all agree on.
-
NOW conference infiltrated by NOW members « Donna Darko says:
[...] June 24, 2009 · Leave a Comment Reclusive Leftist: NOW conference infiltrated by NOW members [...]
-
Sis says:
If they won’t they won’t. Move on and do those yourself.
I, for example, am perfecting willing to have Octagalore’s back if she agitates around women’s businesses, career, and abortion rights. If she keeps flipping her “I’m a former stripper” card” while doing it, I not only won’t back her, I’ll be her adversary.
-
taggles says:
sis, i agree. what I am trying to point out is that is seems that people are willing to compromise on abortion in order to go along to get along. For some greater good. I am not sure what that greater good is… Pro choice people already do accept that there is another choice for women besides abortion. no one i know believes in forcing women to have abortions.
What I read is is this:
We can’t let abortion divide woman any longer.
So if I won’t compromise on choice, am I being divisive? Am I hurting the cause?
-
donna darko says:
taggles, the agree to disagree view seems to be taking shape in the fourth wave. Let’s let the third wave deal with abortion. Abortion and sex are all they care about anyway.
-
SYD says:
Good idea Donna Darko!
I think that’s right… the Third Wave has to have something to keep itself busy with… While we get down to the nitty gritty of women’s equality.
-
taggles says:
Donna, I am willing to agree to disagree, basically that is what choice is. to each her own.
If we aren’t going to be proactive in keeping abortion legal we will lose it. the compromise will come from the choice side only.
-
yttik says:
Well I don’t know about the rest of you, but I would much sooner welcome a pro-life conservative woman than a couple of former abortion supporting men such as Ronald Reagan and Ricard Nixon. Both of them at one point embraced abortion to some extent and that sure doesn’t make either one of them feminists. Reagan believed abortion should be available so some males would not be inconvenienced and Nixon stated that he thought it was the only solution to interracial pregnancies.
My point being, feminists should not let this issue define them. Abortion is not a black and white issue and it certainly is not where women’s rights begin and end.
-
samanthasmom says:
taggles,
I’m personally against abortion (and capital punishment, and torture, and physical violence, and don’t believe in the supernatural), but I don’t think I have the right to decide for you (on abortion and the supernatural, anyway). However, I do believe that there are far too many abortions every year, and I would be happy to work with women who would like to reduce the need for so many. Give women other choices both before and after they’re pregnant. Are you saying that I can’t be part of the next wave? Because that’s exactly how I felt in 1967, too, and I worked hard for things like Title IX, and the ERA. It’s sad to me that the most important issue to some women is the right to dispose of our unborn. I don’t want to be a part of a second wave squared that doesn’t make room for women who legitimately disagree on that one issue. Many of us second wavers were lukewarm on abortion rights at best.
-
taggles says:
My feminism is not defined by my stance on abortion. Yet, stating that one is pro choice automatically defines you.
But I would like abortion to remain legal. I am afraid it’s going to be abandoned because women feel like it’s a yoke around their neck.
Not because they are single issue feminists.
-
taggles says:
No, samantha, I would never say such a thing. You are not part of the anti abortion crowd that I am speaking about, because you are not anti abortion. You agree women should have a choice.
-
Toonces says:
taggles, I would never compromise about being pro-choice just to work with pro-lifers on other issues. If they require that they can only work with other pro-lifers, then we’re in trouble. I can work with them on the other issues and then work on pro-choice separately.
It’s not that I think abortion isn’t as important as other issues that affect women, it’s that I don’t think we get anywhere by focusing 90% of the discourse on it (mainstream discourse, anyway). I think we’re actually in a less powerful position overall, access to abortion is being eroded anyway, and we’re marred in this trap. I think if we make progress on economic issues, pornulation, rape, violence, etc. we will have a lot more women in the position to think and talk about choice (but not JUST choice) in a way that isn’t so distorted.
And I actually think that people who want to outlaw abortion are by far in the minority and if the threat gets bad enough of that happening, people will start to pay attention and stop some of the back and forth. I mean, late-term abortion is only .01% (or is it .001%?) of abortions and I don’t believe for a second that ANY woman who has one does it out of some kind of malice, yet this is what dominates the conversation. I mean, we’re just stuck. We are in trouble and it’s getting worse and we need to make progress on the other issues, is my point. So, personally, I will not bring up the issue of choice with every pro-life woman who wants to work on the other issues. It can be a fight that has its own arena, if that makes sense.
-
donna darko says:
I’m with you taggles. NOW should continue to be pro-choice.
Anti-choice members can join the fight for all the other issues.
-
taggles says:
toonces, to go and work with another group individually that you agree with on certain issues is great. but do you think the groups that are anti-abortion will work with a pro choice group on their issues not relating to choice?
I don’t think they would. They hold tight and fast to the rule of not supporting any one or any organization that is pro choice. maybe there are some. if there are, please let me know.
-
Toonces says:
I don’t know taggles. I tried to ask that same question on another thread. It seems somewhat unlikely to me, too. I think that the compromise has to come from both sides in that we both have to put that issue aside (and talk about it in a kind of separate forum) to work on other things together. If they can’t, unfortunately, I believe they would be hurting themselves, and the pro-choicers. I think that pro-choicers not ‘allowing’ pro-lifers to work on Fair Pay, etc. is also just us shooting ourselves in the foot.
-
taggles says:
I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. Of course they are welcome to participate on issue they agree with. I would never say to not allow them.
My concern is pro choice women watering down pro choice in order to get anti choicers to work on issues with us, when they won’t because we are pro choice.
If there is to be compromise on issues besides choice it must come from both sides. They have to be willing. And I just don’t see it. There will never be common ground when it comes to abortion from the anti abortion crowd. They will not work with pro choice groups. So what is to be gained by leaving choice out of it?
-
Violet says:
Taggles, in my experience, pro-life/anti-choice women will definitely work with pro-choice feminists on issues of common concern, like Fair Pay, DV, and so forth. That’s what happened at The New Agenda, and it’s happened multiple times in Congress when women have crossed party lines to vote together on something (like Ledbetter).
Some of those women belong to pro-life groups. So, it would appear that belonging to a pro-life group is no bar to also collaborating with pro-choice feminists on other women’s issues.
Now, if you’re asking if some group entity like Operation Rescue is going work with feminists, well, no, I don’t think so. Nor would we want them to, seeing as how they’re batshit crazy and evil and anti-woman.
-
Violet says:
My concern is pro choice women watering down pro choice in order to get anti choicers to work on issues with us, when they won’t because we are pro choice.
That’s not the idea at all. It’s rather an “agree to disagree” thing. If we want to combine forces on something we agree on, great. But leave each other the hell alone on the reproductive rights stuff. I’m certainly not about to compromise my pro-choice stance.
I should dig out that post I wrote a while back about The Big Tent. It was for The New Agenda, which I’m no longer involved with, but I still like the idea.
-
taggles says:
yes, violet, I am talking about groups.
I hear a lot of talk about reaching critical mass but abortion is dividing us.
And if our pro choice stance is not hurting us with individual women because of compromises on fair pay, dv, etc why all this talk about abortion is dividing us?
-
Violet says:
Here’s the Big Tent post: http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....-big-tent/
-
Violet says:
And if our pro choice stance is not hurting us with individual women because of compromises on fair pay, dv, etc why all this talk about abortion is dividing us?
Because those compromises are rare and only result from a fairly high degree of understanding and empathy.
Most Americans live in a sound-bite world. And American women are divided on abortion. Many people choose their political position based on that: Republican if you’re anti-choice, Democrat if you’re pro-choice. They don’t look much past that.
This divide keeps women from joining together politically on the many issues they agree on, like DV and fair pay and sexism in the media.
We all saw that with Sarah Palin last year, when Third Wave feminists — feminists! — were so revolted by her pro-life stance that they couldn’t even bring themselves to defend her from sexism. In fact, they joined in themselves.
Furthermore, the Democratic party has used abortion rights as a bludgeon to blackmail women into voting for them, without ever actually doing very much to support us: http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....des-lever/
If women stopped dividing themselves along abortion lines and stopped listening to the Democratic blackmail, we could in one election have a majority-female Congress and a female president and pass all the pro-woman laws we wanted to.
Not that I expect that to happen; I’m just answering your question.
-
yttik says:
My concern is that we spend so much time arguing about who gets to be in our club, we never get to the actual work of feminism. I don’t care who supports Palin or who is a Puma or someone’s feelings on abortion. But I do care when NOW becomes such an elitist organization that you have to pass an admissions test to prove you are politically correct. It’s supposed to be the National Organization of Women.
-
Toonces says:
I agree with yttik. It’s become more about protecting a culture than getting anything done.
-
taggles says:
So the compromise comes from the choice side. We must water down it down so people feel more comfortable. Why is it the pro-choicers who must make the compromise, which I believe will lead to watering down of Roe v. Wade.
yttik, it goes back to my original question, I feel that choice is a cornerstone of women’s equality. does that make me less welcome in NOW or any other women’s group. Is it too messy. I don’t care who joins NOW, is choice now elitist?
I am not looking to cause anyone any trouble. these are honest questions I am asking. I use to feel like violet does. I just don’t feel that way any longer. After Tiller’s murder and knowing how the anti choicers are making it more difficult for women to get legal abortions all over this country, I do think it is an area pro choice women should defend unabashedly.
-
Violet says:
So the compromise comes from the choice side. We must water down it down so people feel more comfortable.
Where are you getting that? Every single person in this thread has told you that it’s NOT that. What you just said is the exact opposite of what everyone is telling you. No one is compromising on anything.
-
Violet says:
I say this:
If we want to combine forces on something we agree on, great. But leave each other the hell alone on the reproductive rights stuff. I’m certainly not about to compromise my pro-choice stance.
And taggles interprets that as:
So the compromise comes from the choice side. We must water down it down so people feel more comfortable.
There is something extremely strange going on here.
-
Toonces says:
Well, while we’re arguing about this, there are a bunch of NOOZ outlets reporting on the Very Important finding that women can’t look at babies with facial defects as easily as men can. If pro-life women are also sick of how the media can’t shut up about ’scientific’ studies that show how stupid, horrible, gold-digging, and crazy women are, then I will happily write letters or whatever alongside them.
-
octogalore says:
Sis — my very infrequent non-politicized references to various prior jobs are my right, not a “card,” and you have no right to tell me what factual statements I can and cannot make about my own CV. You appear to have some personal issues surrounding this, and have felt a need to drag it extraneously into this thread.
It’s not my blog, and I’ll leave it to the hostess to state her preferences here, but if you wish us to “have” each others’ “backs” in this room or others, then leave the personal stuff at the door.
-
AniEm says:
Taggles, If it will make you feel more secure, consider a mercenary dollars and cents interpretation. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned in an era of medical tourism, no matter how much screaming anti-abortionists do. Usually, we want to keep the medical dollars in the country. Pro-life values and pro-reproductive rights values are beside the point. Values are relative but money can be counted. That’s the world we live in.
I feel like I’m entering Dickens’ Office of Circumlocution every time there is a discussion about abortion. There are as many opinions as there are women (and men) and that’s evident from reading the posts. As votermom pointed out above, abortion is primarily a tactic used by clergy and politicians to keep women divided, subjugated, and threatened.
As so many posters and Violet’s blog point out, there is common ground among the right, left and the majority (middle roaders) to work on women’s economic and political parity, anti-child pornography and domestic abuse. And as long as we remain distracted (and politically exploited) by differences on abortion, those issues will remain ignored and festering.
-
Sis says:
Everytime you mention it out of context Octogalore, or contort context to mention it, I’m going to clock you. Because in my opinion you are using it, and de facto still pimping yourself out.
As far as working for pro-choice I don’t see why anyone has to either do it with a group or not at all. Those aren’t the only options. The pen is a mighty sword.
-
Violet says:
Ay yi yi, not with the sex work thing again.
Both of you, please just drop it.
Geez, I’m going to have to put the whole blog on frickin’ moderation!
-
Beet says:
This entire discussion is emanating out of weakness.
Feminists can’t win without the help of anti choicers, therefore we must accept anti choicers as feminists and view abortion primarily as a ‘tactic’ that keeps women ‘divided’ and ’subjugated’. If that’s how you view abortion rights, then you’ve pretty much dropped the issue. This is a defeat for feminism, even if it is tactically necessary to make progress in other areas (which it may be).
-
octogalore says:
Sis: if you were paying attention and not dealing from a personal agenda, you might note that I have mentioned that background in a number of contexts militating *against* various anti-feminist glamorizations of the industry, eg (1) Yale Sex Week’s pornstar contest — a discussion in which I incurred the ire of a number of third-wavers by noting various reasons why I was adamantly against this; (2) discussions of Ariel Levy’s Raunch Culture, a book I support and many third wavers don’t; and many other such examples.
Violet: noting my objection to comments #66 and #93, and in particular the discussion of “clocking” me. Not sure what that means, but life’s too short to stick around for more unless it’s addressed. Thanks.
-
RKMK says:
Taggles, you seem to need some perspective here:
President Josiah Bartlet: We agree on nothing, Max.
Senator Lobell: Yes, sir.
Bartlet: Education, guns, drugs, school prayer, gays, defense spending, taxes - you name it, we disagree.
Lobell: You know why?
Bartlet: Because I’m a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist.
Lobell: Yes, sir. And I’m a gun-toting, redneck son-of-a-bitch.
Bartlet: Yes, you are.
Lobell: We agree on that.
Bartlet: We also agree on campaign finance.
Lobell: Yes, sir.
Bartlet: So, Max.
Lobell: Yes, sir?
Bartlet: Let’s work together on campaign finance.
— The West Wing, “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”
It doesn’t mean you stop being who you are, or stop believing in what you believe in. It means you work together on goddamn campaign finance reform.
-
octogalore says:
Both of us drop it? Did you miss the sequence of events here? This is not a joint squabble, it’s an instance of one commenter attacking another. If for some reason that cannot get acknowledged, then much as I would regret the loss, I cannot in good conscience continue to comment here.
-
Violet says:
This is not a joint squabble, it’s an instance of one commenter attacking another.
The argument between the two of you is not limited to my blog. I’ve seen you argue on other blogs. Whenever the arguing shows up here I feel like my blog is being dragged into something completely outside my purview. And then I’m expected to adjudicate. It’s unfair to me.
I think Sis was out of line in this thread to even bring it up. But now both of you please just drop it.
-
Violet says:
Everytime you mention it out of context Octogalore, or contort context to mention it, I’m going to clock you. Because in my opinion you are using it, and de facto still pimping yourself out.
Octogalore hasn’t mentioned it out of context, and in fact you’re the one who even brought it up in this thread (why I don’t know).
As for your opinion about who gets to speak and whether said speech is appropriate, please bear in mind that this is my blog. I am the Queen and I have god-like powers. I am the Decider. I like Octogalore and I think she contributes a lot.
I also like you and think you contribute a lot.
I disagree with both of you on some things, quite adamantly in fact. Though I’m pretty polite about it. You and Octogalore are both welcome commenters here and I like and respect you both.
-
donna darko says:
taggles, don’t be paranoid. I understand the fear conservatives will take away our right to choose but I don’t see that happening at TNA, RL or the new NOW.
-
Nora says:
IMO if a staunch Muslim woman can call herself a feminist then, a pro-life women can call herself a feminist.
m Andrea, I would like to agree to disagree and join all women together to fight on those issue’s that pertain to all women because we are women. I think that if we don’t find a way to unite on those issues, then we will never get anywhere. We need to work toward a unity that consists of most woman who are not single issue obsessed. The reproductive rights issue must be separated out. For gods sake we’ve been arguing about it and getting nowhere ( no we’ve actually gone backwards on every other issue) for 40 freaking years!!!
All women will NEVER agree on reproductive rights. Face it. We cannot succeed on other issues unless we unite. So, shall we just give up then?
-
Marcia Pappas says:
Hey someone said that they went to the NOW NYS web site and looked at pictures of the women at our conference and they were all old. Our confernce had over 50 percent young women starting at the age of 11. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2.....204240171/
look again!
-
Sis says:
Me. I said that. I meant it as a compliment. But 11 is good too.
-
yttik says:
Can I just say that NY NOW has been a bright spot for me for the last couple of years? I’ve gotten frustrated with NOW in general, but the NY branch has put a smile on my face several times.
-
Sameol says:
Who cares if they are all old? Do they understand we’re not going clubbing, this is a political convention?
Last I checked, Our Lord Barack was also old, as is everyone in his Cabinet and the entire Senate (at least by these standards).
-
Ken says:
Women do have to work twice as hard as a man to get ahead.
I never believed this until I watched the country give a free pass to a man with no experience for the number one slot — and criticize/reject a woman with a lot of real experience for the number two slot (just on the off chance that someday she might advance to the number one slot).
Bet after this week a lot of people are having second thoughts.
-
Violet says:
Marcia! It’s so great to see you here.
What terrific pictures! I’m jealous of that picture of you with Hillary.
-
Californio says:
If everyone starting thinking like “RKMK” above, well then you might start getting things acomplished - which would disappoint only those who have supplanted religion with politics and view any dealing with the “enemy” as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord - whatever you use to define “Lord”.
-
monchichipox says:
I am about as anti abortion as you can get. I also consider myself a strong feminist. I’m willing to compromise. I’ve always believed that if I can work as hard as I can on other areas of feminism one of the effects will be to help reduce the need for abortions. However anytime I’ve spoken about my beliefs regarding abortion at any women’s gathering my opinion immediately became worthless on any issue. Try on my shoes. Go to a NOW meeting announce what you are willing to do to help then say you are anti abortion. Bring your parka it gets cold.
the press never covered Sarah’s speeches like this but during the general election she is the only woman I heard speak like this. Is this not the voice of a feminist. If you didn’t know she was a Republican
-
Beet says:
@monchichipox: Have you ever considered going to a NOW meeting and not annoncing you are anti abortion? Or is it always asked of you even if you do not explicitly mentioned it?
If you go there looking for a fight you are going to get it. But I am sure those women would welcome your help on whatever issues you have in common.
@Sameol: I believe Marcia’s point was that not all NOW NYS women ARE old. Being young does not mean you are not serious. Or that you are automatically ‘third wave’ or anything. I am 25 and I rarely go clubbing. I know the ‘third wavers’ started the whole age wars crap, but let’s not sink to that level. If this is about uniting women (and men) feminists it shouldn’t be about old versus young.
-
yyysguy says:
I am a conservative Christian male. I suffered discrimination by being forced to retire early at 58. For the last 10 years of my life I have experienced many things that would not be possible had I not been forced to retire - e.g. over a dozen trips on business to Asia.
The world is truly diverse. My definition of diversity requires an individual to close their eyes before making a decision about others.
What we SEE is NOT as important as what we THINK, and WHO WE ARE.
I was brought to tears by statements made on this website promoting intelligent discourse, and recognition of Obama’s absolute corruption.
I was amazed to see how intelligent discourse led to support of Palin, even when the Republican Old Guard did not truly support her.
Let’s continue dialogue, promote core issues of our wonderful country, and defeat those who would stifle true discourse and freedom.
Bless all you true believers in feminine causes.
-
Sis says:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2.....204240171/
Aren’t they beautiful? The future of feminism. I have tears in my eyes looking at them and thinking, hoping, for where they will take us. Thanks for the photos.
-
Sameol says:
I understood Marcia’s point, thanks. I’m 23, and while age isn’t what makes them unserious, they deserve all the jokes lobbed their way for the constant ridiculous depths of their ageism
-
quixote says:
Re the abortion thing, which, I know, is not what the post is about, but what the hell.
“Agree to disagree” is not code for “we’ll do it your way.”
It’s code for “we won’t talk about it.”
It’s code for “you do your thing and I’ll do mine.”
Which is the very definition of feminism. Abortion has nothing to do with it. You can have an abortion, or not have one, or be sterile, or be male. It has nothing to do with it.
The only thing that has to do with feminism is if you try to stop other women from having abortions. And somehow I just don’t see the kind of people who are in the forefront of that movement spending a lot of time with the likes of us.
-
quixote says:
hey, Sis, I clicked on that flickr link in your comment (112). Wonderful! I still have a huge smile on my face!
-
Beet says:
@Sis: Yes, they are beautiful.
@Sameol: Your comment did not make clear that it was only aimed at young ageists.
-
m Andrea says:
Widening the definiton of “feminism” to include the desire to restrict human rights of others, is not necessary. If the purpose is a less stressful working environment within a larger group, then that can be achieved simply by acknowleging that humans are complex individuals who tend to hold conflicting positions. It is possible for one individual to believe X, which adheres to feminist principles, and at the same for that individual to also believe Y, which does not.
“I consider myself a lifelong, hardcore feminist, but I no longer consider pro-choice to be necessary to call oneself a ‘feminist’. This last election caused this shift for me.”
That appears to be written by someone who is tired of arguing with their ideological opponents and so would rather just accept as valid the viewpoint of that opponent. But the more rational response to tiredness is to leave that particular field of battle to those who are not tired.
That thing in italics is changing the definition of feminism, and what constitutes human rights. And if someone desires to change the definition, then I’d like to hear the principle by which the new definition adheres.
“it’ll be easier to do blah blah blah” is a justification.
-
anne says:
I supposed the young things hate older women in part because they remind them of what they are going to become.
-
bearing says:
Here’s a suggestion:
If you keep assuming that “they” won’t have anything to do with you unless you’re willing to compromise your principles because “they” are so intolerant,
and meanwhile you don’t ever, you know, call “them” up to say “Hey, can we work together on this other thing,”
because you continue to assume that you know that “they” won’t respond, because you already know that “they” won’t,
what kind of person does that make you?
I’m just saying.
-
susan says:
I am a 47 year old woman who believes that Feminists did not break the glass ceiling, they became the glass ceiling.
I have never in my 47 years of living witnessed as much horrid misogyny as what I saw WOMEN do to the female.
I am Woman Hear Me Roar, keep the Feminists away from my door!
When I reach the age of 43 everything changed for me, I finally faced myself accepting the scientific fact that it is not my body which is being aborted but a distinctly unique Human Being with a distinctly unique set of human DNA.
I have NO CHOICE I am PRO-LIFE!
Feminist can hate me for my choice however there is nothing to respect about Feminism; Gloria Steinem may have burned the bra however she left a legacy of zombie freaks and savages.
-
samanthasmom says:
Susan,
Feminists didn’t burn bras. The bra was a feminist invention. Think about the undergarments it replaced. That being said, I agree with you that an abortion robs a child of it’s life, and I don’t understand how any woman could do it except in the most dire of circumstances. The only difference between you and me is that I don’t think I have the right to make that decision for anyone but me. But I bet you and I agree on lots of other things, too. I’m a decade older than you are, and we both have seen a lot of changes - some good, some not so good. I’d love to talk to you about them. I hope you’ll join the conversation again.
-
TeresaInPa says:
That appears to be written by someone who is tired of arguing with their ideological opponents and so would rather just accept as valid the viewpoint of that opponent. But the more rational response to tiredness is to leave that particular field of battle to those who are not tired.
That thing in italics is changing the definition of feminism, and what constitutes human rights. And if someone desires to change the definition, then I’d like to hear the principle by which the new definition adheres.
women are more than their uterus. A woman can be a feminist and be anti-choice. Palin is anti-choice and makes no bones about it, but she appointed a pro-choice justice and she advocates equality and has said she will not work to make abortion illegal.
I also believe that you can work on eradicating abortion and that is not a feminist act…however you may be way better on equal opportunity etc… than someone who is pro-choice.Feminism is one thing…believing women are equal and have the right to be treated as such.
-
Branjor says:
***I finally faced myself accepting the scientific fact that it is not my body which is being aborted but a distinctly unique Human Being***
Nope, it’s not your body which is being aborted, but it is your body which is facing the pain and the risks, including death, of bringing the distinctly unique human being into the world.
But I’m sure there are many other things we agree on and could work together on.
-
Lynette says:
According to third wavers I’m an old white woman. The label intends to deem me irrelevant in the 21st century, yet somehow I’ve figured out how to turn on a computer, write a blog, Twitter, and have a Facebook page and all without a cane. So what is it they can do that I can’t, except have kids. But I just remembered, I did that already.
I am not old, but wise. I know what it’s like to have to wear a skirt to school. I know what it’s like to practice stickball with the boys but not be able to play during a game even though I would have been the best player on the team. I know what it’s like to be taught to sew, when I’d rather learn how to fish. I know what it’s like to not be able to swim in a pool or wash your hair because you have your period. I know what it’s like to be told by my father, “You can be one of three things when you grow up, a teacher, a nurse, or a secretary.” I was probably going to be too short to be a stewardess. I know what it’s like not to be hired or even considered for a job because I was a woman. And I know what it’s like to watch my own mother almost die from an illegal abortion.
My wisdom is born of pain. When you call me white you assume I’ve never known discrimination or poverty. I grew up in a tenement in the South Bronx. Roaches were my roommates and rats were my neighbors. I never had my own room, in fact, until I went to college I didn’t have my own bed. I know what it’s like to be brushed aside, not because of the color of my skin but rather my social class.
I know the young feminists think they are ready to take leadership,but I think their arrogance is born of ignorance. They don’t notice the insidious and pervasive sexism that surrounds them. They don’t notice that their favorite news channel, MSNBC is dominated by male broadcasters the likes of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann. Or that their favorite political website, Huffington Post, today has posts from eighteen bloggers, of which only two are women. Or that some of the hottest television shows, Sex in the City or New Jersey Housewives, trivialize women.
I don’t get it. Third-wavers don’t seem to care that there is only one female Supreme Court Justice, only sixteen women in the United States Senate, and there has never been a female president or vice president. Well, here’s a newsflash. Government can’t legislate for women without women. Men will not give you a seat at the table unless you take it. I want gender parity, 50-50, nothing less. I’m willing to fight for it and guess what, this old white woman has a lot of fight left in her.
-
Violet says:
Go, Lynette! Damn straight. You’re a great feminist and a great role model.
I think a lot of the ageism in the Third Wave is just symptomatic of how backlashy it really is. I’ve been heard to say that the Third Wave isn’t feminism so much as the patriarchal version of feminism. And disdain for older women is part and parcel of that.
-
Shannon Drury says:
Just to take a moment to respond to Nessum’s post waaaaay back in the thread…. a self-described “radical Muslim feminist” in a headscarf delivered a speech at Minnesota NOW’s annual conference in 2006, received our PAC’s endorsement when she ran for local office, and is a member.
It takes all kinds to fuel the movement!
-
Jamie W. says:
Lynette, that was gorgeous. I had long since given up on NOW because of stuff like this; it seemed that the things I care about had been forgotten in favor of the interminable abortion/no abortion fight. This site and this discussion gives me hope.
-
Did Feminism Kill Macho? « Cinie’s World says:
[...] and concerns, whatever they may be, need to be examined in light of their inherited reality, not dismissed as rejection and repudiation of the [...]
-
The truth about the NOW election « Donna Darko says:
[...] PUMAPac: We Wuz Robbed It’s hard to blame Third Wave feminists for voting for obama. They are pretty dumb. [...]
