What would be the core issues for a women’s party?
This is the first follow-up to our original working session post on political strategy: Dreaming of Diocletian. (And no, twits, it’s not really about Diocletian. Have a sandwich, drink a glass of milk, do some fuckin’ thing.)
One of the ideas we’re batting around is a women’s party or advocacy group that would infiltrate all the existing parties. Basically my inside-outside idea, but, per Adrienne’s suggestion, extended across the political spectrum. To use the “Pony Party” hypothetical from my post, this means there would be Pony Democrats and Pony Republicans and Pony Greens, etc., etc.
I think the closest political analogy from American history would be the temperance movement (even though that was a single issue deal). At the peak of the movement there were Temperance Democrats and Temperance Republicans, all of whom had taken the pledge. There was also a plethora of temperance organizations, such as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and people whose chief political allegiance was to temperance.
So, here’s my question: if we were to do something like this, what would be our issues? Let’s assume we’re starting from scratch (and I really, really don’t want to co-opt an existing organization, like NOW or the LWV). What core platform of issues would be portable across the political spectrum?
A few suggestions:
- Reproductive rights, including abortion
- Parity in government representation
- ERA
- Violence against women
- Fair pay
- Sexism in media
- Bias and discrimination
What else? Or is that too much? Thoughts?
*****
EDITED TO ADD: If you followed along with the gigantic Diocletian thread, you’ll recall that we talked about two basic approaches to alignment: “leftist women + other women,” or “leftist women + other leftists.” This post is a thought experiment using the first approach — a purely woman-oriented platform. If you didn’t follow the Diocletian thread and you have no idea what I’m talking about, it’s okay.
EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Next up, we’re going to look at it the other way. Instead of a purely-woman oriented platform, we’ll talk about a party that combines feminism and economic populism and other good stuff.
80 Responses to “What would be the core issues for a women’s party?”
-
Alison says:
FOCA. Once and for all, FOCA.
And I would be very happy to see female pro-choice republicans infiltrate the republican party who are also liberal on other women’s issues. At this day and age, I imagine there are plenty of young conservative women who are pro-choice and who have even had abortions themselves. I do not believe that it is only democratic women who have abortions!
November 28th, 2009 at 8:44 pm EST -
cwaltz says:
I’d like to see education somewhere in the mix. It’d be awesome to see the program which is the vehicle for our future get the same kind of funding as say the Dept. of Defense. Furthermore, quite frankly we have a ways to go as women when you have problems like the financial sector happening because there aren’t enough women in there to combat the testosterone based boyz and their need for risk or when you have people like Summers smearing women as not as capable in math or science.
We need women willing to fight the good fight too like the ones in the Navy that challenged the idea that women didn’t belong on subs in court.
-
myiq2xu says:
It seems to me that if women achieve parity in representation the other issues will get fixed too.
-
yttik says:
The thing is, you’ve already got women’s rights organizations out there fighting for Choice. NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Prochoice America… and it’s even in the Democratic Party Platform.
I want to see bodily autonomy, freedom from sexual assault, freedom from pornography, freedom from prostitution, freedom from the media using sexuality to demean women. Freedom from domestic violence, freedom from sex trafficking, freedom from rape of a child, and the freedom to defend yourself without winding up in prison.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
Including reproductive rights is going to alienate pro-life women. Just saying.
-
Violet says:
Sure. That’s a given. So?
The goal here isn’t just to come up with some platform that will appeal to women. The goal is to advance women’s rights, including reproductive rights. Don’t forget that the impetus for this was Stupak.
-
yttik says:
You cannot advance women’s rights, Violet, as long as there is no respect for women in our culture. We can (and have) fought for Choice until we were blue in the face. It’s been damn near 40 yrs now and we’re still fighting the same fight. At some point women are going to have to face the fact that Choice is not a sign of bodily autonomy, it is not the holy grail of equality. I offered several examples above that really are.
If women put just half as much energy into protesting the fact that we are viewed as members of the sex class, inanimate sexual objects not entitled to full human rights, we might just get somewhere.
But we can’t. We have been so well trained to believe that women’s rights must begin and end with abortion, we’ll be doing this for at least another 40 yrs.
-
Violet says:
yttik, were you following along with the conversation in the other thread? We’re talking about a women’s party that would comprise core women’s issues. The thought experiment here is to see what a platform of purely feminist stuff would look like (separate from the progressive/economic stuff that I would include with a left-oriented party).
Where did you get the idea that abortion would be left off? The impetus for this whole thing was Stupak! Neither the Democrats or Republicans are serving women’s issues.
Of course abortion isn’t the only issue — you’re telling me that? But by the same token, I’m sure as hell not going to leave it off.
-
slythwolf says:
I would like to see sexual assault/rape mentioned specifically even though it really does fall under the umbrella of violence against women. Simply because sexual assault is not considered actual, I don’t know, “violence-violence” by a lot of people.
-
yttik says:
Of course I’ve been following along, Violet. But I don’t think you’re suggesting a womans party, you’re suggesting a progressive pro-choice women’s caucus. That’s fine, but an actual woman’s party would include all women in on a common cause, such as freeing ourselves from oppression as the sex class, as commodities. It’s a bipartisan complaint, women don’t like be portrayed and perceived as commodities. If we ever do achieve full human status, then and only then, will abortion rights become a sacrament.
-
bygones says:
My narrow minded view suggests that unless and until I hold complete autonomy over my body in that I have the right to expect full control over my own decisions, there is no parity. For me this is first and foremost.
I am sick to death of making concessions in favor of those women who would not have me control that decision based on their morality or religious affiliaton. Those same standards are equally applied to the gay community as well and their positions are not up for my consideration.
Women are never going to be empowered or held equal if they are forever being pushed back into the idea that subjugation of their rights are shunted aside in favor of inclusion to those we would not advance these positions.
If the Stupak Amendment has taught us nothing else, it is that there are women who will sell us out to the highest bidder in order to ensure their seat in the next election. They do not represent women, they merely represent their own best interests.
-
Violet says:
yttik, you seem to have lost the plot after this comment:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....ment-36406
Also, this comment:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....ment-36417The central question of political alignment is still unresolved. Unsurprisingly, since that’s one of the key unanswered questions in this whole thing. What kind of movement is this? Do we want to align leftist women with other leftists, or do we want to align leftist women with other women?
In either case, let’s take as a given that abortion rights are a non-negotiable part of the platform. If I want a party that will compromise on that, I’ve already got the Democrats, thank you very much.
A “leftist women + other leftists” party would be the kind of thing we’re talking about with economic populism interwoven with feminism, with a full range of progressive values, environmentalism, etc.
A “leftist women + other women” party might be more what I mentioned in D2. This would be specific women’s issues only: choice, fair pay, gender parity, violence, rape, respect, porntastic culture, the ERA, etc. This party would not go into the other leftist issues, such as environmentalism, economic populism, etc. While adamant anti-choicers would abstain, I personally think that many moderate and conservative women would sign up for all the other reasons, regardless of where they are on abortion. I think the obsession with abortion is in many ways analagous to the rightwing obsession with guns and gays: it’s something that occurs in a vacuum. A strong pro-woman movement, speaking out and advancing on many fronts, could have widespread appeal…
In the many, many comments that followed, we discussed these two types of alignment. The purpose of this post is to see what the “lefist women + other women” platform would look like.
Everybody up to speed?
-
Keri says:
I think we need to push the reproductive rights issue not from the privacy direction but bodily autonomy for women from the liberty standpoint- a woman cannot have liberty- she is a ultimately slave, without bodily autonomy. Yes, push it as a slavery image.
-
Violet says:
Lori’s comment in the Diocletian thread (here) was bookmark-worthy in terms of how we frame choice:
On the subject of choice, we need to begin a discussion about how the choice is whether government choses whether you carry your child to term, or the individual does. We need to talk about China. We need to make the point that a government that can ban abortion, can, just as easily, force abortion. We need to go to conservative women and ask them how they would feel, in a period of over-population - of being forced to terminate a pregnancy with a husband that they love. How would they feel about their sister’s miscarriage being investigated? Would they want to be forced to carry a dead fetus out of fear of prosecution? Lots of those people do not know, because the left does not talk about it publicly, that those third term abortions are almost entirely performed upon dead fetuses and that the mother’s body does not always expel that fetus. we need to ramp up the concerns around what happens to the individual in an anti-choice environment. Pick our talking points, and make sure the spokespeople stick to them. If we want to protect abortion rights, then the discussion must be much, much bigger than it is. We won’t get everyone if we do that but we will peel off a few of ‘em - maybe enough to make a difference. I’m not in favor of leaving the right to abortion care behind (not that Violet is proposing that), but of aggressively expanding the parameters of the discussion.
BTW, I’ve always hated “choice” as the approach to reproductive rights. I prefer “bodily integrity.” I think it needs to be presented as a human being’s absolute right to control her own physical body.
-
Violet says:
People, there is no “one thing” that is the key to women’s rights. Unless it’s just “make women human,” as Twisty used to say.
What we need to be thinking about is a core list of critical issues. Think in terms of a pledge candidates would have to sign. A portable platform that could be combined with other agenda items, given the particular politician’s orientation.
This is a thought experiment! I feel like that guy in The Full Monty: if we can’t get our kit off here in front of each other, then how the hell are we going to do the show?
-
Aspen says:
Also on the issue of reproductive choice:
Inclusion of the support of women who choose to keep their child(ren) during and after pregnancy. Granted, this is where it gets hard to keep the economic left/social safety net type policies out of the picture.
Also to be included in reproductive rights is access/support of contraception for women and men. So-called conscience laws need to be eliminated.
Big issue to be included with fair pay: mothers’ rights. Acknowledgment that the human race does not propagate by magic fairy dust. Incorporation of this fact into healthcare and jobs policy. This is a huge issue in fair pay. A good deal of the reduction in pay that women get is based on motherhood.
Other suggestions:
-eliminating the economic incentive for women to enter marriage or heterosexual couplings. Hetero coupling should be entered into only when free of economic and social duress.
-tackling racism and sexism against women of color.
–evolving a platform to deal with small business ownership, which includes: -Better education about the nuts and bolts of starting and maintaining a business – resources to form a safety net for and cooperation by small businesses. This may be through cooperation of women-friendly business privately as well as encouraged through policy-Education of the public about what kind of policy actually helps and hurts small business.
-this one is hard to explain, but I would like to see more work done in the social sciences to help understand women’s relationships to each other in patriarchy.
I realize much of this is quite vague, and I don’t know how it could translate to a woman’s party, per se. I’m just thinking aloud and hashing at this point. -
Violet says:
For reference, let me just remind folks that 78% of Americans think abortion should be legal in some or all cases.
A large component of the “pro-life” thing is just marketing.
-
cwaltz says:
yttik
Choice needs to be defined better IMO from our side. It’s nonsense that pro choice has been equated with being pro abortion rather than what it is, pro allowing a woman to decide what is best since she is the one who has to live with the consequences. It can and should include supporting safety nets for women who choose to continue a pregnancy. I think there are instances where we could do good though by helping women like Feminists for Life pass the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Act. That being said I do believe choice is an essential plank for this party, with heavy emphasis on the belief that choice should mean that more than one option is available to women.
-
cwaltz says:
Violet
I think not only China but also I believe that third world countries where birth control isn’t readily available ought to be powerful illustrations on why women should have the right to choose. The idea we would force women to have more children when we already have access to information that says as many as 1/2 of the children already here are already reliant on the government for something as simple as food is baffling.
-
sharon says:
Ugh I am seeing Violet’s dilemma. Get off the abortion thread for a second, because there are issues listed that would appeal to conservative women, and we’re going to need them.
They (and I) care about sexism, particularly media images glorifying rape and misogyny. You’re not going to get them with the latter word, though. You’d get them through the notion that demeaning women is demeaning to daughters, mothers, and the American family.
This is a good fight - we’d all be on the same side on this one. We need to be - it’s the only way to beat back these forces.
One thing Violet’s initial post evoked in me is WOMEN FIRST, DAMN IT. That means not standing for health care bills that essentially are for men. Not standing for Palin getting the same treatment Clinton got - hey, women of any stripe need to run, darn it.
The problem I see here is we’re all ensconced firmly in leftist vocabulary. There are a lot of women we will need in this fight who don’t resonate with this vocabulary, but would come to arms over other terms: protect children, ensure a good education for them, protect families, end sexism (not so much as a matter of principle, but as personal attacks on female candidates, which are unfair and out of bounds), and quit with identity politics.There are more, but I am tired…
I mention these things not to turn this into a conservative thread, but to instead explore areas where there is mutual interest, and to change the dialogue to one where women of all interests could participate. I think reframing of the abortion debate, as discussed here, could be useful, but I caution this team against getting stuck on it, and using it as a bludgeon. The trick to getting a ‘women first, damn it’ party off the ground is to find those common areas and work them, rather than maximizing differences.
-
foxx says:
Economic independence.
When women have real choices about how to live their lives they do not have a lot of children. They find a way.
The purpose of all the systems of oppression is to keep women’s reproductive capacity under the control of men. Women will break free when they see they have somewhere to go.
-
Alison says:
A large component of the “pro-life” thing is just marketing.
Yes! Marketing from the Dems AND the Republicans. The Dems have manipulated their party into being so fearful of the Christian right. Not that they aren’t “bat shit crazy” but the fact that 78 percent of Americans support some level of choice - dammit if we can’t galvanize around that on some level!
Dems, NOW and NARAL have been doing a lousy job securing our reproductive rights because of the manipulation of this myth. This is why we can’t forget choice because we haven’t even REALLY tried to secure this yet! Choice cannot be an afterthought, it’s an essential part of the package.
-
ugsome says:
Instead of a laundry list of issues, I’m thinking of a bootstrapping effort to get a critical mass of woman-minded women and men into office.
Drawing up a list of issues defines immediately who’s out and who’s in. Yet people across the political spectrum are deeply uneasy about the treatment and role of women in public life.
I know no woman’s party or caucus can work without a list of issues, so this is what would draw my attention first:
Parity. Commitment to equality in appointments and staffing, and to cultivating female candidates to office.
Emphasizing women and girls in American foreign policy as Hillary Clinton is doing. In so doing, addressing women’s concerns becomes part of what America is about.
The ERA.
-
Northwest rain says:
NOW and NARAL are part of the problem because they have shown that they will take the side of the patriarchy over the best interest of women. So eject them — let them stew — they are the past.
Bodily integrity — really that is core issue for women. Women who choose to have children need support. This country really doesn’t support mothers with maternity leave etc. Other developed countries have a far better record of maternal support.
Also the issue of rape — and sexual abuse and the fricking sexism that is just everywhere. But if we had a minimum of 30% of the elected offices — including District Attorneys and in legislative bodies on from the county to the National levels — the whole environment would have to change. When males (police) where in charge of catching the rapists — not much was done. But when females were allowed to become police officers — we know how the statistics started to change. (Still a very long way to go. . .).
Since sexism/misogyny is learned — that means that there is NOW a very active campaign to deliberately teach sexism. Education is very important — in fact education may be the key.
R@cism is learned behavior — and we’ve seen a major shift in public opinion — racist remarks in public are unwelcome. I haven’t had to chew off people’s heads here in Washington state for many years for r@cist remarks against Native Americans — at one time it seemed to be a sport to be as rude as possible about and toward the local Indigenous population.
Sexism is accepted in the American culture and the victims are always blamed — they brought it on themselves … fill in the blank.
WE have da Prez who is one of the worst sexist offenders (during the campaign last year) and leading “feminists” groups STILL supported HIM. They should have with held their support –which is why I’m saying that they are part of the problem — they were too concerned with keeping their power WITHIN the patriarchy — rather than standing for WOMEN.
-
Kookaburra says:
What about reframing the abortion plank as “women’s health”. Many, many very conservative women I know are incensed that standard gyn appointments are classifed as “optional” by the HCR bill.
-
yttik says:
“People, there is no “one thing” that is the key to women’s rights. Unless it’s just “make women human,” as Twisty used to say.”
Exactly Violet, but see there really is just one thing that is key to womens rights, making women human. Women do not have real choices and never will until we are respected and viewed as full human beings. All the abortion rights in the world won’t fix that.
The problem with Choice as a platform is that it always becomes the holy grail, the one narrow issue we focus on. An agenda for women needs to expand it’s demands, to ask for so much more then the right to a medical procedure, to demand that women be treated as full human beings and not commodities.
Stupak isn’t even really about abortion, it’s about women being viewed as commodities, as political toys to be traded. Stupak was followed by removing an amendment that would have mandated womens’ basic health care be part of insurance requirements. Then we hit the misogyny trifecta and went on to decide women probably didn’t need as many mammograms and pap smears.
If we would stop “asking” for abortion rights and start demanding full human status, the rest of it would fall into place.
It’s just the nature of the beast, as soon as abortion becomes one of the items on the agenda it becomes prioritized, and since it’s constantly under attack, pretty soon that’s all you do is try to fight to maintain what little access we have. Then women are forced to spend all their time begging for a crumb.
I’m suggesting people think outside the box, try something different for a change. Don’t ask for abortion rights, demand full human status.
-
Swannie says:
I have personally always hated the term “PRO LIFE ” because it isn’t either in concept or actuality> I was miffed when the birthers became the monkier for the BO birth certificate peolple because pro life is FORCED BIRTH whether it endangers the mother or not .
I am probably preaching to the choir , but forcing anyone to have a child endangers their life; mortality for childbirth being what it is in this country ,or any country really , especially for higher risk groups. So to present the womens health issue as reality in that a pro life law would FORCE women into having children , and takes away their most basic civil rights of autonomy over their own bodies.
Forcing birth also impacts every other aspect of a womans life including her economic status
Even the most basic Patients Bill of Rights includes the right to REFUSE any procudure , medication life prolonging or life endangering medical intervention.
NO FORCED BIRTH …
As for other womens issues .. I think one of the most important is that violence toward women must not be tolerated, whether it is domestic , predatory, or religioun based . Gender based violence needs to be spotlighted and identified for what it is .. oppression and persecution . -
Linden says:
I’m suggesting people think outside the box, try something different for a change. Don’t ask for abortion rights, demand full human status.
I don’t see any reason to be coy about abortion rights as part of the platform, if that’s where the women’s party expects to make changes in the future.
The ability for men to control women through control of their fertility is essential to women’s membership in the sex class. When women control their own fertility, they undermine their status as members of the sex class. The Right understands this completely, which is why they focus their efforts on outlawing abortion and contraception and why the women’s movement has had to commit more of their resources on the issue. Women will never be considered fully human as long as the idea of the sex class remains intact. It will not just wither away on its own without forceful confrontation.
I think people pretty much agree these days that women should get paid the same as men for the same work, or be allowed to attend college, or go into politics. The Right knows they’ve lost those issues, but they also know women can still be prevented from participating fully in society through male/governmental control of their fertility. When women are kept in their places by formal, society-sanctioned discrimination, abortion is legal (though not accepted). When women start to break out of second-class status, opposition to abortion hardens. I don’t think the two are unrelated.
Another reason abortion is such a good ground from which to attack women’s personhood is because it makes people uncomfortable. Women wanting to get paid for the same work as a man seems like an issue of basic fairness; women wanting to abort a pregnancy seems sort of icky and wrong, and besides many religious leaders speak against it. But why does abortion cause discomfort? Because it challenges the idea of women as the sex class. Why do religious leaders oppose it? Because most major religions uphold the idea of the sex class.
Not to say that the Right has a monopoly on the idea of women as the sex class, however. Men on the Left also cherish the idea of women as the sex class, which is why their support for a woman’s right to bodily integrity is so tissue-thin in the crunch. The Right’s take on women as the sex class revolves around forced childbirth; the Left’s, around sexual access to women as an essential aspect of male “freedom.”
-
sharon says:
You guys are onto something here. No forced birth, or even better, just autonomy over our own bodies. Let each women decide for herself what that means, because for some of us it may mean a lot more than whether we can terminate a pregnancy or not. It means no rape or coerced sex. It means no sexist commenting on how we look in pantsuits or running outfits. It means not telling girls that oral sex is ok for them to do on boys.
If conservative women are pissed that health care for all means less proactive health care for them, by all means, leverage that. I found it interesting that prostate cancer screenings and treatments weren’t axed with mammography. It should be clear to most of us that modern science has not addressed our health needs as aggressively as they have men’s. Antibiotic and over-the-counter meds are standard dosed for the average person, meaning a 180 lb male. Why is that ‘the average’? Why aren’t there standard women’s dosages for everything? The study of menopause is so in the kindergarten stages that the only hormone replacement therapy approved for us causes breast cancer.
Can you imagine if Viagra or Cialis caused prostate cancer? Drug companies would be mobilizing lickety split to fix that.
Work on women’s health, women’s autonomy over their own physical body, women’s rights to exist without being demeaned every step of the way. Include family leave / family care as part of the platform. This is important to many of us, and yet is sorely lacking. Women with children get tired of children always being on the cutting block. Our schools are always being cut, our kids are always being exposed to a culture they can’t digest, and it’s clear that the country does not believe in preparing for our future through children. Women who have children and high-powered careers either have to turn kids over to nannies, or get off the fast-track to be a part of their lives, yet men don’t have this same conundrum.
There is a lot more to be fixed for women than just holding onto whether we can terminate pregnancies or not.
-
lambert strether says:
It looks very much like there are two basic methods of categorizing the “core list of critical issues” that Violet gives –
1. As a set of desired policy outcomes that imply metrics (like “parity” or “fair” pay)
2. As an appeal to overarching values to which people might “pledge” (like “violence against women” and “sexism in the media”).
I’m not saying that all the list items won’t find their way into both categories (bodily autonomy for example). Just that the sorting procedure is different.
Now, the quasi-policy wonk in me likes the first bucket very much. Here are these policies, they are good, there are outcomes we can test for, and so on.
On the other hand, if we look back at the undoubted success of the temperance movement, it’s clear that they sorted by the second bucket, a value: That’s what temperance is, a value. That chimes with Violet’s “make women human,” (or, alternatively (”women and children first”).
So, it might make sense to go with an approach that’s been shown to work in the past (as, I might add, “choice” as a framing device simply has not).
-
lambert strether says:
Violet @15 writes “think in terms of a pledge candidates would have to sign.”
FWIW, the temperance pledges were about abstinence (to abstain “from all liquors of an intoxicating quality, whether ale, porter, wine or ardent spirits, except as medicine”). In other words, they were about accepting/adhering to an overarching value (see above) as a person.
That’s not the same thing as accepting/adhering to policy outcomes as a candidate. (And the success, or lack thereof, of the “public option” pledges has made me pretty leery of that process.)
One might, for example, ask men to pledge avoid media productions that send sexist messages, to take one example. (The wording would have to be hammered out; see the temperance pledge above). Or whatever priorities the WO determined.
-
lorac says:
I think it’s a good list. My two ideas might come under the heading of details.
The first is, I think the issue about sexism in media should specifically mention marketing. Marketing saturates our lives and shapes the worldview of many, and the misogyny in marketing is only getting worse.
(I am thinking of the ad - for a men’s cologne…? - which is on the deck of a boat, and one man is on top of a woman, and the other half-dressed men are standing in a semi-circle watching. Very suggestive of gang-rape. And it’s being used to sell a product for men. The point of marketing seems to be to make you feel that buying the product will make you become something you want to be, so what does that say about the men to whom this ad appeals?)
My second input is about sexism in language. I personally don’t feel this is an unimportant detail. I firmly believe that always seeing “male” before “female”, “he” before “she”, and the use of “man” instead of “human” shapes people’s worldview, as well as women’s view of their gender’s worth. If you ever have a chance to read something which uses “s/he” or “she/he”, the feeling of empowerment may be palpable.
I guess there’s one more thing. Someone mentioned (if I understood correctly) that this list may be better suited to a platform than a party in itself. My feeling is that a “woman’s party” wouldn’t go too far, because a party needs to address more than women’s issues (although I realize that emowering women would help everyone). And I remember from the last “go-round”, that the inevitable accusations of “man hater” and “lesbians” will come out (although, the only people I ever heard b*tching and moaning about men are straight women, and straight men about women…). If this list were to become part of a “party”, it would probably need different language to assauge the men, and the male-identified women - perhaps by speaking more in terms of human rights. But, of course, under the guise of human rights, women often become invisible, are seen as a “special interest”, even though we are the majority. We probably do really need a specific focus on women.
And I would really, really like to see a platform which appeals to many in both parties. We’re the majority, but when separated by the abortion issue, we’re just two minorities. And we get nowhere….
-
Aspen says:
Lambert, is your second bucket more of a culture thing? To make a silly example: If a Republican is a person who puts US flags all over his house and cars, and a Democrat is someone who drives a hybrid and shops at Whole Foods, a NWPer is someone who denounces sexist images and won’t buy or use magazines or products that have sexist images or practices.
None of these things are legal requirements. It’s about what is made socially acceptable or unacceptable by the culture of the party. Was that kind of where you were going? -
lorac says:
sharon says:
You guys are onto something here. No forced birth, or even better, just autonomy over our own bodies.I think this may be a way to appeal to conservatives. From what I understand, the religious right only relatively recently infiltrated the right. Basically, conservatism is supposed to support individual rights and autonomy, and minimal governmental intrusion into people’s lives. So framing the argument in terms of individual autonomy may help bring many on the right into the fold.
-
Aspen says:
My feeling is that a “woman’s party” wouldn’t go too far, because a party needs to address more than women’s issues (although I realize that emowering women would help everyone). And I remember from the last “go-round”, that the inevitable accusations of “man hater” and “lesbians” will come out
Would it behoove the NWP, once we start to really get ourselves out there, to have some sort of an FAQ? I don’t want a what about the men mentality, but it may help to have a bit of a 101. Some people may wrongly assume that the NWP takes the stand that women are naturally “superior” to men, and that we think women have the magic bullet to fix it all. A bit of 101 about patriarchy and feminism may be in order. Having said that – I believe the NWP should not “give” in its resolution to women at the forefront as a result of misunderstanding about our mission and goals.
-
lorac says:
I believe the NWP should not “give” in its resolution to women at the forefront as a result of misunderstanding about our mission and goals.
I absolutely agree; the resolution to women should remain at the forefront. I’m only questioning how well this will work at a party level, as opposed to a platform level. I just think that no matter the amount of education, it will take a looooong time before many people will see a party named for Women as representing everyone…. I think too many will not want something (on a party level) that seems dedicated to “the other”, that they think won’t represent themselves…
-
Marirebel says:
I think that a critical issue to consider is the feminization of poverty. In this Country, and throughout the world, the overwhelming majority of the poor are women and their children. Additionally, women do two-thirds of the world’s work—the work of caring for families, raising children, cooking and cleaning, for no pay. To the extent that we begin to value the traditional work of women, and the extent to which we lift women out of poverty (through financial assistance, adequate paid maternity leave and assistance, and through various programs like daycare, lunch programs, skilled job training programs, healthcare, etc.) is the extent to which women will have bodily integrity and choices about how best to live their lives.
I agree with Yttik at 7 and 10 above that a primary focus on abortion rights is not sufficient. We have been on the same tiring abortion rights treadmill for forty years. To truly obtain bodily integrity and reproductive rights, we must begin to dismantle and broadly reshape a patriarchal culture that devalues women’s lives at all levels. I think a good place to focus is on the least of them.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
First and foremost there must be a strategy to address the casual public use and acceptance of sexist and misogynistic commentary and terms. That was the single most dramatic defining difference in how Obama was treated versus Hillary and Sarah. Until the “C” word is as taboo in the public psyche as the “N” word, the default push back against women attempting to access equality will be degrading, demeaning, and aggressive sexism and misogyny.
We need to have a solid strategy to address this first. IMHO.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
add imagery to that list (commentary, terms, and imagery)
-
lambert strether says:
Aspen asks @33:
Lambert, is your second bucket more of a culture thing? None of these things are legal requirements. It’s about what is made socially acceptable or unacceptable by the culture of the party. Was that kind of where you were going?
Yes, though I’m not an expert in the history, obviously. It’s the pledge mechanism that brings the values of the W[O|P] to the larger culture. It worked for “temperance,” even though the wording of the pledge looks like it was pretty effortful to write. #37’s “the C word” might be an example of what’s pledged against, and possibly #32’s marketing tropes. The key would be to make the pledge precise enough. For example, a pledge “not to use the C word” is precise enough to check, just like “abstain from … ale, porter” is. (Maybe this goes with the idea of a FAQ.)
-
madamab says:
Ugsome’s list is the best for me.
Parity. Commitment to equality in appointments and staffing, and to cultivating female candidates to office.
Emphasizing women and girls in American foreign policy as Hillary Clinton is doing. In so doing, addressing women’s concerns becomes part of what America is about.
The ERA.
I think that in terms of an over-arching platform, women’s equality should be it. A simple, two-word concept, and a broad spectrum of women should go for it.
-
sam says:
You know my issues. I agree with, “The Right’s take on women as the sex class revolves around forced childbirth; the Left’s, around sexual access to women as an essential aspect of male “freedom.”
Currently, the prostitution abolition movement is larger, better funded by governments and private citizens, and taken much more seriously than the careerist circle-jerkism of the modern feminist movement. Shelters for sex trafficking victims are being built, laws globally are being changed at an amazing rate, and conservatives have worked with liberals to make it happen.
I have personally participated in activism with my conservative neighbors to get half a million dollars allocated to Portland’s prostitution problems and to push for the right to zone pornstitution businesses because of the Supreme Court-acknowledged crimes they bring to communities. Liberal feminists from the Portland Women’s Crisis Line actually protested our town hall meetings and handed out flyers defending johns and women’s “right to work in the street economy.” The last time I saw Portland feminists unite for a cause was to protest 18-year-olds not being allowed to work as strippers in 21+ establishments, and their unity was mostly about wearing babydoll shirts printed with “Fuck the OLCC” (Oregon Liquor Control Commission).
Contrasting their sexee activism with my unsexee conservative neighbor, I’ve got to go with the man who approaches business owners and asks them to sign a “Good Neighbor” document stating they will not open a pornstitution business or tolerate prostitution on their premises. It’s because of him that employees of the local McDonald’s now call the police when they see prostitution happening in the parking lot where before they ignored it.
-
Violet says:
To clarify: my list wasn’t intended to be a definite platform, and the language is pure working-session. Obviously whatever we decide on would need to be crafted. As for the issues — all of those can be translated into policy recommendations. Or alternatively, all the policy recommendations can be translated into value assertions.
By “pledge,” I just meant that, say, Pony Democrats would be vowing to always vote in a certain way. Otherwise they’re not Ponies and would be excommunicated.
A different sort of “pledge,” one involving personal behavior (like the temperance pledge) is an interesting idea.
-
Aspen says:
I absolutely agree; the resolution to women should remain at the forefront.
lorac, sorry if it sounded like I thought you were implying otherwise. I meant to add to what you said, not dispute it.
-
jackyt says:
I would level the “choice” playing field by including a precept that personal autonomy includes the right of any woman to choose to NOT have an abortion.
Autonomy means no one gets to choose for anyone but him/herself. Until society as a whole has an “aha” conversion on this, any improvement in the status of women will be an uphill battle. That said, it’s a righteous battle and one I’ve been waging, and enjoying, on a personal front all my life.
As long as religious conviction is based on beliefs, prejudices, biases, etc. projected on a blank screen and then quoted back as independent dicta of a Santa Claus god figure (makin’ a list, checkin’ it twice), the playing field will remain extremely muddy. The deal with autonomy is that we each have to exercise it regularly and actively, and NEVER cede it. We need to consciously choose to agree or disagree with any law, whether social, civil, criminal or religious, and be willing to accept the consequences of our choices. -
Violet says:
A connection between abortion and other issues — sexism/misogyny in media, rape, etc. — is that women’s bodies are public. Men’s bodies are their own, but women’s bodies aren’t.
In a classic patriarchy, a woman’s body belongs to her father/husband, or the community at large (which means raping or prostituting her is fine). In a modern post-patriarchy, such as ours, those ideas are in the deep background and rarely enunciated, particularly the part about belonging to your husband (except in fundie communities). But the public nature of women’s bodies is still in effect.
Women’s bodies are public property. Gang rape. An advertisement that looks like gang rape. The use of women’s bodies to sell everything. Women’s bodies flayed and displayed in pornography. Women’s bodies for sale. Endless public scrutiny and judgment of every female celebrity’s body. Groups of legislators or judges deciding whether a woman can have an abortion or get contraception. A pharmacist deciding whether a woman can have the morning-after pill.
All of that is part of the public-property nature of women’s bodies.
Now, can that be massaged into a message to resonate with conservative women?
-
stateofdisbelief says:
To develop a message that resonates with conservative women you must first understand them. Some want to project what they believe are the underlying interests of women who disagree with them but the only way to really understand is to listen. Too many liberal women take the “talk to the hand” approach.
If we are afraid to listen, we will never find out how to reach them in the manner you’ve detailed.
Understanding is not the same as agreeing. Some people have a hard time separating the two.
-
madamab says:
Conservative women are not some monolithic bloc. There are many pro-choice conservative women. I think an equality message would resonate with a lot of them.
On the other hand, we should recognize that women are just as polarized as men when it comes to activism, and understand that we can’t appeal to everyone. Just get a simple, unifying message and go forward with it. There are millions and millions of women who would eagerly join a NWP and volunteer. Why obsess about the ones who wouldn’t?
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Violet,
You may find the linked Pew Research on women leadership interesting. Women are now rated higher in perception than men. This is an excellent time to be contemplating these ideas:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/pub.....leadership
and full report is here:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/ass.....ership.pdf -
jackyt says:
I think it comes down to respecting each others’ right to disagree, and suspending any attempts to impose one’s will upon another. Demanding agreement is the antithesis of demanding autonomy. If we can get to the point where autonomy is the highest goal, then how each of us exercises it becomes secondary. We all make allowances for each others’ foibles; I’m just advocating a broadening of the foible concept. It’s a simple “live and let live” model with an underlay of backbone and an overlay of generosity.
-
LabRat says:
Now, can that be massaged into a message to resonate with conservative women?
Short version is yes, I really think so. Long version from a more-or-less conservative woman (at least moreso than probably 90% of those here on many particular issues) once I’m not tied down babying a cranky fire.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Violet is on point looking for a message that resonates, however the premise of unilaterally trying to establish “common ground” is not possible. Both parties must be involved in establishing a unifying message, i.e, common ground, at least at the point of research on how to approach such a task.
If you want to find out what resonates with “conservative” women, you have to ask them.
-
A more Diocletiany follow-up to the Diocletian post | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] We already have one follow-up to the Diocletian post: What would be the core issues for a women’s party? [...]
-
LabRat says:
*really scattered series of thoughts*
What strikes me the most about the “personal autonomy” framing of reproductive rights above the “choice” one (which has always been ridiculously easy to start rhetorically prying apart, beginning with the opposing verbal formulation “pro-life”) is how very much the abortion discussion is suddenly starting to sound like commonly heard formulations in the gun-rights community- particularly from women RKBA advocates. I really don’t want to de-rail this thread into a discussion on that issue- and I suspect Violet would be even less thrilled than I would- but the core message is on a nearly identical wavelength. From the one direction, no matter how various idiots, thugs, and predators misuse guns, the state should never be able to remove someone’s effective capability to defend their lives and bodies from an attacker, especially one that may be stronger or more numerous; from the other, no matter what the circumstances of the pregnancy were or whether the woman has been “responsible” or what society’s demographic needs are deemed to be, the state should never be able to decide whether a woman carries to term or not. To do otherwise would be fundamentally opening her to violation- either by predators taking advantage of her physical vulnerability, or other kinds of predators- be they looking to coerce her to have a child, or looking to coerce her to kill it. (Again, I would like to reiterate I’m not looking to have the gun argument here, and I’m pro-choice and don’t really equate abortion with “killing a child”. But this framing would be completely congruent.)
It’s a much more familiar and truer-ringing formulation to conservatives and libertarians than talking about the human status of women or comparing a lack of reproductive freedom to slavery; the instant and instinctive retort is to then inquire about the child and his/her freedom to live at all- and calling it a fetus or verbally treating it as something somehow completely divorced from being a person doesn’t work. It comes off as rhetorical game-playing or coded language, just as a conservative starting up about “family values” makes leftists instinctively look for what misogyny, homophobia, or other bit of nastiness is being hidden behind the phrase.
It’s very easy to see hypocrises in people already seen as enemies, and to bring up Sarah Palin, the misogynist left’s reaction to her multiple pregnancies and especially to Trig really did a lot to cement suspicion in the minds of right-leaning women that, speaking of coded language, “pro-choice” really DOES mean “pro-abortion”- it was that “for some liberal dudes abortion rights means getting rid of inconvenient kids” face on full display. As a destruction of the “pro-choice” brand for women who aren’t leftist, it certainly wasn’t the beginning and probably won’t be the end, but it was a body blow.
“Autonomy” isn’t just a framing that works well with a large segment of conservatives and libetarians who’ve been beating that drum for gun rights, it also resonates particularly well for the “tea party” wing of the party that are frankly more numerous than the religious right, even if they’re maybe not yet as influential. It’s certainly a huge chunk of the reason why superficially similar right-wing populists Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee elicit such different levels of enthusiasm- they both wear populist clothing, but one is generally seen as “less meddlesome” than the other.
To change the subject from abortion, leftists and libertarians might have little to nothing to agree on in terms of economic policy, but both sides see it as a net good to have women fully integrated socially and economically; from a political-philosophy perspective all individuals *should* be in an ideal system, and from an economic one a society with half its potential brainpower and drive tied up and limited to a narrow class of activities is a huge opportunity cost.
I had a conversation with a male engineer friend of mine once, sparked by Larry Summers in which he commented he had lots of female classmates at high levels of science and engineering- i.e. it was certainly not that they couldn’t do the math- but that almost none of them went on to work in the academic backbone of their field, but rather in some kind of industrial or peripheral application of the theory. What I wound up pointing out was that right now academic science essentially requires giving up the entire first half of your life in service to the field; the only way to have a family during that time is to have a partner willing to completely support that end- which is something that is relatively easy for a man to find but not a woman.
Likewise, employers have a serious incentive not to want to invest capital and training in an employee that will disappear for months on end or maybe out of the business/field entirely to devote themselves to something else- which commonly for women is child care.
This isn’t only an economic problem, it’s a cultural one- the Palins are another good example. When she ran, I heard from a shocking number of women friends much more liberal than I am, “Why is she abandoning her family to run for office?” It was like Todd wasn’t there, and the younger children would be left to their sisters or the wolves.
A matter of policy might be trying to find ways to change that incentive legislatively, and on that the left and right will always disagree just as a matter of economic and philosophical DNA, but a common solution would be cultural- moving the expectations of division of family care and responsibility, as well as the degree of esteem- making what was “women’s work” something men are expected to be capable of and see as fulfilling and respectable, as well as “men’s work” something women are seen as unremarkable in aspiring to- even if it means leaving her “women’s work” to a man.
Attempting to sum up this messy beast, I’m seeing a “women and other women” core issue as much more of a culture war and values framing than a potential policy one- but one whose core essence is women as full and complete participants in society, with the same personal and political autonomy and integrity, the same expectations, same freedoms, and same responsibilities as men.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
The problem as I see it is that we’re trying to find unifying themes from a one-sided perspective. If we’re trying to win over those that already agree with us, just hang up the “Mission Accomplished” sign and let’s celebrate.
Unifying is not persuasion. It’s a systematic process of determining what core values are shared and then linking together by virtue of these values. To do that you must engage those who are not like-minded at the moment. You can’t assume you know, or impose your own ideas about who they are and what they want, believe, or need. Only they can tell you that.
A lot of “leftist” women seem to be afraid to listen to “conservative” women. As humans we’re not hard-wired to be comfortable around people that disagree with us. The animal in us instinctively wants to engage our fight or flight mechanisms. But if we’re going to do this, we absolutely must listen. And it must be done face-to-face. We must get down to the core of who we are - women. That is the only thing we can say unilaterally that we share.
Stalemate is not an option.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
I believe I have a message that went into spammy
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Hillary’s approach is correct:
-
Aspen says:
Stateofdisbelief, why do you continue to say it’s all on liberal women?
Even if it were true, that liberal women are the only ones responsible to initiate communication, (which is an odd thing to say on this board where clearly there are many of types of women welcome to comment pretty much anything short of bald-faced MRA) do you think the IWF, Lynn Cheney, Katie Roiphe, etc. may have something to do with our hesitation? Or is it just that liberal women are natural antisocial b—hes?
Also, stateofdisbelief, you continue to make assumptions about the NWP wants to do. Does the NWP want to find “common ground” between Democrats and Republicans, like Obama does? Why would that be in women’s interest? I obviously don’t speak for all of us either, and don’t claim to for a second. But for an NWP to be the female Obama — seems more than a tad antithetical to our goals.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Stateofdisbelief, why do you continue to say it’s all on liberal women?
Because we’re the one’s discussing it here. We can certainly wait for them to come to us, but gosh, that might be a while.
And I’m not making assumptions about what the “NWP” wants to do. I’m simply observing the comments here and what appears to be objectives. Like I said, if we’re not interested in finding common ground, or as violet puts it “a unifying message” then what is the point? We already agree. Mission accomplished.
If this is about women, the simple fact is that there are women with diverse views across the political spectrum.
Sorry if my two cents has no value to you.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Does the NWP want to find “common ground” between Democrats and Republicans, like Obama does? Why would that be in women’s interest?
I didn’t realize you’d already developed the platform. Sorry, my bad.
-
Violet says:
The problem as I see it is that we’re trying to find unifying themes from a one-sided perspective.
Well, no, not exactly. That isn’t the goal. That’s not what the purpose of the whole Diocletian discussion is about.
The goal is to find a way for feminist interests to be served in our currently broken democracy. If it were up to me I would add economic populism and social progressiveness as well, since they’re also underserved (to put it mildly). We are currently at the mercy of two right-wing corporate-owned parties that serve no one but their donors.
I personally am not looking for a way to unite all women, because I think that’s impossible. I’m pretty sure of it, actually. I’m also not looking to come up with some advocacy group that will only focus on issues of interest to all women across the political spectrum. I’ve already done that: The New Agenda. And I’m glad it exists. But I’m also aware of the limitations of that model.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
I personally am not looking for a way to unite all women, because I think that’s impossible.
Of course you can’t unify all women. Even African Americans couldn’t unite 100% politically, but there is certainly some merit in finding political themes that cross party boundaries or clarifying political themes to encourage cohesiveness.
There are many women out there who hold onto ideologically pure and partisan beliefs that are pervasive by design of the patriarchy. We need to address these if we are to maximize our 51% standing in society. And I am speaking from a political standpoint. But still, IMO it’s a wheel-spinner unless we’re willing to at least listen. Listening does not require agreeing. Understanding does not require agreeing. But these two things are essential steps to agreement.
Again, just my opinion.
-
foxx says:
Well AAs united behind Obamna and women did not unite behind Hillary. And that is a big problem.
-
Violet says:
Women are never going to show that kind of unity. Not for anyone.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Let me use an example to explain my point. Take the abortion/choice issue. I frequently see “liberal” women posit the assumption that anti-choicers are basing their opinions on religious reasons. Trying to get someone to abandon a *strongly held* religious belief is difficult if not impossible. However, if people are polled, support is high (8 out of 10) “in cases of rape or incest.”
http://abcnews.go.com/sections.....30122.html
What that means is that the religious (God wants us to save the babies) conviction is either weak or non-existent; otherwise there would be no exceptions. So, what are their reasons? the poll I linked reveals a few different perspectives. Those perspectives can be discussed and worked through but only if we sit down and discuss them face to face. One finding was that “57 percent oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — “if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby.” This perspective is sexist (and racist) in and of itself, notwithstanding the choice issue. We can deal with this particular view on a woman to woman basis and I think there is great hope in women finding common ground with such a discussion.I believe we can solve these political issues that divide women in a way that increases our cohesiveness and thus power.
Again, just my opinion.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
BTW, it’s not a stretch to think that the patriarchy wants us to think that God stands between us on political issues.
-
octogalore says:
Fascinating discussion — thanks, Violet.
It seems as if the choice issue is taking attention away from other parts of the discussion. As a pro-choicer, my first instinct is to say — it’s in, end of discussion. But on reflection, I think the message in Violet’s #46 is a better way to phrase it for the NWP. After all, the only women’s groups that seem to do anything at all focus on choice. Even if their efforts aren’t optimal, I wonder if it makes sense to focus on optimizing the choice activism within those organizations already set up to do that.
I think the planks laid out in the OP are good ones. I also think some attention should be paid to working towards equal results, as well as equal opportunities, for women. If women don’t have equal economic power to men, on the ground, we will be less able to achieve the goals in the OP.
-
Linden says:
I have had conversations with conservative women on the abortion issue, particularly my mother-in-law. The conversation always runs aground at some point, because the conservative woman just simply says, “Abortion is wrong.” That’s all. It’s just wrong. She can’t say why it’s wrong, or why it’s okay to make other women conform to her own idea of why it’s wrong. In my mother-in-law’s case, she’ll even say that she wants her *own* daughters to have safe, legal abortions if they need them — then she’ll still turn around and say abortion should be illegal. I’ve even had this conversation with a woman who I know has had an abortion in the past. Frankly, I can’t understand it. Perhaps someone else out there has had better luck?
On a related topic, the second-wave feminists had consciousness-raising sessions. Feminism isn’t ingrained in women at birth, and there’s a lot of counter-cultural programming to overcome. A NWP could do the same.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
Now, can that be massaged into a message to resonate with conservative women?
Maybe. Conservative women who are libertarians will respond, although most of them are pro-choice already. But no argument of bodily autonomy is going to convince those, like me, who see these fetuses as babies and abortion as killing them. Sometimes I do think the killing is justified. But it’s still painful and damaging to individuals and to society, hence why the best defense includes the word “rare.”
IMO, if a pro-choice group was inclined to demonstrate that it is not actually pro-abortion, it could participate in a campaign that, for example, encouraged women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies to carry their pregnancies to term. (The campaign could also apply to other pre-birth diagnoses of non-life-threatening genetic disease.) This would not be a campaign for legal action, but rather a campaign for greater public acceptance of and support for individuals in these circumstances. It could help create bridges.
But as it is, once you put abortion on the table, you tap into the huge amount of distrust between women in opposing camps. Everyone already thinks the other side has ulterior motives. And having a set stance on abortion has become a shibboleth for a host of other political sentiments that may not be useful in creating a new political identity. FWIW.
-
yttik says:
I can understand the conservative idea of wanting a government that advocates and values the importance of human life. It definitely gets a bit worrisome when we start discussing the cost effectiveness of human beings as we’ve seen in the HC debate.
-
Alison says:
Violet,
In regard to your link in #64 - very fascinating and enlightening. Can I file this under comments that should be posts? So many women, including myself, have spent too much time being angry that women can’t seem to get it together like African Americans did during the civil rights movement. Your explanation for why unity is so difficult makes perfect sense.
-
teresainpa says:
aspen said:
Also, stateofdisbelief, you continue to make assumptions about the NWP wants to do. Does the NWP want to find “common ground” between Democrats and Republicans, like Obama does? Why would that be in women’s interest? I obviously don’t speak for all of us either, and don’t claim to for a second. But for an NWP to be the female Obama — seems more than a tad antithetical to our goals.
our movement is about the equality of women. Do not all women deserve equality?
-
Violet says:
I can understand the conservative idea of wanting a government that advocates and values the importance of human life. It definitely gets a bit worrisome when we start discussing the cost effectiveness of human beings as we’ve seen in the HC debate.
Oh, the irony. It was conservatives who introduced “the cost effectiveness of human beings” into the healthcare debate.
yttik, you’ve been imbibing too much wingnut koolaid. You really need to step back from the punch bowl.
-
yttik says:
I haven’t been imbibing kool aid, Violet, not from either party anymore. I hate ideologies and dogma.
It’s pretty clear that many people
1. do not believe that conservative women should also be entitled to equal rights and
2. that we should not try to understand anything they have to say because they are a sub human species who have nothing valuable to contribute.So once again, the loyalties have been declared. Loyalty to the Dem party and to progressive polices, both of which will continue to trump womens rights because that is the nature of the beast. It’s what we’ve been doing for decades and it doesn’t work.
-
Violet says:
It’s pretty clear that many people
1. do not believe that conservative women should also be entitled to equal rights and
2. that we should not try to understand anything they have to say because they are a sub human species who have nothing valuable to contribute.Yep, but those people aren’t here. They’re over at Pandagon. Not here.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Respect Women
Protect Women
Elect WomenThese are the 3 common themes I’d suggest can contain and market everything we want from a trans-party women’s coalition (at least until we get them).
Respect Women
• Women deserve respect for our dignity and common humanity in all media. Just as one would never see the N-word or blatant racial stereotypes used publically without consequence, so must woman-demeaning words and images be purged from socially acceptable discourse.
• Freedom from discrimination protected under the Constitution
• Equal pay for equal work
• Fair pay for “women’s work”
• Equal access to health care
• Governmental action to reverse gender stereotypes that have historically oppressed women, including:
(1) Education for children and the general public on women’s positive contributions to humanity and our rightfully equal role in society, and
(2) Training in how to recognize and reject speech, images, and behaviors that subjugate women.Protect Women
• Women deserve to live, work and travel without fear of violence or intimidation. Government must ensure adequate legal penalties, vigorous enforcement, and investment in research and remedy of root causes to:
(1) End rape and incest
(2) End violence against women
• Women deserve the right to protect ourselves and our loved ones from violence and intimidation without fear of unjust legal reprisal.Elect Women
• Women deserve the right to fully realize our citizenship through equal representation in government.
- Women are more than half the population, receive more than half the college degrees, and perform as successfully as men in leadership positions. To be represented proportionally, half of all elected and appointed government posts, including the highest leadership roles, should be women. Less than half is indefensible.
• We demand that our government take affirmative action to close the gender gap in every public and private sphere over which it can exert influence.*****A
-
The female Andrew Jackson | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] now, a brief digression from our ongoing Diocletian working session, which continues here and here.) Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signs a copy of her autobiography, ‘Going Rogue’, at the [...]
-
octogalore says:
I think there are two facets — the “what” (as in, the wish list) and the “how.”
We have been focusing more on the former, which is a good step. Issues like bodily autonomy, access, freedom from discrimination, representation.
For the “how,” I think we need to confront some unhappy realities. In my job, representing candidates to clients, there is temptation for both sides to screw with me. A mentor once told me: you can tell them how that makes you feel and why it’s unfair, but at the end of the day, the only argument that will make them behave differently is how it will benefit them to do so.
In other words, leverage.
Looking at the OP’s list, the “parity in government representation” and to some degree, the legislative elements, such as ERA, abortion, etc., involve the leverage of votes. So we could discuss how to implement that.
In terms of (1) parity in private, non-governmental employment representation at all levels, (2) fighting discrimination that doesn’t rise to a legal violation, and (3) combating being treated as inferior at home, I think that involves economic leverage. Perhaps I’m a cynic, but I really don’t see the powers-that-be (predominantly male) giving it up without inducement, and that inducement usually communicates itself to them in currency rather than “doing the right thing for its own sake.”
-
Kali says:
I see the list as having two basic categories, and then sub-categories:
1. Equality:
a) Equal representation in the government & judiciary: Work actively towards the 50% solution.
b) Economic equality: Strengthen and enforce anti-discrimination laws and sexual harrassment laws. Equal pay for equal work. De-segregation of jobs and careers.
c) Social equality: Support and fund education initiatives that counter misogynistic messages in the culture and media. Teach respect for women.
d) ERA.2. Human rights of women / bodily integrity of women. This would cover:
a) Pregnancy rights: No forced c-sections, no forced abortions, no withholding of medical services such as abortion and birth-control.
b) End-of-life rights: No forced life-support against the expressed will of the woman to harvest her vegetative body for eggs, embryos, organs, cells, etc.
c) Rights of institutionalised women: No sexual assaults of prisoners, women in hospices or mental institutions. No shackling of pregnant women in prisons.
d) Rights of women in porn and prostitution: Re-structure laws to punish johns/pimps rather than trafficked women and children. Allow women to bring civil suits against their exploiters/abusers in porn/prostitution.
e) Violence against women: Strengthen and enforce VAWA. Increase funding for shelters, victim services, anti-violence education. Strengthen rape laws (e.g. different standards for consent)to increase conviction rates for rapists and reduce rape. -
Working proposal for a new movement: the Justice Party | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] could and would be developed into a platform of specific goals and programs. For example, both Adrienne and Kali posted thoughtful comments (to this thread) that really amount to draft platforms for the [...]
