A word of explanation
MadamaB has an interesting post up about The New Agenda. I don’t normally comment on what happened there, but MadamaB’s post leaves an impression [inadvertently -- ETA] which I think it’s important to correct. She writes:
A new feminist organization, the New Agenda, was forming to promote solidarity amongst women and gain 30%, leading to 50%, representation in the government. They asked me to blog at their site, and I agreed. At first.
Unfortunately, the New Agenda also had another plan – to set aside the “divisive” issue of reproductive rights in order to gain togetherness with women of all beliefs. However, this idea soon proved unworkable for a woman like me. Liberal, pro-choice beliefs were not welcome – nor were words I thought all feminist organizations used as a matter of course. After my blog posts were reviewed and met with more and more disapproval, and I was told that the word “patriarchy” was no longer to be written at TNA, I decided that I could no longer be a part of the organization.
I think this might give the impression that The New Agenda always set out to be a conservative organization, and that MadamaB only gradually became aware of the truth. This is not what happened.
What happened was that TNA set out to be a genuinely feminist organization, and gradually became more and more conservative. The decision at the very beginning not to focus on choice had nothing to do with the inclinations of the founders (who were all pro-choice); it was a risky experiment in trying to forge a new pan-political alignment.
The real problem with TNA is that the woman in charge of it had no experience with or knowledge of feminism. She was a passionate Democrat, but not a feminist; despite being a Wall Street executive, she had never before considered herself a feminist. Like all the other millions of uninformed women out there, she had gone through life thinking “feminism” meant hairy-legged manhaters. The rest of us tried to educate her as quickly as possible, but she was vastly more influenced by her friends on Wall Street and Madison Avenue, all of whom shared her prejudice that feminism was an obsolete brand with icky connotations. With absolutely no grounding whatsoever in feminist history or theory, the rest was inevitable. Despite a genuine desire at the beginning to advance women’s rights, TNA fell prey to a whole lot of misinformed nonsense. Women like me left in droves—I think there is only one person still there who was there at the beginning—and a bunch of conservatives swooped in to take our place. The result is an organization that no longer bears any resemblance to The New Agenda I started with.
41 Responses to “A word of explanation”
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Thanks for this, Violet. I got fed up with TNA, too, not only because of the conservative influx. There was all along a lack of cohesive vision and strategy. The posts there hopped from one “urgent,” over-hyped fringe issue to another, later cobbled together into a list of TNA “achievements” to justify fund raising. Feh. I can get that type of adrenaline-fueled pseudo action anywhere. It’s not what’s needed. When I engaged the leadership there with my concerns, I was told over and over that strategy and tactics weren’t important, because TNA is “a movement.” I rolled my eyes and moved on.
*****A
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm EST -
j says:
I had a “conservative” piece rejected there for divisiveness; in it, I argued that in most rhetoric about cutting costs by not “prolonging” the lives of the elderly so much, it’s always a woman (a “Grandma”, an “Aunt Bessie”) who’s outlived her welcome. (I don’t consider this a conservative position, but the anti-health-care-reformers did make a related point about “death panels”, while simultaneously supporting privatized insurance death panels.) I really think that their anti-divisiveness policy, misguided or not, cuts both ways.
(Posting under a different name than usual; I still support any organization that will stand up for measures like the Fair Pay Act.)
-
votermom says:
Thanks for the background. I have been wondering at the uneven quality of posts, and what happened.
-
madamab says:
Madame Socks,
I certainly hope I didn’t give the impression that TNA was always conservative. I do think that the organization was founded with good intentions. Unfortunately, my tenure with them ended fairly quickly as the conservative members overwhelmed the liberal ones, using the reproductive rights issue as a club.
Do you have a suggestion as to better wording in that section? I am open to your thoughts.
-
Violet Socks says:
I certainly hope I didn’t give the impression that TNA was always conservative.
No, I think you gave an accurate account of your experience. I just wanted to clarify, from an “insider’s” point of view, what was actually going on.
There are people who have claimed that TNA was always founded as some kind of faux-feminist Republican mole operation, which of course is ridiculous. For me it’s a question of my integrity and basic honorability. I would never in a million years be involved in something like that.
-
madamab says:
Aha. I hear you. Carry on! ;-)
-
bluelyon says:
Speaking as one who was excited about TNA’s beginnings, I agree that the original intent was not what the organization is now. It has disappointed me. I never thought that they were right-wing moles, but they basically did what we get so fed up with Democrats doing now: rolling over for Republicans. In a effort not to offend and create a “big tent” TNA’s kindness was their demise.
-
sandra s. says:
As someone still affiliated with TNA, I think you’ve made some fair points. I don’t mean to be critical of TNA’s founder, who honestly I think very highly of, but I do think the organization has some considerable limitations.
That said, I think it is occupying an extremely valuable niche that would otherwise go begging. The organization is still growing and evolving, and I try to keep that in mind.
-
Alex says:
So why was Amy president if others in the group knew she hadn’t studied feminism and never considered herself a feminist?
-
Violet Socks says:
Amy started it. It was her idea, she called up a bunch of women and invited them to her house to start a group, etc. She wanted to create an organization that would be a voice against the kind of sexism that bedeviled Hillary. It was always Amy’s organization 100%. She called the shots.
-
Sasha CA says:
I always thought the idea of a feminist organization not taking a position on reproductive rights was a colossally bad one, and I recall saying so at the time. Reproductive rights are under attack as never before post-Roe, and it sends an awful message to have a feminist group not take a position on the issue because it’s “too divisive.” Makes it look like even feminists are deeply uncomfortable with and divided about abortion. Which, of course, we are not.
That’s the other part of this that always bothered me. I believe the number of women who are anti-choice (not to be confused with being opposed to abortion for oneself, while favoring bodily autonomy for all women) but strongly supportive of women’s rights and equality in other areas is vanishingly small. Refusing to take a position on reproductive freedom so as to not offend the tiny number of women who are totally committed to ending sex discrimination when they’re not busy arguing for the government’s right to commandeer a woman’s uterus makes no sense. The feminist conservative women I know are all pro-choice. Anti-choice women tend to be generally hostile to feminist endeavors. When they do make feminist noises, they’re almost invariably of the Sarah Palin variety; as in, “Of course I’m in favor of equal pay, but legislation holding employers accountable for pay discrimination is beyond the pale.” Consequently it’s no surprise to me that TNA is now overrun with people who hold anti-feminist views. Who else would feel comfortable on a site that regularly cheers on politicians who would like to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest?
-
Kali says:
I wouldn’t want all feminist organizations to be like TNA or follow their lead, but I think TNA fills an important hole in supporting women to get into positions of power regardless of the issues. I would probably feel differently if women politicians were evaluated fairly on the issues compared to their male peers, but in my experience, issues are almost always used against women in the most biased ways. There is a double standard where ideological purity is demanded only from female candidates, but their male peers are given all kinds of leeway to compromise on issues important to women (even by feminist women). So, it is kind of refreshing to see TNA supporting female candidates no matter what. After all, their objective is to get 50% representation of women in power, not 50% of pro-choice, feminist women into power. The latter would be ideal, but is an unrealistic goal. If women can get 50% of the power at all levels, maybe then we can graduate to seeing women as human beings deserving of human rights. In other words, getting equal power is the way to get equal rights.
-
Alex says:
FYI, Sasha in CA.
New Agenda supports Equal Pay and condemned Republican women vociferously for not supporting the bill.
-
Diane Flare says:
Looks like we’ve circled back around to the start of this discussion where there were some strong arguments both ways regarding inclusion of anti-choicers into the feminist tent.
If the outcome* of this approach at TNA can be attributed to a lack of experience or knowledge of feminism on the part of its leadership, it makes me wonder: Has this “risky experiment in trying to forge a new pan-political alignment” been tried by any organization with such knowledge/experience?
Do those of you that participated at TNA think the result there will inform or help such orgs that attempt this approach in the future? While not necessarily opposed, I am admittedly having a tough time imagining a scenario where this is feasible in more than theory.
*Keeping in mind that the org may still be evolving, as sandra s said above.
-
blondie says:
A woman’s right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy is central and basic to women’s rights in general.
If you concede that another entity (whether a “person” yet or not) has the right to invade a woman’s body and use it as a host, and the woman has no right to object to that invasion and use of her body, then you believe women have fewer rights than non-women, i.e., men.
And, you give that entity (whether a “person” yet or not) a greater right than is granted to any born person — the right to invade and use person’s body whether they like it or not.
-
Violet Socks says:
Looks like we’ve circled back around to the start of this discussion where there were some strong arguments both ways regarding inclusion of anti-choicers into the feminist tent.
That is not a discussion I’m interested in having again, since as I think I’ve made clear, I consider it a completely misguided debate in the first place.
Feminism is not a club. There are no membership cards. No one gets to decide who’s in the club.
Feminism is the political belief that women are entitled to equality. People who believe that are feminists. End of story.
-
Violet Socks says:
Okay, all you people who are saying that the choice thing is what went wrong with TNA: you’re missing the point. That’s not what I said.
Things went wrong because the leader was uninformed on feminism and many other things. She had a feminist awakening when she saw the sexism directed at Hillary, and decided to do something about it. But 2008 was possibly the worst time in the world to suddenly decide to be a feminist, because the mainstream feminists in the media were acting terrible: Hillary-bashing, Palin-bashing, engaging in the most hypocritical sexism themselves. So I think Amy and her friends thought “this whole movement is full of shit,” which just confirmed her existing bias (which most women share) that feminism is somehow terribly flawed.
The choice thing would have worked fine if TNA had restricted itself to only calling out sexism. If you do that, then you can do that for any woman.
-
Sasha CA says:
New Agenda supports Equal Pay and condemned Republican women vociferously for not supporting the bill.
Too bad most of the politicians TNA supports and even some of their own contributors don’t share that view.
And, honestly, Amy pretty much had to slam Republican women on this one given her eternal praise for the Republican women senators who crossed party lines on Ledbetter. I always argued that it was a mistake to read too much into the Ledbetter vote in terms of Republican women’s likelihood to support gender equality outside the reproductive choice realm. Not a single Republican woman in the House voted for Ledbetter, but some insisted that those four votes in the Senate meant that Republican women politicians could be counted on to stand with us in the fight for women’s rights and equality. That didn’t work out so well.
-
Carmonn says:
I’m just glad there are a few Republican women around to take the blame. Otherwise, we might have to consider why Senate Democrats refused to act on the Paycheck Fairness Act when they had an unassailable majority. And some cynics might reach the conclusion that either they knew they didn’t have the votes, or they didn’t want to go on record, or they didn’t really want it to pass, or Obama didn’t want it to reach his desk, or they didn’t want to remove the issue from play when writing it off and then blaming it on the Republicans would be more effective politically.
If we could just get rid of these female Republicans who are holding us back, Harry Reid and Bob Casey would expedited air freight us direct to Equality Promised Land.
-
Sasha CA says:
Oh, please. No one is absolving the Democratic party leadership of responsibility on this one. Just pointing out that it’s foolish to expect Republican women to have our back on any issue pertaining women’s rights and equality.
-
Sasha CA says:
The choice thing would have worked fine if TNA had restricted itself to only calling out sexism. If you do that, then you can do that for any woman.
But TNA was never just about calling out sexism. The goal was to increase the percentage of women in government. Some felt that any woman–no matter how hostile to reproductive choice and women’s equality in general–would be an improvement over any man, and some of us had a tough time getting on board with that. TNA began to champion far-right conservatives, which, not surprisingly, led to an influx of right-wing posters and commenters. Meanwhile those of us who were troubled by all the cheering for anti-choice homophobic bigots left the site in droves, allowing the conservative elements to take over completely.
-
Alex says:
Sasha in CA –
“Meanwhile those of us who were troubled by all the cheering for anti-choice homophobic bigots left the site in droves, allowing the conservative elements to take over completely.”
I’m going to be brief since I feel like this is a site for like-minded people to gather and support each other.
But I think your TNA analysis has more than a bit of hyperbole and is missing a comprehension of strategy. TNA works on a lot of things and they do a great deal of work on general (at the radical level) sexism. But in regard to supporting conservative politicians there is certainly an element of strategy in this, one being that they would like both parties to have to work for the female vote. In addition, if a conservative is inevitably going to win as conservatives were certainly inevitably going to win in many senate and congressional seats this past election, why not have that conservative be a woman? TNA also supports a great deal of liberal women. They fought hard for Coakley and are huge supporters of Gillibrand, strongly cheerleading her as a potential presidential candidate.
Last, many women are to the left of Michelle Bachman and to the right of Violet Socks. TNA fills this gap too.
-
Violet Socks says:
But TNA was never just about calling out sexism. The goal was to increase the percentage of women in government. Some felt that any woman–no matter how hostile to reproductive choice and women’s equality in general–would be an improvement over any man, and some of us had a tough time getting on board with that.
Sasha, who are you? Unless you’re posting under another name, you were not one of the founders of TNA. I can’t imagine why you think you know more than I do about the organization’s initial impetus and goals.
-
Carmonn says:
Oh please yourself, Sasha. That’s exactly what’s happening. As usual, the women are getting blamed everywhere while the reality that the Senate Democrats deliberately chose to separate Ledbetter and Paycheck Fairness and delberately chose not to act until long after they’d safely lost their majority is being completely ignored. It’s foolish to believe anyone in American politics has our back on women’s rights and equality, so once in a while focusing on the 87% of the political class who aren’t our friends rather than the 4% might actually have some effect.
-
sandra s. says:
Exactly Alex. I’m about as far crazy left liberal as they come, but I’m a pragmatist in a lot of ways. If there’s going to be a Republican presidential candidate anyway, why not a woman? If both political parties are fielding women candidates, then how is this bad for women? If both parties are fighting for women voters by courting them, how is That bad for women? I’m busily advocating for hard-left solutions to problems women face, including abortion rights; I just do it elsewhere. I can support TNA and abortion rights, too.
-
Carmonn says:
They waited until long after they lost their fillibuster proof majority wth the election of Scott Brown, I meant.
-
Sameol says:
I don’t know much about TNA, but it seemed like there were a lot of “resident troll” types, condescending guys who were tolerated. That no doubt was uncomfortable and discouraged posters.
one being that they would like both parties to have to work for the female vote. In addition, if a conservative is inevitably going to win as conservatives were certainly inevitably going to win in many senate and congressional seats this past election, why not have that conservative be a woman
This, this, so very much this. I have no clue why I’m supposed to be upset when the Republicans nominate a woman for something. That’s a good thing. Just like Obama’s election is a good thing on a symbolic and representational level, though I don’t think he’s a good President. A good thing is a good thing and can be appreciated even if it’s not enough of a good thing to determine your vote.
Where I live, O’Donnell got far more media attention than Palladino. I don’t believe for one second that that’s because she’s “worse” than he. Nor do I believe for one second that a female Palladino, racist kook, wouldn’t have gotten absolute wall-to-wall obsessive coverage.
-
Carmonn says:
BTW, Sasha, my initial post was in response to TNA jumping on the bandwagon of singling out the women as if they’re somehow more responsible for ensuring women’s equality despite the fact that our representatives are overwhelmingly male. If you were annoyed because you thought it was directed at you, then sorry.
-
Nessum says:
Where I live, O’Donnell got far more media attention than Palladino. I don’t believe for one second that that’s because she’s “worse” than he. Nor do I believe for one second that a female Palladino, racist kook, wouldn’t have gotten absolute wall-to-wall obsessive coverage.
That certainly was true where I live, in Europe, with a selection of several countries’ tv-news. It actually seemed like O’Donnell was the only politician up for election! And she and Palin were the only ones campaigning. You won’t believe how many times I saw the “I’m not a witch” video! Palladino who? And only after the election did they come around to “discover” … Boehner.
-
Ellie says:
Is it too much to ask that women who believe that sexism needs to be stomped out, that women deserve equal pay, and that women need to hold more elected positions, but who do not want to spend most of their time and money fighting over abortion rights have one organization that doesn’t make abortion their centerpiece? I’ve been involved in feminist organizations for over 40 years, and I can support abortion rights through NARAL or NOW or Planned Parenthood. TNA does not have to take on that issue. It should already be covered elsewhere.
-
Riverdaughter says:
I confess I haven’t been to TNA for a while. I loved the radio show.
Nevertheless, I don’t like the word “patriarchy” either. Yes, I know what it is but I don’t think it’s particularly useful. It’s like the people’s front of judea complaining about the Romans. What are you going to do about it? Nobody wants to support whiners. Scrappy underdogs, maybe.
As for abortion, I am pro-choice. But it is starting to dawn on me that Roe has done more harm than good for women. Practically speaking, we’re right back to the days of Bonnie Jo, Go Home in the early 70s before Roe. If you lived in the Midwest, you had to travel to get an abortion. And it drives the older religious women to the polls in droves. If you took it away, access wouldn’t change all that much. But the old ladies would start paying attention to economic issues when they vote. And it would reenergize the feminist movement, now composed of a very different generation of women who grew up without limits on their educational and professional choices. Our perception of the world differs enormously from women who are only a few years older.
So, retire the patriarchy. Get rid of Roe and embrace a fitter, tougher feminist philosophy. -
Violet Socks says:
Nevertheless, I don’t like the word “patriarchy” either. Yes, I know what it is but I don’t think it’s particularly useful. It’s like the people’s front of judea complaining about the Romans. What are you going to do about it?
Change it. That is the entire point of feminism.
Nobody wants to support whiners.
Well, people who are sexist consider feminism whining, just as people who are racist consider civil rights whining. But most enlightened people believe that sexism and racism are bad things and that the movements to oppose those bad things are entirely justified and noble. Not “whining.”
-
votermom says:
Violet, I just saw that Palin has a book excerpt up on her facebook notes that talks about her views on her feminism and on left-wing feminism. If you read it I’ll be interested to hear your take on it.
-
Alex says:
Violet,
In my University studies we spoke about “white privilege” quite a bit. I see white privilege all around me and I know what it means. But nobody wants to hear me talk about white privilege. I think you can attack racism without using a word that will make the average joe get all squeamish. I feel the same way about the word patriarchy. You can talk about patriarchy without using the word.
In addition, both terms come out of acadamia which is a world that not everyone feels comfortable in and thus the terms are further alienating.
-
gxm17 says:
I understood the choice issue early on. TNA made it quite clear that they were not going to take a stand on it or let it get in the way of their “new” agenda. I did not realize that they banned the word patriarchy; and, frankly, that floors me. Patriarchy is a word and it’s a very pertinent word to the reality women face in gaining gender equality. You don’t freakin’ ban words, much less the cultural context that cultivates and perpetuates gender inequity. Patriarchy deniers remind me of Holocaust deniers, except there’s more of them and they are a huge part of the gender equality problem. It’s a word, people, with a meaning. And it’s not a synonym for “whining.” Crickey!
Ah, well, I rarely drop by TNA anymore. But I admire those stalwart liberal feminists who have stuck around and continue to fight the good fight. Thank you, you are doing more than you may realize. And I appreciate that you have the stomach and the backbone to take it on. You are better women than I. Kudos, all!
-
Violet Socks says:
Alex, if “sexism” and “racism” are analogous terms, then the analogy to “patriarchy” might be “white supremacy.” So let’s see how Riverdaughter’s comment would work with that substitution:
Nevertheless, I don’t like the words “white supremacy” either. Yes, I know what it is but I don’t think it’s particularly useful. It’s like the people’s front of judea complaining about the Romans. What are you going to do about it? Nobody wants to support whiners.
Can you see why many people would not find that compelling advice?
Also, I think that discomfort with the term “patriarchy” isn’t because it’s some arcane academic term. It’s because of the enormous anti-feminist backlash which seeks to argue that patriarchy is the natural order of things and that people who want to change it are, in Riverdaughter’s expression, “whiners.”
-
Carmonn says:
How easy do you really think it’s going to be to unite right-wing, libertarian, moderate, liberal, left-wing women around economic issues when it’s supposedly too divisive to try and unite them around women’s equality issues, riverdaughter? People who don’t like to pay taxes are strongly devoted to the belief that those who disagree are “losers and whiners,” too. We’d look kind of foolish if we purged all vestiges of feminism from feminism and jumped into the Big Tent only to find we received nothing in return and are worse off than when we started, and that’s usually how it works.
-
Ellie says:
Let me start by saying that I’m pro-choice. However, most of my friends are not. When we talk about women’s rights and abortion comes up they remind me that women who have abortions are denying the most basic human right, the right to live, to their babies. We’ve been friends a long time, and I’m not going to change their minds and they’re not going to change mine. But we agree that women deserve equal pay, we sit on committees together that make sure that our schools meet their Title IX obligations, we support many of the same women running for office locally. They worked for Hillary with me because they want a woman to be president as much as I do, and while Hillary’s “safe, legal, and rare” wasn’t exactly what they wanted, as long as they thought that. “rare” was important, they were OK. It’s my experience that it’s women on the left who are more rigid and less inclusive, and I think they are hurting women’s rights more in the long run than a Sarah Palin or a Nikki Haley ever could.
-
Three Wickets says:
I’m a man, ardently pro-choice and liberal. I’m still learning, but it seems to me that from a political perspective as it relates to women’s rights and equality, the #30 framing is playing offense, the #15 framing is playing defense and is a political dead end. Many committed feminists I know believe that feminism begins and ends with abortion rights (in their words). I think feminism begins and ends with gaining power…abortion rights is essential to that end, but on its own is not enough, not even close.
Lately I’ve also been running into more and more pro-choice women who think of themselves as strong feminists who are socially liberal but conservative on the economy and foreign policy. I don’t necessarily agree with all their politics, but I do think they will represent a stronger force in the women’s movement. They also seem cut off from feminists on the left.
If women can’t find ways to unite, power will always elude them.
-
Three Wickets says:
Boy, don’t I sound silly up there and out of my depth. Feel free to blow that comment up Violet. If it were my site, I would. Hope you’re well. :)
-
thelizlibrary says:
Now that it’s quieted down here a bit:
Kindly note that there are pro-choice feminist women in the Republican Party who most assuredly do “have your back” — especially those of you who are wives and mothers (a demographic too often neglected by the mainstream Democrat-identified feminist organizations), and that it’s rare that it’s the male liberal politician who does.
