I’ve just come from reading a bunch of female-run blogs talking about Palin’s resignation.
It’s depressing. With the occasional exception I saw and likely a number I didn’t, there is a different tone to many of these accounts than in discussions of the disgraced Mark Sanford or Rod Blagoyevich. Despite the fact that Palin’s decision, as far as we know, was voluntary and not brought about by wrongdoing on her part.
I have numerous disagreements on the issues with Palin. I have no issues with female bloggers taking strong adverse stances with Palin on substantive issues. I do not think feminism requires we hold off on that, any more than we’d do with a male politician.
However, the kind of visceral glee and speculation that attended her announcement, from women (and no, I’m not going to link, it’s easy to find and my goal here isn’t pointing fingers), is depressing on many levels.
Other human rights activist groups, such as anti-racists and the gay rights movement, have been more successful in pressing their political issues than women have, particularly recently, considering the percentage of women in the population vs other groups.
Oh but, some may pipe in helpfully, women don’t agree on goals!
Not quite. A high percentage of women agree on goals such as equal pay, right to be free of harassment and discrimination, increased female representation in management and government, anti-trafficking of women, ending the feminization of poverty.
And yet, it is difficult for women to coalesce around shared goals. For a wide array of reasons.
Seeing the vitriol come out from women, towards women, reminds me of this, and sounds an alarm bell for the movement. The unnecessary policing many feminists do of each other often appears distinct from tension within other groups.
On a personal level, I have seen alliances or, less frequently, friendships with other feminists dry up over issues that – I have to admit – do not seem to separate male friends who disagree on such issues. The sundering of these relationships doesn’t help me or other women on issues we disagree on – and it certainly doesn’t help us jointly progress with the many issues on which we strongly agree.
I wish I knew of a way forward on this. I fear it will continue to be an obstacle that holds us back.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
NOW
Suzie at Echidne of the Snakes writes a great post about ageism in the feminist movement. It’s concise and hard-hitting.
Suzie talks about the NOW conference to elect a new president:
Suzie then notes that Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, says young Feminists would prefer Lyles, as NOW stands for white middle class feminism and O’Neill, 56, would be same old-same old. Valenti stated:
Suzie correctly points out that only stated difference is age. Lyles, as part of the current NOW leadership and a current VP, didn’t institute any of the changes Valenti's now discussing, as Patricia Ireland, former NOW president, notes. Suzie nails it:
Intersectionality is allegedly one of the hallmarks of modern feminism. However, as Black Amazon points out, age is an intersectional characteristic: "older woman" is in fact AN INTERSECTIONAL IDENTITY.” And as Daisy lays out, ageism finds yet another home in feminist bloglandia.
As feminists should be aware, the difficulties women face as we age are unique to women. Both the right and the left have used gendered ageist commentary. And we don’t need to look to politics for such analyses. In our lives, we’ve seen men on the right and on the left treat women over “a certain age” as obsolete.
Well, move over guys, plenty of room on the bench for the young women who are hopping aboard to join you.
Forget about the fact that O’Neill was the contender who was NOT part of NOW’s current administration.. Forget about the fact that O’Neill has in her slate a young (younger than Lyles, if the third-wavers are counting) WOC feminist who’s been Policy Manager for the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, an activist for access to education for poor women, and a lesbian rights activist. And forget about women of color who have played leadership roles in NOW (including as president and founder and some who are still active) who had the gall to be born before 1975.
Apparently for other intersections to count, they have to come wrapped in the right package – as in, a late model year.
I thought very highly of both choices for NOW president, and would have supported either. It’s too bad certain young feminists are “tired” of something that’s not “youth-led.”
Because Terry O’Neill won. Congratulations, Terry.
Suzie talks about the NOW conference to elect a new president:
“Delegates will be choosing between Latifa Lyles, a 33-year-old African-American who has been one of [President Kim] Gandy's three vice presidents, and Terry O'Neill, 56, a white activist who taught law at Tulane University, who was NOW's vice president for membership from 2001-05, and who most recently has been chief of staff for a county council member in Maryland's Montgomery County.”
Suzie then notes that Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, says young Feminists would prefer Lyles, as NOW stands for white middle class feminism and O’Neill, 56, would be same old-same old. Valenti stated:
"When you think of NOW, you think of white middle-class feminism — 70s feminism…A lot of younger women are tired of seeing the same kind of leadership over and over. ...They're getting excited about smaller, local feminist organizations, more youth-led, doing more cutting-edge work."
Suzie correctly points out that only stated difference is age. Lyles, as part of the current NOW leadership and a current VP, didn’t institute any of the changes Valenti's now discussing, as Patricia Ireland, former NOW president, notes. Suzie nails it:
“I want young women involved in feminism, but I’m uncomfortable with the idea that it is natural for young women to prefer other young women, and that youth = cutting edge. It would be equally insulting for a woman of my age to suggest that older women are better and that older women would be more excited to elect one of their own.”
Intersectionality is allegedly one of the hallmarks of modern feminism. However, as Black Amazon points out, age is an intersectional characteristic: "older woman" is in fact AN INTERSECTIONAL IDENTITY.” And as Daisy lays out, ageism finds yet another home in feminist bloglandia.
As feminists should be aware, the difficulties women face as we age are unique to women. Both the right and the left have used gendered ageist commentary. And we don’t need to look to politics for such analyses. In our lives, we’ve seen men on the right and on the left treat women over “a certain age” as obsolete.
Well, move over guys, plenty of room on the bench for the young women who are hopping aboard to join you.
Forget about the fact that O’Neill was the contender who was NOT part of NOW’s current administration.. Forget about the fact that O’Neill has in her slate a young (younger than Lyles, if the third-wavers are counting) WOC feminist who’s been Policy Manager for the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, an activist for access to education for poor women, and a lesbian rights activist. And forget about women of color who have played leadership roles in NOW (including as president and founder and some who are still active) who had the gall to be born before 1975.
Apparently for other intersections to count, they have to come wrapped in the right package – as in, a late model year.
I thought very highly of both choices for NOW president, and would have supported either. It’s too bad certain young feminists are “tired” of something that’s not “youth-led.”
Because Terry O’Neill won. Congratulations, Terry.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Flighty Women
In discussing Michelle Obama’s replacement of Jackie Norris with Susan Sher for Chief of Staff, the Washington Post’s Robin Givhan describes a business decision by a highly placed woman as if it were trading out one sorority sister/BFF for another:
When Reagan replaced James Baker with Don Tregan, there wasn’t speculation about who was the bestest friend. The discussion centered around the merits of both men regarding their technical functions. This is true for pretty much all staffing decisions made by men that I can recall.
In fact, Sher makes much more sense as MO’s Chief of Staff. She had been VP for Legal and Government Affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center, MO’s previous employer, and was previously Chicago Mayer Richard Daley’s lead counsel. Sher hired MO in 2001 to be executive director of community affairs for the U of C Hospitals, and worked with MO on related projects. As Daley’s lead counsel, she handled negotiations with Republicans as well as unions.
Norris’ experience is more focused around Iowa. She helped BO with his caucus and general election win in that state. Her new job as senior advisor to the Corporation for National and Community service ties in with her career trajectory.
After Norris worked on Capitol Hill, she moved to Iowa and later moved out of politics, earning her teaching certificate and becoming a high school government and history teacher. She also went back to school herself and studied the mobilization of young voters at Iowa State (studies which aided in her work for Obama in the Iowa caucus).
As WhoRunsGov says: “But Norris’ job in the White House didn’t have anything to do with her expertise in Iowa.” Her new job does. The Corporation for National and Community Service mobilizes young people to get active in the community. Norris’ experience and studies in Iowa are directly relevant to this.
Whereas Sher, with executive and legal experience, as well as negotiating experience with the groups MO may encounter in projects she gets involved with, is much better suited as her Chief of Staff.
Michelle Obama Watch has a great piece about how this will likely spawn gossip that MO is difficult to work for or with. “Difficult” is, of course, a code word for women and especially WOC.
Turns out SjP, the author of that piece, was being generous. The WaPo article and especially the comment section go beyond that to even more gendered and racist accusations.
Givhan’s article, although fairly innocuous in its description of the roles both women have played, sets up the transition as one in which MO flightily (“East Wing has had its first staff upheaval four months into the Obama administration”) and peremptorily (“offered no explanation for the change”) replaces a newer friend with an older one.
The comments, of course, suggest:
MO has no need for a lawyer as Chief of Staff (translation: as a woman, nothing she is involved with could be that complicated)
Norris, as a high school teacher, should never have been in the White House (translation: a female teacher is unlikely to have had a previous political background – although in fact, Norris did)
Are we paying for this staff, and why? (translation: a woman, and especially a woman of color, is being wasteful, as per usual)
MO is simply replacing a blond white girl with a “sistah.” [Note: Sher appears white, albeit more ethnic/Jewish than Norris. But hey, who cares about accuracy?] translation: this black woman is not focused on the technical requirements of the job, but is simply installing another black woman out of race/gender loyalty)
Various sexist, racist comments re MO’s appearance and clothes (no translation needed, I presume).
Of course, the information about how the position was a much stronger fit for Susan Sher and the eminently sensible decision Michelle Obama made in making the change and, most likely, helping to find a worthy and fitting opportunity for her departing Chief of Staff, was easily accessible. Why wasn’t that the article we read?
OK, that’s rhetorical.
“Obama described both women as her friends. But in this instance, Sher, a longtime friend from Chicago, trumped Norris, the relatively new one from Iowa.”
When Reagan replaced James Baker with Don Tregan, there wasn’t speculation about who was the bestest friend. The discussion centered around the merits of both men regarding their technical functions. This is true for pretty much all staffing decisions made by men that I can recall.
In fact, Sher makes much more sense as MO’s Chief of Staff. She had been VP for Legal and Government Affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center, MO’s previous employer, and was previously Chicago Mayer Richard Daley’s lead counsel. Sher hired MO in 2001 to be executive director of community affairs for the U of C Hospitals, and worked with MO on related projects. As Daley’s lead counsel, she handled negotiations with Republicans as well as unions.
Norris’ experience is more focused around Iowa. She helped BO with his caucus and general election win in that state. Her new job as senior advisor to the Corporation for National and Community service ties in with her career trajectory.
After Norris worked on Capitol Hill, she moved to Iowa and later moved out of politics, earning her teaching certificate and becoming a high school government and history teacher. She also went back to school herself and studied the mobilization of young voters at Iowa State (studies which aided in her work for Obama in the Iowa caucus).
As WhoRunsGov says: “But Norris’ job in the White House didn’t have anything to do with her expertise in Iowa.” Her new job does. The Corporation for National and Community Service mobilizes young people to get active in the community. Norris’ experience and studies in Iowa are directly relevant to this.
Whereas Sher, with executive and legal experience, as well as negotiating experience with the groups MO may encounter in projects she gets involved with, is much better suited as her Chief of Staff.
Michelle Obama Watch has a great piece about how this will likely spawn gossip that MO is difficult to work for or with. “Difficult” is, of course, a code word for women and especially WOC.
Turns out SjP, the author of that piece, was being generous. The WaPo article and especially the comment section go beyond that to even more gendered and racist accusations.
Givhan’s article, although fairly innocuous in its description of the roles both women have played, sets up the transition as one in which MO flightily (“East Wing has had its first staff upheaval four months into the Obama administration”) and peremptorily (“offered no explanation for the change”) replaces a newer friend with an older one.
The comments, of course, suggest:
MO has no need for a lawyer as Chief of Staff (translation: as a woman, nothing she is involved with could be that complicated)
Norris, as a high school teacher, should never have been in the White House (translation: a female teacher is unlikely to have had a previous political background – although in fact, Norris did)
Are we paying for this staff, and why? (translation: a woman, and especially a woman of color, is being wasteful, as per usual)
MO is simply replacing a blond white girl with a “sistah.” [Note: Sher appears white, albeit more ethnic/Jewish than Norris. But hey, who cares about accuracy?] translation: this black woman is not focused on the technical requirements of the job, but is simply installing another black woman out of race/gender loyalty)
Various sexist, racist comments re MO’s appearance and clothes (no translation needed, I presume).
Of course, the information about how the position was a much stronger fit for Susan Sher and the eminently sensible decision Michelle Obama made in making the change and, most likely, helping to find a worthy and fitting opportunity for her departing Chief of Staff, was easily accessible. Why wasn’t that the article we read?
OK, that’s rhetorical.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Speak Out
I read an excellent article in Salon’s Broadsheet -– yes, I did just say that -- the other day, about the Letterman-Palin debacle.
Amanda Fortini’s article is a jewel. I’d say “go read it” if I was the kind of person who said that, or if I was simply writing this to tell you about the piece – because it’s very well worth the effort.
But you all know I’m too lazy a blogger for that. I only get off my ass to write something if I feel like there’s a twist to it that I can eke out. And I promise I will get to that, because I think there is just such a twist.
First, what’s excellent about the piece itself. It makes a brave point one rarely sees in Big Feminist Bloglandia:
Pushing the envelope from within is something we don’t see often in Feminist Bloglandia. Advocating that women who have similar political positions, but are different colors or orientations or have different ability levels from the mainstream ones be accorded respect is fairly uncontroversial in FB, as well it should be (although its implementation is often highly flawed). Treating people well who mostly agree but differ in other ways? Sure. But Fortini takes a risk, asking that we accord respect to women who don’t agree politically.
She does not ask that we agree with them. She says if we disagree, we can and should voice that. But she asks that we stand by them, as women, in the wake of misogyny, doing the less glamorous work feminism requires of us.
Jill at Feministe also writes a strong piece with some characteristically smart insights:
However.
A core argument in both pieces is the following:
So basically, the fact that misogyny is wrong period end of story isn’t quite enough. To really convince the audience, it needs to be argued that “if we allow our dudes to be mean to those other women, they will start being mean to us!”
Up until this point, both articles were making feminist arguments. Misogyny is wrong. How hard is that?
But then, back to junior high. Here’s how it might affect me. Or people like me. People who count.
As Pastor Niemöller said:
Why not speak out, because it’s the right thing to do? Don’t spend half the post talking about how you have to grit your teeth to do it. Don’t feel the need to explain that these are women who are communists, or social democrats, or trade unionists, or … much worse … conservatives, so a key reason you are bothering is that more deserving people might someday soon be targeted.
Just speak out.
It's the right thing to do.
It's the feminist thing to do.
Amanda Fortini’s article is a jewel. I’d say “go read it” if I was the kind of person who said that, or if I was simply writing this to tell you about the piece – because it’s very well worth the effort.
But you all know I’m too lazy a blogger for that. I only get off my ass to write something if I feel like there’s a twist to it that I can eke out. And I promise I will get to that, because I think there is just such a twist.
First, what’s excellent about the piece itself. It makes a brave point one rarely sees in Big Feminist Bloglandia:
“If there was any question that a stubborn strain of old-school sexism persists in Obama's America, one has only to look at certain leaders of what the right wing loves to call the ‘liberal media’ but which is sounding and acting, recently, more like the frat-house media. There, like a virus hiding in the body before, perhaps, staging a comeback, misogyny has found a place to lurk almost undetected, at least by the usually sharp eyes of progressive feminists. …
Both cases [the Letterman one and the Playboy hate f*ck one] were met with a tepid response from the left. …
Imagine if, say, Michelle Obama, or Rachel Maddow, or Nancy Pelosi became the target of similar invective. The outcry from the left would be deafening. Shouldn’t liberals exhibit the same sort of decorous treatment we demand for ourselves?...
Sexist comments like Letterman’s and Cimbalo’s also evoke a troublingly insular, clubhouse atmosphere in lieu of an inclusive political party. What's more, the gender-based stereotypes they conjure are as stale and ignorant as any voiced by the old Neanderthal right: Pretty women are de facto stupid, sexually promiscuous and low-class. Indeed, it's the latter slight that has been least remarked upon and is, perhaps, the most disturbing. “Slutty flight attendant” is not just a sexual put-down; it's a socioeconomic one. …
Liberals would probably contend that these women present much to argue with, propounding odious views with real-world implications -- they do, they do -- but why not attack their ideas rather than insult them? …
Asking why it is that liberal women do not often take liberal men to task for these attitudes is well worthwhile. Maybe we don't want to appear shrill and humorless, unable to take a joke. Or maybe it's thought that conservative women are too ideologically reprehensible to merit a defense. But to challenge this kind of sexist talk is not the same thing as agreeing with a woman's politics.
Pushing the envelope from within is something we don’t see often in Feminist Bloglandia. Advocating that women who have similar political positions, but are different colors or orientations or have different ability levels from the mainstream ones be accorded respect is fairly uncontroversial in FB, as well it should be (although its implementation is often highly flawed). Treating people well who mostly agree but differ in other ways? Sure. But Fortini takes a risk, asking that we accord respect to women who don’t agree politically.
She does not ask that we agree with them. She says if we disagree, we can and should voice that. But she asks that we stand by them, as women, in the wake of misogyny, doing the less glamorous work feminism requires of us.
Jill at Feministe also writes a strong piece with some characteristically smart insights:
"Many of us would like to think that liberal dudes are somehow more enlightened than conservative ones when it comes to gender issues, and that lefty guys are more receptive to outspoken, bold women. Many of them are. But for a dude like Cimbalo, all it really takes is outspoken, bold women with whom he disagrees to let loose the most vile sexual insults."
However.
A core argument in both pieces is the following:
Salon: “If the left is allowed to remain a refuge for this sort of misogyny, if this virus in the body politic is allowed to flourish, then it is likely only a matter of time before it is once again directed at liberal women who are threatening in some way, as happened to Hillary Clinton.”
Feministe: “What liberal dudes (and some liberal women) fail to realize is that when we attack right-women using sexualized insults, we help to build and maintain a system by which all women are open to those kinds of attacks”
So basically, the fact that misogyny is wrong period end of story isn’t quite enough. To really convince the audience, it needs to be argued that “if we allow our dudes to be mean to those other women, they will start being mean to us!”
Up until this point, both articles were making feminist arguments. Misogyny is wrong. How hard is that?
But then, back to junior high. Here’s how it might affect me. Or people like me. People who count.
As Pastor Niemöller said:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Why not speak out, because it’s the right thing to do? Don’t spend half the post talking about how you have to grit your teeth to do it. Don’t feel the need to explain that these are women who are communists, or social democrats, or trade unionists, or … much worse … conservatives, so a key reason you are bothering is that more deserving people might someday soon be targeted.
Just speak out.
It's the right thing to do.
It's the feminist thing to do.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Fairness
In his recent speech at Cairo University, President Barack Obama was commended for reaching his audience. While the speech led to mixed reactions, it garnered substantial bipartisan praise, praise, even from some libertarian and hard right pundits.
Other critics believe the speech was “disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights.”
Many of these have focused on the comments regarding wearing hijab. Peter Daou sums up the concerns thusly:
I agree both with Daou and with those who felt that Obama’s speech had some significant strengths, demonstrating an empathy and a desire to spurn violence and discrimination. But because these points are being so forcefully and frequently stated elsewhere, I won’t focus on them here.
I want to talk about one particular statement. Obama said:
I found it interesting that Obama used an economic rationale – “prosperity” – to argue for the importance of women’s rights.
I recalled that in talking about the importance of investing in human rights and social programs generally, without regard to gender, Obama didn’t rely on an economic justification.
As the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan organization, states in the above link, Gibson wasn’t necessarily correct. Whether decreasing cap gains tax brings in more revenue or not depends on what side of the Laffer Curve we’re on. However, as the Tax Foundation notes:
So whether or not we agree with Gibson isn’t the point: Obama, who agreed the added revenue “might happen or it might not,” felt the argument could be made for human rights and social programs on fairness grounds.
Then, why not for women’s rights?
Well, the argument might go, he was talking to a Muslim audience. So maybe the economic justification was for their benefit.
I’m not sure, though. As Daou states, the speech was targeting “global public opinion.” Many of his other points are relevant to a U.S. and non-Muslim audience as well:
Obama had to have known women, many who believe the sole grounds needed for our equal rights is fairness, were listening.
Moreover, on many other issues, such as sex ed for kindergarteners and stem cell research, Obama has been clear that when something is the right thing to do, it should be done.
Additionally, Obama stated:
For a Muslim audience, women already do have respect for living in “traditional roles.” As his wife, formerly a prominent businesswoman, is now playing a traditional role, it hardly needed to be stated to the folks at Cairo University that he respected women’s choices to play this role. But should it have been stated to the women listening as part of Daou’s “global public opinion” that he respected women’s choices not to?
To be honest, Sarah Palin or no, Hillary Clinton primary rivalry or no, I was not concerned that Obama would have less concern for women than his Republican rival, or in fact, any of the Republicans vying in the primary. As male politicians go, I don’t think he rises to the level of a Bill Clinton – who DID insist on a pro-choice litmus test for S.Ct. appointees – but I consider him better than most in this regard.
So calling him out for this should not be interpreted as feeling he has unique issues in this regard as politicians go.
But other politicians are in fact called out more often on human rights issues.
So with that in mind, this should be interpreted as weighing in as one of a few contrary speakers, a role I’m admittedly fairly comfortable with, challenging what appears to be a prominent conventional wisdom on the part of those who champion such things that he is uniquely strong on human rights.
As women, in fact, are human.
Other critics believe the speech was “disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights.”
Many of these have focused on the comments regarding wearing hijab. Peter Daou sums up the concerns thusly:
“With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab?”
I agree both with Daou and with those who felt that Obama’s speech had some significant strengths, demonstrating an empathy and a desire to spurn violence and discrimination. But because these points are being so forcefully and frequently stated elsewhere, I won’t focus on them here.
I want to talk about one particular statement. Obama said:
“I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential."
I found it interesting that Obama used an economic rationale – “prosperity” – to argue for the importance of women’s rights.
I recalled that in talking about the importance of investing in human rights and social programs generally, without regard to gender, Obama didn’t rely on an economic justification.
“GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
As the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan organization, states in the above link, Gibson wasn’t necessarily correct. Whether decreasing cap gains tax brings in more revenue or not depends on what side of the Laffer Curve we’re on. However, as the Tax Foundation notes:
“But Obama didn't question this assumption made by Gibson. He seemed to be saying, "Okay Charlie, even if this is true, the rate should still be 28 percent." And that's a ludicrous statement too. Obama appeared to assume that even if we were indeed on the right side of the Laffer Curve (where revenues decrease from cutting tax rates, all else equal), he still doesn't want a free lunch.”
So whether or not we agree with Gibson isn’t the point: Obama, who agreed the added revenue “might happen or it might not,” felt the argument could be made for human rights and social programs on fairness grounds.
Then, why not for women’s rights?
Well, the argument might go, he was talking to a Muslim audience. So maybe the economic justification was for their benefit.
I’m not sure, though. As Daou states, the speech was targeting “global public opinion.” Many of his other points are relevant to a U.S. and non-Muslim audience as well:
“Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
“I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.”
“We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”
“I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. “
“The Holy Bible tells us: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’”[possibly not the best wording, but then again he didn't write it]
Obama had to have known women, many who believe the sole grounds needed for our equal rights is fairness, were listening.
Moreover, on many other issues, such as sex ed for kindergarteners and stem cell research, Obama has been clear that when something is the right thing to do, it should be done.
Additionally, Obama stated:
“I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles.”
For a Muslim audience, women already do have respect for living in “traditional roles.” As his wife, formerly a prominent businesswoman, is now playing a traditional role, it hardly needed to be stated to the folks at Cairo University that he respected women’s choices to play this role. But should it have been stated to the women listening as part of Daou’s “global public opinion” that he respected women’s choices not to?
To be honest, Sarah Palin or no, Hillary Clinton primary rivalry or no, I was not concerned that Obama would have less concern for women than his Republican rival, or in fact, any of the Republicans vying in the primary. As male politicians go, I don’t think he rises to the level of a Bill Clinton – who DID insist on a pro-choice litmus test for S.Ct. appointees – but I consider him better than most in this regard.
So calling him out for this should not be interpreted as feeling he has unique issues in this regard as politicians go.
But other politicians are in fact called out more often on human rights issues.
So with that in mind, this should be interpreted as weighing in as one of a few contrary speakers, a role I’m admittedly fairly comfortable with, challenging what appears to be a prominent conventional wisdom on the part of those who champion such things that he is uniquely strong on human rights.
As women, in fact, are human.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Not on the A List
At a recent feminist conference, the conclusions were set forth that:
You’ve probably noticed that the major feminist blogs are also fairly uniformly liberal blogs in most if not all respects. While feminism technically means a belief in equal rights for women, someone whose only exposure to feminism is the blogosphere might assume that feminism requires set beliefs regarding budget, taxes, free speech, and foreign policy.
You’ve probably seen the sanctimonious declaration “my feminism is…” followed by a litany of semi-related and unrelated progressive policies (whose adherents, oddly enough, don’t include feminism in their definition of what their movement is). So that those of us whose feminism is about equal rights for women – all women – feel limited or selfish.
Well, some of us. I never got the memo. Or, maybe I did, and reclycled it. Yeah, I recycle, although my feminism doesn’t include environmentalism.
Of course, everyone has the right to her or his politics. But grouping it under feminism, and having funny, nasty subject tags describing people who don’t agree, creates a private club. That’s OK too. But we should be clear about what it is, and what it isn’t.
One of my close friends, let’s call her Marisol, is Latina and bisexual, currently in a long term relationship with a woman. Marisol is a partner at a law firm and a strong proponent of women’s rights and queer rights, belonging to various Bar groups in support of these causes. Yet, she doesn’t identify as a feminist.
Marisol told me she was once at a women’s Bar event where the speaker told the lawyers in attendance that, as Democrats, they should support x, y and z policies. At the end of the speech, the waiter (who’d taken her order in Spanish and had come by and exchanged a few words at intermission) came up to her. He asked, was he correct that she was Cuban? Marisol said yes. He said: then, was she actually a Democrat? She said no.
While it’s an inaccurate generalization that Cubans are Republican, Marisol believes it’s more likely than not because of many Cuban Americans' experiences with communism and belief in the free market and small government. She said that because of this, feminists have told her she doesn’t fit the acceptable markers and isn’t a “real” feminist, and therefore it’s easier simply not to identify as such and avoid the hassle.
As many are aware, I have an annoying tendency to insist that it’s meaningful for those who are strong models of women’s rights advocates, who could communicate a more inclusive and welcoming definition for young girls and women about feminism, to identify as feminists. I made this case to Marisol. She took the point, but I could tell she felt life was too short.
As a libertarian Democrat who’s been known to vote Republican, I have the nerve to still call myself a feminist. I’ve never seen a convincing demonstration that a regulated capitalist economy with a top total tax bracket below fifty percent isn’t in the best interests of women collectively. I think there are very persuasive reasons to believe regulated capitalism is the best way for people of all classes and colors and circumstances to freely move within income and opportunity classes, and that the utopian dreams invoked by a big government model are likely to perpetuate existing stratifications to the detriment of those less fortunate. I believe there are happy mediums which would allow economic helping hands to address unequal privilege, without an unwieldy system which could disincentivize entrepreneurship and innovation.
The goal of this post is not to claim that my own views are mandatory for feminism or to launch an economics debate. But to stake the claim that there are arguments worth hearing on both sides, and people worth inviting to the party, and that closing the door to those is not part of the definition of feminism.
“The feminist blogosphere is tightly enmeshed in the progressive blogosphere, and totally disconnected from the conservative blogosphere”
and
“The discussion on “women’s issues” is taking place primarily on A-List progressive blogs (around predominently (sic.) MALE bloggers?).”
You’ve probably noticed that the major feminist blogs are also fairly uniformly liberal blogs in most if not all respects. While feminism technically means a belief in equal rights for women, someone whose only exposure to feminism is the blogosphere might assume that feminism requires set beliefs regarding budget, taxes, free speech, and foreign policy.
You’ve probably seen the sanctimonious declaration “my feminism is…” followed by a litany of semi-related and unrelated progressive policies (whose adherents, oddly enough, don’t include feminism in their definition of what their movement is). So that those of us whose feminism is about equal rights for women – all women – feel limited or selfish.
Well, some of us. I never got the memo. Or, maybe I did, and reclycled it. Yeah, I recycle, although my feminism doesn’t include environmentalism.
Of course, everyone has the right to her or his politics. But grouping it under feminism, and having funny, nasty subject tags describing people who don’t agree, creates a private club. That’s OK too. But we should be clear about what it is, and what it isn’t.
One of my close friends, let’s call her Marisol, is Latina and bisexual, currently in a long term relationship with a woman. Marisol is a partner at a law firm and a strong proponent of women’s rights and queer rights, belonging to various Bar groups in support of these causes. Yet, she doesn’t identify as a feminist.
Marisol told me she was once at a women’s Bar event where the speaker told the lawyers in attendance that, as Democrats, they should support x, y and z policies. At the end of the speech, the waiter (who’d taken her order in Spanish and had come by and exchanged a few words at intermission) came up to her. He asked, was he correct that she was Cuban? Marisol said yes. He said: then, was she actually a Democrat? She said no.
While it’s an inaccurate generalization that Cubans are Republican, Marisol believes it’s more likely than not because of many Cuban Americans' experiences with communism and belief in the free market and small government. She said that because of this, feminists have told her she doesn’t fit the acceptable markers and isn’t a “real” feminist, and therefore it’s easier simply not to identify as such and avoid the hassle.
As many are aware, I have an annoying tendency to insist that it’s meaningful for those who are strong models of women’s rights advocates, who could communicate a more inclusive and welcoming definition for young girls and women about feminism, to identify as feminists. I made this case to Marisol. She took the point, but I could tell she felt life was too short.
As a libertarian Democrat who’s been known to vote Republican, I have the nerve to still call myself a feminist. I’ve never seen a convincing demonstration that a regulated capitalist economy with a top total tax bracket below fifty percent isn’t in the best interests of women collectively. I think there are very persuasive reasons to believe regulated capitalism is the best way for people of all classes and colors and circumstances to freely move within income and opportunity classes, and that the utopian dreams invoked by a big government model are likely to perpetuate existing stratifications to the detriment of those less fortunate. I believe there are happy mediums which would allow economic helping hands to address unequal privilege, without an unwieldy system which could disincentivize entrepreneurship and innovation.
The goal of this post is not to claim that my own views are mandatory for feminism or to launch an economics debate. But to stake the claim that there are arguments worth hearing on both sides, and people worth inviting to the party, and that closing the door to those is not part of the definition of feminism.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Picking Liz
I was often picked among the last for gym class.
I could do pull ups and push ups and sprint fast and bench unladylike amounts as a grade-schooler, but I was most definitely still a geek, and one who wore dresses instead of jeans and had exotic foods in my lunchbox at a time and place in which neither of those things were hip.
One day, in fifth grade gym class, I got to be the picker. One of the two, at any rate. Standing before the class, I felt an odd sense of power. Who would I pick first?
Miriam was the obvious choice. She was a decent kickball player. And she was my good friend. We were both fans of Tolkein and Le Guin and would swap books of logic puzzles and sit together in synagogue. Miriam had a mass of unfashionably frizzy dark hair with a white streak down the front from a childhood skin condition. She wore homemade crocheted ponchos which provoked the expected responses from the ten year old cool kids.
Then there was Liz. The most popular girl in class. Liz had spin the bottle parties and stick-straight blond hair and a wide knowledge of pop music and designer jeans (all completely foreign to me). She never gave me the time of day. But, maybe if I picked her…
*********************
When I checked out the new women’s website DoubleX , I was reminded of this. DoubleX definitely picked Liz.
One piece that was part of the initial kick-off not only kicks supporters in the gut, but glorifies the action as necessary and evolved:
Of course, Liz seems “bigger” than Miriam to a foolish school child.
The author of the feminist epitaph piece, possibly fearing that a site focusing on women’s concerns needs a facial, has no problem obliging.
She notes cutely: “For my first post, I wrote about how we are awesome and everyone else is lame.” She quotes herself (can’t have too much of a good thing): “I thought feminism was dead. I mean, didn't we kill it already?" And then proclaims “Eventually, my Big Fat Story About Porn Valley will run on Double X. So, wait for it. A little XXX for XX.”
A heady combination of sexism, ableism, and insecurity that women’s interests could get eyeballs fully (or even partially) dressed.
Another headlining piece is entitled Whine Womyn and Thongs. Dripping condescension, it includes bon mots such as:
In other words, women are best being restrained in our options and freedom by those who know better. More choices can only make our heads spin with anxiety and confusion. If, indeed, women have not enjoyed more subjective well being over time, this cannot be because we have gotten more aware of what we deserve and the shortfall that exists. It also cannot be because legal freedoms haven’t translated into societal acceptance of our full personhood. It must be because freedom is more than we can or should handle.
What cool chick mag would be complete without a dash (or more) of ageism? Back to Liz and Miriam: Liz was hip and new. She wore ripped up jeans a season before they hit the teen mags. She had non-ear pierces light years in advance of the trend. Miriam, on the other hand, was more likely to show up in something that looked like a hand me down from an elderly aunt, unfashionable glasses and lunchboxes with flowers rather than cartoons.
The author of “Feminist Makeover” states of an older feminist:
Of course it feels great to toss mom’s hard work, or a friend who helped you along the way, out the door while you pick Liz. Wrinkles, unfashionable clothing – who needs that?
It couldn’t be that the older woman was trying to offer advice based on experience? The years may take away unwrinkled skin and breeziness, but they do offer experience. Of course, one is always free to disagree and to make ones own decision – another victory of the feminism the author seems to wish to make over with botox and a hip stylist. But if the only reaction to “laborious” work and age is “pity” – well, there’s that little saying about those who ignore history.
To be fair, one of my favorite authors writes for Double X. Peterson’s piece is characteristically nuanced (although there is one issue she and I have discussed separately which I think was circumscribed by the word limit). She doesn’t breezily bypass Miriam for Liz, but instead points out why feminism, a perfectly useful concept in theory, has not always been developed by its practitioners in ways that capture all women’s experiences. Railing against beauty standards takes on new meaning when those standards hurt different women in different ways based on race. The work-life dilemma cannot be fully considered without looking at what elements are choice vs necessity, incorporating issues of race and class.
Unfortunately, while Peterson undertakes actual analysis, her piece is included among a litany of others which offer lite attempts at makeovers of Friedan’s and other women’s efforts, with very little acknowledgement, respect, or attempts to make any serious point.
*********************
For anyone wondering? I picked Liz.
Thirty years later, although I didn’t deserve it, I am happy to say that Miriam has remained my friend. She still has her frizzy dark hair and white streak which she refuses to cover over. Ironically, people in the know have now decided her hair is on the cutting edge. Miriam never cared much about that and still doesn’t. Thirty years later, I still haven’t achieved that level of true coolness, but at least my judgment has improved somewhat.
I could do pull ups and push ups and sprint fast and bench unladylike amounts as a grade-schooler, but I was most definitely still a geek, and one who wore dresses instead of jeans and had exotic foods in my lunchbox at a time and place in which neither of those things were hip.
One day, in fifth grade gym class, I got to be the picker. One of the two, at any rate. Standing before the class, I felt an odd sense of power. Who would I pick first?
Miriam was the obvious choice. She was a decent kickball player. And she was my good friend. We were both fans of Tolkein and Le Guin and would swap books of logic puzzles and sit together in synagogue. Miriam had a mass of unfashionably frizzy dark hair with a white streak down the front from a childhood skin condition. She wore homemade crocheted ponchos which provoked the expected responses from the ten year old cool kids.
Then there was Liz. The most popular girl in class. Liz had spin the bottle parties and stick-straight blond hair and a wide knowledge of pop music and designer jeans (all completely foreign to me). She never gave me the time of day. But, maybe if I picked her…
*********************
When I checked out the new women’s website DoubleX , I was reminded of this. DoubleX definitely picked Liz.
One piece that was part of the initial kick-off not only kicks supporters in the gut, but glorifies the action as necessary and evolved:
“[Feminist websites] want all the power their feminist foremothers promised them—and the right to play full-time victims of the patriarchy. Get over it. Get on with it. I hope the feminist mantle doesn't fit Double X. I hope this site is bigger than that.”
Of course, Liz seems “bigger” than Miriam to a foolish school child.
The author of the feminist epitaph piece, possibly fearing that a site focusing on women’s concerns needs a facial, has no problem obliging.
She notes cutely: “For my first post, I wrote about how we are awesome and everyone else is lame.” She quotes herself (can’t have too much of a good thing): “I thought feminism was dead. I mean, didn't we kill it already?" And then proclaims “Eventually, my Big Fat Story About Porn Valley will run on Double X. So, wait for it. A little XXX for XX.”
A heady combination of sexism, ableism, and insecurity that women’s interests could get eyeballs fully (or even partially) dressed.
Another headlining piece is entitled Whine Womyn and Thongs. Dripping condescension, it includes bon mots such as:
“The goals of feminism were always brilliant in their clarity: Convince women that they were an oppressed class that should agitate for political change. Hold out the promise that political change would yield a world of greater freedom that would eventually bring them greater happiness. This project has failed. …measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. …The more options we have, the more anxiety we experience about the choices we eventually make, as economists who study choice theory have shown but as the feminist movement never acknowledged.”
In other words, women are best being restrained in our options and freedom by those who know better. More choices can only make our heads spin with anxiety and confusion. If, indeed, women have not enjoyed more subjective well being over time, this cannot be because we have gotten more aware of what we deserve and the shortfall that exists. It also cannot be because legal freedoms haven’t translated into societal acceptance of our full personhood. It must be because freedom is more than we can or should handle.
What cool chick mag would be complete without a dash (or more) of ageism? Back to Liz and Miriam: Liz was hip and new. She wore ripped up jeans a season before they hit the teen mags. She had non-ear pierces light years in advance of the trend. Miriam, on the other hand, was more likely to show up in something that looked like a hand me down from an elderly aunt, unfashionable glasses and lunchboxes with flowers rather than cartoons.
The author of “Feminist Makeover” states of an older feminist:
“[She] warned me against dropping out of the workforce. God help my shallow self, as I stood there looking at her rumpled suit and dated hair and frown lines, I was overwhelmed with pity. Perhaps watching me breeze into the life she had so laboriously carved out for herself—or worse, stray from the hard line in a way that she and other feminists couldn’t allow themselves to—felt to her like a bitter betrayal.
But it felt great to me.”
Of course it feels great to toss mom’s hard work, or a friend who helped you along the way, out the door while you pick Liz. Wrinkles, unfashionable clothing – who needs that?
It couldn’t be that the older woman was trying to offer advice based on experience? The years may take away unwrinkled skin and breeziness, but they do offer experience. Of course, one is always free to disagree and to make ones own decision – another victory of the feminism the author seems to wish to make over with botox and a hip stylist. But if the only reaction to “laborious” work and age is “pity” – well, there’s that little saying about those who ignore history.
To be fair, one of my favorite authors writes for Double X. Peterson’s piece is characteristically nuanced (although there is one issue she and I have discussed separately which I think was circumscribed by the word limit). She doesn’t breezily bypass Miriam for Liz, but instead points out why feminism, a perfectly useful concept in theory, has not always been developed by its practitioners in ways that capture all women’s experiences. Railing against beauty standards takes on new meaning when those standards hurt different women in different ways based on race. The work-life dilemma cannot be fully considered without looking at what elements are choice vs necessity, incorporating issues of race and class.
Unfortunately, while Peterson undertakes actual analysis, her piece is included among a litany of others which offer lite attempts at makeovers of Friedan’s and other women’s efforts, with very little acknowledgement, respect, or attempts to make any serious point.
*********************
For anyone wondering? I picked Liz.
Thirty years later, although I didn’t deserve it, I am happy to say that Miriam has remained my friend. She still has her frizzy dark hair and white streak which she refuses to cover over. Ironically, people in the know have now decided her hair is on the cutting edge. Miriam never cared much about that and still doesn’t. Thirty years later, I still haven’t achieved that level of true coolness, but at least my judgment has improved somewhat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
