The BO MO and Womens Rights
Alright, I know that I can be rough and tumble in my comment posting. To any I might have offended, please accept my apologies. It’s just that I feel so strongly that this common ground mantra, that the “new” feminist movement is spouting as the next best thing since sliced bread, is fatal to the womens movement. The thought that some believe common ground and bi partisanship, in this toxic atmosphere, is the answer to our inequality is beyond my comprehension. I just cannot grasp how feminists can think this is a good idea! I will try to tell you why, so just bear with me, ok?
Take the House healthcare bill that passed yesterday with the Stupak Amendment. That amendment was created to form a concensus of bi partisanship, ie, to get a bill passed, ie, to find common ground with Republicans and the dredded Blue Dog Dems (there was one Republican vote). The means to that end was a reduction in womens healthcare. This type of means to an end for some victory, is the Barack Obama modus operandi. That amendment was a give away to the religious fundamentalists on the right and left. Hell be damned, to the Democratic Platform and womens equality. All of this was done in an effort to pass a bill where some good things could get done while womens rights are hung out to dry. I do not want to get side tracked in this post about all the other things right or wrong with the bill, my focus here is the Stupak Amendment and the bi partisan, common ground bologne.
In my view equality should never, ever be bargained away. What in the world would be so great an accomplishment, that one would feel dealing away equality is preferred or acceptable? The “let’s focus on what unites us versus what divides us” is quite a nifty and crafty slogan. The problem with it is, is that the one thing that divides us is EQUALITY. I see one side in this common ground parade throwing crumbs, leading pro choice women like little lambs to the slaughter house. Think about it, the Democrats and Womens Groups are telling us to wait for full equality and accept incremental policies. Women should not accept incremental steps or promises of equality. Women must demand nothing less than full equality. Whether it be Democrats, Womens Groups, or New Feminists who are trying to shove this common ground tripe down our throats makes no difference in my book.
My argument is:
Women who believe abortion is a sin and believe that no woman should have an abortion under any circumstance is the enemy of full equality for women.
You cannot use anti-choice women to advance full equality.
If you won’t accept half baked equality from the Democratic Party or Womens Groups who beg you to wait and throw you crumbs, what in the world makes you think anti choice women are a better choice to throw your lot in with?
Anti choice women will NOT join and march or petition our goverment for equality. They want partial equality, which is what women already have. I guess we could have better partial equality.
When I make this argument to those who are part of the “New” Feminist Movement their retort is that they are not seeking to attract anti-choice women to their movement. So, may I ask, if the “New” Feminist Movement is not seeking anti choice women as members, why is abortion the one item taken off the agenda ? It makes no sense!
For me, this is about full equality, not just a pay raise. Equality for women is not just some idea that sounds nice. It will be the only thing that saves women from more of the injustices we experience. Women who believe in equality must focus like a laser beam on achieving nothing less. Maybe one day the injustice that occurred yesterday on the floor of the United States House of Representatives will be looked upon for what it is, an embarassing blemish on a nation that prides itself on the principles of equality and freedom for all.
I planned on ending my post and was just about ready to hit submit on this post, until Pat Johnson alerted me to just the type of tripe and dangerous strategy I have outlined:
Amy Siskind says that Women’s Groups must immediatly become non partisan. That sounds so nice, doesn’t it!? But what she’s really telling you is to forget about choice, and to immediately contact Michael Steele of the RNC because most Americans believe abortion is a personal choice. I’m sure the Republican Party will respect that choice! Oh what tangled web we weave! This is so dangerous for women, I can barely see straight.
Women do NOT DEMAND NON-PARTISANSHIP, women DEMAND full EQUALITY!
I’ll have some of what Amy is smoking. We all know that the RNC is all about choice, right? Bwahahahaha
The Dems sold us out with the permission granted by the leadership and the president in order to satisfy the “fundies” threatening to derail this piece of legislation and give Obama what would appear to be a “victory” in the end. Those who signed on with the Stupak Amendment from either side of the aisle have expressed themselves in full.
When credit and applause is meted out to the Catholic Church from the floor of the House, one needs to sit up and open their eyes to what is transpiring before their eyes. Church and state are becoming intrinsically entwined and there are those bodies in congress willing and able to carry out this action.
The line is blurred, perhaps irrevocably, yet these women insist on “compromise” with the very same people who would deny them their rights. Unforgivable.
I know I have been out of the loop, but did anyone even know about this amendment until last night? While the progressive blogs were focused on Conyers and Kucinich (myself included), we were so back-doored.
As far as the “compromisers”, they can go spend 7 weeks in fundie land oppression and get the fuck back to me.
Pat, you could take this entire post and exchange women’s rights for LGBT. We find ourselves in the same boat.
This lili livered approach to human rights has got to stop.
Hey la! In the low down post I did last week, it was mentioned.
Also, la t da. Remember the democracy now video with the republicans demanding amendments in the senate bill for this same type of language and chris dodd fighting them off?
Do you think you could find that again and post it here in the comments? it will be interesting for people to see, because this same fight will happen on the senate side.
I was thinking of that earlier today, taggles. It was during the markup sessions. I’ll go to C-span and try to find it.
thanks la. i’m pretty sure it was on democracy now, but I can never get those videos to embed. if you can find a cspan u tube or an embed code from cspan on the video, i will post it.
when you were thinking about it earlier today, were you saying to yourself, what a bunch of stellar strategists. they kept quiet about it and then made their move. It never was about grandma, was it??
Still looking. I know it was C-span. Here is the topic though.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/157588.php
No, I was thinking, “Wow, silly us. And we were focused on Medicare for All.”
Well, that too…. LOL
But I do remember us having a conversation that they would play this card, hence the video from Democracy NOW! I know it was democracy now!
but it must have been c-span footage!
Good posts over there, Pat.
I don’t typically pay attention to these right wing groups being called “the new feminism”. They are too massively infested with sock puppetry for me to take seriously.
The one premise I hear repeated over and over by these people, is that lefty feminists, or former PUMAs/disaffected Democratic women should learn we should no longer privilege choice status over all other issues. (As if we all did, by the way.) But if that is what they are really saying, why do they always use Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin as their two shining star examples of who we should support? Bachmann doesn’t have a single, solitary issue of any kind in common with me or other lefty feminists. And Palin may have some personal feminist cred, but her stated economic positions are all pretty far to the right, and that is a non-negotiable for me. So it’s not just that these women are anti-choice, it is the whole litany of wingnutry they espouse. If these “new feminists” were asking us to support someone like Marcy Kaptur, who is great on almost every issue except choice, or someone else like that, while I may not agree, I might at least be able to take these new feminist groups seriously. But when they incessantly push Bachmann, a women who is basically showered with media attention for the soul purpose of inspiring the gleeful joy on the part of lefty men who like to see women look silly, and rightwing men who like to elevate women to be their punching bags, I call foul.
I just watched the final episode of this year’s Mad Men series where Betty finally told her husband to “fuck off”. Long time coming.
Here is my issue in a nutshell: I refuse to support any candidate regardless of ethnicity, gender, party affiliation, religious cred, who does not stand for equality for all. Not some, not a few, not whoever is donating to the campaign.
That is equal rights for all spelt = EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.
I am sick of excuses, twisted logic, touchy feelie, simpering claims, and outright lies. When someone tells you they support an issue take them at their word! Finding it out after the fact, like we did last night from those we thought would be in our corner is bad enough. But when they say upfront who and what they support take it into account. Enough of this pandering to bipartisanship from any spectrum. It won’t work!
Five hours of pure viewing pleasure just for you, taggles. Just skim for Tom Coburn’s face and you should find it.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287676-1
I’m sure if I called Michael Steele and told him that amy siskind told me to call and, that since most people think abortion is a personal decision, he could get all his anti choice supporters to go along with leaving abortion a personal matter…..he would immediately change the platform and tell the religious zealots to go suck an egg.
yep…..
I’m also sure that voting in right wing nut bags will keep abortion a personal matter. I’m also sure voting in blue dog dem fundies will keep abortion a personal matter.
I fully believe voting for fundie woman will advance our rights.
As long as she’s a woman, and as long as I don’t demand full equality (abortion rights) then I know women will achieve equality.
If the fundies have their way, we will all be walking around looking like those women from the FDLS, hairdo’s and all!
wow, la t da. i’m gonna wait to view until tomorrow. i don’t want to have nightmares.
i just love it when people say i’m a purist. well, i guess I’m proud to be one. Anyone who thinks other issues are more important than autonomy over their own body have lost their compass. or could it possibly be that a womans right to choose is not important to them…hmmmmm….
One small example of the stupidity that is running around out there from a comment left at a “feminist blog”:
“If we keep demanding women to vote for they will start putting women in place…they want votes..so keep singing that song Pumas. Keep chanting we will vote for Palin we will vote for Lady Liberty, we will vote for women!!! It will keep them off balance.”
Mind boggling ignorance masquerading as critical thought. Jesus!
huh, what does that mean???
Another example of total batshit crazy that too is sitting on another “feminist” blog.
“Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann have emerged as two female forces on the right of the aisle who are our great hopes for stopping Dr. Utopia and saving our Liberty.
Add Michelle Malkin, columnist and blogger to that list, with Tammy Bruce on the air as well. And Ann Coulter has never been more right about things in her whole life.
In 2012, the only people able to rise above the media adulation for the effeminate, biracial, socialist current president will be women.”
Stunning!
taggles: You are asking me to translate that one for you???
How about: “I will only vote for women even if they have a picture of Eva Braun in their living room.”
these puma’s who would vote for any woman no matter what, have no right to criticize any party or person. if it is only gender that matters and nothing else, what is there to criticize about any ideology or policy??
LOL Pat!! LMAO
Exactly. Just come right out and say, “it matters not to me how stupid, promiscuous, child beating, tax dodging, devil worshipping or hygeine deficient the woman candidate is. I choose to support her because, well because she is a woman. And that to me is the most important issue of all. Now pass the Kibbles; it’s dinnertime already!”
OMG Pat! malkin, coulter, bruce, bachman and palin all rolled into one comment. I can’t wait for twisted feminism 2010.
I make make a study of cutting and pasting the “Best of Stupid” comments as an additional sideline. It is amazing what little they know, want to know, or how to educate themselves in the meantime.
I may need a bottle of Febreze when I am done searching, but some of this stuff is too funny to ignore.
can’t wait! it’s amazing the how twisted it’s become.
the simple concept of holding true to certain principles has become the exact opposite and almost nothingness.
If I am reading some of these blogs correctly, there are those who are now declaring that McCain, a man of “principle” (who I can still envision wrapping his body around Bush in that one picture where I thought they may need to get a room) would never have allowed the Stupak Amendment to come to the floor out of respect for reproductive rights! Yes, you heard that correctly.
Only thing wrong with that is that the “healthcare reform” would never have gotten a second look had McCain been elected in the first place.
Ping pong. Match. Set. Game.
When I first started talking to Murphy, my proposal was for a pro-PUMA commercial. The text was to be about how we were FDR Democrats and Clinton Democrats, and as such we believed that all the votes should be counted and that bigotry of any kind was wrong. I really wanted to root the PUMA movement in FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights. I believed that that’s where we should be as people taking a stand against what was transpiring in the Democratic primary.
I don’t want to join together with people who advance exclusionary policy, or people who accept bigotry as pragmatism. I want to be in a party that is reality-based and that defines equality as pragmatism.
This tut, tut, tutting and this harrumphing about how women should accept this and move on to make changes later sounds like the entire Democratic party has morphed into Fred Thompson.
aspen, i like marcie kaptur stance on economic issues. i think she has some real guts, especially the way she has taken on the mortgage co’s in her state. but knowing she is anti choice is a real let down. if it was between her and a man that was solidly pro choice, i would not vote for marcie.
and on top of that lori, with this new feminism, we have to vote for all women, even anti choice women, and work with anti choice women for equality that they will never work with us for.
What am i missing here?????
Lori, from my experience in “hanging around” other blogs I have come to the conclusion that they mostly start out well intended but something takes over after awhile and they begin to believe the laudatory comments from posters as a signal to develop a persona. Remember how popular Taylor Marsh was during the primaries? Her threads, posted several times daily, had number reaching up to 400 at times. She then began to think of herself as a “kingmaker” of sorts and was quite able to switch off from Hillary love to Obama slobbering before the ink was dry on the primary.
These blogs beg for readers by posting that they are open to a variety of views and welcome “discussion” but it soon turns into a festival of deleting, banning, ridiculing, insulting, name calling, and backstabbing if after awhile the poster seems to veer from what the blog sets down in stone.
Most blogs have one or two “bullies” who make it a point to harass and cajole a poster who is not in full agreement thus ending any and all sense of “dialogue”, but serves as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the host’s positions and those of the regulars. Woe to any one who differs even in the slightest which leaves the blog with a chorus of enablers and an echo chamber of thought.
Who needs it? I can hit myself in the head with a hammer anytime I choose and do not need to go outside my comfort zone to achieve the same result.
Critical thinking? No such thing with these people.
No, I see your point about Kaptur, Taggles, definitely. I’ve just been hearing from men on other blogs that we women need to come together and find common ground beyond party lines — you know the typical tripe you all are talking about here found on the new agenda. But they act like the only women in existence to vote for are Bachmann and Palin. It’s not even like they try to pick “moderate” rep women or anything. That just tells me that these men or women promoting this pathway are basically just sock puppets on a mission.
BTW, Digby had a post a few months ago about how Obama’s numbers were tanking with women but that the White House believed they’d rise again when women saw that he was governing in a bipartisan manner. Both Digby and I were wondering what they were smoking in the White House to think that bipartisan legislation was the way to Democratic women’s hearts. To my mind, that’s as much of a misread of women’s temperament as Bush Sr. nominating Quayle to the VP slot because he thought women wanted to vote for a cute guy.
I hear ya Aspen! BTW did you know that NOW is non-partisan. They just happen to stand for a principle that some women and men refuse to support. And the criticism of them is that they are not holding stead fast enough to those principles. So joining a “new” feminist movement that puts that principle on the back burner is the way to go???? Makes no sense to me!
People are NOT thinking.
I’m no longer involved with The New Agenda, but as far as I know, the basic premise of the organization hasn’t changed.
The purpose of TNA was never to remove choice from the feminist platform. All of the original founders of TNA were pro-choice anyway and veterans of Democratic and feminist organizations. The purpose of TNA was to capture a new alignment of women that seemed possible in the aftermath of the 2008 primaries. Remember all the energy in 2008? It wasn’t just feminists and Democrats; even Republican women and moderates and pro-lifers were excited too, and upset about sexism.
TNA was conceived of as an ecumenical organization, which is why divisive subjects were left out. And it wasn’t just choice; also pornography, prostitution, and one or two others I can’t remember. It’s just like ecumenical religious council of Jews, Christians, and Muslims: obviously you only leave in the bits you can pretty much agree on.
Violet, I would like to ask you this. Do you believe that type of strategy is positive for the feminist movement?
What I see from TNA is a group that is constantly hailing its mission as non partisanship revolving around the abortion issue. They are constantly criticizing womens groups who have that in their platform. Calling them partisan. I will agree that NOW and other groups have dropped the ball when it comes to holding the only party that purports to protect women’s choice accountable. But NOW would never be welcome by the Republican Party, so why all the griping from TNA about an issue in NOW’s platform? All the while trying to portray NOW as some kind of partisan organization, that doesn’t welcome Republicans. When the fact is that the only way NOW would have a voice in the Republican Party or could feel like a home to anti choice women, would be to drop abortion from its platform.
That type of divisiveness is insidious Violet. And they partake in it daily. And it does nothing to help women who believe in choice and in fact the whole concept is dangerous for choice.
I left TNA in April, and I haven’t read anything on that site since then. So I’m not up to speed on the tenor of posts there or Amy’s various media statements. The op-ed of hers at HuffPo that I read yesterday is the first time TNA thing I’ve read since April. But based on that one op-ed, it doesn’t seem to me that the organization’s basic principles have changed.
I’ll answer your questions:
Do I think the TNA strategy (the one I alluded to in my earlier comment) is good for feminism? Well, I don’t think of it as being good or bad for “feminism” per se; I would just say I think it’s good for women, because any group advocating for women is a positive addition to the world. Feminism is a pretty broad movement, and you’ve got everybody from lesbian separatists to radicals like me to liberal feminists to “equity” feminists and so forth. They all have their place.
I still think that there is a lot of energy and anger out there in the country that can be capitalized on. There are Republican and conservative women who are just as outraged by the sexism in the media as we are, for example, but they would never feel comfortable in a traditional feminist org like NOW. Nor would they necessarily be welcome, depending on their abortion stance. An ecumenical place like TNA is ideal for them.
You say, “They [TNA] are constantly criticizing womens groups who have that [abortion] in their platform. Calling them partisan. ” Again, I’m not up to date on how things have developed since I left.
When I was still there, however, it was like this: we were frustrated with NOW not because they had choice in their platform, but because they had allowed themselves to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. Which is a recipe for powerlessness. If you have no leverage, nowhere to go, then you’re at the mercy of the party who owns you.
Please realize that the women who founded TNA are themselves pro-choice, and in fact many of them were NOW members and veterans of activism. Just like everybody else, they’re relying on NOW to be the “official” feminist pro-choice organization, and it was maddening to feel like NOW was blowing it. The fact that TNA had deliberately left choice off its own agenda (relying on existing choice organizations to cover that) actually made it even more frustrating, I think. Sometimes the feeling was, “dammnit, if WE were doing choice, we’d play hardball! We’d NEVER let the Dems get away with this crap!” And in fact, if you read Amy’s op-ed from yesterday, that’s still the subtext I’m getting.
When I was at TNA we talked a few times about putting choice on our agenda after all, partly because it was so hard to stay away, and also because some of us thought we could do a better (more hardball) job of it. Far from being anti-choice, we were actually having to force ourselves not to go full-bore into pro-choice activism.
There is also some organizational rivalry at work, too, and some ego stuff. As ever.
Again, though, I’m not up to speed on what’s been done and said since April.