Violet today reiterates the warning signs that led us to a day where House Democrats voted through a health insurance reform bill that effectively bans abortion, and reminds us what we need to do:
Word to the wise, girls: if a guy calls you a filthy cunt or a whiny bitch, if he says Hillary Clinton is a hag from hell, if he calls her supporters the dry pussy brigade, if he talks about punish-raping the rebels, this guy is not a feminist. Which means that he doesn’t really give a shit about women’s rights. Which means that his commitment to your reproductive freedom is about as firm as a tomato seed. Which means he will sell you out. In a god. damn. heartbeat....
My purpose here isn’t to re-hash 2008 or play imaginary Waterloo. I’m offering this as a lessons-learned contribution to the feminist database. Going forward, we need to be more wary, more discerning, more demanding of the men who claim to be our allies. We need to stop cutting them slack and trusting that they’ll come through when it matters. Because you know what? They won’t.
Violet refers to a Salon article, one which sings quite a different (but welcome) tune than Salon did during the primaries: Face it: The Democratic Party is not for women. Go read it in full, but here's the key:
So the wise, objective, pragmatic mansplainers can go ahead and tell us little ladies How This All Works one more time, but now we're telling you: We've not only heard it, we've tried it. We've tried electing "moderate" Democrats who would be obvious conservatives in any era marked less by far-right lunacy. We've tried compromising our values in hopes of taking baby steps forward. We've tried sacrificing the rights of women and every minority group under the sun, so as not to look unreasonable or oversensitive to those who resent having to share this country at all with people they find undesirable. And we've seen where it leads: "We choose to play nice, our party trades on our freedoms. We choose to object, our party resents and blames us for failure."
Really, when those are the options, there's only one logical conclusion: This is not our party. We've known that for too long, and yet the Democrats have known too well that they could bank on our money and our votes as long as the GOP remained even more not our party. But something's changed. Sixty-four Democrats voted to block women's access to legal medical services. That may not be quite as repulsive as some Republican shenanigans, but the difference is only one of degree. If the point of women voting for "moderate" Democrats is to avoid a majority that's actively hostile to women, then those who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment just proved that there's no point at all. And progressive women have finally had enough. We are ready to go there. Are Democrats ready to try getting elected without us?
"Ready to go there", meaning ready to see the bill go down in flames rather than allow the Stupak Amendment put into law. I'm so grateful to Harding for calling out the fundamental double-bind that Progressive Dude Nation has tied up feminists in (Heads you lose, tails you lose. Now STFU
!), that I'm even willing to forgo the 'We told you sos". For this one day, anyway.
The only response at this point is what Violet and many others identified long ago, but which is finally coming to the fore at Salon and, if various statements can be believed (a big 'if') in the Senate is: Yes. We are ready to go there.
- Valhalla's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Join the line at that back of the bus...
...because the Stupak/Pitts amendment was merely the tip of the iceberg of Dimocrat betrayals....does Violet Socks think that women are the only ones feeling demonized and betrayed??
What about the undocumented who won't be able to even get into these 'exchanges" because they can't prove US citizenhood??
What about the millions of poor and working-class men and women who will be forced to choose between buying crappy health care from private insurers and nothing at all, thanks to the choice of funding the exchanges through cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and taxing the better middle-class (and mostly union-based) plans, rather than, I don't know, taxing the rich and cutting the Pentagon budget??
And what about us lowly single payer advocates who have been saying all along that this bill would become a simple disaster merely because it started with the premise of preserving the existing system rather than ripping it up??
Yes, Stupack/Pitts sucks like a black hole, and progressive feminists have every legitimate reason to be enraged...but where was that energy and rage against the entire bill as a huge giveaway to Big Insura and a major looting of working class men AND WOMEN...before Stupak happened??
And for the last time today: President Hillary would have made no difference. The problem isn't about who's President, it's about the lack of progressive/liberal/Leftist cojones to challenge the Dimocrats and stake their own claim with their own party.
The only solution in my view: A New Left Party that starts with universal single payer health care with NO discrimination and NO restrictions on choice. And, repealing the Hyde Amendment would be nice, too.
Those dudes who defend this travesty: NOT worthy of the name "progressive".
Anthony
(Call me a RADICAL Leftist Dude who's been fed up with the Dimocrats since forever)
My SmackDog Chronicles Blog (Warning: mostly SFW, but contains topics of adult nature; prudes and wingnutters beware!!)
No....
No, but as a feminist woman who runs a feminist site, that is what she is focusing on. As a feminist woman, that is what Valhalla is focusing on.
And as a feminist woman, that's what I'm focusing on too.
Is there something wrong with that? And if so, why?
Back on topic: Yes, Valhalla, I am ready. I've been ready for a while. Neither Party is a friend to women. Let's just say NO to all politics and politicians until we get what we want (for me, it's the ERA). Nothing else is going to work.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
I believe you must be new to Corrente
Because every single thing you complain about not being addressed has been addressed here, for months and months, on a daily basis. No links, because just a quick read of the posts for the previous week, which you were not, evidently, moved to do, would answer your questions. You also don't spend a lot of time around feminist sites, because for the last year, while most "progressive sites" were actually whipping for this odious bill, we've been discussing all of the above.
The fact that others are also magnificently screwed by this bill is irrelevant to the point Violet, I, madamab and Harding (who wrote the Salon article) are making. The 'prove your creds' accusation is false logic which only serves to make "progressive" pushback harder and Blue Dog sellouts easier. The constant carping and infighting over whose rights are more violated, who has it worse, and who has the most claim to suffering rights is based on the false idea that "progressive" pushback is some sort of limited resource that we have to ration out drop by drop. Bullshit. I'm not taking anything away from those who object on other grounds by objecting on women's equality grounds.
However, by dropping by and propagating the idea that feminist objections (and btw, there are far more feminist objections to this bill than just Stupak -- that was merely the final straw) are less legitimate than other, more worthy and true causes, you are hurting the ability of "progressives" and liberals to combine against this bill.
So bravo, nice job.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Understood and acknowledged..but.
..my point was that feminist women aren't the only ones who have a right to be legitimately betrayed by the Democrats; and that Stupak/Pitts was only the icing on the cake regarding the behavior of the Dems and "progressive" groups concerning health care issues.
All I was saying was that feminist women who feel betrayed have a lot of company....and plenty of support to make the clean break with the Dems if they feel warranted.
Anthony
My SmackDog Chronicles Blog (Warning: mostly SFW, but contains topics of adult nature; prudes and wingnutters beware!!)
Thank you for your clarification
In no way did I intend for this post to imply that only women were being sold down the river by Democrats. It's a very large bus we're under.
For me personally, there were myriad legitimate reasons to object to this bill long before the Stupak amendment. The class-based apportionment of burdens and priveleges & profits was among them. The anti-immigrant provisions are stupid and objectionable beyond words. I would have welcomed and joined any major liberal or "progressives" pushback on any of the bases you discussed.
In fact, as to your icing on the cake point, I do find it deeply disturbing that it had to get to the point of the Stupak amendment before the question of any serious pushback arose (outside of single payer advocacy, of course). So I think we are in agreement there.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Big Tent Democrat cuts the Gordian Knot, only subsidize the PO
Over at Talkleft, BTD made an astute point, the only reason that the Stupak Amendment is a problem is that both the House and Senate bills allow affordability subsidies to go towards purchasing private insurance. Public plans (Medicaid, Tricare) already don't cover abortion, it was never in the cards for a new Public Option plan to cover it either. Stupak took things to the next level by applying the Hyde Amendment to private insurance purchased via the proposed insurance exchange.
As BTD notes, That problem is easily solved - eliminate the exchange (see Jon Walker inadvertently demonstrate that in fact the exchange is the catalyst for the Stupak problem) and apply the federal subsidies to purchase of insurance under the public option. In short, eliminate the availability of federal subsides for the purchase of private insurance. That way, private insurance companies will never be impacted by the Stupak Amendment.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/10...
Cut the private insurers out of the subsidy equation and then both sides of the abortion funding dispute can claim victory and vote for an improved bill.
The fact that this happened at all
should not be dismissed so easily. It means a lot to the women of this country that both Parties stood by and allowed this abominable Amendment to happen.
Hair-splitting is not going to address the real problem, which is that both Parties have abandoned the needs of women.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Most of the people
sponsoring the bill are members of C Street's "The Family".
A lot of dimwitted conservatives in both parties handed a Christianist
"cult" a win.
This all makes me lean towards making our hypothetical
third party a National Women's Party. We could catch a lot of the Democratic Party's liberal bloc if we pushed a women-centered agenda, and we'd probably pick up a big chunk of independents and maybe even some conservative women.
Of course, an explicitly Women's Party would have to balance gender issues delicately. As a party for women, you'd want to be sure that women had the primary role of running for office ad advocating issues, but you wouldn't want to exclude men who sincerely held liberal political views.
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
I am very interested in that idea...
as long as we delineate our platform clearly. Anti-choicers should not be allowed to push an anti-choice agenda through the NWP.
(I have just lost quite a few PUMAs with that statement.)
I definitely think men should be welcome. We won't get too far without getting men on our side, since they are, currently, in control of our society.
(And....I've lost quite a few radical feminists with that statement. Oh well.)
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
To momentarily sound like a geek...
... it's as if there needs to be a feminist API.
* * *
FWIW -- and if I were a strategerist, that's what I'd be doing -- yes on both counts, that is, anti-choice (and so what about that flavor of PUMA) and [some] men should be welcome (and so what about that flavor of radical feminist). And if there needs to be some distancing, well, that's what the API would be for....
* * *
To me the common thread is exploitation of the body. Health care "reform" shows this so very, very clearly.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I agree...
if a woman has to surrender control over her body to the State, then she is not an equal member of society. Choice is a civil rights issue, not a "moral and ethical" issue as Obama claims.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Third party, a National Women's Party
Uhm, I've been commenting for while under my name in different forums [some eight years] and I have to add that this is truly a dumb idea.
I want a viable third party to emerge from the tangled ruins of the Democratic party, but a minority party NEEDS to include all the liberals that can be mustered, potentially cutting the number half seems idiotic.
Secondly, a womans party would be an easy target for an astroturf'd "liberal party" to smother.
I understand woman's anger over Obama's proven misogyny, his hatred and that of his followers is real, but let's not forget Obama's hatred of gays, the covert racism of his Imperial-War, the overt racism of campaign, his hatred of the working class and the pervasive corruption that is the hallmark of Obama's administration draws a lot of voters away from the Democratic party. A new labor party should draw all those who have been alienated by the Obama/Bush administration and it should not delineate on any physical feature, but rather on the members beliefs, values and policies.
"Uhm..."
I could not care less about "liberals" who have more than abundantly shown their misogyny and willingness to throw women under the bus. Let them go form their own Party. Good luck with no women to give you legitimacy, though.
And how has every other political party advanced the needs of women up until now? Unless a political party expressly puts women first, it will always throw us under the bus.
Been there, done that. No thanks.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Huh?
What does supporting Equal Rights amendment & starting a new party have to with one another?
"I could not care less about "liberals" who have more than abundantly shown their misogyny and willingness to throw women under the bus."
FYI, Hillary didn't throw woman under the bus, Obama did...who along with his "Progressives" supporters were openly disdainful of "liberals". BTW, while I supported Hillary over Obama because of policies, the belief that Obama lacked any credible experience and that like his predecessor he had no successes to show for his life. I did not back Hillary because she was a woman...or because she was white like me...but identity politics is not my cup of tea. Think of Thomas on the supreme court if you want to know where your thinking leads.
"Unless a political party expressly puts women first, it will always throw us under the bus."
Well, I'm not going to argue with your futuristic conjecture, but I will state you are wrong on the past, the "liberal" "Wobblies" never threw women under the bus.
Your "me first" attitude is alienating and it is just the thing I was trying to address. Equal rights is about Equal rights, not about "expressly put[ting] women first". If you want to have a weak ineffective voice...march on...it's been done before and it has failed. The only time civil [all peoples] rights advanced was when there was solidarity amongst liberals.
Let me say again, as I have said so many times before, Obama is NOT liberal, no matter how many time the Republicans drill their talking point in to you. Obama is Bush's third term.
I'm sorry, but
I think you really have no idea what I'm talking about.
You are also 100% (laughably) wrong both on my political leanings, and on the history of women's rights in this country. I am a flaming liberal and a Hillary supporter. I know very, very well that Obama is not a liberal. I have said it myself, oh, about a quadrillion times. And if Obama's supporters aren't liberal, it's sure news to them. They are liberal misogynists. Guess what? There are a lot of them, as the passage of the Stupak Amendment clearly shows. And most "liberals," including Nancy Pelosi, voted for it.
So, you're 0 for three on the reality-based scale there.
As for a new Party and the ERA, it took a National Women's Party to get Votes for Women. It will probably take something similar to get the ERA passed.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Um, cutting them in half?
madamab's suggestion would allow men into the NWP as long as they truly believe in and would be willing to fight for/support equality. Is that the half you were talking about?
Are you saying that only half of the people who would be drawn to say, a new labor party, would be willing to put aside their misogyny and actually support women's equality?
If so, aren't you rather proving her point?
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Well, "belief" is not verifiable...
... which is why we have platforms!
For my part, "I'm not a feminist, but" as far as the NWP, I know (a) we've tried literally everything else, and now we're in a clusterfuck of massive proportions, and (b) a la the 30 percent solution concept, it makes sense to me that those who throw women under the bus first are going to do the same to the rest of us as soon as they can, so if we put women first, we all may get the stuff we really care about. Single payer, for example. The end of the empire. A sane banking system. And so forth. (Not an endorsement, per se -- see point (a), maybe something can be made of the greens.)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
we've tried literally
we've tried literally everything else, and now we're in a clusterfuck of massive proportions, and
and now let's let women clean up the mess!
thanks, dude.
Well, I wasn't saying I wouldn't help!
Was I?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
help. heh.
help implies leaving the heavy lifting to someone else. although you personally could probably be counted on more than most.
while i replied to you directly, it ultimately wasn't aimed at you [unless the shoe fits etc], it was more a comment about the framing you used.
we've tried everything else, let's let the women have a shot at it strikes me as an excellent illustration of how deeply ingrained in most people's heads is the view women are an adjunct to men, and a lesser-regarded alternative at that.
various rationalizations/rationales like feminism is humanism, women's rights are human rights, putting women first helps men, etc, while more likely to elicit help from men, all imply, at least on one level, that it's only worth allowing women to be full human beings if that helps non-women too.
women are full human beings. rights and power and full citizenship in the human race for women are about rights and power and full citizenship in the human race for women. end of sentence. end of paragraph. end of story.
there's not a lot of room in the collective american psyche for that thought.
Well, in fact, we DID try everything else...
... and WHY NOT let the women "take a shotMR SUBLIMINAL Calling Dr. Freud.... Whoops! at it," as you paraphrase me?
And as for "help," what would you have me say? "Sure, sweetie, I'll build the party on your behalf?" Or, "Sure, as long as my sex gets 1/2 the votes on the board plus bonus points for experience, because that's fair"? In fact, it's the person doing the helping that's the adjunct, which is, in fact, what I'm proposing.
And sure, I get to consider my own interests -- "what I really care about." Really, what would you rather have me say? "The NWP is against my interests, but I'm supporting it anyhow?"
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
yep, we did try everything else
and yes, by all means, let the women take a shot at it. i'd be happy to.
And sure, I get to consider my own interests
you can't work for somebody else's interests? purely to help further somebody else's interests?
"The NWP is against my interests, but I'm supporting it anyhow?"
just because something isn't directly [or even indirectly] helping your interests, doesn't automatically mean that it's actively hurting your interests.
Well, I'm doing just that, in fact
But if one is to form a party, "interest" does tend to be part of the equation, does it not?
To revise, "The NWP is a wash for me, but I'm supporting it anyhow." Fire in the belly? I'm assuming the justice of the cause and moving on to mechanics, here.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
how big a tent does a party have to be?
should our hypothetical nwp actively recruit men and adapt their party platform to accommodate some of the men's interests? or should they design their platform solely around women and accept any help/support of those [likely fewer] men whose fire in the belly is motivated only by a sense of justice?
which is better, a smaller, less-inclusive nwp that allies with other groups on some issues, health care for instance, or a larger party in which members must compromise on a platform before acting as a group?
i would argue that, philosophically at least, a womens party should be about womens issues and if some of those also helped other groups, fine and dandy. similarly, a party that wants to put heavy emphasis on womens equality and put more women in power, but also work on issues that may or may not impact women significantly should probably call itself the liberal party, or the human rights party, or ...
how many whites helped register black voters, march with blacks, share lunch counters with them, out of a sense of justice and how many did so out of self-interest? [i don't know the answer, just asking] and which motivation is more likely to get things done? [again, i don't know the answer]
Events, dear lady, events
1. On scale and scope, I don't know.
2. I would try to make the primary or centrality of "women's issues" (horrible, horrible stove-piping phrase) a question of method. For example, as I posted, sustainable agriculture (which I posted because I couldn't find the other post I ran across today saying that women grow 80% of the food and own 2% of the land). A pro-sustainable agriculture plank is good and benefits all. But having a benefit for all like sustainable agriculture as a consequence of making the role of women your analytical starting point? That's immense. Same deal with finance (less risk). Same with health (nurses). I bet the same would happen elsewhere -- especially if we looked seriously at economic rents. The frame or perhaps the promise needs to be not "if some of those also helped other groups, fine and dandy" but "necessarily helps other groups" when you look. (I was stunned to find that link on sustainable agriculture.) Also, the struggle of NWP will be harder than civil rights, not least because men will have to be brought to surrender so many illusions about what is important. (A vague thought crosses my mind that the strength of the gay movement was the p2p courage of coming out. There's no such equivalent for civil rights, no? Possibly there should be for NWP. Something neighborly, not a media stunt.)
3. As far as the comparison to the "helping" role of whites in the Civil Rights movement -- that history comes from before I was politically aware. So, FWIW... I think what is the same is that the ... inheritors of the earth (Matthew 5:5) need to lead, and not others. The difference -- and here I'll just say it, and no doubt will be corrected -- it seems to me that there were parallel, alternative black institutions that could be mobilized, and were a lot more rooted than organizations like NOW, for example (even if NOW was what we would hope it can be). So that the civil rights movement would be, as it were, more tree-like, and that the NWP would need to be more rhizomic, which to me implies reaching out to men (yet on the basis of method, see point 2).
As far as fire in the belly, justice, etc. My mantra is that politics is about both values and interests. Obama appealed to neither in me, and Hillary appealed to both (again, especially with respect to questions of method, the detail). Now, push the situation to the extreme, and values and interests merge: It's both good that people don't starve or die for lack of medical care, and in their interest and those of their neighbors that they not. I'd argue further that in the great social movements and tides they definitely merge and this could be one such time.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
the sustainable agriculture link is way cool
thanks for that.
so, mechanistically, you want a party that puts more women in power because they're more trustworthy when it comes to attaining your goals.
it's a good plan. you should probably design that party around your goals, then recruit -- and support -- women for your candidates. which will probably mean strongly, though not exclusively, supporting womens rights in your agenda/platform.
starting or joining an era/nwp party that's focused on expanding women's rights, power, influence and then subverting or leveraging that to attain your goals, goals that might affect women but don't necessarily advance their cause [in their eyes], is something you personally probably should not do then.
but my original reaction, on the pervasiveness of women as auxiliary beings, remains unchanged.
and just so you know, i've never liked the events, dear ______, events construction, even if it is a famous quote, and no matter what you fill in the blank with. it's condescending.
Er, no
Did I, or did I not, say "good for all."
You write:
And I wrote, and if you reread, you will find that I wrote, that the approach I quote from you "necessarily" (food, health, finance, other examples, probably rents) leads to "good for all." I don't know what that has to do with "leveraging," let alone subverting, unless the proposition is that I never get to consider my interests at all (and I note no response to you on that).
Listen, if you want me to STFU
on the NWP, be direct and say the word. What I heard was a question ("how big a tent does a party have to be?") and an invitation to converse, and I answered. You're aware that "I would" is the conditional? And that it doesn't mean the same thing as "You should"?
NOTE "Mechanics" (getting stuff done) is not the same as "mechanistic." Yes?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
no, i don't want you to stfu on anything
but if i eventually raise your consciousness [or that of your readers] some more about the perceptions of women and their place in society, i'll consider it serendipitous. think of it as a gratuitous analytical tool that arose out of the more immediate discussion on process.
You'll have better luck on the serendipity...
... if you don't distort what I write:
Is not what I said. Show me where I did.
And I'm not in the business of designing any party, let alone the NWP. As a "helper," I could not be, eh?
After midnight. Good night!
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
if we put women first, we all
if we put women first, we all may get the stuff we really care about.
what happens if you put women first, but then you [non-women] don't get the stuff you care about?
Won't happen
Finance, health, food, the empire. Putting women first brings good policy, for all, in each one of those sectors, and the case isn't hard to make in each sector. (I mean, that agriculture link took maybe 30 seconds to find, it's fantastic, and it's so damn obvious once you think about it. As a seasoned researcher, that, to me, is a "tell.") Yes, I'm taking the "good policy is good politics" stance, but I believe that.
So put positive policy outcomes, each of which should lead to material benefits for all from each sector, on the positive side of the ledger, and it's pretty hard to see what goes on the negative side* to outweigh it. (Climate is of the right scale, but I can't see a case made there.) QED.
Let me turn it around. What scenario are you envisaging, here?
NOTE * Stuff that has to do with us men thinking with our dicks, I would imagine. Well, I think we [men] could all display a little adaptability in that regard.
UPDATE From any standpoint except that of Versailles
and the very, very rich, many more can now see that the system we have is broken, irredeemably. Justice, lethality, common decency, name it. The role of the Dems and "progressives" in the health care "debate" (on to "entitlements reform"!) couldn't show that more clearly. So, one casts about for alternatives. I like the mobilizations, I like some things about the greens, but the NWP + ERA seems like it has the right scale and depth to cope. Plus, you might call ERA one of the first victims of the conservative ascendancy. So, it would be fitting to unravel the conservative ascendancy with the ERA.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
take a shot at it
brings to mind this photo [although i liked the previous one better].
I stand corrected
You're right, beliefs aren't verifiable. I should have said proven through actions or something.
I'd really like to know the names of the '41', and although I absolutely do not want to see the Stupak amendment come out of reconciliation, I almost hope it does so we can know who really is willing to stand up against it.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Equal rights is about Equal rights
"Are you saying that only half of the people who would be drawn to say, a new labor party, would be willing to put aside their misogyny and actually support women's equality?" - Valhalla
No I am not, I am saying:
"Equal rights is about Equal rights, not about "expressly put[ting] women first".
When you say "expressly put[ting] women first" you are going to lose a lot people don't/won't buy into [I]dentity politics and that a "Womens first" party would be an easy target for an astroturf'd "liberal party" to smother.
Women's rights is what this post is about.
It is so hilarious to me that men keep coming in here to tell Valhalla, the author of the post, the subject of which is women's rights, that she shouldn't be focusing on women's rights.
Would you, S Brennan, come into a post promoting civil rights for AAs, and start insisting that AA rights shouldn't be first?
Please try to think about that before you respond.
Yes, it is EXACTLY the same thing.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Well, it's up to Valhalla to say what the subject of her post is
... but that said, when I read "Yes. We are ready to go there," I think that the nature of "there" is up for discussion, as well as the means of getting "there", which is what S. Brennan is discussing, agree or disagree.
Especially when "there" is a party. (In other words, madameab, I think you're wrong on your reading of the subject of the post, as well.)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well Valhalla says her post is about
two things:
1) recognizing that the current iteration of the Democratic Party is never going to not negotiate away our rights with barely a nod in our direction that they're doing so. Women's equality (I said this a million times during the primaries) is a tool for "progressives" and the FKDP
to be used when convenient, and tossed overboard when not. Or, as Harding put it: "Face it: the Democratic Party is not for Women."
2) in recognition of 1), what to do about it? Now I agree with Violet and Harding that the time has come to "go there." In this particular context, that means opposing this bill as long as it has the Stupak amendment in it. In a broader context (because this is certainly not the first and won't be the last time New Democrats/FKDPs/"progressives" ask women to please move to the back of the line while they take care of the really important things), it is willingness to refuse to allow an erosion of the rights we have won by saying "no" whenever we're asked to let the Big Boys trash our rights. We have tried everything else, and it hasn't worked.
Now, how we "go there", could be in a variety of ways. At this moment, it seems to rest on the willingness of 41 legislators' promises to vote against the bill as long as the Stupak amendment is in it, and opposition by NOW, Planned Parenthood and (possibly) Fund for a Feminist Majority. A NWP is a more constructive option for going forward.
Not to speak for Madamab, but SBrennan has misconstrued her point. Nothing in her posts asserts a "me first"-ism. Her point is not that women should get "extra" rights, or more rights, or that gay people or minorities or working class people should have less rights. Her point is that she wants women to be equal. The same as. On par with.
Given that it her goal (and I shouldn't do this but I freakin' dare anyone to argue legitimately that it is not a valid goal) then why should she become part of a party, any party, which does not have that as a goal? Not just as a stated goal in some crap platform document, conveniently forgotten when the time comes to take a stand, but an actual goal?
Historically, no party or movement has put women's equality on the same footing as other rights sought, even though women have done much of the dogs' work for them. Labor has traditionally been pretty bad in this regard (but no worse than Republicans, Democrats, Communists, the Civil Rights movement, etc.). Her point is, I believe (and agree with this), a practical one: we've fallen "don't worry honey, it'll be your turn next!" too many times. It makes no sense to fall for it again.
Women have demonstrated time and again that they know perfectly well how to support campaigns for others' rights. Single payer is a case in point. But other parties have not demonstrated the reverse. There's every reason to think that a NWP could and would be the real rising tide that floats all the boats. Women are 51% of the population, after all. Most of the things that benefit them, benefit everyone. Certainly a much higher percentage of the things that benefit women benefit others than the percentage of things which benefit the current iteration of the Democratic Party benefit others.
Or, as Lambert said much more concisely, "if we put women first, we all may get the stuff we really care about."
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
Just a concise qualification
"(as long as we guys don't think with our dicks)."
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Lambert, you're a radical feminist after all!
I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Really, turn off your sarcasm detector. There ain't none thar.
The Democrats: a roach motel for progressive energies
- VastLeft
Let's be concrete
Here's the text of the ERA:
Would you modify Section 1? Say, to "sex or income"? [I'd say "class," but income is proxy...]
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
no
Would you modify Section 1?
sasq
Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions?
nt
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
i was thinking 'simple'
rather than 'snappy'. i did consider casq, for 'concrete answers ...'
So, now that we've got the acronym cleared up...
... care to expand on your analysis?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I agree with Hipparchia.
The ERA is perfect. Why is it not enough, I ask again, to simply address women's equality?
I do think the ERA will also make same-sex marriage Constitutional, because prohibiting same-sex marriage can be construed as discrimination on the basis of sex (and I'm sure the ACLU would do so). But that would be a fortunate side effect of the ERA as written.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
I think, on reflection...
... and after working through this thread, that it is (perfect). "First things first."
And I'm all for taking advantage of fortunate side effects, and pointing them out. If that means I'm considering interests as well as values, so be it.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I love this article about Coretta
Scott King: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'
I seem to have touched off quite the discussion.
Which was not exactly what I had anticipated, but I'm glad to see it.
Regarding S Brennan's concern, I do believe much of the worry about any 'exclusionist' tendencies of a National Women's Party could be alleviated by taking madamab's suggestion and allowing men to participate visibly in the party. This would actually have the effect of drawing more women to the party in addition to men, because it would remove the taint of 'radical' feminism that would, however wrongly, be attributed to this party.
Moreover, it would also allow the issues the Women's Party stands for, like Medicare For All, to attain some prominence. We could argue, as Valhalla does, that electing women would allow us to advance on multiple issues that have stalled for a long time between the two main parties.
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
Sweet Jeebus, here's another one
Sustainable agriculture.
Amazing what you see when you start looking [slaps forehead].
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi