Democratic Women's Insurrection Forum

Take a little trip down Rorshach lane with me.

pussy
single issue voter
destroying the party
rare
NARAL
39% female

I seriously think we have a gender problem here at dKos, but I also see a way we can solve it.  What I've felt is that the party movers, in an effort to attract more white males, are disregarding the needs, rights  and efforts of Democratic women.  I'm here to ring the buzzer on that one, but I also see a need for women to be more organized and forthright about what we expect from our party.

So I think it is time the women here group, discuss and articulate the issues of greatest importance to us. So come on down.  We have work to do.

Now before we start: this is not the place to say that women's issues are single-issues and we should valiantly stand aside for the good of the party.  This is not meant to exclude men, but I would like to keep the issues focused on policy for women.  I also recognize the strong link between women's rights and gay rights.

 I spent the last week pondering these, and I asked for the thoughts of several more women. So as we see it, here are some of the major issues for women.

1.  Time.  Every woman I know is overwhelmed with responsibilities and is stretched almost to the breaking point.  The traditional solutions are family and medical leave and equal pay.  Absolutely.  But one intriguing solution came up in discussion: stronger communities.  Libraries, schools and parks within walking distance.  Safe after-school programs.  Less mall sprawl and more new urbanism.  Safe streets and more parks so the kids can run and play.  Less of a need to drive and consume.

2.  Respect.    I want to hear a politician say this when asked about reproductive rights:

"Are you asking me if I think adult women are incapable of making moral decisions?  I don't know about you, but I have the utmost respect for the women in my life and I wouldn't presume to make private decisions for them."  

We need to think about whether we want a society where the worst thing we can do to a man is compare him to a woman.  Democrats need to strongly come out for respecting the intelligence and contributions of women.  I remember reading a review of Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape, which stated that he discussed women only in the obligitory sex chapter.  Let's not make the same mistake.  

3.  Security.  No, I'm not speaking of the infamous, cringing security moms who hid behind Bush this last election.  I'm talking real security for us and our loved ones:  financial security for our children vs. this staggering debt, the security of sound diplomatic policy, ecological security of clean air and water, medical security of safe, financially feasible healthcare.  We want a strong infrastructure- safe bridges and full libraries.  

I'm hoping to use this as a springboard to a clearer women's platform, so please add your thoughts, issues and framing.  There are several issues I did not discuss; please do not take that as deliberately degrading your issue.  They are all important and this is the time to speak.  

•  So where do we go from here?

  tips or flame- just talk!

  by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

•  Of all the issues you've raised

  I think security, in the way that you've defined it, can be the umbrella for all of the rest.

  Respect is important as I think women are pretty much taken for granted, by both major parties when it comes to designing platforms and/or talking points...

  All of these issues are shared by men to varying degrees and I do think that men's input is essential.

  Getting more women candidates to run is going to have to be the first step in achieving proportional representation (something I would dearly like to see, but doubt it will ahppen in my lifetime....)

  Thanks for posting!

  by deepintheheartoftx on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:52:56 AM PDT

  •  Good points

    and thanks for responding.  I was envisioning  the Zen question "If Sandblaster posts a diary and no one reads it, is she really doing any good at all?"

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:56:50 AM PDT

•  Beautifully said

  I salute you.
  One problem women have is that we tend to be those who want harmony in life and aren't willing to give that up to get what we deserve.  I have said several times there should be a woman's party, not to destroy or replace the democratic party, but to give us an alternative to voting either democratic or republican when those parties become scornful of our needs and opinions.

  by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 07:59:05 AM PDT

  •  Thanks

    I've been enjoying your posts as well.

     It just seemed to me that things kept spiraling downwards even here at dKos, and the political equivalent of a women's union would be useful.

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

  •  Women's party

    There's been a very active women's party. The NWP and also the WWP (World Women's Party) of which Alice Paul was very involved and founded (WWP).

    I've been in meetings of some labor folks who wanted to start a Labor Party and loads of well meaning women who wanted to kick start the women's party.  But in the end, I'm a Dem and a Dem I will be.

    To create a new party as an "alternative" is a step to destroying the party.  I agree with few women Republicans on child care, health care, guns or even things as mundane as road maintenance (which should be a PUBLIC endeavor).  A strong women's party as an "alternative" wouldn't draw enough women in to be anything more than a stripping of votes from Dems.

    by Bendygirl on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:55:28 AM PDT

•  Taxation without representation

  I've been feeling this way for so long I can't remember. Well, actually I do. During vietnam, when I was 15 years old, I remember being horrified that my brother was going to be taken off to war by a bunch of old white guys in suits. Here it is umpty million years later, and who rules? Old white guys in suits. (Or younger versions of them). I seriously believe that until the congress is composed of 51% women, we are without representation. Boxer and Pelosi are great, but they are offset by people like Wilson, who is essentially an old white guy in a suit.

  We need more real women in government.

  by jancw on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:04:12 AM PDT

  •  Yes!

    Political representation is something we really have to work on.  I can't tell you how depressed I get when I wake up to new diaries promoting one white guy or another who won't discuss issues of importance to women, saying they are hot-button or side issues.

    I've written to Casey asking for his stance- no response.  This morning Erat posted 2 diaries promoting Warner- but did not respond to any questions on Warner's stance of women's issues.

    I think this dismissive silence is the most disturbing thing I've felt in a long time.

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:09:35 AM PDT

    •  Worse than the dismissive silence

      are the abusive letters I get back from Wilson. She takes this "holier than thou" stance, and actually says things like "Well, I see you didn't write to me about Clinton's bombing of Kosovo, so I assume this is a partisan problem on your end." Hell, I didn't even live in her district during Clinton.

      Bingamin always replies thoughtfully. Dominici is the example of what I hate the most. No reply. It's like we don't exist.

      I am so sick of old white guys in suits.

      by jancw on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:15:37 AM PDT

    •  Mark Warner...

      is very pro-choice as pro-choice as you can be. If you want to know about his positions on the issues I suggest that you just check out his website.

      One thing that I would point out is that not all women agree on the issues. Platnum Page posted a diary last week that included a poll that showed that a higher percentage of men were pro-choice than women.

      Here is the Republican candidate for Secretary of State in Kansas. Do you share her views?

      Conservative State Senator Kay O'Connor (R) on Wednesday announced her candidacy for Secretary of State. Incumbent Ron Thornburgh (R) has yet to announce his plans for 2006, although he is mentioned as a possible candidate for Governor.

      O'Connor made national headlines in 2001 when she criticized the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gave women the right to vote. "I think the 19th Amendment, while it's not an evil in and of itself, is a symptom of something I don't approve of ... I believe the man should be the head of the family. The woman should be the heart of the family," said O'Connor four years ago.

      http://www.politics1.com/
      

      by RichardG on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:01:29 AM PDT

      •  I always enjoy your posts

        but our viewpoints are off just enough that I like them in a Picasso-esque sort of way.

        I did look on Warner websites put up by the draft groups, but now I'll go directly to the source and check it out.  Thanks.  Also, I do post below that women do not come manufactured to the same specs.  I'll catch you down there.

        Now as for the Kansas woman running- this is where the perspective distortion comes in.  This is a forum for women's ISSUES, noy Emily's list.  Funny story, though.  But it belongs more in a diary on republican delsusions than here.

        Nice to see you here.

        by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:31:31 AM PDT

      •  Warner

        I love Warner. He is indeed pro-choice, although I don't think its quite fair to say he's as pro-choice as can be.  Perhaps it would be better to say he's as pro-choice as can be in Virginia.

        Basically, Warner doesn't have much of a choice in the matter if the Gen. Assembly has the votes to override him, but he's been very effective at getting the Gen. Assembly to water down legislation that he'll then approve rather than have the even worse legislation vetoed then overrided. (He did this with the gay marriage ban by signing it only if private companies could make their own policies, etc.)

        by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:34:51 AM PDT

    •  You wrote and had no response?

      Try again.

      I'm also all for writing the rep and sending a cc to the local paper. that usually gets their attention.

      by Bendygirl on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:05:54 AM PDT

    •  I wanted Hafer but......

      The old white guys in suits decided that Casey would be the better choice against Rubber-Stamp Rick.  We need to get more women interested in running for office, and soon!

      You'll probably have to wait until this fall for a response from Casey, they're lying low this summer.  They're letting little Ricky continue to put his foot in his mouth for a while longer before they start to gear up Casey's campaign.  Try again in September.

      by Mz Kleen on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 10:48:47 AM PDT

  •  unfortunately, you don't need

    to be an angry white guy to be part of the angry white guy backlash. (for those of you reading who are white guys but the shoe doesn't fit...well then please don't try to put it on Cinderella.

    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:11:17 AM PDT

•  I somewhat disagree

  Listen, I'm sold on women's groups.  If Emily's List tells me to do it, then I'll do it.  However, I also think that a lot of the criticism of women's groups have been a long time coming and are somewhat deserved.

  Women's groups have a tendancy to present a like it or leave it message that is really off-putting to some people. Its not just about attracting white males.  Its about attracting women who might not be as comfortable with the word pussy or even the idea of abortions as others.  Its about attracting people who don't think there should be any sort of litmus test required to be a democrat. There are pro-business Dems that labor and environmentalists deal with. Why is being pro-life so much worse?

  And if the rest of women's platforms haven't been heard, why do you think that is?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that women's groups themselves always start and end every conversation with abortion, adorn their stickers with it, and only mention the rest as, well, an afterthought once they've already dragged you in with the abortion hook-line?

  I agree with women's groups on most issues. I just think that the all or nothing attitude and "f--- all y'all" rhetoric is terrible for the party and doesn't really create results. And Democrats don't especially like being told by ANYONE that you're either with us or against us, which is a lot of the message that comes across from these groups, even if that's not entirely fair to their organizations.

  by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:07:33 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad you're here, then

    I'm trying to get a sense of what issues we should focus on, and how we should frame them.  

    So tell us what you want to say.  Where should we go from here?  

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:15:14 AM PDT

  •  I will never support legislation

    that forces you to have an abortion if you don't feel comfortable with the idea.

    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:17:05 AM PDT

  •  Are you saying...

    women's groups are "shrill," "angry," "strident?" How predictable. You may have noticed that the Bush Administration, which is completely uncompromising ("If you're not with us...") seems to resonate with people. God, I am so sick of hearing about how women who dare to be as forthright as men are quickly labeled "hysterical."

    by Recordkeeper on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:20:33 AM PDT

    •  Listen

      I called women's groups netiher "shrill", "angry", or "strident".  The only thing I called them was uncompromising and yes, a bit confrontational. I mean, hell, you basically just accused me of being a dreaded white male. I just don't think any of that language or way of dealing with women's issues is at all constructive, even if it can rally the base.

      by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:40:36 AM PDT

      •  I calls 'em...

        as I sees 'em. And, I have to tell you I really am sick of hearing any woman or group of women, fighting for the rights of women, as wrong for being uncompromising. It's not the job of an advocacy group to be compromising. It's their job to put the issue forward, assertively. It's the job of congress to compromise, when every angle has been tried.

        This is the bigger issue Democrats, too, and a lot of why they are failing as a party. They rush to compromise, before they've even faced real conflict. Republicans don't. And they need to face an equal, opposite force -- a rallied base, if you will.

        by Recordkeeper on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:54:31 AM PDT

        •  It IS, however,

          The job of an advocacy group to effectively relay its message, which I don't think women's groups are doing right now, in part by being uncompromising. If you alienate 4 people for every 1 you win, and that's assuming you win over a lot more people than you do with rhetoric like that, then you're still doing a lousy job with your message.

          Rallying the base means getting people who are soft supporters of what you believe in to become hard supporters. Women's groups target audience is other women who might have once said, "I'm not a feminist, but..." and you're not going to get through to them by calling them doormats or prostitutes.

          by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:12:10 AM PDT

          •  Who have I called a doormat or prostitute?

            That's just cheap. You've taken a quote from my signature line, and inverted its meaning to make your case. I've read your comments throughout this thread and you rely on the same kind of inductive reasoning throughout. You do what the wingnuts, like Limbagh do. You take extreme examples of individual women who happen to identify as feminists, and claim that this is the problem of women's groups. So feminist groups should spend their time micromanaging the t-shirts, sexual expression, and language of individual feminists, to clean up their message. I don't go in for such thought policing. I think it is far more important to spend our time, as the author of this diary has suggested, coming up with over-arching messages, to reach the people we want to reach. Picking at scabs is not constructive and it will not heal the body politic.

            by Recordkeeper on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:45:24 AM PDT

      •  Hey! No free griping!

        I understand that you have some issues with how women's groups have been run in the past.  Fine.  But I didn't write this diary as a cannibalistic gripefest.  

        Time to pony up on some positive ideas and actions.

        by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:03:19 AM PDT

      •  community

        I agree Virginiabelle.  But instead of looking at the negatives, let's build on the one thing most women agree with...community.

        Rebuilding our communities so that we can have a school fair.  That bake sales can be real bake sales, not store bought items (this was a problem when I lived in Minnesota).  I want to know my neighbors and for them to KNOW me.

        I want my daughter to be able to walk three blocks to the corner grocery for a carton of milk without me being terrified she won't come home.

        As a single mom, I'd like to see child care providers at EVERY DEMOCRAT meeting.  THer's no reason I should have to choose between being active in politics and being a mom.

        We should encourage each other to canvass with our daughters.

        We should TAKE BACK take Your Daughter's to Work Day.  I want my daughter to know that women work for a living the same as any man and that we have to work twice as hard to get half as far, but when she comes up, it will be better because she'll have seen it first hand by going to work with me.

        by Bendygirl on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          I also think it would be great if we somehow found a way to reconcile women who feel very strongly about having a career with women who feel strongly about staying home, because I hate it when I hear women talk about other women who stay home as taking the "easy route".

          by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

          •  Here's how to reconcile women

            who work outside the home and women who stay home with their kids: Families should make their own choices about child care. Doesn't everyone agree on that?

            Whether a mom stays at home or is in the paid labor force, she should have the support she needs to do what's best for her family. Most moms who take one route will at another point in their lives take the other route. It's not a one-time choice, but rather a balancing act that is constantly being struck. And it's not just important for moms but for dads, too.

            by skeptigal on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:28:27 AM PDT

            •  Single moms

              Don't have any choice.  I have to work.  I do feel a little twinge of jealousy at my stay at home mom friends and those who can work part time.  I'd love to stay home with my daughter and volunteer all of my available time doing really amazing things at the school, on the street int he Capital.  This just isn't a possibility for me and millions like me.

              Sometimes, I feel it's single moms who really get left out of these discussions.

              by Bendygirl on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:37:23 AM PDT

              •  Too true n/t

                by skeptigal on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 11:55:52 AM PDT

      •  VG (she said very gently)

        We have been fighting for equality for over 100 years.  When do we get to be confrontational?

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:15:52 AM PDT

        •  Now, only

          When you're in a room of enemies, not a room of friends.
          I don't think we can't take on issues. I just think you can better convince people if you take the time to figure out why they're not already convinced.

          by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:22:36 AM PDT

    •  Like the ALA? <nt>

      by kredwyn on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:45:25 AM PDT

  •  The backlash against feminism is deep

    I can't tell you how many people I have spoken to  who claim not to be a feminist, but....  It's a lot like those folks who say they are conservatives, but....

    People who back away from the word feminist need to understand that we must honor those women who fought so hard, who did so much, who took the abuse, to win us steps towards equality.

    by jancw on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:22:16 AM PDT

    •  Don't back away

      from the word feminist, but back away from the idea that the only women who count are women who are 100% comfortable with lines like "the only bush I trust is my own".  The fact is that I think the real problem facing women's groups isn't so much that men are alienating it so much as other women are. I think you're right about the "I'm not a feminist, but..." I think the way you fix that is to ask, well, what is it that we're doing that makes women who believe what we believe in uncomfortable associating with us?

      I think the result would be that most women want legalized choice, equal pay, and respect.  However, they don't all want to embrace the word bitch as a matter of pride or be open about vibrators. I think that if there was a bit of distance between the moderate feminist and the hard-core, the groups in general would be a lot more effective.

      by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:56:23 AM PDT

      •  Interesting points

        * However, they don't all want to embrace the word bitch as a matter of pride or be open about vibrators. I think that if there was a bit of distance between the moderate feminist and the hard-core, the groups in general would be a lot more effective.*

        I am as hard core a feminist as there is, and I don't like, in fact I will argue with, the people who use the word bitch.... and I have no desire to be open about vibrators or to examine my vagina in a mirror.

        So we agree on something.  I am glad.

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:19:21 AM PDT

        •  As am I

          by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:28:06 AM PDT

•  I've a time crunch

  and need to get to work. I hope this diary gets recommended by enough folks to be still up when I get back home.
  The topic and conclusions that we have a gender problem here at DKos (and within the Democratic party) is one I've been trying to make here for...well, years.

  I've no doubt that if the diary does hit the recommended list there will be many insulting and denigrating comments along the lines of 'what you women complaining about' and to these folks I cite yesterdays WEF report of the status of women worldwide and in which the US performance is abysmal. I especially  ask the anti-feminist 'special' women to recognise that just because they're doing OK it does not mean that most women are and to, however briefly, consider that we might have a point or two to communicate.
  Thanks sandblaster
  

  by colleen on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:08:17 AM PDT

•  respect

  I tend to believe that all rights and benefits spring from true respect. If women are really respected (and you could substitute gays, people of colour, or any other group) then the other problems just don't exist.

  If women are respected for their role in the family, then childcare, maternity leave etc becomes a given.

  If women are respected for their role in society, then there would be more women in government.

  If women are respected as people, then violence and sexual violence towards women would fall.

  If women are respected as people, then they would be  seen as being able to make decisions about their own bodies.

  by boudicca on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:14:05 AM PDT

  •  Bingo.

    Excellent framing- more so because it is the simple truth.

    If I do a follow up diary, may I use your words?

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:21:01 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      >>If I do a follow up diary, may I use your words?

      I thought I'd replied to this comment - but it appeared at the end of the thread (just call me cybertard)
      anyway - yes, please do, I would be honoured

      by boudicca on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

•  Needs of mothers!!!

  This is an area where women are overlooked by every group. Conservatives lionize and exploit mothers as symbols.  Feminists, by and large, do not want to address the needs of mothers because it seems to interfere with the notion that women don't need any special consideration, in the workplace. I think a lot of women's issues need to be reframed to include mothers and co-opt some of the "mothers in the fatherland" mojo the Right seems to have borrowed from the Nazis. The issue of choice could be reframed to constantly address the needs of single and working mothers that make abortion unavoidable, in so many instances.

  Other issues that affect mothers:
  

  • Childcare
    
  • Child Support/Deadbeat Dads
    
  • Parental Leave
    
  • Health Care!!!

  You've addressed a lot of these in your diary. What I'm talking about is a frame. Put mothers front and center in the issues that affect us. It's so easy to for wingnuts to take shots at abortion and other feminist issues. Mothers are not such an easy target. And, somebody, somewhere, has got to begin to take the needs of mothers seriously, instead of endlessly relying on us to the "Angels in the House."

  by Recordkeeper on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:15:28 AM PDT

  •  We really do need to take back the mom frame

    Statistically we have more stable families, want better schools....  I'm amazed that the Democratic party spends more time chasing after the religious right then just telling republican women how Democrats support so many issues of importance to them!

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:23:16 AM PDT

  •  Here's a proposition

    I'll stand in front of the issues that wing nuts take pot shots at such as abortion.  They can take pot shots at me, I don't care.  The rest of you get busy fixing the other stuff and when the revolution is over we laugh our butts off at them taking pot shots at the feminists...... while all along the other feminists were rearranging the political furniture.

    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:26:00 AM PDT

    •  I have a bottle of wine

      waiting for you in Colorado.

      So let's do it.  For one thing I think we need to have a diary on women's issues up every day for a while- mostly so no one thinks we've delt with our hormonal surge and gone away.

      Sign up below if you want to play diary tag.  

      by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:28:51 AM PDT

      •  I'm there!

        I won't be able to do more than one every other week or so (if they are to be of quality -- don't want to have a recommended diary on the front page called: Are Dkos Women getting Stupid? or anything </snark>)

        Should we have a place where we brainstorm together about topics?

        by deepintheheartoftx on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:05:44 AM PDT

        •  I'd be willing to diary

          Although generally I'm pretty awkward at articulating exactly how I'm personally disadvantaged as woman. So, some topics to pull from would be a good idea.

          by common veil on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:27:20 AM PDT

          •  Super!

            Just got your message.

            by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:52:24 AM PDT

        •  Good idea

          Write to me at [e-mail].  I'll compile everything and send out a mailing tonight.  

          Glad to have everyone aboard!
          

          by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:36:13 AM PDT

      •  Hey sandblaster

        I'll play tag!  I'd hate anyone to make the mistake of thinking our hormonal surge was a once a month thing.  And one day I will get to Co and we will drink that wine.

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:25:13 AM PDT

        •  Yay!

          Write me at the address above!  Organization is good.

          by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:37:55 AM PDT

  •  This is where I land

    My own experiences in motherhood (first step-, now the "from scratch" variety) have so profoundly deepened my feminism, I can hardly begin to put it into words.  And yet I look around political discourse and it's all stuck in June Cleaver vs. Scary Hillary mode.  No political discourse on or around women's issues is getting at the heart of what I see mothers, kids, families, and neighborhoods needing -- sorely lacking, too often -- to thrive.  

    I voted for "financial parity" on the poll above, because I think women earning pay commensurate with the value of their work is the key to all the rest of it:  real respect, real security, real choices (not parenting-magazine mommy wars).  When I think "financial parity," it goes way beyond the simple yet still-unachieved concept of a woman being paid as much as a man for the same job.  I think of wild and crazy things, like paid maternity leaves that are AT LEAST 12 months long.  Or paying women to produce breast milk.  

    In development work on maternal and child health, it's sort of a dictum that to improve life for the babies, you start by taking care of the mothers.  Give the moms what they need to be healthy and safe, and they'll manage just fine for the most part to care for their children.  This concept applies just as powerfully to our own societies, in my opinion.  Except instead of talking about running water and malnutrition, we need to talk about health insurance and affordable housing.  Design a society in which choosing motherhood is not personally irrational, and life will improve for everyone, including the women who choose not to have children.  

    by songbh on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:13:39 AM PDT

•  What does this Mean?

  You wrote:

  This is not meant to exclude men, but I would like to keep the issues focused on policy for women.

  What is "policy for women?" That is not intended to be snarky.  It is an honest, heartfelt question.

  Women are not all the same.  We have many issues in common, but the respective priorities that individual issues have in women's lives differ because we are different.  We simply do not have the same life experiences as women.

  I've caught just as much hell in this life for being Black as for being a woman.  If not more.  They are not separate experiences of hell.  To the contrary, as far as I can tell, the hell I catch is because I am a "Black woman", two distinct political and physical identities blended to create a unique identity and a unique experience of the world.  Not just a woman.  Not just Black.  But both, facing life having to handle the baggage that the particular stereotypes of each identity brings to the table, and the unique synergy that each dimension of oppression creates, working together.  We used to call it the experience of living life "in the intersection".  Neither of these two core "identities" (race and gender) can be neatly separated for the purposes of political discussion.  Not in my experience.  (I won't even talk about what happens when we toss the fact that I am a polyamorous married bisexual who lives a monogamous life into the mix - it just gets too damned ugly to contemplate.)

  How does this play out? Well, for many Black women, any political strategy that rejects the equal importance of solving "men's problems" (and not just the problem of sexism) as a way to benefit women is one that we will sign onto only with some reservations.  We cannot avoid the reality that our children, our families, and our experiences as women are dramatically affected by the experiences of men of color.  Therefore, our politics can't pretend that the need to solve their problems is something that can be handled "separately."  It can't.  Men not only understand our oppression, they share in it and their oppression affects women of color's experience of oppression.  Any dialogue that insists on keeping men "outside" in terms of the analysis inherently rejects the political needs of and life experience of women of color. It ends up too often subscribing to political tactics and arguments that may make perfect sense for those who live outside the intersection of gender and race, but often fail those within it.

  Let me tell you why this matters so much to me.  About 15 years ago now, I worked with a number of women of color at law school (and an honorary WOC, a pretty cool nebbish white guy who actually grokked what we were trying to do, and happily let us use and abuse his inherent power as a white man with money to gain access to funding) to hold a Women of Color in the Law Conference.  Besides it being a wonderful conference, in which we had more feminist nonlawyers than lawyers talking about policy issues and educating us lawyers in training, the conference was nonetheless a painful experience in one particular way.  Specifically, what we discovered was that the unique status of being a woman of color -- and the validity of a political perspective that reflects our lives in the intersection of race and gender in the US -- was viewed with angry suspicion by the majority of progressive white women who attended school with us.  The women who had been our friends and sisters and attended the same feminist law classes and said they understood us -- until we insisted on putting our unique identity at the center of a discussion about legal and political issues.  They simply refused to acknowledge that our priorities, our sense of what needed to be handled first, or how it needed to be handled, did not completely line up with theirs.  It actually ended up with some of them creating a "white woman's forum about race" within our conference, ad hoc.  But it was not a forum where the discussion was about their racism, it ended up being a whinge session about why it was that women of color "couldn't see" their viewpoint.  It was them using "our" forum to talk about "their" "rejection" (as they saw it) by "us", because we had chosen to have speakers that were only women of color.  Now of course this conference was designed to have a productive policy and legal dialogue about the unique impact of the law on women of color as residents "in the center" of legal and policy analysis.  Yet it was clear that our white sisters simply couldn't handle that and attend a conference that was just about "us".  And I am speaking the truth when I tell you that within that group of women (and our honorary WOC) that had worked so hard to put on this conference, most of us were left brokenhearted and deeply offended by the experience.  

  So again, I'm not trying to be snarky or argumentative.  And I may have quite badly said what I am trying to say.  But it's important, I think, if you're serious about trying to create a "women's insurrection forum."  Because on the larger question of empowerment and equality for women, I'm right there with you, trying to fight the good fight.  It's just that it is not my only fight, and I cannot genuinely say that it is any more important a fight than the other one I have to fight every day.

  by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:27:20 AM PDT

  •  Wow- you type far faster than I can

    so hold on while I catch up.

    1.  Of course women are not all from the same mold.  Neither are men.  I'm a 6 foot tall feminist who is homeschooling.  No one fits in a single box.  That said, as a group we are politically underrepresented and many of our issues- respect based mostly- are being dismissed.

    So in a nutshell, that's why I think we need to get together and come up with a clear message that addresses these issues.  Not to the exclusion of others, certainly, but still very important.

    So tell me where you want to go and what is important to you.  Let's come up with our vision and do what it takes to get there.

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:37:35 AM PDT

    •  Where I Want to Go

      I don't know the right answer but I do know the right path, for me:

      It's down the Womanist Path.

      (With my profound gratitude to Alice Walker).

      http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_039700_womanism.htm

      by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:05:38 AM PDT

  •  It's not my only fight either

    and it doesn't matter to me if you also agree with me on my other "fights".  Believe me, a few put me in a distinct minority.
    But I am not going to bring those arguments into this thread because they would be disruptive and I wouldn't expect most people here to agree with me.

    I am not saying that is what you are doing.

    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:03:51 AM PDT

    •  Your Post

      Impliedly assumes that the issue I raised is about some "other fight", and therefore anyone who brings in some "other fight" might disrupt the thread.

      That you would even discuss the concept "other" in response to what I said leaves me feeling that you have completely, utterly, missed the point.  Unfortunately, given my life experiences, that does not suprise me.  Just depresses me.

      (P.S. I find your references to potential "disruption" because of "other" in response to what I said to be passive aggressive.  Please don't.)

      by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:10:05 AM PDT

      •  and you are making a lot

        of assumptions and fi I wanted to be snarky and mean I could say to you that, that doesn't surprise me either.

        I can't answer for those women who you had a bad experience with.  If you started a forum or a thread to discuss what ever other issues you have (I am not assuming I know what your issues are..maybe you are not pro-choice, I have no idea) I would do my best to have your back, if you are talking about race, which has always been an important issue to me (from my limited ability to experience or understand as a white woman).

        Can't we agree to agree on issues of gender? This is  several times now that you have come on a thread about woman's issues and said that you feel a division with those of us who do not share your ethnicity. Well no shit?  I don't want to speak for you.  

        I feel a great deal of division with other feminists on several issues. We don't speak in unison on all things...so what?

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:44:47 AM PDT

        •  I'm Replying to What you Wrote

          And nothing more.

          Let me say this as simply as I can:  In your world view, it is possible, and seemingly desireable, to discuss race and gender as separate issues.  The reason I conclude this is that you referred to "other" in this thread about women.  I'm saying to you, as gently as I can, that this is a false division that is only possible in someone who doesn't actually have to live in the intersection that gender creates with some other core identity, such as race.  

          So no, we can't automatically agree on "issues of gender" in the way that I think you mean, which is gender as an identity separate from the "other" you have impliedly claimed is "disruptive" to discuss in a thread about "women".  Because for women of color, "issues of gender" are intertwined with issues of race, and of class and of sexual orientation.  Those issues are not, and can never be, OTHER. They are inseparable in terms of their impact on our life experience AS WOMEN and therefore are just as central to our political views about and approaches to women's issues as our gender.

          On that note can we agree to disagree and just be done with it? Because while I see absolutely disruptive about the point I made, I do see much potential disruption in us going back and forth.

          P.S.  My views on abortion are completely irrelevant in this thread, but as you well know from the last-back and forth we had, I am pro-choice.  Just not pro-choice as YOU defined it.

          by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:28:36 AM PDT

  •  "white women's forums about race"

    What a great summing up. It's true that a lot of forums, workshops, events, participatory groups, etc., become someone else's forum about what they think matter to us.

    I've been chronically ill my whole life. I told a therapist once that I wanted to work with a chronically-ill therapist, because you know what, I'm tired of having to spend time bringing a normal person up to speed about what it's like being chronically ill. It would be nice to just start there with someone who groks it, and work forward. Tain't happened yet.

    But yes, we need working groups to be our own, not adopted by someone else's top-down idea of what they think we need. We know what we need. Bottom-up, with intrinsic knowledge of what our own lives are like.

    by jancw on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:07:48 AM PDT

    •  Bernice Johnson Reagon

      Coalition Politics:  Turning the Century.  It should be required reading, but alas it is not.

      I agree with you, needless to say, about the potential adverse impact of "top down" coalition over political issues.  I've seen it alienate folks, too many times.

      by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:29:07 AM PDT

      •  Link or citation, please.

        Thanks

        by sayitaintso on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:35:54 AM PDT

        •  Source

          This was originally a speech, which is included in an anthology called Home Girls:  A Black Feminist Anthology, Barbara Smith, Ed. (Kitchen Table Press, NY, 1983).

          by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:11:03 AM PDT

      •  I don't like top down

        anything.  I don't like it in politics and I don't like it in religion (one reason I am a presbyterian and not a member of some other denominations).
        Sometimes though, it's not a matter of top down but rather a matter of not being in the majority. When that happens take your minority group and make it a powerful splinter group if you can.  
        At least that's my philosophy.

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:49:33 AM PDT

        •  Top down

          Is the difference between how Kos happens and how Move On happens. What we think bubbles up from below on Kos. What the planners think blasts down on move on. Each has its uses.

          But in terms of long term interaction, sustainability, and functionality, bottom-up works better because it is closer to the true felt needs of the people, and it supports engagement. It just lacks the power to get the attention. We have to push it up to get the attention.

          No movement or organization lasts if it is imposed top down with no lingering structure and support. Think of all the projects that have been done top down, and then left for people to run. What happens? It all breaks down eventually.

          by jancw on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 11:33:59 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this post

    I know I need to hear this reminder, on a regular basis, or it slips to the periphery of my thinking.  I'm a woman, but that doesn't make me an expert on all women, or even most women.  

    Your story about the refusal of your white female colleagues to relinquish the central position in discourse on women even temporarily, at a conference organized by women of color, really is heartbreaking.  It happened 15 years ago, but I'm not sure it wouldn't happen again today.  The way I read such stories, it illustrates how power works, how hard it is to relinquish whatever power one has, and thus helps me comprehend a bit how hard it is for men to lay down their gender privilege.  And it also reminds me to try a little harder to be aware of my own racial privilege as a white woman, and my economic privilege as an educated, middle-class woman, and my heterosexist privilege as a straight, married, nuclear-family (more or less) mom.  And so on and so forth.  

    I imagine you must get purely sick and tired of reminding white women who say they are your allies of the ways in which we too often just naturally undermine your interests, without even trying to do it deliberately.  I'm sorry that I still need reminding.  Right now, I don't even know what else to say about it.  

    by songbh on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:53:04 AM PDT

    •  Thank You

      For trying to "get it".  For "hearing me."

      I mean that, sincerely.  

      by shanikka on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:39:05 AM PDT

  •  Excellent.

    All the men are Black; all the women are white.

    My thoughts are a jumble and I'll just try to make this make sense. I often feel very torn, because I can seem to have a split personality: one on race, another on gender--and at the end of the day, neither side fully understanding or appreciating the other.

    I think Black women arrive at feminism from different vantage points. There's a perception that feminism is the province of wealthy but bored white women, where many Black women never had that "opportunity" to be bored, because they always had to work. There's also the princess myth of "someday my prince will come" that's never a consideration for most Black women: he may be killed, lynched, jailed or otherwise unavailable for nonracial reasons. So we may say "I'm not a feminist, but..." because it wouldn't have occured to us to even consider buying into the helpless and infantilized concept--you couldn't survive life acting that way.

    My own experience growing up shows why I'm a feminist. Lessons learned from my parents?

    1. You are intelligent and can do anything you want to do.

    2. I need to be independent, stand on my own two feet, and depend on myself because they wouldn't live forever and a husband might not, either.

    3. Don't expect someone else to do for you; get up and do it yourself.

    4. There is no free lunch; everything has a cost (corollaries: don't borrow b/c we provide for you; don't accept expensive gifts from men; don't be impressed by expensive cars, clothes or other crap).

    So: I'm intelligent; need to be independent; understand from my parents' experience that equality is precious and the right of everyone and trying to take that away is wrong. OK--I'm a feminist.

    Really, how is that such a big leap?

    And yet, my Mom would never identify as a feminist. She knows that I do, and respects it even if she doesn't always understand it. (Of course, she knew about the March for Women's lives and asked me if I went--she smiled, because she knew the answer was yes.)

    But culturally, I know it's hard for her to do so. My parents both grew up in Birmingham (or Bombingham--and unlike Condi, they were on the other side of the econmic tracks and therefore couldn't afford to wait for segregation to fall on its own weight. Grrr.) where racial issues were front and center.  Then there's religion.

    Consider this episode: Mom and my Mom-in-law decided that they'd wear pants to church one Sunday--and spent almost the entire service with their coats on! They laughed, knew it was silly, but conceded that it was hard for them because they had been told all their lives that it was unacceptable to wear anything to church but dresses or skirts.

    Imagine what battling the bigger issues are like.

    I can fight the good fight with my brothers, but I always have to assert to make them know that the ideas are mine. I've been in situations (recently!) where I'm the only woman in a group of men and my hand is the last hand shook.  I always have to be on guard that I'm not taking orders from anyone. But if I'm talking about progressive issues or race, I'm applauded for it, and encouraged by brothers.

    I'm glad I get such encouragement from so many of my sisters here, but I always have to fight the feeling that if we actually met, I wouldn't be as embraced. The hubby and I both know what's it like to meet someone in a professional setting, only to realize that we sounded "taller on the telephone" because we don't "sound Black."

    I'm a feminist because I've seen the consequences of not being one up close and personal, in big ways and small: physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; staggering exhaustion of having to do it all; being dismissed and uncredited; not being paid the same regardless of hard work or creativity. I'm strongly pro-choice because I live in the real world and know that when you're facing an unplanned pregnancy, you really don't know what the hell you'll do--so having options are important. That and I hate a hypocrite--if the Bush brats got knocked up after one drunken night, we all know that "it would be taken care of," no ifs, ands, or buts.

    But being Black...you can never separate it, even if the brothers are "spittin' acid" at sisters in their hip-hop lyrics; even if we make less than they for the same work; even if...

    I do the best I can, but I refuse to live in an ill-fitting garment, no matter which side I get it from. And I advocate for others to do the same.

    by AuntiePeachy on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 07:13:03 AM PDT

•  "financial parity" my shapely behind...

  Let's just call it poverty.
  (I voted for it anyway.)  
  And thank you for this discussion.  Yes, let's talk about the fact that only certain "women's groups" even get to break the sound barrier, and that they are wealthy, white women's voices.  

  But let's not allow that situation to let anyone tell us what we should be doing/thinking/acting on.

  by sayitaintso on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:29:24 AM PDT

  •  I'm White but I am not wealthy

    Can we both talk?

    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:06:44 AM PDT

•  Thank a Feminist

  First, what is a feminist?  That's a big category of people folks, some of them are even men. In fact some men are better feminists than many women.  Feminists come in all shapes sizes and personality. You need to love the radical in your face ones because like any movement, the radicals are the ones who push the outside of the envelope.  Then there are the not quiet as radical group, the average ordinary intelligent women who reached the tipping point and decided enough is enough.

  When I hear a young women or an old woman for that matter say "I am not a feminist but...." or "feminists scare off other people...."  It really makes me wonder why some women hate themselves so much. Why is it that we still think we don't deserve equality and respect.  Yes Virginiabelle, that also means that women who don't like abortion should have enough respect for other women to realize that their moral choice is as good as your moral choice.

  If you have ever called 911 when some man was threatening or beating you, and the cops actually came... and stopped him: THANK A FEMINIST

  If you have a job that isn't prostitute, teacher, nurse or secretary: THANK A FEMINIST

  If you can go to a doctor and he/she listens to you instead of telling you your problems are a result of the vapors: THANK A FEMINIST

  If you can go to a doctor and she....:THANK A FEMINIST

  Do you have a right to claim your children in a custody battle? :THANK A FEMINIST

  Do you have a credit card?: THANK A FEMINIST

  Can you have a mortgage and a bank account in your own name? :THANK A FEMINIST

  Can you have your tubes tied without your husbands permission?: THANK A FEMINIST

  Can you get birthcontrol pills, a diaphram, the IUD even if you are unmarried?: THANK A FEMINIST

  Do you have the right to vote?: THANK A FEMINIST

  http://iron-jawed-angels.com/synopsis_2.htm

  Anyone who would like to add to this list feel free... but you get my point.  Don't disparage feminists to me.

  by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 08:52:54 AM PDT

  •  I was trying to say this

    but you said it better. All of the mortgage, credit, financial stuff, thank a feminist.

    My mother-in-law wanted to have her tubes tied in 1949, after a third c-section baby (my sweet husband.) They would not do it without her husband's permission. PERMISSION.

    Thank a feminist.

    by jancw on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:02:09 AM PDT

    •  My ex sister in law

      is a Catholic and used a Catholic hospital to deliver her 5 children.  She wanted to have her tubes tied with he 4th one, but the doctor wouldn't do it in case she changed her mind after the pain and difficulty of pregnancy and childbirth faded.
      Then she had #5 before she could get it done.

      by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:53:50 AM PDT

      •  I was #5

        and the nurses kept the priests out of the recovery room so mom could have her tubes tied.

        I hear there was one particularly large, assertive nun who took hold of one priest's arm and helped him find the hallway.

        by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

        •  Wow

          Thank God for nurses.  They put each individual patient first in my experience.

          by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:17:58 AM PDT

  •  Do you think...

    I wonder if part of the problem with the word feminist is that the movement never gets taught in schools, unlike civil rights, for example. So the only definition the younger generation of women get is the burning bras heresay that is mostly perpetuated by the right.

    Seriously, I bet more teenage girls have heard what Anne Coulter has to say about feminists than have read Betty Friedan.

    by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:49:55 AM PDT

    •  Yes, I think that may be true

      Can you imagine a teacher having the nerve to teach feminist history in HS except in maybe Ithaca NY or San Francisco CA?  LOL

      It is an important idea though.  Kids should understand that history just as they should learn about race issues and what we did to native americans.

      by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:56:32 AM PDT

      •  LOL

        I couldn't even convince my very politically correct and progressive friends to take feminist criticism with me in college.

        It would have been nice to be in one feminist class that included a guy who was neither gay nor there just because he thought maybe it would get him laid (which it never did). But if not for me, then for the next generation!

        by VirginiaBelle on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:05:40 AM PDT

•  please do

  I'd be honoured - use them wherever you wish :)

  by boudicca on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:02:00 AM PDT

  •  sorry

    this was a reply to a comment up thread (doh!)

    by boudicca on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:05:52 AM PDT

•  feminism

  I am a feminist.

  It grieves me that so many women - intelligent, independent women, feel the need to deny feminism as in 'I'm not a feminist, but...'

  This mindset demonstrates one of the most successful framing exercises ever: feminism has been equated with stridency, bra-burning, man-hating, unattractiveness (the hairy-legged-dyke frame) so successfully that women are persuaded from kindergarden that they need to apologise for wanting fairness and equality.

  Next time someone says 'I am not a feminist', try asking 'what is it about wanting equality that you don't agree with?'

  by boudicca on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:27:29 AM PDT

  •  or for me...

    "What is about being treated like a human being that you don't agree with?"

    Because My definition of feminism has ever been that a feminist is someone who believes women are human beings.

    by common veil on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:38:47 AM PDT

    •  yes

      yes! even better.

      by boudicca on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 09:53:26 AM PDT

•  It feels odd to say it,

  but sometimes I think the only thing most women have in common is their gender. I don't mean that disparagingly, but as the single common denominator, because there's no denying it -- but how far that carries us is very much a matter of opinion. Jsut reading over the few people commenting on this thread, the special subsets of how gender defines our views is pretty stark and doesn't necessarily lend itself to common ground.

  married women
  single women
  married women with children
  single women with children
  women of color
  caucasian women
  working women
  etc...

  (yeah, yeah, I know it should be obvious, but really, in many ways it's not, especially over the internet.) And all of them have their focus, be it healthcare or childcare, pay parity, reproductive rights.)

  The only reason I bring this up is to wonder if we need to broaden the table of issues, or narrow it. If security and gender are the common ground, what's that look like. You say "security" to me and my brain goes to "social" because I'm closer to it than some and have no family (husband, partner, or kids) to make up the difference between what I can save and what SS brings to me, but for women with families, that's not what they mean. For women in poverty securityu may mean a roof over their head and food on the table.
  

  by common veil on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 10:55:49 AM PDT

  •  It sure can seem that way

    and much of our education and media encourages us to dicide and conquer.  But what I am trying to do is look for the common ground which we do have, and take direct action based on that.  

    There will be people trying to break this apart, dividing us up into cubicles, but remember that we do have these broad (heh) concerns and we must stick together.

    So give us some more of your perspective and describe how you would like things to be.  Then we can frame how to get there.

    by sandblaster on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 11:30:03 AM PDT

•  I'd love to post

  a more meaningful comment, but right now I have no time!

  But this will enable me to easily find this diary again.

  by Frankenoid on Fri Jun 03, 2005 at 11:01:01 AM PDT

•  you say you want a serious discussion...

  and then proceed to toss off these howling straw men and red herrings....

  straw man #1:
  "this is not the place to say that women's issues are single-issues"
  i've followed many of these threads and never once heard anyone say that. it's abortion, not "women's issues" that is the single issue.

  red herring #1:
  "in an effort to attract more white males"
  there's no gender gap on the issue of abortion.

  straw man #2:
  "Are you asking me if I think adult women are incapable of making moral decisions?
  no, people aren't asking you that because opposition to unregulated abortion is not based on any notion of private morality, nor on the perceived moral faculty of women, but on repect for the rights of fetuses. that's all.

  if you favor unrestricted abortion, please do your best to promote that viewpoint, but please stop pretended that in doing so you are carrying the banner of "women's rights." you don't speak for all women on that issue. you don't even speak for all progressive women on that issue.

  i've never knocked NARAL - they have every right to advocate for a cause they believe in. but it's intellectually dishonest to keep continually saying that people who disagre with NARAL on that single issue, or even people who just disagree with them on strategy, are somehow against women, not valuing women, etc.

  you want your priorities respected but don't offer the same in return.

  by jethropalerobber on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 02:03:41 PM PDT

  •  This isn't an abortion diary

    this is a place to hash out broad policy.  I asked that it not break down into a discussion of single-issues because that is unproductive.  You may notice that reproductive rights fell under Respect- which is also an issue in the Pie diary.  

    In every case where someone has brought up an issue, especially one I didn't have as a concern or a priority, I encouraged them and asked for the plan they would like to see.  You can see several places in the introduction where I encouraged all viewpoints- with the exception of women's rights being single issue.  That is simply because I'm looking for a coherent whole.

    So, that being said-  what is your contribution?
    

    by sandblaster on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 03:00:35 PM PDT

•  health care, uncompensated work

  I came to this diary from the pie diary. I hope people are still reading.

  I'd like to see health care go on the list of women's issues. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and yet the quality of care is not. Funding for diseases that affect women (such as breast cancer) is much lower than funding for comparable diseases that affect men (such as prostate cancer).

  We need quality affordable health care for ourselves, our partners, and our children. Women and children are more likely to be without health care coverage than men.

  Our reproductive rights are at the base of many of our other struggles. If we don't have the ability to decide whether and when to have children, we can't reach any kind of economic or political parity. So reproductive freedom, including access to abortion, needs to be right in there.

  The same paternalistic attitude that leads people to say that women don't have the right to decide for ourselves whether to bear a child also spills over into health care providers' attitudes to women, especially in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics practices have become more invasive and less respectful of the autonomy of women in the past 20 years.  Meanwhile, American women and babies are less safe in the hands of our high-tech doctors than we would be in almost any other industrialized country.

  Someone else talked about the needs of mothers, listing childcare and parental leave as particular concerns. Certainly we need those things, but we also need recognition and support of the unpaid labor that women perform in the home and in the community. Women bear the burden of childcare and elder care, as well as providing a lot of volunteer labor. Currently, our system values that labor not at all. Traditional women's work pays less (or not at all), carries no benefits, and provides no pensions.

  What we really need, though, is to be taken seriously.  For our needs and contributions to be valued, not just dismissed as women's issues. The rearing and education of the next generation ought not to just be a women's issue.

  I can't believe the majority is being so marginalized.

  by FutureThought on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 02:26:21 PM PDT

  •  Beautifully said

    and I agree with those riorities- and especially you last couple of lines.  

    Stick around over the next few days and we'll be speaking up!

    by sandblaster on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 02:45:51 PM PDT