One of the most disheartening things for those of us who consider ourselves feminists is the sense that it has become a ghetto term; the Right was successful in labeling us as man-hating FemiNazis (or, as one Dkos poster referred to us: “menstruating she-devils”), when the irony is that feminism is the bedrock of progressive politics. Feminism links the private with the political, interrogates how restrictions on personal behaviour echoes out to national policy, and understands gender not as “sex,” but as power—who has it, who wants it, and how those in power get to portray those who do not. Today, Michael Fox blogs here on OS about leaders of NOW endorsing Sarah Palin, apparently because voting for a woman is more important than voting progressively.
The discussions of the personal, which could be categorized constitutionally as those things covered under the "right to privacy," principally things such as abortion and gay civil rights, have come up repeatedly as the things that people are willing to throw overboard in order to save the Democratic party. But I would urge no surrender on any of this.
Maybe you think that abortion and gay marriage don't matter. Maybe the fight to prevent pharmacists from being able to refuse to dispense Plan B contraception on "moral" grounds is acceptable. Maybe you think they're things we're distracting ourselves with. But my argument, nay, my plea, would be for us as progressives to consider the personal issues as political issues and realize that if we take away anyone's right to privacy, eventually, we will lose our own. And if you don't believe me, then just take a little look at the absolute batshit craziness being spouted over at
Maybe you think that abortion and gay marriage don't matter. Maybe the fight to prevent pharmacists from being able to refuse to dispense Plan B contraception on "moral" grounds is acceptable. Maybe you think they're things we're distracting ourselves with. But my argument, nay, my plea, would be for us as progressives to consider the personal issues as political issues and realize that if we take away anyone's right to privacy, eventually, we will lose our own. And if you don't believe me, then just take a little look at the absolute batshit craziness being spouted over at
We need to reclaim the body. If we claim the body, then we are able to say categorically that torture, capital punishment, sexual repression, gender inequality, are not part of the progressive agenda. If we claim the right to privacy, we are able to say that illegal search and seizure, religious indoctrination in schools, public prayer, refusal to sell Plan B, abstinence-only education—all of these things—are not acceptable. If we claim gender as power differential, we are able to see how the sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners is tied into notions of dominance—the same notions of dominance that will be used against all of us.
And it’s gender studies that have allowed us to see these things. Gender as defined by Joan Scott:
And it’s gender studies that have allowed us to see these things. Gender as defined by Joan Scott:
Scott’s definition of gender has two parts and several subsets; they are interrelated but analytically distinct. Her definition rests on two propositions:
1. gender is a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes;
2. gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power.
Riane Eisler had to say about the personal as political and our reluctance as progressives to discuss it:
Today, it's regressive fundamentalists, not progressives, who are more comfortable talking about the personal as political. They, not progressives, dominate the debate over "private" life and "family values."
Yet family relations directly influence what people consider normal and moral in all relations -- public as well as private. We must challenge the reactionary, increasingly fundamentalist "traditional family values" agenda. We cannot build a healthy democracy on a foundation of authoritarianism and intolerance -- in the home and outside it."
Family relations affect how people think and act. They affect how people vote and govern, and whether the policies they support are just and genuinely democratic or violent and oppressive.
Slogans like "traditional values" often mask a family "morality" suited to undemocratic, rigidly male-dominated, chronically violent cultures. They market a "traditional family" where women are subordinate and economically dependent, where fathers make the rules and severely punish disobedience -- the kind of family that prepares people to defer to "strong" leaders who brook no dissent and use force to impose their will.
How can we expect people raised in authoritarian families -- where men are ranked over women and children learn that any questioning of belief and authority will be punished -- to vote for leaders whose policies promote justice, equality, democracy, mutual respect and nonviolence?
It's not coincidental that for regressive fundamentalists -- whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim -- the only moral family is one that models top-down rankings of domination ultimately backed up by fear and force. It's not coincidental that the 9/11 terrorists came from families where women and children are terrorized into submission.
You do not have to be a woman to recognize that gender and feminism are inextricably tied to the progressive agenda. You do not have to be a woman to recognize that when progressive males start shitting on so-called women’s issues, they are missing the point. If you do not recognize that Sarah Palin is both a threat to this country and to women, you're missing the point. Every radio host who urges you to vote for Sarah Palin because "she's hot," emphasizes how deeply rooted the fear of the female body is in the Republican party. If you do not understand how power works, how it is rooted in the binary oppositions that we ascribe to the sexes, then you will continue to focus on saving one tree while the entire forest is being razed. Male and female progressives must stand together and vote the Obama/Biden ticket, or we'll be in deep shit together.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
feel free to delete this after fixing. I'll post substantive things in a separate comment.
lisa
I love the idea of reclaiming the body. It fits into my worldview perfectly and corresponds to the basic premise in UU and Quaker-ism, that of "respecting the inherent worth and dignity of every person."
Palin's brand of "tolerance" is a far cry short of inherent respect for the worth and dignity of every individual and his/her beliefs.
The current progressive movement clearly has its main origins in the struggle for civil, economic, and women's rights. All progressives owe their gratitude to the leaders of past feminist movements.
After all, men have benefited tremendously from feminist gains. Men are more involved in family life and their children than ever before. Families are helped (and are more economically stable) when more than one person is the income generator. Men, too, benefit from the worry-free sex thanks to contraceptive technology and access.
-A mind.
Biden and Obama are feminists in the most fundamental way. McCain and Palin are the anti-Christs of feminism. Whomsoever doesn't get that is in for a boatload of needless pain and loss.
Killer post. Thank you. Really. Thank you.
It can be viewed here:
http://tildology.com/?PHPSESSID=4e3ec8bf5d167ccf76e41d8a185d1181&s=menstruating+she+devils
"After all, men have benefited tremendously from feminist gains. Men are more involved in family life and their children than ever before. Families are helped (and are more economically stable) when more than one person is the income generator. Men, too, benefit from the worry-free sex thanks to contraceptive technology and access."
Education is all.
"Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you."
Ouch. Nothing like a repeated boot to the face to make you accept patriarchal rule, eh? It really clicked for me it your post when you stated, "how deeply rooted the fear of the female body is in the Republican party." Thanks for your words. Keep writing!
Elisabeth
Dworkin wrote this at a time when the Reagan administration was tanking the ERA and withholding day-care etc. and yet women were defecting to vote Republican. She posits that it is precisely women's feelings of inequality and powerlessness (especially fear of male violence) that impels many of them to seek the security of traditional sex roles that demand passivity and subservience, especially under the proffered aegis of a male-dominated authoritarian church hierarchy. I think Riane Eisler above is coming from the same place, and it seems right to me.
As a male dog -- albeit neutered :-) -- I was initially reluctant to comment on this thread. But I have been well brought up by my two human females, and I'll bite anyone who tries to keep them down or put them down.
WOOF
(btw, I think it is only one NOW "leader" who has endorsed Palin, and she appears to be a definite outlier.)
John Stuart Mill was a feminist because he wanted a partner he could talk to, rather than one that was arm candy who raised his kids. In that way, there was a self-interest for men to have women reach their full potential, they were so much more interesting that way. I would also argue that if women really claim their bodies as their own, reject what the culture tells them it's supposed to be, then they are also better sexual partners for the men or women who love them.
I've never understood the notion of feminists being sexless---I think that feminism makes it possible to really, really love sex.
Thanks for an excellent post.
I took heart learning that it was Shelly Mandell, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, who endorsed Palin - not NOW itself. Mandell stated that her endorsement came as “an individual” not on behalf of NOW.
We may also take heart knowing that NOW, the Feminist Majority, Business and Professional Women, and The National Congress of Black Women have all endorsed Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
As a man I have no idea what it must be like to grow up as a woman in a patriarchal society. I deeply admire the perseverance of my female friends who labor tirelessly for equality.
It’s grievous to see that Sarah Palin could receive the endorsement of any woman representing feminism. I often remind my daughter that there is much work to do seeing that her gender has only been allowed to vote since 1920 (rated).
It was my father who told me from a very early age that I could do anything i wanted to do, and that anyone who told me I couldn't because I was a girl was a putz. He was my #1 cheerleader and I'm grateful for that. Your girls are lucky to have a dad who wants for them the same thing he'd want for his sons. My sense is that an increasing number of men are like that, and I have great hope for the future, even if today, things are a bit bleak.
"...if we take away anyone's right to privacy, eventually, we will lose our own."
In Washington state, the "traditionalist" answer to same-sex marriage was to define marriage specifically in terms of procreation, which would be news to the many hetero couples who have no intention of bearing children. "Choice" is a scary word to ultraconservatives on so many levels.
And what are they so afraid of?
If democracy is telling people that they have to think for themselves, fathers lose power, the whole hierarchical system loses power. What's interesting is how W has almost been turned back into a king/despot by his whole notion of the unitary executive--and it's built upon a system in which fundamentalists have gone back to the father as supreme authority in the family.
I'm curious about what accommodations you're looking for. It's a provocative comment, and I wish you'd say more.
In my long experience of fighting for interpreters (and I've been doing it since I could advocate for myself), I've usually dealt with women.
I've also posted on my blog a year-long record of my fight with Salon to have vlogs transcribed or captioned. That's the most usual accommodation that I'm denied by s0-called progressives.
In your fights with these women, do you know if they are dealing with supervisors who are also women? You would think that those who work with the disabled would have progressive ideals, but thins have been turned upside down these past eight years, so that we get folks in charge of agencies that are supposed to protect rights who seem to spend more time denying them.
Thanks for the additional information. I'm sorry you've had such a rough time.
Lorraine