B.J. of StoutDem criticizes “Feminists for Kucinich” for failing to distinguish feminism and liberalism. BJ exaggerates to make his (her?) case. For example, B.J. claims the Feminists for Kucinich document “does not say a single thing about feminism until point number four”; he apparently missed point one, which discusses how women are disproportionate victims of the “war on the poor,” and how “women on welfare are forced into low-paid jobs.”
Even ignoring B.J’s inaccuracy, I still disagree; I think B.J. is assuming a clear division between “feminist” and “liberal” issues that doesn’t always exist in real life. For example, most feminists correctly see issues such as (for example) poverty as feminist issues, because the majority of poor folks are women (or children being cared for by a female guardian). There isn’t a single issue “feminists for Kucinich” talk about that I couldn’t recast in terms of how women in particular are especially affected.
Furthermore, from a feminist perspective, Kucinich (despite his too-recent conversion to pro-choice) arguably would be better for women – especially poor women and women of color – then the other Dem candidates. Of the Democratic candidates, for example, Kucinich is the one most likely to be sympathetic to the need for government-funded childcare; for not just keeping abortion legal, but for supporting funding programs to help poor women who cannot afford an abortion; for providing more real reproductive choice to poor women by supporting government aid to single mothers; to support unionization of female-heavy workforces, such as retail workers; to fight to raise the minimum wage (most minimum wage workers are women); etc, etc..
On all of these issues, Kucinich is the most likely candidate to act in a way that – in the view of this feminist, at least – best supports the interests of women’s equality.
Nonetheless, that sort of argument is not, by and large, the approach taken by “Feminists for Kucinich.” Does that mean that they’re wrong to self-identify as feminists? I don’t think so.
B.J. falsely assumes that the only legitimate statement from “Feminists for Kucinich” would focus exclusively on issues that B.J. deems (based on criteria he never explained) to be legitimate feminist issues. But that’s not the approach this statement takes, nor is there any reason it should be required to take that approach.
Instead, this statement says, in effect, “Look, we’re a group of feminists who most feminists find credible. Based on that, we’re asking feminists to consider supporting Kucinich. Here’s why…” The point isn’t that the arguments for Kucinich are particularly feminist, but that the speakers are particularly credible people from a feminist P.O.V.. And despite B.J.’s foolishly mean-sounding rant (when a speaker disparages Barbara Ehrenreich’s commitment to women’s rights, it doesn’t exactly enhance the speaker’s credibility), that’s a perfectly legitimate approach for them to take.
A lot of feminists will take Barbara Ehrenreich’s endorsement seriously – because she’s earned being taken seriously by feminists, with her work and her lifelong feminist commitment. There’s nothing wrong with that.
And, finally, B.J. points out that Kucinich – due to his recent conversion to pro-choice – needs the support of feminists (“cover,” as BJ puts it) more than other candidates do. From a feminist point of view, why on earth should we consider this a bad thing? As far as I’m concerned, the more pressure a candidate feels to court feminist support, the better..
Gah! Pure stupidity!!!!!!
does not say a single thing about feminism until point number four. That shows how important they think women’s rights really are in their worldview.
WTF?! I believe I had this conversation before with a particular e-mailer. Why is that these people are so ridiculously obtuse? Let’s take a look at what they have actually said in point numbers 1 – 3.
We want a candidate who will stop the war on the poor. Though an estimated 20 -29 percent of Americans live in poverty, the Republicans’ new tax code penalizes the poor and rewards the rich. Women on welfare are forced into low-paid jobs, even in the absence of childcare. Food pantries can no longer meet the demand of the millions of the poor, both employed and unemployed. When anyone mentions these facts, the Republicans accuse them of inciting a “class war,” but they are the ones who have started this war, whose victims are disproportionately women, children and people of color.
Mention of women on welfare. Mention of how women, are disproportionately victims of poverty. Even without having a basic understanding of feminism, one would have to see the connection to feminism there — unless they are really that ignorant, or simply have another agenda to push. But, beyond that, poverty is and has always been a feminist issue.
We want a candidate who stands for peace, respects international treaties and institutions such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, and tries to resolve problems through negotiation. We are horrified by the fact that our country started a war for no clear reason, on the basis of lies and distortions, in defiance of international law and world opinion, and without concern for the lives that would be lost. Far from protecting us from terrorism, such military adventures can only increase our vulnerability and feed the rage and ranks of those who seek to harm us.
Again — very much a feminist issue. It’s called global feminism
We want a candidate who will defend the separation of church and state, and the individual rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. The Bush administration has instituted detention without trial; secret military tribunals; and hugely increased government surveillance of our citizens.
How is this not a feminist issue?
The women who signed this statement for Kucinich are placing liberalism first, and once again asking women to relegate their own rights to a subsidiary role.
The only way one could believe this is to believe that there is a category “women” which is separate from the categories “foreigner,” “immigrant,” “poor,” “person of color,” etc. As though the latter categories remain the realm of men — and really, isn’t that completely the opposite of feminism, regardless of how you “define” it?
The other problem with this perspective is that is marginalizes feminism and feminist issues into someting that only affects women — like abortion, perhaps. Poverty can’t be a feminist issue because some men are also impoverished. War can’t be a feminist issue because some men are harmed by war. Blah, blah, blah. This entire perspective makes feminism essentially meaningless and worthless. “Real” issues belong in the realm of the “liberal” (read: man), “women’s issues” are what feminists should focus on. Of course, then people turn around and dismiss feminists for not dealing with the “real” issues to begin with.
See what you’ve got here — it’s an agenda which does nothing but reduce feminism to meaningless garbage that can easily be dismissed by society.
And people wonder why I think non-feminists and many men have no right in defining feminism.
This is a great post. Thanks!
Howdy Barry,
It isn’t stamp collecting, comparing little bags of labels, dusting them with sugar and calling the result “positions other than Missionary” or Feminism.
Tribal Sovereignty isn’t simply a bunch of cases, it is a critical framework, a coherent indigenous political philosophy.
Green isn’t simply a bunch of better-practices, it is a critical framework. Or several.
Feminism isn’t simply … a set of procedures. It is something bigger than that, as vast as … as this:
Around ten thousand years ago, peoples who spoke Indo-European languages lived in the area which today we know as the Steppes of Russia. At that time, they were a Natural World people who lived off the land. They had developed agriculture, and it is said that they had begun the practice of animal domestication. It is not known that they were the first people in the world to practice animal domestication. The hunters and gatherers who roamed the area probably acquired animals from the agricultural people, and adopted an economy, based on the herding and breeding of animals.
Herding and breeding of animals signaled a basic alteration in the relationship of humans to other life forms. It set into motion one of the true revolutions in human history. Until herding, humans depended on nature for the reproductive powers of the animal world. With the advent of herding, humans assumed the functions which had for all time been the functions of the spirits of the animals. Sometime after this happened, history records the first appearance of the social organization known as “patriarchy.”
From Basic Call to Consciousness, 1977.
All writing through the time and clunky web rubbish is rushed, awkward, and accidental. Reading B.J.’s post in isolation (I don’t read him except this once, not by design, just disinterest) I don’t think he experiences the original statement directly, but flails with prior beliefs.
I wish the 3rd point in the statement wasn’t limited to a restatement of the Star Chamber criticism of George III.
Quoting the same source as the above: spiritual consciousness is the highest form of politics. European churches have not been the European states since Voltaire. Re-churching the European states in the Americas, even without the Star Chambers, would not be feminism-in-action.
The Treaty Wampum between the Mic’mac and the Vatican places an open window in the church as a condition for the church to be on Mic’mac land. I read the first stanza of the 3rd point as asking for that window in the prevailing wall.
I’m tired of fighting the web clunkery, so I’ll end my story here.
Adio
MB at Wampum reviewed all the candidates’ websites on minority issues and found to her surprise that Gephardt was head and shoulders above the rest. She has a post on it. She’s an Edwards supporter (I’m a Kerry supporter).
“And, finally, B.J. points out that Kucinich – due to his recent conversion to pro-choice – needs the support of feminists (“cover,” as BJ puts it) more than other candidates do. From a feminist point of view, why on earth should we consider this a bad thing? As far as I’m concerned, the more pressure a candidate feels to court feminist support, the better.”
I am not so sure about that. Once a President is elected, he then has it in his power try to woo over other voting blocks, through legislative proposals, executive decisions, etc. In other words, he may need to say the right things to pro-choice people to get elected, but he does not need to act on those promises if he can win support for others. For a President whose heart is not in an issue, the chances of that happening are greater than for one who is, I believe.
bean,
Would it be accurate to characterize your view as a belief that essentially all issues contain a feminist aspect, or at least have feminist implications? The notion being that women are not a narrow interest group, but rather are half the world, and are affected by nearly every issue that affects men (albeit often in different ways or to a different extent)? It doesn’t sound like this should be all that controversial, but I guess anything political will always be argued over.
I’m not trying to challenge you or trap you, and I apologize if I’m inaccurate. I’m just trying to recapitulate what you’ve said for the sake of my own understanding.
I totally agree with you that their agenda is completely feminist. In my opinion, restricting feminism to simply the issue of overt discrimination does nothing to address institutionalized sexism. Moreover, that restricted definition of what a feminist is exactly what allows self-identified “feminists” such as those horrid women at the Independet Women’s Forum to usurp the word.
BJ seems to argue also that they should not call themselves Feminists For… because they clearly don’t represent all feminists. I suppose Some Feminists For… would be acceptable to BJ, but that is picking nits. In the last election there were Democrats For Gordon Smith (including, shamefully, Avel Gordly) but one would hardly conclude they were trying to speak for all Democrats. Basically, BJ is wrong on all counts.
Kucinich talks a good game, but he did recently flip on choice (opportunistically, to my eye) and it’s important to look at what candidates -have- done, not just what they say they’ll do. It’s also, much as it pains me to say it, important to be pragmatic in this election. It is more important to change the direction the country is heading than it is to vote for the perfect candidate.
I’m for Dean, and have been for a few months now. I went to the NOW Presidential Candidate’s Forum last night where Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, and Dean participated. Governor Dean has a record in Vermont of reducing child abuse, providing health insurance for kids, providing child care, and all kinds of other things that women and feminists are concerned about. What has Kucinich accomplished in Congress? From what I learned last night, he has introduced a bill to create a Dept. of Peace. Ok, that’s nice, but introducing a bill is easy.
On all the little pop quizzes, I score closer (by a bit) to DK then to Dean on the issues, but I’m going with Dean because I believe he knows how to actually accomplish things -and- the things he accomplishes are steps in the right direction.
The country is careening down the wrong path very fast; what we have to do in ’04 is stop that careening and reverse direction. Kucinich won’t be able to. Dean has a chance.
I heard Kucinich and Dean at Take Back America — and Dean certainly more electable and still fairly progressive. I am really impressed by the home visit program he started — every newborn’s family (nearly) gets a home visit from someone who talks about what programs may help them meet their childcare, health care and other needs as well as providing resources and information on childrearing, dealing with stress, etc. This program has reduced child abuse and child sexual assault by more than 3/4. Dean seems to look at what’s possible and go for it, rather than talk about doing the perfect and never accomplishing a thing. His health plan is good — not the single-payer plan I would like — but it does automatically cover everyone — and folks must choose not to be insured and it does base the cost on income — and it’s much more likely to pass and get 96% covered. Not perfect, but passable. I am sick to death of those who hold out for perfect and get nothing instead of going for good and very good and winning. Politics is not the art of the perfect; it is the art of the possible. Kucinich’s campaign is not talking about the possible – but the ideal; and it’s delusional.
(scratches head.) Since when would Dean’s plan “cover everybody” ? That’s not what I read here nor on some other blogs, though I’m sure the Dean camp is happy to spin their plan as such. For that matter, is it too nitpicky of me to point out that “4%” would leave out an awfully large number of “everybodies” in a country the size of the U.S ? Which is it, Kija: “Everybody” or “96%” ?
Also, I find that most of the people pushing the “perfect/good” dichotomy view of politics don’t even understand what “perfect” nor “good” means. I don’t think a plan that covered all Americans would be perfect: Doubtless lots of people would find it burdensome, lots of people would get less than “perfect” care, lots of people would find some things not covered or not covered to their satisfaction. But I don’t understand why at least minimal coverage for all is not considered the very bare minimum of what we ought to do for our citizenry. It is, damnit. It is not some pie-in-the-sky ideal of “perfection.”
Frankly, I often suspect that those who use the “perfect/good” dichotomy to shut up Greens, Kucinich supporters, or whomever they’re most irritated at this week for raining on their candidate’s PR parade know that the “good” plan, is not one that would leave them out in the cold. So, hey, fuck those 4% whom it would leave out in the cold. They don’t vote, anyway. And they probably smell bad. Look at camera. Smile. Wave sign. Don’t worry. Be happy.
Bullshit.
The Dean plan covers everybody automatically, but people are allowed to opt out — choosing to insure themselves through private insurance or choosing to risk going without insurance. They estimate that 4% would opt out and risk going without insurance — even though the total cost for their insurance that they are automatically enrolled in would be maxed at 7.65%.
That is why it covers everybody — but only really covers 96%. That 4% of libertarians, chistian scientists and others who choose to be uninsured. However, Dean makes a forceful case that it is just that option that makes his bill passable and the more perfect bills not passable.
It would have been nice if you had actually read something about his plan before posting your snide and vitriolic post. Your defensiveness is showing.
You know, Amy, I confess that you have really pissed me off. I have spent 30 odd years now working on health care reform — doorknocking in Oregon, Washington, in New Jersey, in Idaho for pete’s sake to get people to support health care for all and vote for health care candidates. I have organized people on Medicaid and on welfare. I have participated in rallies around the country on health care: I have wrapped the Blue Cross in Seattle office in red tape, delivered empty Rx bottles to Dennis HAstert and marched on Cheney’s home. I practically live and breath health care reform. I have done trainings on how to win health care campaigns in the states. I know health policy inside and out and believe his plan is good.
I just wonder what you have done? Where does your judgementalism come from? particularly your rude and unjustified “fuck those 4% whom it would leave out in the cold. They don’t vote, anyway. And they probably smell bad. Look at camera. Smile. Wave sign. Don’t worry. Be happy.”
Perhaps you have done more than talk about health care reform. Maybe you gathered signatures for Measure 25 in Oregon? I don’t know. But as someone who is sick to death of those who would rather lose working for the perfect than win something that benefits real people, somehow I doubt you have done much. You don’t have the urgency…perhaps you don’t know why we need something now — not the perfect 60 years from now when we have exhausted all options.
I know people who are without health care that need it. I have friends in the health care movement who may die thanks to the cuts in Medically Needy program funding. I have a friend whose legs were amputated because she could not afford the prescriptions that she needed to save them. You work in this movement and you end up knowing a lot of survivors of the health care horror show.
In fact, it’s my experience that those who are willing to let all these survivors rot while holding out for perfection better fit the people you ranted against in your nasty little diatribe. After all, those who can afford to hold out for the perfect probably are insured.
I would just like to point out that Amy has done more for the cause of healthcare for all than any other person I know. She is truely dedicated to the cause, and has put countless hours into it. She is not arguing from a position of someone who knows nothing about it.
I think the main problem with Dean’s plan is that the liklihood is that the 4% who “opt out” will not only be significantly more than 4% — but that the majority of people who “opt out” will not be “opting out” because they don’t want insurance. They will be “opting out” because they cannot afford it. Sure, the insurance will be “based on income” — but 7.5% of a $12,000 annual income (or even a $20,000 annual income) will simply be far too much for people to actually afford.
Kija wrote:
*”Perhaps you have done more than talk about health care reform. Maybe you gathered signatures for Measure 25 in Oregon? I don’t know. But as someone who is sick to death of those who would rather lose working for the perfect than win something that benefits real people, somehow I doubt you have done much. You don’t have the urgency…perhaps you don’t know why we need something now — not the perfect 60 years from now when we have exhausted all options.”*
Thanks, but yes, I did work on “25,” which was actually 23, though perhaps not as many “countless hours” as bean valiantly mentions. (Thanks, bean.) As for “urgency” I have PKD (Polycystic Kidney Disease), Thanks. Look it up, if you like. I’m healthy now, but by the time I’m 60, if not sooner, I could find myself sick as a dog, unable to work or keep my home, at the mercy of for-profit clinics that often deliberately withhold treatment/transplant options from the poor, bankrupt, and dead for no good reason, probably in that order. At least, if band-aid solutions like Dean’s end up being the best we can do, or if the current system is allowed to continue.
Though my folks are not the kind who love to talk about money, I’m convinced that my Dad’s (successful) battle with PKD nearly bankrupted the family and nearly ended their marriage. Back in those days, sophisticated anti-rejectant drugs were phenominally expensive (no generics) and he needed A LOT when he first got out of the hospital. He was too sick and too weak to work (my Mom’s successful business was probably what saved us. In a reccession, the illness might have dragged us all down along with my Dad.) Also, he had previously been simultaneously employed in two different states, and two different insurance companies (with two different snares of regulation) spent lots of time stymieing his every attempt to get the help his coverage had paid for.
It astounds him now (and me) to think that these were “The good old days,” because back then useless and bogus ad campaigns did not exist to even further inflate drug prices, insurance rates were not so astronomical, and no one had ever heard of fucking HMOs and just what they could do to fuck up your life for the “crime” of being born with a hereditary illness that was curable, but damn expensive and debilitating. :(
And, yes, I am insured, and damn lucky to be. I have no guarantee that it will last, and I have no legal recourse should I become ill enough for my coverage to be dropped by my carrier if I cease to be profittable to it. I also have no guarantee that I won’t lose even more of the pre-paid portion of the coverage when AFSCME’s next contract is negotiated. The last one, which started us ponying up extra money from each paycheck just to keep what coverage we had, and created new “tiers” of coverage with the express purpose of forcing members to pay more for less, caused a frenzy of fingerpointing, screaming, and all-around blame that I hope to never see again. But it’s safe to say that I will. I’d tell you more, but I don’t have time right now. :( And, like most people I know, it would be damn hard for me to pay for the basics of life and COBRA if I lost my job tomorrow.
Sounds to me like YOU didn’t read what Amp and some other folk have written about the flaws in Dean’s plan, (bean mentions a bit of it above) or you wouldn’t be so quick to point the figure at *my* supposed ignorance.
P.S.– Kiss my ass.
Not to be too nit-picky, but:
at the mercy of for-profit clinics that often deliberately withhold treatment/transplant options from the poor, bankrupt, and dead for no good reason
Well, I do think there’s good reason to withhold treatment/transplant options from the dead. I don’t think it will do them any good. :p
Kija, if you’re going to criticize other people for getting nasty and insulting, then don’t be nasty and insulting yourself. If you are wililng to be insulting, then I don’t think you have much grounds for criticizing other folks.
As I understand it, Dean’s plan calls for the bulk of adult uninsureds to be offered health insurance for not more than 7.5% of their gross income. For someone earning $12,000 a year, this means they’d have to pay $900 – an entire month’s take-home pay – in order to have health care. You may beleive that only libertarians and Christian Scientists would conceivably turn down such a plan, but I don’t think that’ll be the case in reality.
However, I do admit that Dean’s plan has improved and been fleshed out since a few months ago (and also that I’d get coverage under Dean’s plan now, which I wouldn’t have based on his website’s description a few months ago). The main problem I have with it is that it doesn’t do anything serious about controlling expenses; without a realistic plan to keep skyrocketing costs in control, I don’t think Dean’s plan will be affordable over the long term.
And for the record, since you’ve chosen to make this an issue, I’m not insured. Are you?
LOL Bean!
Sorry, bean. That’s what I get for trying to post with a frozen fruit bar in one hand. But it was purely for medicinal purposes, I swear. :p Try this:
“…I could find myself sick as a dog, or unable to work or keep my home. I could find myself at the mercy of for-profit clinics that often deliberately withhold treatment/transplant options from the poor. I could be bankrupt, then dead for no good reason, in that order. At least, if band-aid solutions like Dean’s end up being the best we can do, or if the current system is allowed to continue…”
My soul belongs to Dreyers[tm]. :p
Much better, Amy :D
And, as long as I’m in editing mode tonight:
Amp said: If you are wililng to be insulting, then I don’t think you have much grounds for criticizing other folks.
First, I believe that should be willing, not wililng.
Second, bad comparison. I believe it should be:
If you are willing to be insulting, then I don’t think you have much grounds for being upset that others are insulting you.
Can I take off the editor’s hat yet? :p
oh, I think it should also be ground, not grounds
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing