Feminist author Linda Hirshman's longish analysis in Sunday's Washington Post, Looking to the Future, Feminism Has to Focus, takes on the self-defeating aspects of the women's movement. The lessons she finds also apply, in many respects, to the fight for gay equality. For example, she writes that:
Faced with criticism that the movement was too white and middle class, many influential feminist thinkers conceded that issues affecting mostly white middle-class women-such as the corporate glass ceiling or the high cost of day care-should not significantly concern the feminist movement. Particularly in academic circles, only issues that invoked the "intersectionality" of many overlapping oppressions were deemed worthy.
But somehow, only those privileged by white middle-classness were expected to stop selfishly focusing on their own needs and goals. Hirshman continues:
Although other organizations work on women's issues when appropriate, none of the other social movements were much interested in making intersectionality their mission. The nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP... says nothing about feminism or homophobia or intersectionality in its mission statement.
An unmentioned exception, of course, is that the leading LGBT organizations make support for abortion rights and race-based preferences (see past Human Rights Campaign scorecards) litmus test issues and otherwise define themselves as working on behalf of the entire progressive agenda (see the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's mission statement). But I digress. Hirshman goes on, and quotes Martha Burk, past president of the National Council of Women's Organizations (with brackets and ellipses in the original):
A lot of millennial feminism simply magnifies the weakness of the old movement. As Burk says: "When we started the [younger women's] task force, the young women wanted to identify it with environmentalism and prison rights and, and, and,..." Sound familiar?
She concludes:
So I'll invoke the insights of someone less than half my age, the young editor of Feministe, Jill Filipovic. "Mainstream liberal Democratic guys don't have to take feminism seriously because they know that, at the end of the day, we're going to be there," she told me.
Yep, sounds familiar.
14 Comments for “Lessons Learned?”
posted by Richard on
Ah, the gay partisan speaks. But should be listen?
No doubt the feminist movement was run by white, educated, middle class women. Who else had the time to get involved in politics?
Although it is mostly an issue about class. Also I fail to see how the glass ceiling would only impact women of a certain class (or race).
Yes, different issues — in terms of how sex discrimination and harassment — may arise (manifest) in upper vs. lower levels of a company or institution.
Their is an issue of privilege and power that Stephen does not seem to be aware of our believe in. That might explain, in part, why the NAACP focuses more on racial issues.
Also a woman of color, for example, faces both sex and racial discrimination and thus might be more inclined them men of color to make connections between various forms of oppression.
Some LGBT-rights organizations support abortion rights based on their link to the constitutional beliefs about privacy rights and the fact that pro-choice groups also tend to support family planning and comprehensive sex ed.
Yet, their are feminists groups that are pro-life, just as their are gay rights groups that are pro-life.
Yeah, the NGLTF sees itself as part of a larger progressive coalition, as the IGF may see itself as part of a large conservative coalition.
Coalition building is an important, often necessary, part of the American political process.
Well, we only have two viable political parties, no constitutional right to vote or to hold office. Incumbents need not win a majority of the votes to get reelected. Districts are often created to aid incumbents.
Politicians take a lot of people for granted because they know they have little or no competition
posted by avee on
Richard, you blast Stephen as “a partisan” for, what? Quoting a feminist leader who says feminists don’t serve their cause be giving Democrats their unconditional support?
So, in Richard-think(sic), criticizing partisanship-above-all makes one, a partisan! What a mind!
posted by RIchard on
More partisan lies and gimmicks. Should we listen? No.
Instead of dealing with any of the valid and intelligent things I pointed out, you squirmed and dodged away.
It is not that Democrats may be taken feminists for granted. It is that Democrats and Republicans often take voters for granted because of the flaws with our electoral process.
posted by Richard on
Until gay partisans — Democrats and Republicans — demonstrate a willingness to look at issues independently and to understand our electoral process, they are probably going to give us more of the same old spin.
posted by avee on
Richard, I doubt you even read the postings, or the comments, before sounding off. It’s not that you disagree, it’s that you misconstrue — and yes, that’s worth pointing out. You’re the type of blog troll that derails conversations and bring them to a halt.
posted by Richard on
Avee;
Maybe your partisanship impresses other people, but not me. Funny how there are so few independents at the Independent Gay Forum…
The thrust, if you will, of the commentary on the article was that its bad for gays to affiliate with liberal or Democrats because they taken them for granted — as they do with women.
Yet, conservatives are probably unlikely to endorse feminist policy ends, much less gay rights ones. Libertarians might endorse some, but they have little to no political power.
I also feel that the entire mindset of both the article and the commentary are off base. Why? The electoral system.
posted by Throbert McGee on
[we have] no constitutional right to vote or to hold office.
Er… homo say what? Are you talking about the USA? Walk us through your reasoning above, pray.
posted by Richard on
I said: [we have] no constitutional right to vote or to hold office.
Yup, this would apply to the United States. Just look at the current constitution and you will see this.
In the 1960s the USSC began to interpret such political rights via the 1st and 14th Amendments, but the court has since backed off from it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
avee wisely notes: “Richard, I doubt you even read the postings, or the comments, before sounding off. It’s not that you disagree, it’s that you misconstrue — and yes, that’s worth pointing out. You’re the type of blog troll that derails conversations and bring them to a halt.”
Not only that, avee, but he takes great and prolonged pains in castigating gays who are GOPers or conservatives in general or “religionists” in particular, all the while carrying the Democrat’s banner under his protective aegis of “Independent”.
I’ve found that Richard is a very partisan, pro-Democrat gayLeft type who spins each thread into an indictment of conservatives or GOPers or fundamentalists or anyone who questions his left-winged opinions about the Middle East, federalism, the proper role of the courts, party politics or govt institutions.
I wish this site had a nickel for each time he begins his uninformed comments with “gay partisans” alike smear. The writers could retire on Richard’s penchant for predictable repetitious nonsense.
For Richard (and the more radical Democrats on the farLeft), electoral reform via banishing the EC and moving to a direct democracy where everyone votes including felons and illegals, same day election registrations, mail in ballots without reservation and all the other Democrat Party electoral “reform” provisions –irrespective of vote integrity or the proposal’s capacity to encourage vote fraud– is Richard’s key to everything.
Oh, and making him Secy of State so he can “correct” the Middle East problems, restore the dominance of the UN, break up the World Bank and IMF, push unions in 3rd world countries and help America’s enemies understand that we were wrong in so many ways, continue to be wrong in so so so many ways, and beg undeveloped countries to shun US corporations.
In a nutshell, as it were. You were right… he doesn’t seem to read the post before ranting.
posted by Pat on
electoral reform via banishing the EC and moving to a direct democracy where everyone votes including felons and illegals, same day election registrations, mail in ballots without reservation and all the other Democrat Party electoral “reform” provisions
For the record, my support of getting rid of the Electoral College is independent of the other “reforms” you mention that may be supported by others. For example, I do not support changing the laws regarding the voting rights of felons. And I do support any measure that improves the integrity of the vote while not disenfranchising anyone who can legally vote from voting.
posted by RIchard on
I do sometimes wonder why this place has the word, “Independent” in its title as most people here seem to be partisans.
Oh, well.
I have not ‘castrated’ anyone. I have been more then willing to point out the blinded partisanship of gay Republicans and Democrats. Gay partisans here have not.
I support a separation between Church and State. I almost never offer personal opinions on other people’s religion. Hence I have no idea how I could be accused of attacking other people’s religion. Probably just another malicious rant by a gay partisan.
It is a simple fact, that the federal constitution does not provide a citizen right to vote to seek or, if elected, to hold public office. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is debateble, but it is a reality we should acknowledge.
The Presidential Electoral College is a separate issue, that has little, directly, to do with the three basic political rights I talked about earlier; suffrage, office holding and political orgs.
Getting rid of the electoral college would probably have little impact on the result of most elections, given how most States chose to award these votes.
Although it was not put into place out of a concern for red vs. blue, urban vs. rural state issues.
I did not suggest that we get rid of the EC. Nor did I suggest that illegal immigrants be allowed to vote. Again, more outright lies from gay partisans.
The EC has more of a direct impact on who voters vote for and the role of candidates and political orgs in the elections.
I would have no desire to be the Secretary of State and as an Independent, I doubt that either party would want someone who actually told the truth.
As an Independent, I am no blind supporter (or critic) of any political institution, including the UN. I will leave that to gay partisans here.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard opines: “I do sometimes wonder why this place has the word, “Independent” in its title as most people here seem to be partisans. Oh, well. I have not ‘castrated’ (sic) anyone. I have been more then willing to point out the blinded partisanship of gay Republicans and Democrats. Gay partisans here have not.”
Actually, Richard, the word used was castigated… not castrated. Maybe that was a Freudian slip on your part?(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip)
I think you’re the one who has started using the term “gay partisan” as a smear or attempt to discredit comments of many on this site… people who are usually making comments that are decidedly conservative or moderate in nature… so much for your claim of being an “independent”. I have yet to see the pattern of equal treatment by you of those on the gayLeft.
For a group of people who place great pride in coming out and admitting their sexual preference to families, friends, co-workers and the public, you sure have a problem admitting your strong liberal inclinations and supportive defense of the Democrat Party.
To paraphase another Democrat, “Richard, I have served with Independents. I know and have known Independents. Independents are and have been friends of mine. Richard, you’re no Independent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Benson
posted by Richard on
MM has admitted to be a gay partisan. He seems to care far more about promoting his party, then gay rights. Fine.
I am an Independent. I am not a member of either political party. Gay Partisans — Democrats and Republicans (liberals or conservatives) — are often uncomfortable with independents because we tell the truth, when they want to hear partisan spin or outright lies.
I have made no claim that people should or should not come out. Nor have I made a comment on who should be made aware of a person’s “sexual peference”. Again, one of your outright lies.
Because I do not kiss out to the GOP, MM insists I must be a Democrat. I am not. I often get the same type of partisanship from gay Democrats, when I refuse to blindly follow their own spin.
I make no blind defense of any political party. I am not a member of any political party. Unlike many people here, I am an Independent.
posted by Richard on
Why not actually have a civil, smart and productive conversation about how we can have more competitive elections so that ppoliticians are less likely to any vote for granted?