political campaigns

Happy Election Day, Girl with Penners! On this potentially HISTORIC day, we invite you to share your voting stories with us in comments.

How’d it go? Long lines? Exuberance? Fear? What’s it like to vote this vote in your part of the country? Tell us, tell us! We will collate into a post.

Me, I’m off to vote right now, feelin that audacity to hope….

(Photo is Inez Milholland, at a Suffrage Parade in 1910, ten years before white women got the right to vote)

No matter what the outcome of tomorrow night, we are going to have a lot to talk about on Wednesday. The entire outlook for women’s issues in the next four (eight?) years will change drastically either way, and it will be time to start immediately thinking about how we go forward with gender equality, reproductive justice, and a whole host of other issues.

The Center for New Words will be hosting a Feminist Town Forum of national leaders and feminists to discuss what happened on Election Day and where we go from here. We will broadcast the town forum here at Girl with Pen, starting at 7PM on Wednesday. In addition, I (Kristen Loveland), Deborah Siegel, and Glorida Feldt will be teaming up to give live commentary on the town hall, and we invite you to add your voices as well. Basically, we will create a post with the live broadcast and hold a discussion in the comments section. Looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday!

Full Details:

Following their extremely informative column (anybody who hasn’t read it yet should go back and read!) from last week on how McCain and Obama rank on the international women’s issues scale, here’s a follow-up from Tonni and Gwen just a day before the election. Hoping for a fantastic tomorrow. –Kristen

Hi folks. Tonni & I wanted to share a quote from you as a follow-up to our Global Exchange: Election Special.

The amazing Debra Schultz, Acting Director of the Gender Program at the International Center for Transitional Justice (and proud NCRW alumna), shared her insights on the coming election with us:

“McCain and Palin are likely to continue U.S. unilateralism in foreign policy, which can only impact women negatively. Why? Prolonged US involvement in Iraq, possible confrontation with Iran and instability in Pakistan (how easily the assassination of Benazir Bhutto seems forgotten), will disproportionately affect women and children. In an economic downturn, bloated military budgets will siphon funds needed to provide for social welfare priorities at home, such as healthcare reform and education reform.

A US multilateralist approach under Obama would likely benefit gender justice worldwide.

If the US ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the international community could hold states and non-state actors accountable for war rape including the massive epidemic of sexual violence in the eastern Congo.”

Thank you, Debra, and Happy Election Eve to all!

–Gwen and Tonni

In the past few weeks, a number of conservatives, most prominently Colin Powell, have endorsed Obama’s candidacy for president (talk about reaching across the aisle). Most recently came an endorsement from Jeffrey Hart, who was a Nixon and Regan speechwriter and who worked at the National Review for four decades.

The endorsement seemed unique and particularly significant for offering a strong defense of Roe v. Wade and embryonic stem cell research. Hart’s conservatism is of the Burkean kind, rooted in realistic assessment of social conditions and changes. He inextricably ties woman’s right to choice to the advancement of women’s equality. It makes one realize exactly how much the Republican party has morphed itself under Bush. I think Hart’s rationale deserves repeating in full:

Ever since Roe vs. Wade, abortion has been a salient controversy in our politics. But the availability of abortion is linked to the long advancement of women’s equality. Again, we are dealing with social change, and this requires understanding social change, a Burkean imperative that Obama understands.

On my Dartmouth campus, half the undergraduates are women. They do not want to have their plans derailed by an unwanted pregnancy. In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court ruled that the availability of abortion “enables women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the country.”

Though there is a tragic aspect to abortion, as Obama recognizes, women’s equality means that women have control of their reproductive capability. Men don’t worry about that. The fact is that 83 percent of elective abortions occur during the first trimester, and decline rapidly after that.

Both Obama and McCain support federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, Obama more urgently. The conservative movement publications, following Bush, have been fiercely opposed. Such opposition required a belief that a cluster of cells (the embryo) the size of the period at the end of this sentence is as important (more important?) than a seriously ill human being.

I myself cannot fathom such a mentality.

In fact, embryonic stem cell research is being energetically pursued in the following nations: Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, China cooperating with the EU. Privately funded and state funded laboratories are moving ahead vigorously.

Recently, Harvard announced a program that will be part of a multi-billion dollar science center to be established south of the Charles River, and will be able to supply sem cells to other laboratories. I call that Pro-Life.

The following is this month’s installment of Jacqueline Hudak’s column, Family Stories.  For previous installments, click here. Here’s Jacqueline! -Deborah

Amid the festive Halloween decorations I see the “McCain/Palin” signs on my neighbor’s lawn and resist the sudden intense urge to come back after dark and rip them up.

OK, I think, THAT’S not useful.  Maybe I should just knock on their door, and say, “Hello, and by the way, do you understand what their policies will do to me and my family?”

I am aware of how divisive the campaign has been; at times its hard to even imagine moving beyong the rhetoric of us/them to a real conversation in which I could share with my neighbor the impact of rendering my lesbian family unworthy and invisible. How might I convey the sense of grievance when we have been made ‘other?’  And yet, I want to hold a passionate position about the influence of McCain policy on my family without demonizing McCain himself. Or my neighbor.

What we do with these feelings was addressed for me last weekend, when  I attended a workshop on “Forgiveness” with Dr. Fred Luskin, author of Forgive for Good and Director of The Stanford University Forgiveness Project. His premise, that holding onto anger and grudges is bad for physical and emotional well being, is backed by a growing body of research.  Studies conducted at Stanford reveal that people who are more forgiving report feeling less stressed and fewer health problems, and people who blame others for their troubles have higher incidences of illess such as cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Luskin asked the participants to write something we were unable to forgive – our grievance story.  You know, the one  that can play endlessly in your head about the time you were wronged, the one you still get all charged up over. We were then asked to describe our thoughts, feelings and actions in relation to the grievance stories. This simple exercise was powerful in providing clarity about long held, repetitive patterns of thought and behavior that simply are not effective. It also opened up space for the grief and hurt beneath the wound. Using meditation and guided visualizations, Dr. Luskin pushed us to change our  “grievance stories, ” to make peace with what is, to shift attention from what’s wrong to what’s right and good. Suffering is normal, he pointed out, and life can be hurtful enough without inflicting further damage by holding onto grudges.

As a family therapist, I see what a powerful tool forgiveness can be. Family legacies can be built entirely around a grievance story, and the goal of therapy is often to rewrite the story as one of strength and resilience.  I do need to be careful about applying some of these principles without a larger contextual lens; for example, I don’t think women and men approach relationship in the same ways, and women might tend to ‘forgive’ too easily for the sake of maintaining the relationship. And if I, a white woman, can summon an interpersonal grievance with such ease, imagine the experience of women of color who, frankly, have a lot more to forgive in the face of institutional racism. The goal, it seems, would be to exist someplace between forgiveness and compassion while working to eradicate injustice.  A spiritual practice indeed.

One of my favorite lines from Luskin’s worshop was this: “How do we fill the gap between what we wanted and what we have?”

I will think about that, post-November 4th, as I fill the gap between what I hoped for this election season, and what I get. I will be profoundly disappointed if this country elects the McCain/Palin ticket.  I desire a leader who can embrace the complexities of an issue, as Obama has done relative to race.  And whatever happens, I hope we all end the divisive us/them rhetoric and fill the gaps with forgiveness.

–Jacqueline Hudak

Robin Morgan wrote recently about “faux feminists,” namely in the context of those who support Sarah Palin’s candidacy for vice president. While, as I have pointed out, I think a Palin vice presidency would prove detrimental for women’s status in America, particularly because of her fiercely narrow anti-choice position, to bisect women into “true” vs. “fake” feminists (sound familiar?) without any room for contingency is unworkable in a society where women are represented by a variety of identities. In this case, I think Morgan needed to make a distinction between political feminism and personal feminism.

Political feminism needs to promote policies which, at the fount, support the advancement of women from a variety of disparate backgrounds, including different ethnicities, economic situations, regional and religious experiences. It needs to fight for women in those areas of society where they experience distinct disadvantages and discrimination. But it especially needs to support female Choice, particularly in sexuality and reproduction, above and beyond all else: the Choice to marry whomever she wants and the Choice to have or not have a child contingent on her personal circumstances.

A politician who supports women’s economic and political advancement, but not their bodily sovereignty, is incapable of representing feminism on an American political stage. Palin refuses to look beyond a personal, religiously-motivated decision on her part to understand why an urban teenager with a bright college future ahead of her, or a college junior, or a woman with little economic support, or a mid-career woman for whom it’s just not the right time, or a rape victim, must have the Choice to end an unwanted pregnancy. The difference between a personal and political feminism hinges on the question of whom it affects–and while Palin’s views on abortion may be right for her, they are not right for the majority of women in this country. The personal may always be political, but the political should not always be personal.

On the other hand, despite what I would describe as a viscerally negative reaction to Palin’s candidacy, I don’t think we should delineate stringent standards for who is a “feminist.” “I am a feminist.” It’s an expression we don’t hear enough. Based on pure numbers, we should be encouraging as many women as possible to express this sentiment: “I am a feminist.” At base, it means that you are actively working for women’s advancement, independence, and equality, either in your own life or at large. Given how diverse our society is, that can take on any number of meanings.

My grandmother is a devout Catholic, anti-choice, and very pro-Palin (we’ve been studiously avoiding the topic for the past few months). At the same time, she pulled herself out of 1950s housewife-dom to go back to college at age 36 with two kids at home, became a first-time teacher at age 40, and through various family crises has shown herself to be a fiercely independent and modern woman who refused to cede ground to males in the family. Would I want her deciding American policy on women’s issues for the next four years? No way. Would I love it if she called herself a feminist and would I think it true? Absolutely. In fact, sometimes I call her a feminist and while she’ll sigh “Nooo,” you can hear pride in her voice. “Feminist” can be a very empowering term.

“Feminist” also demands context. The first-wave feminists were hardly pro-choicers, but they were extremely effective politically for their time. Radical and middle-class feminists in the second wave had radically different ideas on tactics and outcomes, but both groups were feminists in their own way. Which feminism was more effective for American women at the time is a different conversation. If we stick to a too-narrow version of “feminist” then we leave out a significant number of women who are trying to carve out how to be feminists on their own terms, in their own societies, in their own religious contexts even.

There are Jewish Orthodox feminists, who have made great strides in female education, grassroots religious practices, and tefillah (prayer) groups [You can read about it in: “Women in Orthodoxy: Conventional and Contentions” by Norma Baumel Joseph in Women Remaking American Judaism, ed. Riv-Ellen Prell, 2007: Wayne State University Press). While the headway may seem small to those who don’t adhere to Orthodox beliefs, why would we deny women who have sought to effect changes within the contexts of their religion the right to call themselves Feminist?

It’s a matter of semantics, but to prevent us from wasting time over accusatory, and sometimes riskily exclusive arguments of “Who’s a feminist? Are you a feminist? Am I a feminist? Is she? Is he?” We should take “Feminist” off the grand, binary scale and ask instead about American political feminism. Sarah Palin, through a mixture of savvy and chutzpah, has become a politically powerful woman and within her context, I can understand why she considers herself a feminist. But does she represent feminism in the same way Hillary does? Will she work effectively in political office for the betterment of the diverse body of American women? In short: hell no.

–Kristen Loveland

Perhaps someone forwarded you this wacky protest song in support of McCain-Palin by Hank Williams, Jr., that’s going around. Here’s a favorite line from this Palin anthem:

“If you mess with her cubs, she’s gonna take off the gloves. It’s an American female tradition.”

My friend who forwarded me the lyrics quipped: “For me, this really hit the sweet spot of country music and radical feminist politics.” As another friend said, “Hey! It’s McFeminism!”

McFeminism, Red State feminism, call it what you will, but that sweet spot is exactly the point where gender politics and social class politics intersect.

Gender politics for working-class families often play out differently than do gender politics for middle-class families. Stephanie Coontz’s recent column goes into excellent detail, illustrating that, “how women address gender-based reproductive, sexual, and family interests varies by their class position and their personal options outside the family.”

So, for example, working-class folks, historically, are somewhat more likely to endorse traditional gender roles. In working-class families, according to this example, there’s a more traditional division of household labor. And as researchers show, working-class versus middle-class families even do sex differently. (Check out Coontz’s article “The Romantic Life of Brainiacs” for an analysis of sex and social class; page through to stuff on oral sex just for fun.)  Remember, of course, these are only statistical tendencies, not rigid patterns. They give us clues about how to sort out different feminisms.

So Sarah Palin has the promise to appeal to those who admire traditional feminine resourcefulness. In the traditional gender roles universe, the strong mama who does what it takes to defend her cubs (like a pitbull with lipstick) is a feminist heroine.

That’s powerful: I think of my mother who kept a gorgeously clean and attractive house, worked full time (sometimes at more than one job), finished college and went to graduate school, took care of four kids, tolerated an underemployed spouse, and seated the whole crew for breakfast and dinner every single day. This is an American Hero that we all can revere—maybe not as much as a prisoner of war, but certainly as much as Mom and apple pie. SP has qualities that remind us of our old fashioned, wage-earning, home-making, second-shift working moms—the very moms who gave many of us younger feminists greater courage to break the mold.

Luckily (for intergenerational harmony) my own Annie-get-your-gun kind of mom sees Sarah Palin as someone who, in the end, simply isn’t qualified for the job. In truth, my mom really thinks SP is pretty selfish, willing to do or say anything to get what she wants for herself—not that different from her running mate.

That might just be my mom. But it sure does make me think….

I can recognize and honor diversity among feminisms, but that doesn’t mean I–or my mom–can’t judge quality.

–Virginia Rutter

Photo from People magazine

I am all nail-bitey today as we enter the final stretch. As my co-penner extraordinaire Kristen said to me this morning, we have the audacity to hope.

To get your mind off–or ok, on–everything, here are a few links that came our way via the WMC. Enjoy, and Happy Hallowe’en!

Rachel Maddow has something to say about Sarah Palin

Lynn Sherr writes on why she thinks non-voters should have their toenails removed (ouch!)

Prize-winning historian Mary Hershberger asks why the media won’t examine the McCain war record

Nida Khan brings up the other campaign, the one with two women candidates: Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente of the Green Party.

Robin Morgan tackles “faux feminists.”

Lorelei Kelly tells us why women must take charge

Ellen Bravo, who advocates for paid sick leave, sympathizes with Barack Obama’s break from the trail to see his ailing grandmother

Joanne Cronrath Bamberger writes about one congresswoman who went a few steps too far.

Peg Simpson focuses on possible wins for women in Congress.

Rebekah Traistor writes on the effects of the election on Katie Couric, Campbell Brown and Rachel Maddow: “Ladies of the Nightly News”.

And the current issue of Ms. Magazine has GWP blogger Veronica Arreloa’s review of the anthology edited by amazing duo Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape and also a piece by Latoya Peterson, who edits Racialicious.com.

Back in 2002, David Brooks reported that during the 2000 presidential election, “a Time magazine-CNN poll asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent reported that they were, and another 20 percent said that they expected to be there one day.” Forty percent of people were all thinking that they were in that tiny, tiny space reserved for one percent of the population. When I talk about this with my introduction to sociology students, they get it. They can do the math.

But this bit of bad math is part of being American. It is essentially American to identify up the social ladder (over at the NYT, Jennifer Steinhauer has explained this wonderfully). We’ve had the lending policy and credit cards encourage us to do so. Just like we buy Gucci bags or cars we can’t afford, we have, for the past 25 years, voted for leaders that don’t line up with what we need or can afford.

Joe the Plumber is like the disoriented 39 percent from back in 2000. JTP identifies with the economic interests above his pay grade. Even though he doesn’t make 250K and doesn’t have prospects of doing so any time soon, he’s kind of “saving for a rainy day” by voting for the candidate who will have good tax policy for the life he wishes he had, instead of voting for the candidate who has tax policies that can help him now and can help him reach his goal.

JTP requires another twist of logic, much like the bad math of the 40% above: JTP doesn’t imagine that he could afford the extra taxes (perhaps $900 more under Obama than McCain) if he is making 250K per year (Dean Baker explains the numbers and the NYT offers a handy illustration). Still, he feels like he can forego the $$ from an an Obama tax cut that he will get now at his current income level. Not as good as a Gucci bag, but the same idea.

I know it is tasteless these days to mention socialism or anything like that. Obama used humor to remind us that sharing your peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn’t the same thing as socialism. Even so, this has been a great week for my social theory students to study Marxism. They are learning about how consciousness of your real position in the economy really can help you decide how to make your life better. And they think that Joe the Plumber’s class consciousness is out of order. Maybe he needs to call “Karl the Marxist” as Hendrik Hertzberg suggests in the New Yorker this week. (Thanks Ira.)

PS: What does this have to do with feminism? Economic justice and sound financial reasoning are feminist issues full stop. But over at the Joint Economic Committee, where GWP favorite Heather Boushey works, they have just put out a report about how bad things are in our economy–especially for the household sector, where women are especially hard hit.

–Virginia Rutter

Well, it’s been a long election season, and in just 5 days it will be time to come together to figure out what it all means and what’s next. GWP is PSYCHED to be participating in next Wednesday’s Feminist Town Forum, organized by our friends at The Center for New Words. Here’s the dish:

At this culmination of the This Is What Women Want election project, please join those of us here at GWP, a panel of national leaders, and the feminist community nationwide to discuss what happened on Election Day, and what we should be thinking about and doing now to fight for equality and justice for all.

This is a first of its kind event convening feminists from around the country live via the blogosphere! Pretty cool, no? You’ll be able to watch live, converse with other audience members around the country, and submit your comments and questions in real time.

Please feel free to start telling us what issues and ideas YOU’D like to hear the panel address.  The organizers will get these comments to the panelists in advance, so this is your way to help influence the conversation.

(Facebook users: Click here to RSVP and invite your friends!)