mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (07/24/89)
This newsgroup has spent its time so far discussing feminism as a philosophy. It has not, except in very general terms, touched upon feminism's goals, and especially has avoided discussion of feminism within the American political landscape. I find this in interesting because, although feminism- in-general is no longer much under discussion (does anyone REALLY argue against equality between the sexes?), feminism-as-politics is a gaping void. To put it plainly, feminism has failed to make itself part of the national agenda. The movement seems not to have understood that in a democracy, achieving anything requires a perception that there is a problem, that the problem is urgent, and deserves a place at the top of the national "to-do" list. And to so convince elected officials means being able to point to large numbers of voters that so believe, and (most importantly), are willing and ready to act on these beliefs, by voting for, or against, these self-same officials. Yet feminism has had no visible presence in American politics. NOW "chose not to endorse" any candidate in the 1988 presidential election. The reasons cited may have made sense, but the (lack of) action meant that NOW would have zero clout with whomever was elected. Net result: child care legislation was passed with no contribution by NOW, or any other feminist group. So far as child care legislation is concerned, NOW does not exist. For proof, consider that the driving force behind the bill was Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, whom no one will ever confuse for a feminist. No press accounts of the bill's development and passage included even mentions of feminist organizations. But why *should* NOW have any political power? It has failed to deliver its constituency. Who can name a single national politician who was elected primarily by feminist support? In 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro was put on the ticket specifically to attract their vote, women decisively woted for Reagan. In 1988, when study after study pointed to a large "gender gap", and hence a problem, for George Bush, there was no visible effort to exploit it. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle was in part viewed as a cynical attempt to buy off women by putting a cute face on his ticket. Yet no feminist organization pointed out that it would take more than that to close the gap. An indeed, by the election, the "gender gap" had pretty much vanished, with little change in Bush policy. The only conclusion possible is that feminism is not relevant to the shaping of the political landscape. We see signs of this irrelevance everywhere. Feminists cite the massive march in support of abortion rights. But why was a march necessary? Marches are a way to identify support. The job of crystallizing it into political power comes next. Marches surely DO NOT translate to power. If they were, the huge marches in support of a nuclear freeze would have generated political action, instead of nothing. The time for feminist marches was twenty years ago, to *establish* feminism as a political entity. ( The 1963 March on Washington *established* blacks a political entity, with civil rights as their agenda. They then went on to *realize* this agenda, with the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. They have since *consolidated* that power, supporting key politicians, establishing their own presence. Just consider that what prevented Robert Bork's elevation to the Supreme Court was the opposition of a group of liberal Southern politicians. All of them had been elected with key black support, in some cases despite losing the white vote. All of them realized that having put them in office, blacks could just as easily remove them, and that this was an issue that could provoke such a turnaround. THAT, people, is power in modern America) I laugh when I see Kate Michelman of NARAL talking about the things they "are going" to do in the fight for abortion rights. Why this future tense? Why were these things not done in the 1970s, when feminists enjoyed the generally sympathetic ear of Congress? Why did NARAL allow the anti-abortion forces to define the terms of the debate? "Pro-life" is not a position that one can be against. The anti-abortion forces have had 15 years to organize, and Michelman believes her up-to-now invisible organization can catch up and surpass them in a year!!! And so it goes, from issue to issue. Child care is happening despite feminism rather than because of it. Despite unbelievable gains, feminist (as opposed to female) presence in the workplace is nonexistent. The demands for sexual freedom that were such a key part of feminism in the 1960s are abandoned (what, exactly, is the fight for abortion rights if not one for sexual freedom?), yet nothing has come up to replace them. Feminism is reacting to events, desperately and not at all well even then, rather than shaping them. So I ask (I still hesitate to say 'indict'): why is this? why has feminism been unable to formulate an agenda? Why has feminism been unable, and unwilling, to do what is necessary to realize that agenda? And given this lack of ability, why should it expect anyone to give it political assistance? Where is the feminist beef? -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "