After yet another evening of being thrown under the bus, it is high time that women's organizations drastically change their approach!
Women in the Democratic Party have been taken for granted and have lost their bargaining power as a result. Ladies, this is business, plain and simple, and what it comes down to this: We can no longer work with only one political party: that is "speaking." Women's organizations must learn to "negotiate" and establish dialogues with all political parties. Party exclusivity is why women's organizations are failing in their missions to protect their members and their members' interests. Women's organizations must become non-partisan immediately.
Last night, our Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi primarily and President Obama secondarily, approved a health care bill that does not include funding for abortion. What did they gain for this concession? Nothing. Still, 39 blue dog Democrats voted against the bill. There is no better indication of how little bargaining power organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood currently have thanks to their efforts with one party.
The organizations and religious groups that are against abortion have amply made their case with the Democratic leaders. The DNC Chair is anti-choice. Half our country does not know whether President Obama is pro-choice.
Here are some short-term suggestions for women's advocacy groups:
1. Change of leadership. I agree with parts of what Jane Hamsher wrote last night at HuffPost. Groups set up for this issue failed. Nancy Keenan in particular who endorsed then Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in 2008 when only Clinton had any clear record on reproductive rights -- the sole issue on which her organization is focused -- should step down immediately. Records show that Keenan has had ample access to the White House and yet has been ineffective at advancing her organization's cause. She must go.
2. The leaders of the women's group devoted to choice must immediately head this bill off at the next pass. These organizations should mobilize their members to write to their senators and ask them NOT to pass the bill in its current form.
3. The leaders of women's groups devoted to choice should immediately set up meetings with Michael Steele, Chair of the RNC, to make their pitch. While opinions in our country are split on abortion, most believe that this a personal decision.
4. The leaders of the all women's organizations should open lines of communication with political leaders of all political parties. Starting immediately. On all issues concerning women and girls. We need advocates in all parties and this is attainable.
The days of women's organizations being an appendage of the DNC must end immediately. Women have been taken for granted and speaking to one political party has led to defeat after defeat for causes important to women.
It is high time that women's organizations blaze a brave new path for their constituents. It is time that we fight for women and girls. And in order to do so, we need to make our case to all political parties. Else, women and women's issues will continue the easiest give for the Democrats.
Follow Amy Siskind on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmyTheNewAgenda
Each time a woman shares her truth about her insecurities, questions, doubts, addictions, abuse as well as her feelings of power, it heals another woman.
What this amendment does is, in essence, prevent any insurance company from offering abortion procedures as a benefit, as most do now.
The amendment is a big mess, that is what the bottom line is.
Now I propose a counter-stupak amendment that would bar federal funding from paying for erectile dysfunction treatments--I am fundamentally opposed to having my tax dollars pay for such 'morally repugnant' treatments since they go against the "will of God". I mean, if God made willy limp there must have been a good reason, right? (I say this half in jest)
Let's start here: When you say pro-choice women need to be engaged wtih ALL the political parties...what you really mean is the repubs as well as the dems. Because that's all we've got in this country. The rest don't count for jack squat..
so...pro-choice women cozying up to the repubs? Ask Christie Whitman (former repub NJ gov and Bushco EPA chief) how that's worked out for her.
Frustrated black activists feeling the same sort of disenfranchisement have often said the same thing, but they know that the repubs don't really want to be bothered with them and their issues at all.
Like it or not, you're gonna have to dance with the one that brung ya...even if he's got a big fat zit on his nose.
Sounds highly unlikely to me. All of the dems, including Obama himself, along with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the black congressinal caucus, etc etc etc would have gone out stumping like crazy for candidate Clinton. Maybe SOME blacks would have stayed home, but not enough to cost Hillary the majority of the blue states.
That said, your historical references are accurate, but they really reflect a CONTINUAL refusal, rather than an occasional one, to care about a core constituency by one party or another.
And - speaking honestly - that's just not the case right now with the pro-choice contingent of women in this country right now.
There's really no place else for them to go, if they want ANY say at the table. If they leave the dems, they'll be "Christie Whitman'ed", or "Ralph Nader'ed".
Women's groups should become HUMANIST while they strive to be non-partisan. The same old tired, retrenched, turned up a notch (it's already at max and been there for awhile), gender exclusive (women, girls), thereby gender exclusionary (us vs. them-men, boys) approach is no longer working. Not only has this never ending Energizer Bunnyesque perpetual battle with attendant drum banging and cymbal clanging alienated men, it has alienated a number of old school, principle minded, equality conscious and equality motivated feminists.
History lesson:
The feminist movement began as a principled movement in pursuit of equal rights, opportunity, and treatment regardless of gender. Unisex principles and practices that would apply to any gender. Gender equality. Remember the ERA? Principled men played a pivotal role in this movement.
Where we are now:
The ERA didn't pass. I often wonder how things would be different today. Women's groups have become more and more gender exclusive (women, girls), and gender exclusionary against (men, boys). Women's groups have adopted the worst features of the democratic party in that they attempt to satisfy an unworkably large divergence of female interest groups, which prevents real pursuit of unisex principles-whereby women step up and accept the burden, with the benefit. And give up victimhood and sexist 1950's traditional roles and chivalry demands (should they choose), while expecting to be taken seriously flying fighter jets.
Until then, the women's movement has lost my support...and my 67 year old mother's...and my 65 year old aunt's.....
However, I believe that the reason why women's rights groups evolved into the almost exclutionary clubs they are perceived as is because we realized that 1) society was man's society and we got to sit in the back looking pretty and not saying anything. 2) asking pretty please got us nowhere; 3) except for very very few brave men who actually believed in equality of women, like V.P. Joe Biden, most men in power still held strong to their beliefs that equality meant having them have to converge with the dumber gender, in essence, lowering their powerful social standing, and hence, they held strong on denying us even the right to defend ourselves against our abusive spouces and boyfriends.
So you see, in theory the "we are all equal we are all human" premise is nice, but we are so far away from that that we can't afford to say, OK we are for human rights and we are not making distinctions--when the very people who are in power make those gender distinctions every time they author, sponsor and vote for any piece of legislation.
Like Scossafava in NY-23 district ...
Oh, I forgot ...
She endorsed the other dude ...
My Bad !
We are not against men, we are against unfair and unequal treatment perpetuated by many men, and supported by many legislators who happen to be mostly men.
Instead of fighting for Democrats, women's groups should be fighting for women.
Women's groups could have similar sway if they'd hold out their endorsement for the highest bidder, instead of just giving it away. Women have allowed themselves to be taken for granted by the Democratic Party. Why should we sell ourselves so cheaply? Where is our self-respect?
*****A
J
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants
If you turn around quickly with an effective campaign to get into the climate bill a restriction on funding coal and petroleum corporations, similar to the restriction that special interests got shoved into the health care bill, then you will get the attention of the corporate interests the GOP loves the most. In a moment, they'll begin begging the GOP leadership, and its DLC followership, to stop pandering to the xian religious extremists. And you won't even have to ruin your good shoes to meet with them personally.
To accomplish this, you'll need to work with environmental groups, possibly including the Green Party, which you'll find to be more trustworthy partners than the Republican Party. Such alliances will also arouse the suspicions of fewer Liberals than meeting with Michael Steele, which I think is a hilarious idea but not very promising.
It's time for women to stick together and fight for what we can agree on- Instead of blaming the Government look at the people- Why are so many antichoice-Look what happen to Gay marriage in Maine that was via the vote of the people- same thing happened in California- Many people didn't want to vote for Bush the 2nd time but abortion forced them not to vote for the Democrat-
A heck of a lot of Americans don't like Abortion but you still have the right to have one if you want to.
I've heard the "mantra" of "the right to have an abortion" and that it's a "private decision between a woman and her doctor"
Well, we've come full circle here...
A private decision does not rate public financing.
If it does...
It is no longer private.
You've had your fun in the sun now....
You've lost and you will continue to lose.
If the shoe fits...wear it:)
And don't you dare tell me that I must pay for your mistake in judgement.
You may not believe in hell but I do and you will not make me complicit in your sin.
What great timing... I hope Ms. Siskind reads the article about the party she wishes to now support.
J
This is really the crux of your argument and your underlying assumption, but you give not one shred of evidence or fact to support it. In fact, all the evidence completely refutes it.
Since when are women monolithic?
This grouping of people into aggregates that politicians and social scientists can play with more easily is a big problem. The world is made up of individuals.