21st Century Feminism Emerges!

Good discussion, Susan. I particularly took note of the debate on unwed motherhood, the idea of glorifying it. For me this is a total nonstarter for women. And it’s not a moral issue for me; it’s a practical one.

Parenthood is difficult enough when two parents are involved in the day-to-day tasks and decision-making of raising children. I’ve seen this play out in my own family. There’s nothing glamorous or romantic about it. Young women who sign onto single motherhood, all too frequently sign on for a life of hardship and poverty, for themselves and their kids. By celebrating unwed motherhood, making light of all the inherent problems, or casting it strictly as a moral issue, we’re telling and perpetuating a big fat lie.

I think as women we need to start discussing many of these issues openly and seriously. It goes beyond party affiliations. It affects all of us. And the ones affected the most are the children. Bristol Palin has the advantage of a large, loving family. Too often, young women do not have a support system and are left to fend for themselves and their kids alone. And that’s when grim reality sets in.

“The New Agenda” banned me from their site, based on my dismissive response to this post, “Wearing pants to work is a feminist act.”
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/14/wearing-pants-to-work-is-a-feminist-act/

I suggested the attitudes expressed in the essay, by this particular woman, trivialized the real problem of sex-based discrimination in blue collar and non-traditional workplaces, as compounded by race.

This is great, Susan. Yeah, NOW is soooo way back then.

21st Century Feminism Emerges

And not a moment too soon.

There is already zero tolerance for racism. It should be the same for sexism of men, women and all races.

First of all, I want to say it’s great to see women sitting down together discussing these problems over the political spectrum and I agree with you Susan, Ms and NOW lost their credibility before this election when they chose to define women’s rights on one or two issues. Amy Siskind made several important points about the decision by a married couple to have children. Most couples put more planning time into buying a house than when or if to have a family and what the shared responsibility will be. With a little help from employers, there should be no reason for pregnancy to completely disrupt a woman’s career. She also pointed out the only way to change the attitudes of young women is to raise the conscientious of the population. With teen pregnancy rising for the first time in thirty years, we are doing something wrong.

I’m sorry to hear you were banned simply for taking a critical position, jbjd. Seems to me, once anyone puts an article up for publication, whether in print or online, it should be open for discussion and debate.

Besides, I think your comments were perfectly legitimate. That’s the way we test ideas–to open them up to a round-robin look and line of questioning. Hope that isn’t the norm at the site. Echo chambers are pretty limiting.

In pt 3 of the extended version, I agree with Amy that a single male Congressman with a baby on the way would not get the same scrutiny as a pregnant, umarried woman in the same position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5EUxW85DYQ

jbjd, I agree with Peggy Sue you shouldn’t have been banned for expressing your opinion. Without our right to free speech, we have nothing. However, I don’t understand your objection to the post and it’s discouraging because this is an old issue probably going back to WW2 when women first began to work outside the house in large numbers. I graduated from college in 1978 and my first job I ran into this problem. My office was in the rear of a suite of offices and I met with people outside the office rarely. I wore pants to work until one day my supervisor informed me I would be required to wear dresses or skirts. He said the secretaries were complaining because they couldn’t wear pants. So instead of changing the dress code to allow secs to wear pants, he insisted I not wear them. Of all the places I have worked, there was more sexual harassment in that office than any other. The men came into my office to tell off color jokes, make comments about the way I looked, invaded my space and made my life miserable. Their dress code was more casual. They occasionally wore jeans, no coat or tie. It’s depressing such a double standard still exists.

Thank you. Of course, I agree. This explains why even some people who have been around long enough to ‘know better’ often seem parochial in their views. For all of their lives, they have surrounded themselves with like-thinkers. (Not so, here!)

Congressman (and former President of the NAACP) Kweisi Mfume (Frizzell Gray) fathered 5 children with three different women, that didn’t seem to hurt HIM much politically. Imagine the political hurdle a single woman with 5 kids from three different fathers would have to jump over.

The woman writing the blog worked in a major law firm in the 1990′s and is now a Professor of Law. Coyly suggesting that women in professional offices wear pants to work as a show of feminist defiance trivializes the real problem of gender based inequalities – pay, position, physical assaults – that plague the millions of pants wearing women working in blue collar industries; or the armed services.

I thought the site was suppose to be all inclusive. That doesn’t bode too well.

Placing the responsibility of discrimination on women and their dress code – what will that change in the mentality of the discriminators toward the position of women. Work on the mindset not on the dress code, I agree with you.

And the beat goes on:

Two ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers have altered a photo of Israel’s new cabinet, removing two female ministers. BBC

not that it hasn’t been done before.

But wouldn’t that depend on whether the man was conservative or liberal. Are there any politically conservative men that have father out of wedlock and not suffered politically?

Regardless of party, the Congresswoman is getting all kinds of scrutiny as the first pregnant, unmarried Congresswoman whereas a single man of either party with a baby on the way would not even be brought up.

I was going to make that point, I just wanted to keep it simple.

Yes, the resumes of conservatives (male, female, black, white, etc.) have to be spotless, while resumes of liberals…..not so much.

I beg to differ Andrew–Resumes of Liberals need to contain unpaid back taxes; the more the better. LOL

Pardon my oversight.

Five minutes to Happy Hour. I’ll be more on the ball (highball) shortly.

It’s not trivial, jbjd. It’s symptomatic. It begins with the idea judges will be influenced by their particular dress codes. It requires the lawyer to be constantly aware of her gender every time she drops a piece of paper or pencil, how she crosses her legs. In Short, puts the emphasis on the package instead of the contents. And calls into question the intentions of the lawyer herself and the ability of the judge to make a righteous decision based on the law and nothing else. Don’t tell me this isn’t still a problem because I know it is. Some courts are more lenient than others, but the judge is the boss. The the differences make it apparent the gender of the lawyer is an issue from the start.

Well, I have no respect for The New Agenda if they would ban you from their website for that comment. Moreover, I get annoyed by a group of women sitting around discussing women’s issues–all of whom are elitist upper income upper education women. It’s boring.

A female attorney wants to be able to wear pantsuits to court, and in the office, and meeting clients? Why doesn’t she just do it? If she chooses to work in an elitist environment because she values money then she’s made her choice, and the requirements to make that money dictate her actions. Why, then, is she whining about it? Either she capitulates to sexist demands or she doesn’t. It’s her choice. Take full responsibility for it.

As one commenter reminded the rest of the readers, it’s a Sojourner Truth moment.

jbjd: I’m surprised this law professor would even write such an article. My husband is a law professor. Most law faculties are 50/50, it’s one of the most progressive fields. My point, though, is that in both law firms and law schools ALL the women wear pants. Women lawyers even wear pants to court now, and I’ve seen women judges in pantsuits. I don’t understand where this woman is coming from. It isn’t 1970 anymore.

Hey, I was agreeing with you.

It was the only point Amy made I had to think twice about. She’s been on teevee a lot and she always hits the mark.

tek, academia doesn’t always understand what happens in the real world. Get away from the law schools and college towns and things feel a lot different. I don’t know about the rules of law firms and they are probably very diverse, but in court it’s just the judge who makes the rules. This issue is far less important than equal pay, but it is a part of the tapestry and deserves to be discussed.

I don’t know. Something about the New Agenda site gives me a bit of the creeps. For one, since when is working for women’s equity, a “new agenda”?
And when I first visited their site (just a moment ago was my second time– so not “turned on” by them was I), they had pictures of a group of women– obviously meant to be inclusive and it just looked so damned uninclusive. For instance, weren’t nobody looking in the least bit lesbian, nor I don’t believe from the lower class. All the pretty color choices were there, just like in a revlon commercial, but no class differences and no sexuality differences. It kind of looked like a pseudo-feminist stepford wife site — to tell you the truth. I think I’ll hold onto the word feminist and keep believing that pro-choice is pro-damned-necessary to women’s rights. Seems that the only “new agenda” at the new agenda is that they will dialogue about choice. Now, that’s fine, I reckon. But it’s not my idea of a real women’s rights site.

I didn’t read the woman’s comments which started this discussion, but I had a law school professor (female) give us the stupid talk on wearing dresses in court, blah, blah, blah. Finally, we had a guest judge and I asked him straight out: does it matter to you how a lawyer dresses in your court?
He said no, just don’t appear barefoot.

I’m going against the grain here, but one of the things Siskind said was to raise the awareness of women’s issues. Abercrombie & Fitch was sued because they chose the employees by their looks and required the young women to dress provocatively. I believe we are doing a disservice to the current and future generations of women if we don’t define what sexism is even if it’s subtle and doesn’t seem worth fighting for. And we need women sitting around a table, speaking respectfully to each other about issues common to all of us.

Just having affairs doesn’t count, rw?

NoTrollzone,
Since when did being a lesbian have to be something we “wear on our sleeve.”
Do I “look” like a lesbian. Hmmm, I don’t know. I know many and they all look different. And as far as being lower class. Hmmm, again you’ve got me there. There are women who work (at minimum wage) and they still have to dress up.
I think your focus on how the women look needs to be revisited possibly.
Why don’t you read a few of the blog posts – like the one on CEDAW which I thought was great. No one every summed up CEDAW in such a way and I thought it was quite a “new Agenda.”

not to change the subject, but I have alot of respect for what both Siskind and The New Agenda are doing. We women need to stick together and not let ANYTHING divide us. That’s how we got into the predicament we’re in———stalled progress. We let ourselves bicker among ourselves and let the powers that be divide and conquer us. I would recommend to all of us to put our differences aside. We are a very powerful voting bloc. If we let ourselves get sidetracked by pettiness we’ll get through the whole 21st century without moving ahead. Cmon—we’re all better than that. Together we are a mighty mighty force. And I think Siskind and The New Agenda are one of the major voices to take us to the promised land of equality for women. Thanks Susan for pointing that out!!

NoTrollZone:
WTF? I’d like to know what looking a “bit Lesbian” mean. And what is that thing about “color” on the picture and “lower class?” Sounds like you have an agenda to rant against The New AGenda. Doesn’t even make sense what you are saying.
Were you brought in as a flamer here?

Wow I like the New Agenda site. If the website were the opposite it would be considered tacky and unprofessional. It looks great and like someone worked really hard on it but to you it looks snooty and is not lesbian friendly? No offense, but I don’t think they could win with you either way. I like the website and the New Agenda. You can go there and have a discussion instead of everybody screaming at each other. I think it’s a great group!

Just checked it out. Glad they like having guy members.

I don’t know. I looked at their Media section. Seems like they are very active.

Too bad you were banned from the blog. Looks like they are more into actions as opposed to a lot of the other sites that are blogs alone. Maybe that is why they are careful about comments. It’s an organization.

Christ. Who cares? If the site is intelligently done with an eye towards honesty, what difference does it make? Wearing one’s sexuality on one’s sleeve is no virtue, irrespective of orientation.

Yeah the Abercrombie stuff and what they do to our kids. My daughter is obsessed with how she looks. I get worried about her.

Glad you brought up CEDAW. America is the only
western powerhouse that is not a signatory. And one of the main reasons is that we will not agree that women have the right to choose. New Agenda says that they take no position on right to choose.
What’s new with that?

I’m sure you’re unbanned or they forgot about you. Just use a different email address or something.

Thank you for this, Susan – after the rampant back-stabbing by people affiliated with NOW and MS this past election, I am all too ready for a New Agenda. Especially if that means women truly standing with women, something we saw very little of this past election. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Now, MS editors (remember that HORRIBLE cover of Obama, and them claiming that was what a FEMINIST looked like?? Yeah, if being a feminist means being a MISOGYNIST, sure!), all of them demonstrated just how far we really have to go in terms of women supporting women.

As for being a lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or someone simply questioning their sexuality, I am all for it. Be a lipstick lesbian or not, I don’t care. Be whatever you want. But have a site dedicated to promoting an inclusive community and have a picture of people who look like they belong in a het revlon ad, and it’s downright stupid.

Check this out on the Ms. Cover – these people hated it too…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-11/how-feminism-became-the-f-word/

Abortion and party affiliation are used by both parties to divide women.

You can join groups like NOW and NARAL which cover abortion in addition to The New Agenda.

I don’t see anything Revlon. Look at the home page – those ladies look pretty roll in the mud and serious to me. I don’t see what you see – what you are referring to. I’m new to the site, but they seem like strong women.

For ME, having been raised on euro politics, neither kids out of wedlock nor affairs between established adults count in my judgment of a politician, whether male or a woman.

My point was whether liberal male politicians are not judged for indiscretions to the same degree that conservative male politicians are.

Don’t be silly. I’ve never seen your name here before and I’ve been here a long-long time.
If the New Agenda turns out to be a positive force for women’s rights, then I’m 10,000 percent behind them. They sound middle of the road to me. Not the rebirth of the rebirth of feminism. My opinion.
I checked and the picture is no longer up (that I could find). The picture was of a group of women
latina, african american, older anglo, younger, anglo, Asian. Meant to be inclusive, no? But no one who looked lesbian. Now you can get excited about the idea that lesbians don’t look a certain way. That’s fine. It’s true lesbians don’t come in one size or shape– my shape keeps changing anyway with middle age spread and all. But there are a lot of lesbians who you look at and know their sexuality. This is not a big secret. Ya know? So if I was going to include all women to show that my org was for all women, I would include pictures of women who look like all sorts of different women– and yep, I’d include women who looked butch (for lack of a better word). No big deal, nothing to get excited about. It’s just that I’ve been through the DC PR mill, and I’ve seen women who were lesbians excluded from pictures intentionally by the PR folk. Seems like it happened in this picture I mentioned. And I felt the loss of their inclusion. Also everybody wore make-up. That makes it fake to me, right there. No? Easy point to follow, I think.

Totally in agreement with you on situations like that. And the sexualizing of young people (both male and female) by marketers has long been overdue for revision.

But pants suit vs skirt suit…I don’t think so.

I don’t see that. This woman is speaking out for our daughters. I like that. I don’t see any other women’s groups speaking out that way.

But I am new to the site so I don’t understand the whole pant suit thing.

But I like a group that is fighting for my daughter.

They’d be glad to have you.

Barney Franks!!!!! Nuf said!

Rabble Rouser, agree with you about NOW and MS. There were some good people in NOW who stood up for
Palin. They were squashed by their own org. And good people in NOW– in one of the New York chapters in particular– who laid Ted Kennedy out for the hypocrite on women’s rights– as in late to support title IX, not backing Hillary, etc. They really got hammered. As for the rebirth of feminists and women’s rights, I think that the wheat will throw off the chaff…. I should say I hope the wheat will throw off the chaff. It was hard to see Steinem in anyway involved in backing Obama and in even keeping her name on the editorial staff when MS came out with the rotten “this is what a feminist looks like” Obama cover. I don’t know what she was thinking with the cover. Perhaps with Brazille and the crazies involved with MS, she had no say. Still, it would have been good for her to make some kind of statement.

Picture I was referring to seems to be gone. At least I couldn’t find it.

Frankly, I don’t care what they do in the privacy of their own home or airport bathroom stall so long as they are competent and whatever else they are doing is not with a minor and is consensual.

Thanks to Native1 at the confluence I now use the work equalist instead of feminist. The word feminist has been so misused and tied to abortion that it does not say enough. The word feminist has been used for trivial stuff for so long is no longer has the same meaning.
Equalist seems to me to make a point. All women have rights.
The ERA should be a given not a fight. After all the years of trying for equal rights it should be the law of the land.

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

Silly comment. It is not wearing ones sexuality one ones sleeve. It is being who you are.

Any new group, although probably good, will still get strict scrutiny for me; simply because of being betrayed so frequently, so often by so many different groups, that were geared towards gender equality. I’ll just sit back and watch for awhile.

Regarding sexual preferences, and the labeling there of in dress or actions or mannerisms; frankly, growing up with a gay father taught me much about that “need”, for some people to be able to identify another person’s way of life; shows the focus isn’t on what is important, only what can be boxed or labeled; not very workable for those who choose to look at what kind of person someone is vs. how that person carries themselves. An an example to the extreme… I don’t care if someone is an active prostitute, provided they are kind and honest, and treat others with respect. I don’t like to see anyone boxed, or labeled, isn’t that what causes much of the suffering women have endured because they are seen in the category of “female”, as defined in a male dominated society. I think approaching the situation and considering the”human being” in front of you, is what is most needed to communicate.

IDK. Seems like the gay movement has more victories than the women’s movement.

No offense, but they could easily “win” with me
about the issue of inclusiveness by having had a more inclusive home page (now changed).
Harriet Christiansen also had a blow out with them because she felt that they did not address and did not include the interests of the average working woman. As a previous poster mentioned above, a little classism seemed to be in the mix.
Now, in all fairness, I can not speak for Harriet Christiansen. And perhaps this issues have been addressed. Since the picture has changed, maybe they got feedback on it which was similar to my reaction. Who knows?

Not a silly comment. You are the one who brought it up.

You said:

For instance, weren’t nobody looking in the least bit lesbian,

I beg to differ, but it is you who are being silly with your insistence on style and format over content and substance.

LGBT and women’s rights in general suck in this country. And pretty much around the world. So much work needs to be done, it makes the head spin. And don’t forget that lesbians get hit twice, once for loving who they do and once for being a woman.

You don’t have to beg to differ. It is your right.

But I don’t get your beef.

In this interview Siskind is speaking out about women getting paid fairly and protecting our teenage daughters.

“Ferds Congressional Rules of Conduct”.

So a person could build a bomb in the privacy of their bedroom, have sex with a horse, and give a foreign Head of State, ummm, well, “Head” of State, but as long as they’re competent, what the Hell. It’s none of our business.

Maybe your rules need some refining ferd.

Any new group, although probably good, will still get strict scrutiny for me; simply because of being betrayed so frequently, so often by so many different groups, that were geared towards gender equality.

Violet Socks (editor) will not betray you.

You keep harping on this picture, which I don’t understand, since it’s a diverse group of women all wearing white shirts. How could you tell if they were lesbian or poor? Do you have stereotypical images you’d prefer we cater to? What do lesbians look like in your world? In mine some of them look just like the women in that photo. Same with poor women, of whom I know more than a few. The whole point of that picture is that it doesn’t matter what their circumstances are–they all have vaginas. That’s the unifying feature. Uniting is the point.

Full disclosure: I am a member of The New Agenda.

Anyway, I don’t think there’s anything mysterious or hard to understand in the points I made. I think I was pretty clear.
I think you can understand what I said if you try. If not, I don’t think I’ll be able to make you see what I’m saying.

The thread was about sex and not bombs, Andrew, and that was what I was referring to only.

The generalization was unwarranted, at best. My rules need no refining as I meant no more than what I said.

It’s been temporarily replaced by our VAW Forum advertisement.

That said, thank you Susan for posting this. I was impressed with Amy’s performance as well. When I talk to women and men locally about The New Agenda and I explain that we are about transcending parties and reproductive issues to work toward the achievement of broader women’s rights by a diverse group of people, they always agree that is exactly what is needed. It’s exciting to be a part of that effort.

I was just pulling ur chain Andrew LOL

The pants ref. arose here:

Comment by jbjd | 2009-04-04 17:59:11

“The New Agenda” banned me from their site, based on my dismissive response to this post, “Wearing pants to work is a feminist act.”
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/14/wearing-pants-to-work-is-a-feminist-act/

I’m not harping dear, people keep responding to my comment and I keep trying to clarify what my point was. It seemed a simple point to make.
And good for you for being a member of the New Agenda. It seems it is filling a much needed spot if it can create dialogue on issues like equal pay, career advancement, etc. I personally do not believe that the way to advance women’s interests is to remove the feminist stance that a woman’s right to choose
is a fundamental right we have to work to protect. Therefore, I am not seeing the New Agenda as the new feminist front. That’s all.

This is what they say on their website:

Choice is an issue that’s been used to divide women from one another and take away our power. The New Agenda is about working together on the issues we have in common. There are numerous organizations that are already devoted to choice.

I think that is good business sense!

I actually applaud your intellectual rigor.

Oh, and I did state consensual, which, by the way, horses can’t have in any sense of that term.

I like the New Agenda.

I’m really angry at groups like NOW or MS for what I see as a total sell out and loss of integrity. That said, I try not to criticize them for their lapse because women need all the groups focused on women’s rights that we can get. No group is going to be perfect and I believe expecting perfection is what has kept women divided and slow to progress. Look at our attitudes for evidence, we claim to want a woman president just not that imperfect Hillary or eww, not that crazy McKinney, or that right wing Palin…. any woman but that one..or that one..or that one…..And so it goes until no woman will ever be good enough. And so, no women’s rights organization is ever going to please everybody.

Agreed Katmoon.

I think you could have said that without denigrating us as un-inclusive based on a photo. That’s a perfectly acceptable stance to take, after all.

That’s what I meant by est. adults, off limits are minors (in some Euro countries the age is 13), animals, the defenseless and for me PUBLIC space.

I would never vote for a politician who was seen carrying on in a two-some or three-some on a Mediterranean beach nor one that was caught in a bathroom making noise….I might use that beach, I might use that bathroom…don’t think, so, wouldn’t vote for them. Now in their car in front of Parliament, that’s a different story.

I’m with you, Donna Darko. Too often other agendas creep in. NOW and Ms Magazine kicked open the doors years ago, but they stayed on a quasi man hating innuendo agenda for years and I stopped paying attention.

Tearing one sex down to promote another is like Obama saying Hillary was likable enough in order to make himself more likable.

We all know how that is turning out.

It is clear that you want their site to be what you think it should be.

As a psychology professor of mine once said, “Why do you think we have stereotypes?”

Groups identify and use certain dress and behavior to belong and display cohesiveness. Birds of a feather …

Hopefully the new feminism will embrace a better understanding of working with the opposite sex.

The point that I was making ferd is that you left an infinite number of potentially abhorrent behaviors un-addressed with your rather broad, yet simple, allowances for conduct. Would snorting coke while getting a sloppy BOjob in a Taxicab be a disqualifier? Just asking.

I don’t know ferd. I often thought there was something weird between Wilbur Post and Mr. Ed.

Gotta agree with Donna Darko. Violet Socks is the bomb. Terrific. I’ve been around all the feminist blogs. There are a couple of crack pots out there too, and one in particular has a real buzz against The New Agenda, obsessed, but she’s lost credibility with her ranting. Also, RRR Amy sums it all up well.

It was a comment and not a dissertation and was in response to comments upthread of mine which centered on sexual proclivities. I didn’t expect a bloody Spanish Inquisition over it.

This may sound a bit much, but I truly believe we will need to have legislation, to recognize human beings, to be of equal value, period. Until it is so said and done, those who can continue in this life intrinsically knowing they are no less because of whatever identifying qualifier has prevented them from being equal, will continue, and forever try to walk the walk for everyone. I know it isn’t as simple as pay, or privilege, but social morays, “rules”, which have been allowed to define one group to keep them away from another, and touting expectations to an entire portion of the human race, truly are ridiculous and always have been.
Equality, in action, with groups supportive of pushing legislation is greatly needed; but that does not excuse anyone from speaking up for themselves, speaking out for themselves, shrugging off the label, regardless. I have a voice, whether someone chooses to hear it or not, it is their loss and their folly; because I won’t allow my own thoughts, and actions to be misinterpreted in any moment, based on whatever characteristic the offensive party is judging me on. Sadly, the largest group of offenders (as we have said here often) are other women. Sometimes I believe there is a type of person who will not speak out for themselves, therefore cannot tolerate anyone else standing their ground or a group taking a position of behalf of their members.
We know, women are equally responsible for some of this. We cannot stop someone from being non-supportive of equality, but we can sure become intolerant of such types. Just as true racism is a anathema, so is acceptance of manufactured inequality.

I still stand by my first statement, which I will elaborate on so as not to confuse anyone within miles of this thread:

I do not care what a politician does in their personal lives in the area of sexual relations with other human beings so long as it is not with minors and is entirely consensual, i.e., not forced in any way, and is done in private.

THE SPANISH INQUISITION????
(Monty Python)

Do you frequently hear the words “lighten up” ferd? I get the impession that you must.

We still can’t pass an ERA, we still won’t become signatories to CEDAW. It is a mess. What stands in the way to legislative justice? There were articulate answers for every criticism of the ERA way back when. I remember one was, “would you want your daughter to be drafted?” To which I would reply,
“do you want your son to be drafted?” I mean hell, if we can’t pass an ERA or the fully toothed Ledbetter Act WTF?

I remember that argument, and it was offensive, wasn’t it. As if somehow we would have to choose between the lives of the sexes, either being more disposable than the other. A “Sophie’s Choice” of legislation. Repugnant.

I found the picture here.

http://thenewagenda.net/wp-content/themes/Essence_2.5/blue_essence/images/hp-main.jpg

I like it. I don’t get what is wrong with it? Even if you don’t like it that seems like a weird reason to dislike an organization.

Yes.

Initially I was, YES, it’s about time but after watching the video, if it wasn’t for Amy Siskend, I would have stopped the video. These ladies were skirting around the issues. The sexism won’t go away without a dialogue with men, young and old.

Back in the 70′s and 80′s, a lot of progress had been made for women’s rights. But somewhere in our recent past, this progress has vanished and the work has to start all over again. The word – feminism is like a 4 letter word and the young ladies, like the ones in the video are just learning the prejudice against women.

You clearly haven’t read the article.

andrew if you can’t distinguish between personal behavior and criminality, take four aspirin and go to bed.

NoTrollZone – I think I understand where you’re coming from, the ladies were “too uniform” and do not depict ladies from all walks of life. Kinda ironic that this is a form of Sexism in itself.

at http:guerillawomentn.blogspot.com there was just posted a piece on Congresswoman Speier seeking the creation of a presidential commission on the status of women. It is HR 1887. The bill has 26 original co-sponsors and 60+ women’s organizations have endorsed. Check is out on tennessee guerilla women’s site and give your congressperson a nudge if so inclined.

NTZ in what way did they fail to address interests of average working women? We share the same problems no matter what our income or level of education may be and they are discussing fair pay, opportunities, family planning and abuse at home and work. They discussed an issue of great importance to mothers with daughters and granddaughters: the objectification of our gender in the media and society. What happens when a very young woman is instilled with the idea she is nothing more or less her looks? That is the message they receive everyday so it should be no surprise when they make important choices based on superficial qualities.

Agreed elise.

The equal pay issue seems like an every women issue to me. I still don’t understand why some picture that used to be on the website throws you off NZT. Do you have a history with this org?

Crap, if they are still worrying about dress codes and thinking pantsuits are going to buy you credibility then I’m with jbjd.

I was hoping that these ladies would get being feminine and embrace it and enjoy it. But, maybe that isn’t so.

There’s nothing like a well tailored dress or skirt suit that says “Here I am.”

Not to mention feeling powerful.

The MS cover with O as a feminist is a cynical attempt at revisionism. These Pod feminists at MS & NOW know how sexist and misogynist Obama’s campaign was and are just trying to rehabilitate his image. I’m glad THE NEW AGENDA was there to protest and counter argumentatively the MS cover.

Gotta to agree about the creeps. It’s a little too corporate to appeal to many women.

I was in the professional world and now I’m not, but the website looked like a brochure for a freakin’ conference that no one wants to really attend.

Loosen up ladies at New Agenda!

Are any of those ladies in that picture a goddess? I mean in a fully assured, in charge of herself and her affairs, in love, individualistic, and educated sort of way?

They all seem like recycled McDonald’s workers in their “uniform”.

I agree with NoTrollZone.

Bleeech.

Are you at all able to look objectively at differing comments?

Legal agenda items are one thing.

Comments from the peanut gallery you’re trying to attract are another.

The picture is a turn-off.

High creative types be warned.

Thank you, Susan, for realizing and posting that The New Agenda is the place to go for actual anti-sexism support!
I don’t know what we’d do without you and Larry, et al, and No Quarter. Thank you!

>>> MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM

Once upon a time, I was supporting several women simultaneously, between sharing my income, paying alimony and funding a university education…heaven forbid any femchild of mine should actually WORK or drive a Beater while in school.

Do I get a dog biscuit or anything?

Just these old cancelled checks and collect phone calls?

GeezerHood just ain’t the way I envisioned it.

And this is the photograph people have problems with? Why? Because the women are staring straight into the camera, no pretty smiles, no batting eyelashes. And this is lesbian-like?

Oh please. Get over it.

And we wonder why women in power, women with authority have problems!

We’ve come a long way but obviously not far enough. And if a group like New Agenda is pushing to get us there? Brava. I just hope they don’t become an echo chamber of a single mindset. I believe we, as women, need to reacquaint ourselves with common issues before we can tackle anything else.

Because somehow we’ve become a divided house, allowed politics and hot button issues drive us apart from common gender problems we all share: sexuality issues, gender-specific medical issues, family, children and workplace hurdles, etc.

So maybe the first place to start is to remember we’re sisters of the flesh. And then go from there.

I don’t know, Buzz. How many men do you know that are Gods???

I’ve asked Amy Siskind to weigh in. We don’t want such things to get in the way of an important new movement. I’ll be interested in her response which I hope we can post as an update to this post, rather than just as a comment — which might be lost — or as a new post.

Elise, you understand the situation perfectly. Thank you for expressing it so well. I wish others would read your post and comprehend what you are trying to say.

I agree elise that our primary focus should be on defining sexism which has many diverse definitions. But we also need to understand we are all different based on our life’s experiences.

I even get the idea of wearing pants making a power statement, but I also agree with Buzz Latte about the well-tailored dress or skirt suit being powerful as well. We cannot let these preferences divide us into forgetting what the core issue is – sexism – whether it is in pants, a dress or a skirt. It’s real and it is costing us dearly in so many ways.

I think that’s the point, WhatNow. If you take away the accoutrements, women are women. The attention is on the face, staring straight ahead, not in coy way but boldly. And what do we see? Women of different ages and complexion and race and size. Short hair, long hair. Dark and light. The photograph is a visual representation: for all our differences, we share a commonality.

We are women. And in our own best interest, we need to come together.

Ah, the point was missed.

What’s wrong with being the best you can be despite what the government or corporate America is dishing out.

Women win when they CARE about themselves in the process.

None of the women in the picture (white shirts) exactly inspired hope or determination.

Great idea, Susan, to have Amy respond to jbjd’s banning, of all things! That seems pretty dictatorial. I liked what Amy had to say tho in the video – much more than ANY of the others. The others seemed very dismissive of almost everything except the unwed mother glorification which seems like a fringe issue to what we are basically talking about. We need to find common ground which will focus on the core issue of sexism.

Peggy Sue – We are women. And in our own best interest, we need to come together.

That’s a true statement, but I need to add, but women. like men are all individual, you don’t want to generalize.

baba rum raisin
If you play you pay////////

What I mean by men who support them is
a man who is smart enough to work WITH an intelligent and experienced woman. Who is not afraid of this kind of woman and understands that together they can make a good life.
There are men out there like that and they are to be treasured.

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

N.O.W.’s problems are not so much way-back-then as it has always been an abortion and lesbian rights group; a.k.a., all their chapters along with NARAL, endorsed Obama instead of Hillary, with the exception of two chapters that I read about.

N.O.W. has always been the marchers, the bra burners, the chanters. But also very Non-Political. Changes come about through politics.

Thank-you. The picture denotes solidarity but it doesn’t convey individualism or inspire creativity.

While I understand the premise behind the picture and that they want to look all powerful, it simply falls flat.

I am no more interested in The New Agenda than I was before I knew it existed.

I am no more connected to any of them or their agenda because of the website and/or the picture.

Enough said.

Too corporate. Too much copying of the male axiom. Too robot chic.

Ladies, BE ladies.

The only reason it should ever concern anyone if a single person, male or female, has a child outside of marriage is whether or not he or she can and will continue to be able to support themselves and that child. If that person has to depend on anyone else, that becomes socially irresponsible and can have ripple effects.

Anything else becomes a moral judgement that starts to loggerblock consensus. The pregnant congresswoman choosing to have a child openly is a non-issue.

I agree, Fran. My opinions about unwed mothers are directed at very young women, teens to early 20′s, who haven’t had a chance to know who they are, let alone raise a child. I still don’t like the glorification of single motherhood because I think it does influence choices in the very young: oh no big deal, everyone does it sort of thing.

There’s nothing glamorous or romantic about unwed pregnancy when you’re young, undereducated and with few financial resources. We need to educate our daughters and sisters in a better, more effective way. A 40% unwed pregnancy rate in the US is not a good thing. For any of us.

Based on some of the responses here to my comments critical of TNA, I re-visited the site after a long absence. This paragraph is excerpted from the article by Amy Siskind posted on March 24, 2009.
“In reading our blog, we seem to hitting against a new issue – the issue of racism. I would make the same request of our viewers. There are many wonderful national organization devoted to speaking out against racism. For those of you that find your life impacted by the color of your skin, you will probably prefer to join organizations which are devoted to that important issue. (Emphasis added.)”
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/24/united-we-succeed-fragmented-we-fail/

I cannot have summed up any more precisely the tone and direction of this organization than is accomplished here, with this published statement (presumably) meticulously prepared by its founder.

You missed the point of the article and the site in general though. The point was not to be pulled apart by all the issues that have kept women from working together in the past, to put women’s issues first. All women.

And when you come to The New Agenda, we ask that we work together on pure women’s rights. We cannot be fragmented and succeed. All women and like minded men (10-15% of TNA members are men) must work together to advance issues impacting women and girls. The New Agenda is what we call “Big Tent Feminism” which means we are inclusive and welcome any and all into our tent. But once in our tent, please come by to help us advance and empower ALL the women of this country. United we succeed – fragmented we fail.

Well, in all fairness to the site, jdjd, they also ask that women who are singularly attached to “pro-life and pro-choice issues” to consider sites that are subject specific.

I think the point here [and I'm not a member] is to look for common cause: issues that affect women regardless of race, politics or hot button issues.

Why?

Well, I can only go on my own personal instinct. It’s because all these “other” issues have driven a wedge through the experience that women do have in common. As a result, our voice is diluted when, in fact, we represent over 50% of the population.

It’s not a matter of generalizing. It’s recognizing the common experience, the common link we have as women. Sisters of the flesh and life experience.

So, it means putting the shields and daggers away and coming together simply as women. Doesn’t mean we should expect a love fest because even on common elements we’re likely to have differences of opinion.

But it’s a place to start. New Agenda? Baby steps until we get the hang of it. And if they’re open to a variety of voices on common cause issues then I’m all for it.

Fran SC, neither chapters nor states in NOW are allowed to endorse candidates. Only the PAC arm of the various organizations can do that. As for bra burning, that never happened. NOW is very political has helped with so much legislation it is too numerous to go into. And as for pickets, marches, rallies, that is NOW’s strong point. It has NEVER been a choice or lesbian rights only group. NOW has six priorities of which economic equity and domestic violence are part of the that agenda. While I disagree with National NOW PAC’s endorsement of That One in the GE, I also dislike arbitrary comments that don’t know what NOW is all about.

Remember the unisex bathroom argument? And then there was the new “ERA” detergent. Marginalize, dismiss, dismantle, and divide. Yep we haven’t move forward too much and are moving backwards thanks to this election cycle.

Yep, Ceela. The New Agenda is terrific and doing great things!

well, i for one, don’t need anybody telling me what “being feminine” means, or criticising/punishing me for not complying with someone else’s standards of what a women “should be.” as the saying goes, if you’re not sleeping with me or paying my bills, you don’t get to tell me what to do.

i certainly wouldn’t criticise a woman for conforming to traditional rules of femininity, but i damn sure don’t need anybody, man or woman, telling me what i can or can’t do.

i agree; this is definitely a trivial issue. it is symptomatic of the widespread belief that women must “stay in their place.” F*ck that; i’ll take any place i want.

sorry, meant to say this is NOT a trivial issue.

I’m really surprised that women wearing pants is even a topic. It’s 2009…women have been wearing pants to work for a looooong time. I don’t get it.

Passing the ERA, CEDAW and Paycheck Fairness Act are big topics on TNA as well as any topic concerning gender equality.

jbjd, read what I wrote in this thread

http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/22/the-president-is-a-man-the-first-lady-is-talking-fashion-and-all-is-right-with-the-world/

What set me off about the two passages I cite from TNA – Ms. Siskind’s remarks in her article and the article on wearing pants qua demonstration of feminism by Ann Bartow – was the tone of condescension. I understand that the subject of ‘isms’ can be raised to quell reasoned discourse and not to encourage it. But by telling other women, “You will probably prefer to join organizations…” I hear , ‘You will be more comfortable with people of your own kind.’ I find this speech pattern paternalistic and condescending. What gives her the right to determine for others where they will be ‘comfortable’? By appearing on the blog of this organization ostensibly dedicated to the general empowerment of women, I can only infer that the offensive attitudes expressed in the two works I cited do not reflect disdain for all women but only for those women who do not reflect the economic or educational status of their authors or, their race.

Read Pleasegos comment which is the comment of the year:

I’m sorry, but as a WOC that statement makes me want to beat my head against the wall and lay down in the street. That’s why I became a feminist in the first place. That’s why there IS feminism in the first place. I don’t feel like I’m any less likely to be killed or arrested (or harassed, sexually and otherwise) by cops than my male cousins. I’m way the hell more likely to be beaten or raped than my male cousins. The only difference, to me, is that if it happens to me, nobody will talk about i, nobody will march about it, nobody will care. At best, I’ll get a little blurb nobody will read on What About Our Daughters? while the mainstream, big feminist blogs will pick out a well known, already wildely decried story about a MOC and say that that’s a feminst issue because that man had a mother who loved him. To me, that statement is the problem, not something that needs to be enshrined in feminism. I’m TIREDof not mattering.

I have just gotten FED UP over the course of this campaign. If this is womanism, it doesn’t sound too great to me. And it shouldn’t be what feminism is all abut, it sounds like why I wnated to be one in teh first place. I f certain WOC have other priorities and want to put women way down on the priority list of social justice issues, that’s fine. But asking feminists to do that is not fine. I understand that when feminists say “women,” they’re too often thinking of just white women. But asking them to play the role of alyways putting their sons first is not the answer.

Read Pleasegos comment in that thread which I consider the comment of the year.

No offense but it sounds like you just have an axe to grind. I thought it was a very nice way of trying to ask people to follow the rules of the blog. I know one of the organizers there from that and other blogs and she couldn’t be a more regular person. I’m sorry you don’t like it but I think it’s a great group.
http://thenewagenda.net/2008/11/07/ground-rules-for-the-new-agenda-blog/

Since many of you are new, we would like to reiterate a few simple rules:

The New Agenda is inclusive organization – both in our membership and on our blog.
Please refain from profanity.
No comments that are degrading of individuals or groups based on race, religion, national origin, sexual preference and of course gender.
NO ATTACKS OF OTHER MEMBERS!!! We can agree to disagree on issues; but keep the personal attacks off of our blog or you will be asked to leave
Please help us continue to foster an environment of kindness and mutual respect for all of our viewers. The New Agenda must be a safe environment for all those who participate and none should ever feel attacked. Our work together is too important to be at all impeded by hurt feelings or disrespect.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I tried to post it three times but it got caught in the spam filter, jbjd. It sums up gender selloutism in 2008 and why TNA is necessary.

I have attended a small meeting with Cynthia Ruccia and two other local women. Our ages were all over the map as well as education and background. And while there were two 0bama supporters, the two HRC supporters kept it real. You don’t have to agree with everything. You don’t have to support all positions. For example, they are working very hard to have the Ohio Secretary of State elected Governor. I oppose her not based upon her sex but her poor performance in the national election. Having said that, yes, she is being treated like Katherine Harris and being patted on the head and pushed to the back. That doesn’t mean I want her to represent me. But. Not to acknowledge that a man in the same position would have a different experience is to deny reality.

If you are looking for some new “fashion” statements this spring: The woman’s slim comes in a multitude of colors $15.90.

http://thenewagenda.spreadshirt.com/

What’s wrong with being the best you can be

sorry ….

This sentence sums up perfectly what those women on the panel were trying to articulate, Buzz. Women have to do/have/be it all. Enough.

I wouldn’t want to belong at a place that banned someone for voicing their opinion of a post they asked for comments on-no less.

I agreed much with Tara, but I do understand Amy’s position that it’s seems most of the time women are held to different standards. However, I do not buy the argument that any woman is always corrent or always better for any job as seems to be the argument I witnessed and why I unjoined.

I signed up for the New Agenda when it first started. Then I got emails about them booting someone out, or some kind of powershift. It sounded exactly like the bitchiness from NOW and so I canceled being part of it. Unless and until that snitty thing women do to each other, like the Palin stuff, ends then I won’t join any women’s group ever.

Thanks for finding this site Susan.

I just joined!

Hi Y’all. Thanks for posting Amy’s appearance on To The Contrary. We’re fortunate to have Amy as a spokesperson for The New Agenda, and I am intimately familiar with how hard she works and how committed she is to our mission and goals.

I became a member of The New Agenda pretty much the minute I learned about it from Violet Socks back in early September. The manner in which it was organizing itself as a uniting force for feminists of all stripes resonated for me, even though my own feminism is fairly radical.

Violet made me co-editor of the blog, and we’ve been doing our best to keep it topical, on-topic, and serving the goals of the organization ever since. As you who work here at No Quarter know, that involves a substantial amount of work.

Given the time it takes to ensure the organization is serving its stated priorities, we don’t have a lot of time to moderate discussion, so we avoid posting pointed attacks of any kind.

We may briefly put a commenter into moderation, but we rarely ban anyone. To get banned, a commenter has to repeatedly display bad faith participation, contribute little, and continually attack other commmenters and the organization.

The feminist blogosphere is overburdened with such strife already, and The New Agenda is, as an earlier commenter suggested, not a blog, but an organization that has a blog. We’re very much focused on moving the agenda of women’s equality forward, and will continue to apply our energies in that direction.

If you think you’ve been banned, I suggest attempting to comment, and if that doesn’t work, email Violet and I at editor@thenewagenda.net to alert us, and we’ll reinstate you. After that, it’s up to you.

I read an article on The New Agenda’s blog where Breidbart called them the “heir apparent to NOW”.

I’d like to see that. I dropped out of NOW because they barely supported HIllary.

With all due respect, your argument seems to boil down to: Feminizm, U R doin’ it wrong. There is no one better way, yet if you feel strongly that there is, nothing is stopping you from stepping up to the plate and organizing a group you’d like to join. That those with pro-feminist sentiment spend a lot of time nit-picking each other is a huge part of the problem with why feminism is so fractured now, IMHO. YMMV.

Donna Darko, thank you for your thought-provoking comments. I have been accused of being overly sensitive to nuances of discrimination (class, race, gender, religion, …) for all of my life. Let me halt my narrative on this topic with these images from TNA.

(Photo)
Let’s do lunch, by Cynthia Ruccia;
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/

and

(Photo)
Ophelia wants to chat about Ms….
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/page/4/

And, finally, there is this article.

To The Men Who Support Us
“I want to give a shout-out to the men who support The New Agenda. Now ladies, I can hear some of the grumbling now. What? What’s gotten into you Cynthia–men?????? What have they done for us lately–or ever? Aren’t they the problem?”
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/03/25/to-the-men-who-support-us/

I have taught my teenage son that calling women ‘ladies’ while calling men, ‘men,’ is sexist; that is, one term denotes gender while another denotes conduct. He gets it.

I think I may have signed up for this site when it first started, but, like you, have not been back. So what I’m about to say is not me speaking for them, just my thoughts generated by your post.

I was big into the women’s movement in part of its heydey, the late 70′s. Then, a few years ago, I took a women’s studies class, around 25 years after I took classes as a women’s studies minor. I was, quite frankly, shocked at what was passing for “women’s studies” – it would have been more appropriately called a social work class. It was all about culture, class, age, and race.

Granted, it was ostensibly about how these divisions intersect with gender – but what was missing, IMO, was the focus on women – “in general”, in our similarities, in our shared situation. Everything was so fragmented, it most definitely did not seem (to me) like women’s studies. I remember predicting that if this fragmentation kept up, that women’s studies would cease to be, and would be subsumed by social work. Because that’s exactly what social work is, what women’s studies was now doing. These intersecting topics are very important, but the duplication is not needed, and dilutes the cause of women “as a group”.

(I know, younger women reading this will dismiss me as a “2nd generation feminist” LOL) My guess is that The New Agenda is aiming for this same cohesive focus that I found missing in that recent class. Sounds like, in addition, they are hoping to avoid hot topic issues that divide us.

It was a real learning experience for many, to have a woman running on a republican ticket. Even if someone couldn’t vote republican, we should have all been encouraging her run and “supporting” her in that sense. Speaking loudly that only her policies should be attacked. Instead, many feminists trashed her however they could – and I think that was wrong. And I think it was part of the what ignited the new forms of feminism now emerging.

We can’t let race, class, age, culture, OR PARTY divide us any longer. We must fight together for fair treatment.

Again, you miss the point and it sounds like whining. It’s the very thing that repels men from wanting to deal with women. It’s the very thing that has stopped some issues dead in their tracks.

Stop the whining, stop the toe stubbing anger response to what you deem unequal.

Be Hillary for God’s sake, instead of falling into the poor me, I’m a woman and I have to work twice as hard syndrome.

Use all your skills, including being feminine!

I don’t get it. What’s wrong with the pictures?

Maybe it’s a regional difference, but in much of the south it is just considered polite to say “ladies” and “gentleman.” It isn’t sexist it’s a way of showing respect. Very much like in Spanish where you have the formal and familiar uses for words. I think you are projecting a little here. It seems like a weird thing to get worked up over and pick at a women’s group about. Why are we always picking at other women instead of trying to help each other? I really don’t get it

jbjd,

Are you crazy?

Have you read the numerous, well-written articles some of which are the best articles in recent feminism. You remind of their recent post:

What Are They Wearing?

Women can call each other ladies and girls especially if they’re behaving like children.

elise,

Excellent points! I’m certain that Hillary decided to go the pants suit route in an effort to get people to pay attention to her brilliance in what she had to say and what she had to offer the American people, instead of looking at the size of her ankles and the amount of cleavage she was showing, etc.

Image is very much a part of the reason that women are marginalized in society because the image of what is acceptable as “feminine” has always been defined by men. The male definition of what women must do to be considered “feminine” is found in every nook and cranny of society.

The pants suit idea presented by The New Agenda, I believe, was simply to change that definition in an effort to put focus on what’s going on inside a woman. As long as women continue to concern themselves about their looks in order to please men, we can never obtain the same kind of respect from them that they have for each other. That will only be possible when women learn to respect each other with the same abandon that men respect each other!

For example, you ever wonder why men always try to get out of going to see “chick flicks”? Because men, as a rule, aren’t interested in what makes a woman tick emotionally or how or what she thinks. They are more interested in how she looks. On the other hand, women more often than not will go with their husbands/boyfriends to see a guy flick, not only to please their man but because they are open to seeing men express themselves in various ways! In fact, there are tons more coming of age films for boys, and very few for girls. Why is that? What makes this scenario truly ironic is that men are always complaining that it’s impossible to understand women. I’m sure it’s due in large part because they’ve never thought it worth their time to even try to understand what makes a woman tick on the inside. To make matters worse, despite the fact that men know so little about women (beyond the superficial appearance), men still feel they have the right to define what is to be a woman. Therein lies the core problem.

On the other hand, I hope The New Agenda is more tolerant of critical ideas. My experience has been that they are. I would like to hear their side of the story as to why they banned jbjb before drawing any conclusions either way.

Thanks for writing this Susan. You summed up The New Agenda perfectly! I found their blog in November and joined immediately. This group is taking action and has a solid strategy for moving women forward in our country. This group is a real women’s rights group. They are fighting for all women. Their non-partisanship strikes me as something new and very smart and very necessary.

jbjd, I suggest you focus on the big picture rather than small unimportant nitpicky details. Look at what this group has done, is doing and plans to do and what they stand for. That is what counts. I think if you do this, and you truly want to move women forward in our country, you will want to join. It really is a great group with a great mission and you will want to be a part of it.

Thank you so much for this piece Susan. We all thank you profusely. We all need to work together to advance the rights of women in this country.

I just wanted to leave a note that my blog editors checked and the commenter “JDJD” has never left a comment on our site. And I think Sheryl addressed our POV above quite well.

The New Agenda is an activist women’s rights group. We also maintain a blog to keep our members and viewers up to date with stories and issues that impact women and like minded men (10-15% of our members are men).

Thanks again!

I, too, signed up as soon as I heard about it. I was furious over the treatment of Hillary and Sarah. Haven’t checked in much since…a lot on the family agenda right now…but will again soon. Glad to see they’re having more action.

I certainly think the time is right to move ahead and leave the past where in belongs. No disrespect to whatever the feminist movement achieved before but not much applied to my life. Like the female politicians who have been in office too long, I found the old guard for the most part, (even if not at the beginning) became elitist and separate from the women I know. Public figures need to move forward and resist becoming entrenched in an image of just how big and special they are…applies to women and men.

Don’t know if it’s a typo, but I think it’s jbjd, not jdjd…

Yes, lorac – has not been on our site.

Please check back and make sure you sign up for action alerts. We have been extremely active in speaking out against Larry Summers, the lack of women in cabinet, John Favreau, Ms. Magazine.

Check our press section.

It’s ironic to me that some posters here may have a problem with inclusion or exclusion ala one’s opinion.

I have been called a troll for stating my POV here at NQ (I am not–I am a PUMA). Yes, it creeps me out, but I still visit often and read without posting…I dont’ appreciate being picked apart by people that don’t know me.

Having said that, I like the idea of a non-partisan group such as the new agenda–nonpartisan is NEW. At least to me it is. Anything less is bound to keep us women divided.

But, look how hateful you guys are sometimes..I am just saying, give the group a chance.

I will go back to my ‘place’, please don’t attack me or force me into it.

I love this site, but some posters here act like the internet police (hint, hint, ‘DonnaDarko’)

Unlike NQ, where posters like Donna Darko have to give their seal of approval to all opinions. If not, you are called a troll and run out of town.

*sigh* the hypocrisy is nauseating.

Thank you Susan for this. I had so wanted to be part of the New Agenda because I was literally violently ill at how certain very vile women treated Sarah Palin. I never wanted to be part of another women’s group ever again. I just felt like we were doomed…that women will ALWAYS be our own worst enemies because we attack OUR OWN. What kind of man would respect us, when we don’t respect EACH OTHER.

I signed up for New Agenda, wanted to dip my toe in the water, and then got the email about some woman being ousted and it wasn’t a very nice email. At that moment I could smell it happening all over again. A bunch of women whose self loathing made them attack strong, healthy women who didn’t share their values.

I will give it a try again. Nothing would make me happier than to find a group of REAL women who value each other. Not a bunch of psychos like select members of NOW, etc. that ripped Palin into tiny shreds. I still can’t get past that.

give their seal of approval to all opinions.

That would be obamabots like you and not Donna Darko, Wouldn’t-say-your-name-if-you-gave-it-to-us troll

I went to that link you posted – it sounds like maybe you were thinking they were saying if you’re interested in racial issues, go away. I think instead, they were saying, go to a specific site for that specific issue, in addition to going to TNA – and while at TNA, focus should be on issues that affect all women.

IOW, the suggestion is to go to other sites in addition to TNA, not leave TNA.

That’s how I read it, anyway….

See? I am am not a bot. I loathe the turd, the One.

Just speaking the truth, thanks for proving my point.

Internet police. Find a more productive hobby. You remind me of Oblahblah.

Yes lorac.

The New Agenda is 100% women’s rights. All women.
We call it big tent feminism. It’s about being inclusive and working on the issues that impact all women such as violence against women, fair pay, etc.

Oh buck up buttercup.

Please give up a try again I’mFedUp. There was an unfortunate incident back in December. Those folks are long since gone. The organization has flourished and accomplished much.

Check out of Media section – see all that we have accomplished. We’re an activist organization.

For example, see this article published today in The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-05/did-this-senator-beat-up-his-girlfriend/ I think Susan might address this later today.

I should have said earlier – I recall deleting that comment. It was a vitriolic attack on Ann Bartow, I believe. I don’t think I banned the commenter, though. I don’t usually do that on the first comment unless they say something anti-feminist or misogynist.

If someone thinks they’ve been banned, they should try commenting. If it doesn’t work, they should email us at editor@thenewagenda.net.

It’s always possible that someone got caught in another’s banning, because we do it by IP.

I’m bucked up, just happened to notice the irony and couldn’t help but comment.

Rather than argue with me, why not just ease up a little and stop the name-calling?

Thank you Amy. I put the May 4th get together in Studio City, Ca. in my calendar today. Just please, I beg you, please let’s not have another group of women that exclude those who don’t agree on “wedge” issues. That will NEVER move women forward in the world. I honestly still feel sick over what I witnessed women doing to Palin, Hillary, etc. this past year. God bless you if this works. I will go dig around the site and see what you have been up to. Good luck with all of your endeavors on our behalf Amy.

PS I think when I first joined I was having a hard time dealing with ANYONE who supports Obama. I still do. I am sure many, if not most, of your members voted for him. I will try to separate my feelings for Obama from the fact that women need to just support women, regardless.

You ask whether I am “crazy,” presumably for distinguishing between the use of the words “women” and “ladies”; certainly, I am well read.

According to feminist legal scholar Ratna Kapur, “Women make demands but only ladies get protection.”
infochangeindia.org/200602205621/Agenda/Claiming-Sexual…/-Women-make-demands-but-only-ladies-get-protection.html

Then, there’s this book review in the NYT of “No Constitutional Rights to be Ladies,” by Linda Kerber. This excerpt from the review explains where she got the title.

Hence the confusion over President Jimmy Carter’s proposal that young women as well as men be obliged to register for a possible draft. Kathleen Teague of the conservative Eagle Forum insisted on women’s ”constitutional right to be treated like American ladies” — that is, exempt from military service — as a right women had ”enjoyed since our country was born.” Thus did Teague invoke the right to avoid an obligation, and bequeath Kerber the title for her book.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/03/21/reviews/990321.21sherryt.html

Yes! Yes! Yes! This is what I am talking about. Carly Feorina(sp) in her very feminine attire and Hillary with her beautiful hair, makeup, jewelry, etc. are going to get farther down the road than a bunch women hating on their situation. Both Carly and Hillary exude a overwhelming sense of self and they are goddesses!

Madeline Albright recently said on Bill Mahar (I know, I know) that of course you flirt a little and then get down to negotiation.

TNA will go exactly the same route as NOW if they don’t incorporate more of the true feminine aspect or energy.

Women pounding on other women or men for that matter is just more sexism.

Comment by jbjd | 2009-04-05 10:04:37

jbjd, it is your comments that are condesending. Nothing of what you have written about your attitude and problems with TNA make any logical sense. TNA is attempting to refocus women’s issues on the things that most women can presumably agree upon: equal pay for women, increasing the number of women in elective office regardless of party affiliation, increasing the number of women in high level appointments and eliminating domestic violence, sexism and misogyny to name a few. Anyone can lift a sentence or two out of context in order to create a strawman’s argument that can be shot down, which is what you are doing.

I applaud TNA. We cannot expect to make gains in women’s rights until we stop being overly critical of each other and allowing the powers that be to use issues like abortion and race to divide and distract us from our focus on the issues on which we can all agree. That is what TNA is about.

Seems the new women still want to reject being ladies.

jbjd – I totally get where you are going with this.

Why? Why should women have to be perfect?

Does it occur to you that as more of us become Hillary the pressure is on to be Bill but better? How many men can handle that? I have not “given up on being feminine.” I am really simply over being super woman — by a man’s standards … but hey, that’s just a woman’s opinion ….

abycat, It’s not about attitude, it’s about PERCEPTION of one’s own femininity.

It’s about embracing being feminine and becoming part of the whole rather than burning bras and pointing fingers at other women or men, for that matter, and holding themselves separate.

If a woman is not comfortable with her femininity and *gasp* sexuality, she will always be angry at some level.

I happen to agree Ratna Kapur. Ladies DO get what they need.

Required viewing for all women: Dangerous Beauty – the movie.

Still not getting it and by the way, I am a woman and I love being a woman and being really good at being one.

Viva la difference!

No one is asking anyone to be super woman any more. Been there and done that. I’ve found out that being a woman is knowing how and when to ask for help. Getting men, for example, to be on your side is easier than trying to change their genetic code. Men are not the enemy, but they are the other half. That’s the crux, isn’t it.

I have learned a lot about how to deal with the male/female thing from my dog. She’s one tough bitch LOL, but she doesn’t bully anyone. She gets everything she wants by being elegant, calm, and charming. She’s the smartest of my brood and she gets everything she wants. Too many women think you have to be like one of the guys to get somewhere. Who wants to be like them? We have more power than they do, we just don’t know it.

You first, nameless.

it.s no skin off of my nose..i don’t have to raise it she does..leave her be.

Thank-you, I’mFedUp. That’s my point conclusively.

And boy do we have the power!

I don’t care who has a child as long as I’m not paying for their stupidity. Too many of these teens have these babies because they KNOW that rich folk will cover it. That’s a big problem for me.

I agree just think.if we had stood togeteher.in the true sisterhood.we would have HILLARY as potus..
shame on us. now we got a mess..

Great piece, Susan. I do have a comment, if anyone cares to address it.

I’m all for promoting women and putting focus on much neglected issues, but I sincerely hope the ‘new feminism’ is about ALL of us as human beings and not just about half of us as women.

For example, in the video segment about “sexting” Amy Siskind commented on the precursors to violence against women, text messages girls receive, etc. While I’m sure she speaks the truth, I wonder if the discussion is inclusive enough of the problem. Have you ever seen some of the text messages teenaged boys receive from some girls? OMG–you wouldn’t believe your eyes! So, is this only a feminist problem or is this a bigger teenage problem? I hope the ‘new feminism’ allows room to rebuke wrong actions taken by females as well as males.

As for discrimination in the workplace, yes, it exists for women but it goes the other way, too, in some circumstances. But by presenting it as a feminist problem as opposed to a broader worker fairness problem we automatically set up sides to battle each other.

I just hope the new feminism is not all about battles, but about creating environments where everybody can see we all benefit.

good article SUSAN,,thanks

I thought you were an Obot troll posing as a PUMA when you used the c-word. When it was apparent you weren’t a troll, I welcomed you.

Welcome and see you soon.

It’s okay for women to call each other ladies.

Buzz L, I have not seen any burning bras and finger pointing at TNA except from people who want to tear TNA down for not being lesbian enough or feminine enough or not including race in every conversation about sexixm enough. “PERCEPTION” is also about the lens from which people project their own bias. If you want to see burning bras and finger pointing, I guess that is what you will see Buzz. Your choice. I chose not to do that but instead to support what is a worthy effort to rise above divisive politics and to bring women together to work to elevate all women regardless of race, party, sexual preference, etc. Until we can move beyond the pettiness of women tearing down women, we have no hope of ever changing our lack of progress over the last 30 plus years.

Hmmm….. I guess I’m not sure what you mean, exactly. And “feminine” is a loaded word – people define it differently, and I would hazard that men define it differently than many women.

I’m don’t have a problem if some people want to use the word “ladies” themselves, but I believe that jbjd is spot on with the concepts of conduct and gender.

And my guess is that a lot of women’s problems find their origin in the fact that many men are not comfortable with their *own* sexuality/anger, possibly relying too much on their gender/narrative to fuel their self-esteem.

Re: Buzz’s comment on perception and being comfortable with one’s own femininity: That is so psychobabble. In other words, what is perceived all comes from some deep self thing from within? We should go to some movie for these deep world revelations about femininity? WTF?

Regardless, thank you to Susan and No Quarter for the article.

…and burning bras served a purpose in its time. Different times call for different strategies. If they had acted like “ladies”, they would have only gotten what “ladies” are allowed to have. They needed/wanted/deserved *more*.

Now, “women gone wild” is for male sexual pleasure, but back then, “women went wild” to give voice to their own freedom and solidarity. When people stand up to the status quo, it always threatens those who are currently benefitting from it.

I never saw the welcome. I guess I hightailed too soon. Thanks.

Katmoon, personally, I wouldn’t say that women are the *largest* offenders. I would say our culture (its structure) is the largest offender, then many men, who currently and historically have benefitted from the status quo, then women who like their traditional role and have benefitted from the status quo, then the many women we saw in the last election season.

Since I saw what the dems did to Hillary, including on the institutional level (the cheating by the DNC, RBC, etc), I have been opening my eyes to the republicans (online). I found men saying that women are inferior (literally!), and that Tittle IX is proof of that. It’s like the women’s movement never happened.

People may scoff at the beginnings of the women’s movement, but the later generation (with all its post-feminism and post-modernism) – well, it’s looking to me like they dropped the ball. Now it’s not just the “other side” that flaunts its misogyny, it’s the democratic party, too. There is SO much work to do. A lot of ground to make up.

oh, to clarify – I haven’t foudnd all republicans to be like this. I was just shocked that ANYone was still like this – so extremely archaic…

I assume you’re hoping that both genders will embrace a better understanding of working with the opposite gender.

Actually, I think that’s why some schools are now calling it “gender studies” instead of “women’s studies”. Making the world more equitable can’t just fall on women’s shoulders; they’re not the only ones who should change or deserve more realistic gender roles…

AND i apologize for jumping the gun.

Hi abycat. Long time no see

Sorry. You even got stars!

As long as you’re not an Obamatard,

W*E*L*C*O*M*E

Pls stay and hate on Obama all you want!

Thanks, now and then words like ‘tard’ and ‘cunt’ are shoes that fit. And I believe the contexts you and I have used them in are rare (fortunately) and appropriate examples.

Must be too scared to look, huh? No psychobabble intended but since the very mention of being comfortable seemed to hit a nerve perhaps a mirror would be a good thing right now SFbabe3.

WTF is wrong with women? I mean, now TNA is being assaulted for not being lesbian enough, or color specific enough, etc. See, this is why I am embarrassed to be female for God’s sake. Women are women. PERIOD END OF STORY. I am so sick of these nuts with their special issues that divide us. Enough already. Grow the f**k up.

PS…the so called “feminists” who keep up this nonsense of special interest are the ones we have to thank for the rest of the world not respecting us. Thanks ladies. Good to know that you put your BS, narrow minded wedge issues before you put the bonding and strength of women from all walks of life.

Donna,

You may find this funny: A way back midway through the primaries…yours was the first blog I found when I was frustrated at what was happening to Hillary and looking for like-minded thinking on the internet.

Hey, I never did mention that TNA was doing any such things ie: burning bras,etc, but your perception or -jump to a conclusion – is such that YOU wanted to see that in my posts.

The hypersensitivity that’s being displayed over what TNA is and what it is not will be one of the stumbling blocks to be overcome.

No real dialogue and work will be accomplished until women dial down the anger and dial up the being comfortable with who they are.

The fact that a few need to minimize what I am saying and taking exception to if it doesn’t fit the mindset just shows how closed minds are to taking a 360 degree look at the various concerns and causes.

By the way, Alice and her gang got the vote for women in dresses and with nearly every disadvantage in the social strata of the time. Why, because they were smart, respectful, consistent, and dedicated and dare I say it – LADIES!

Thank you I’m Fed Up. It’s what I’ve trying to say all day and there’s no one more closed minded and nasty than a woman with a personal vendetta against something.

Grow up is right.

I don’t care either. If we spent half as much time examining our politicians’ actual voting records as we apparently do creating hypothetical situations involving them, we would all be better off.

See my response above.

Buzz Latte,

I can’t keep up with all the comments here at this blog, but I need to call you out on something. The New Agenda is a national organization and close to 15% of our members are men. There are incredible men around the country that are fathers, sons, brothers and friends and feel just as strongly about women’s rights as women. They are welcome in our big tent.

We are a brave and bold group of activists. That is why The New Agenda has taken off. We are filling a void that needed to be filled.

If you don’t believe in women’s rights, then there is nothing that NQ or TNA can do to change your mind. We do wish you well.

Absolutely.

Believe me I understand.

My POV is battered women can say anything they want about abusers as long as they don’t break the law/say they’re going to kill someone/say they killed someone. And Obots finally admitted we’re not racist so now they’re calling us Republicans. When they have to criticize Obama more, they will have to admit we’re not Republicans either. Sorry if I’m offending any Republicans here. My other POV is if someone is abusing you such as Obama supporters, you can take temporary refuge in Republican homes. If you’re in a battered women’s support group, do you talk to Republicans in the group? Of course you do.

And here we go Amy, I never did say that I did not believe in women’s rights. What I do believe in is women being women complete with what makes them feel feminine. Be it high heels, bubble baths, or park ranger uniforms. Do not disintegrate into petty, wedge issues and whines about pantsuits. Be beyond all that. Function at a higher vibration.

I’m happy that there are men who have joined the cause. I have no bone to pick. But because my point is unpopular apparently, your conclusion is that I dislike women’s rights. That’s an incredibly narrow and unhelpful viewpoint. It is counterproductive and I would hazard counterintuitive.

But time and again the point is being missed.

You like your new agenda, fine. Just do not make the same mistakes that NOW and others did. By the way, I lived through the first women’s movement and I witnessed the good AND the damage it did.

Be smart and be a woman. That’s all I’m saying.

As a matter of fact, I was kidnapped, raped and almost hung from a tree as a teenager. Then two years ago, my daughter was assaulted by five men who forced her to have oral sex with them.

I think you have a keen eye for someone who has been abused. Yes, I felt justified using that word.

Just speaking for myself, here…

I watched that video, but it was yesterday… but I think they mentioned that teenage sexuality was out of control (not their words)… perhaps it’s still a “feminist” issue, in that it may still be a situation in which girls are doing what they think makes them appeal to boys…? Or, still basing their self-concept on how they are perceived by boys…? (just guessing, it’s so far removed from my own experience of teenage-hood)

Women, more than men IMO, are taught in so many ways that their worth, their “femininity”, is based on pleasing the opposite gender. Personally, I think that’s a major reason why other groups (race, religion, etc) are able to achieve better group cohesion than women are. No one tells blacks to dress/act/etc. in a way to please whites, no one tells Catholics to please Jews. And since most people couple up with someone who is similar on the issues they find most salient, their home life isn’t affected.

But women’s and men’s issues affect the other gender, and it affects their coupling and the home. So when women expect equality, it affects their relationships, and may even prevent some relationships – therefore, some refuse to bond with other women and “the cause”. So it boils down (still) to encouraging women to define themselves, to be what pleases themselves, not what pleases men – then more will feel free to bond with other women, and then we may achieve the same group cohesion that other groups have. IMO.

Please everyone get off the Republican rant. Palin is Republican, look what happened to her. And, by the way, the GOP is starting to look damned good now, considering.

Name yourself and start posting!

I consider myself one of the original PUMAs because I started defending Hillary three years ago from so-called feminists who uncritically absorbed the backlash/Rush Limbaugh messages.

I have removed the mask…

Thank-you Lorac.

I appreciate you recognizing a need for women to be comfortable with themselves and their gender in order to further the bonding that needs to take place.

Sadly, I wonder if there will ever be a universally accepting group of women who accomplish things. I listen to this nonsense and I think where the HELL are your PRIORITIES? Then again, I would be willing to bet these are the women who were stupid enough to vote for Obama.

FedUp, I’m someone who is encouraged by the approach of TNA. But I AM aware of the history of feminism – it was started by middle class white women, which is to their credit – they saw a need, and stepped up to the plate.

But in time, lesbians and black women were literally kicked out of the movement – because some felt that their issues would dilute the cause, and also because the larger society’s negativity to these groups might affect the reception of the larger movement.

So I do understand why some might wonder if the group will be inclusive (which it does seem to be). There is a history.

Quick, put it back on! (kidding)

However, MISS TICKLY???? How bold!

Moaning about whether your own special interest is a PRIORITY, rather than making the issues about ALL WOMEN is what is killing us. PERIOD. I don’t respect any woman who brings that to the party. Sorry, I don’t. We’re not getting anywhere and that’s why.

LOL Oh buzz buzz buzz

I looooove bonding with women, you have no idea

ROFL

By the way, it’s the same mentality that has officially destroyed America. Blacks just HAD to have their President and ignored that Obama is filthy America hating scumbag. If blacks would have understood who Obama is, they are smart enough to have done the right thing. All of these decisions should be without bias as far as race, gender, abortion issues (that one still kills me) etc. or humanity won’t succeed either. I got stuck with Obama for a lot of the wrong reasons. Not just blacks, but a bunch of jealous bitches like Pelousy who didn’t want another woman in power. We need to be AMERICANS first, women second, etc. Priorities, priorities.

Oh I do hope you mean that in the very best of ways, cuz anything else would be kind of sleazy.

Shopping around the corner is not one of the ways I personally like to bond, if that’s what you mean.

If you’re a guy, well then, I’d say your feeling frisky. LOL!

My “reading” of that photo was that they wre all dressed similarly in order to reinforce their similarity as women. Some here have expressed unhappiness that they don’t “see” lesbians or lower-income women in the photo – but we often “read” that by clothing. I think that was the POINT – those women are “theoretically” in the photo, but it’s our commonality that is being focused on…

Ugh, my world changed a lot last year. I was a 70s child that grew up on “girls can do anything boys can do, better.” And I also grew up believing that racism and bigotry are wrong. I thought these issues were settled matters and only the ignorant few thought otherwise.

Little did I know many ‘few ignorant people’ there really are.

Sorry it defaulted back to the mask

When a partner fights for gay rights, it doesn’t affect their home life – matter of fact, they’re probably both fighting for the same thing.

A woman fighting for equality is potentially “fighting” her own partner in her own home. It keeps a lot of women out of the fight, and slows down our progress, as opposed to other groups, IMO.

Y.E.S.!!!!! I’m Fed Up

Women’s issues are human rights issues, first. Not, the poor misunderstood gays, or the blacks, or the hispanics, or the school teachers, or the poor women attorneys that have been asked to wear skirts in court.

Americans have so divided themselves up into little PC slices that the big picture is soon lost in blacks getting their president of the same skin tone or another movie where there is a gay couple as characters to prove that they are okay.

One of the first things I hear from the average hetero joes and janes lately is the H rating for new movies. Why? Because the market is over saturated with the non-hetero group’s message.

It’s time to be above skin color issues and sexual orientation issues or women dissing other women.

As Americans we need to function smart and not succumb to appeasing the latest sub-groups self esteem issues.

Whatever two people do in their home is their business. They need to keep it out of the fight women have for equality all over the world. Sorry, but beheading women in the name of religion is a little more important than an hour long cat fight.

PS. I happen to agree with many viewpoints that are taken on NQ, Amy. Your conclusion that I do not on one thread is again short-sighted.

Buzz, you seem to subscribe to the traditional view of “feminine”. That’s fine, but many women have many different definitions of “feminine”.

I’ll bet every woman posting here feels she is “feminine”.

I know Buzz. For the love of God, I really do not give a shit if someone has an abortion, has sex with or marries a same sex partner, etc. YAWN. What I care about is that America has BECOME the country of wedge issues and because of it we have a venal, America hating President who is destroying us, and a Congress full of filth, all because people think the only ones in the world to care about human rights issues are the moonbat America hating left. That’s WHY America is gone. And I’m pissed as hell. Take your special interest and shove it. My country was worth more than an abortion.

Susan,

The morons over at Democratic Underground, because you wrote about “Amy” here, believe that Rev Amy and I are the same person. Absolute idiots! Check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5396479

The New Agenda, a so-called “non-partisan group for women’s rights,” It was created by Amy Siskind (aka RR Amy on PUMA blogs).

Actually I have no desire to be male or compete with them. I find the most power I have on the planet is the mystery bestowed on us as goddesses. When women try to destroy that, what’s the point? We’re special and we need to embrace our inner goddess, rather than try to have a dick.

That makes two of us.

They were “ladies” in dress, but they weren’t “ladies” in their behavior. “Ladies” in behavior would have never spoken up in the first place.

No offense, but you’re starting to sound like a male-identified woman to me. “Whining”, “complaining”, “anger”, “ladies”…. I’m sorry, but these words of yours sound just like what many men have traditionally used to keep women down and silent….

Funny how the liberal moonbats are all about their nonsense, but they don’t cut their own women a break. The world of physics is about opposites, right? Yin and Yang? Action and Reaction? The minute a woman tries to be a man she upsets the balance of nature. What these sad women don’t get is that equal CAN be DIFFERENT. We don’t have to be them to have their rights.

No lorac, they are the acts of women who keep us down. How long can you play the blame game? Women have no one else to blame than themselves.

Buzz why do you still watch Bill Maher

Fedup – I’m agreeing that we need to form a united front.

But I’m acknowledging that I know our history, and I can understand the concern of some.

Didn’t you live through the 1970′s incarnation of woman’s liberation?

If you don’t like the words, there’s nothing I can do about that. Your opinion on the words used is just that – your opinion.

I was going to say I was sorry if you didn’t like the words I chose to use but then I realized that it really isn’t my problem or job to change your perceptions. Only you can do that.

It’s the same for Men..
Today real men are out of style. We are looked down for our support of the flag and traditions like buying American, supporting our troops and not trashing this country.
Real men have a raw attraction for women who love their femininity and enjoy projecting this as a Goddess to men.

The problem, Buzz, is that America is the country of victims now. You can’t afford a mansion? Well, it’s because you’re black. You didn’t get the job you wanted? It’s because you’re gay. YAWN.

A woman trying to be a man…? You’re saying that women seeking equality are trying to be men…?

Oh my goodness. Have I wandered onto New Republic? LOL

Nothing hotter than a real man. Those other guys blow.

There is something to be said for taking control of your own destiny, I agree.

But it sounds like you are denying that the structure of society has ever held people back – whether for their gender, color, sexuality, religion.

If so, it seems like a privileged, naiive view of the world.

Like I said Lorac, priorities. Women bonding together to overcome the ills against women is a big thing. The rest of it needs to be private. I’m straight, but I don’t go running into the workplace accusing everyone there of denying me of a raise because I’m gay. I really think you guys make that stuff up a lot. If there is prejudice, it’s largely against women, period. But every little special interest has to throw in. What’s the matter with me saying that women should be women? Period?

Neither of us has to change our perceptions.

But put the shoe on the other foot – when you and your friends are worried about the 2nd amendment being protected, is that “complaining”? Is that “whining”?

I didn’t think so….

I have a feeling that it’s “complaining” and “whining” when it’s not YOUR issue.

Buzz, no fight was ever won by keeping something “private”.

And there are people today who consider women’s issues a “special interest”.

I’m glad that TNA is focusing on women in general. I think it’s what we need.

But I think your point is that other fights for equality are trivial and shouldn’t be fought ANY where. If so, we disagree there.

Seattle, your point is well taken: we are ALL in the hotseat for something these days. As a result of –what–too much free time? Inability to keep the focus on one’s self? We live in a minefield society in which all are vulnerable to being criticized, chastised, and debased for whatever it is we do, say, thing, wear, eat, pray, or don’t pray. It is time for everyone to get off the collective dime, learn to accept the right of others to think differently, and come together as a nation of Americans to defend that which is truly important: Our Constitution and our Country. Just sayin’…

Aside from that, I’m sorry jbjd was banned, although it surprises me. TNA and Amy & Co. are a well buttoned up group whose Agenda truly reflect our need to have inclusive, far reaching gender equality and their willingness to embrace all genders demonstrates their good faith.

p.s. hi kathy wynne! how goes it!

Hi lorac!!!!!

Susan, thank you for that. I always want to hear both sides of the story, and then, too, there is always the possibility of honest human error. All of my dealings with her have been exemplary in every way and I truly cannot imagine unfairness or unreasonableness from her.

Lorac, where did I say they shouldn’t be fought anywhere? LOL. You people make shit up. I think women should chill, reclaim their power and understand that in reality no one really cares if they are lickin’ the chicken in 2009. Give it up. Who gives a damn?

By the way, Lorac, I’ve been with more women than most men on this thread. I don’t wear it on my shirtsleeve or use it as political leverage. It’s my sexual preference and belongs in my bedroom. NOT in a political arena where I expect to expose myself to cheap shots. Maybe everyone can keep the sex stuff under cover for a tad.

I believe Amy Suskind’s response down thread is a prime example of the narrow response to out side of their box thinking.

A wise leader takes many things into consideration. I believe in staying focused when it comes to women’s issues but at the same time a leader must be open to a myriad of viewpoints.

As women, we are different. We just forgot to rejoice in it.

Oh Lorac…where do you get that nonsense? I stumbled into a RIDICULOUS conversation about wearing pants vs. a skirt. Stop misreading what people say. You’re part of the problem.

I’mFedUP, I understand where you are coming from. But Please Please Please do not give up on feminism or women’s groups.

You see men do shit to men all the time (holocaust, slavery, all started by men). Women want equality, we say we are equal to men. Women are not saying we are perfect or that we are better than men. When a women fails another women or doesn’t realise that she is being sexist to another women, you see I used to be very upset by this, but now I think that particular women is doing what men do men to each other. Men never have to answer for anything. I know women who are sexist to other women are helping the patriarcy, but men still have more power to deny us equality than women.

Also you would be surprised but only since the elections last year that so many women realised how much sexism that women still face and that we do not live in post-feminist world. Why you ask? Because most of us have no idea how to put into words the sexism we face. Also from a very young age we learn about racism and anti-semitism and how you should not make racist jokes or anti-semitic jokes. But most people just can’t seem to understand even women that sexist jokes are equivalent to racist and anti-semitic jokes. Most men would just let’s not be PC, to which I can only say dickheads can seem to tolerate racist jokes or anti-semitic but they expect women to tolerate sexist jokes. Men are so sensitive when bigotory affects them but tell us to shut up when bigotory affects us women.

Of course just like racism and anti-semiticism is not just in the form of jokes, it affects your life your dignity as a human being, so does sexism and that is something we are not thought when we are young. So many MRAS or men complain that the only thing women have suffered are stereotypes, women were never gassed or never lynched or never slaves. Can you believe there are people out there who think women have never suffered and the reason for that is we never learn about this. So it seems like only men have suffered in history.

Anyway please don’t give up, go to shakesville.com a very good website with very intelligent very hardworking women and men who take the time to fight for all women, gays, lesbians, men of color, the disabled and all other groups. This website stood up against the sexist attacks levelled at Sarah Palin unlike other feminist websites.

Thanks for reading!

Sabina,

Thank you so much for that excellent post. I hear you. But I also have never had a day in my life that was bad, that I blame on being female. If I did that, I would admit I am interior. We need to forge ahead, forget our differences and insecurities and take the world over.

Your just not liking the words and so you make an issue of them. Again, parsing the conversation to appear in charge defeats the purpose for all women to get ahead.

If you’re a gay or black woman your no more special than straight and white women.

I cant’tbe more plain than that when it comes to the basic human rights issues that face ALL women.

Your just not liking the words and so you make an issue of them. Again, parsing the conversation to appear in charge defeats the purpose for all women to get ahead.

If you’re a gay or black woman your no more special than straight and white women.

I cant’t be more plain than that when it comes to the basic human rights issues that face ALL women.

Lorac, the 2nd Amendment is an American issue. Jesus the fuck christ.

That’s exactly how I felt prior to the 2008 election. Then I had an awakening to what had been around me the whole time. Starting with the DNC’s treatment of Hillary.

Here’s a speech I gave on May 31st at the DNC RBC about the sexism against Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiYxQbae48s

Many others felt the same -that is why we started The New Agenda last August.

We’ll never get anywhere as long as the tail continues to wag the dog.

Meanwhile I’ll support women (ladies-deal with it) like Hillary Çlinton and Carly Fiorina who are comfortable with their intelligence, gender, and power. Those are the ones who speak for me.

Buckeye, AMEN! People need to stop focusing on minutiae, diversion and just get to the heart of matters. If we do not stick together we will all pay the price. Too many people out there try to hijack good organizations with nonsense. Amy works hard and so does everyone else at TNA. They *get it* in that they are not willing to allow TNA to be hijacked by petty squabbles and diversionary issues. That is what holds people back and this is what needs to be avoided at all costs.

Amy, don’t preach to the choir honey. I spent my own money and time to try to save Hillary’s nomination.

http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.oom

I did my job. Now, once and FOR ALL can we about women for women. Jesus stop the excuses. We get it. But if you’re still supporting Hillary then you need to explain why she went to work for her abuser. Must be that Stockholm Syndrome because that’s sure as HELL not what I’m teaching MY DAUGHTER.

We support all women. We were also the only women’s org to speak out for Gov. Palin.

And a big part of TNA is “grass tops” which is identifying and cultivating women to run for president in the future. We have identified 10 races in 2010 that we will be focusing on in term of senate and congress.

Stay tuned!

Fedup, that’s an opinion. That’s the whole point I’ve been trying to make – people have different definitions, they have different opinions. And THAT is, IMO, the beauty of America.

And I’m white and middle class – but I’m acknowledging that people have different obstacles to overcome. Standing up for others, “the little guy”, that’s also an American issue, IMO.

You’re the one who said women trying to be men – that’s not made up, there was no misreading.

No one is saying that “the little guy” needs to suck sidewalk. By the way, there are blind people, deaf people, quadriplegic people, etc. who have really been dealt the shit stick in life. I never see them complaining as much as black or lesbian women that life has handed them the shit stick. That’s kind of the thing that makes me puke.

Amy Siskind has anger management issues. Instead of building, she tears down all those who disagree with her. The New Agenda needs new leadership.

Okay well then I said it. So let’s not try to be men. Let’s love each other and the gift God gave us of being female. I don’t want to argue with you anymore. God bless you and may we all end up in the light at the end of the tunnel.

Well, if that’s true, that’s what I have been saying for two days that is wrong with the women’s movement. Sigh. WTF?

Amy Siskind is a lesbian, fyi

No offense to women, but you can pretty much tell that when it’s an obsession, filled with hate, there’s a social issue at the heart of it.

Yeah, but Amy–
How many people have been bounced from your group for disagreeing with you? Ten? Twenty? And why doesn’t Violet and Lynette and all the other great women get some media? Why is it always you?

Yet, when an opinion that is different than the cause du jour like skin color or sexual orientation is presented, it is immediately judged as being invalid. That attitude and perception is what keeps us from being taken seriously.

The issues that face women and Americans are big enough to be blind to the splinter group whines. Yes, I said whines – deal with it.

Womens’ issues will be best solved in the good of the whole rather than the one.

PS people are starving in Somalia. In the scheme of things, a bunch of lesbians, who hate themselves and want some attention, is really not important. Like I said, keep it in the bedroom, do something good for the world, and grow the hell up. We don’t care if you are gay. That’s on you.

jbjd has problems on every site. She’s a mess. We booted her out of our group. I’m not all about the causing problems for no reason. But I do think the posters here have posed some interesting questions for TNA who claims to be angelic and blameless, as well as women in general. Personally I find this very educating.

Buzz…

Women = Women

Period.

If you hate yourself for being black, gay or whatever, take it elsewhere. Hopefully at home. It’s not my problem that I love being a woman and you hate it. When you can come to the table loving being female, then do so. Until then, join the whiners that hate America, hate white people, hate people with money, hate people with jobs, hate people who went to college, etc. In other words, get in line with self hate or join those who rejoice.

I’d agree with that. See down thread.

Thanks for your comments. I wonder if women ever will, or need to, achieve this elusive ‘cohesion’. Why do we think we all have the same priorities, needs, talents, desires? There are women out there who couldn’t be more different from each other. We should celebrate the differences, not demand we all fit under the same umbrella together.

I checked the site out when Hillary was mistreated but decided it wasn’t for me.

What? Where did that come from? Up thread I said I loved being a woman!

You must be tired cuz no where do I hate being a woman.

What I do not like is the majority of women being overlooked in the name of skin tone or sexual orientation by groups purporting to represent ALL women.

Honey, I’m a woman and a lady and I like it alot No, I love it.

I’m sorry Buzz, but I am offended by the “whining” in reference to women. When was the last time that word was used to describe a man?

“It’s the very thing that repels men from wanting to deal with women. It’s the very thing that has stopped some issues dead in their tracks.”

Men are repelled by having to “deal” with ambitious women (ball breakers) and they are repelled by whiners (crybabies). Lose/lose don’t you think? If I wear feminine clothes, speak softly, remember my place and act like June Cleaver, I’m acceptable. If I say what’s on my mind, wear pant suits or have the mistaken idea I can get a promotion or be president, I’ve stepped over the line. We change our behavior to “deal” with men while they force us into the mold they have created for us. The proof is this conversation about what the women are wearing instead of what they’re saying. I refuse to say this man or that one is masculine based on his appearance or what he is wearing so why should my feminism be judged on a superficial quality? I’ve been married twice and while my first marriage ended in divorce, it was the intelligence of both men which mattered most. With the exception of one job, my bosses have always been men and the only thing they had to “DEAL” with was my superiority.

That’s your experience and viewpoint Elise. My experiences and viewpoint on what constitutes “whining” have been different.

I’ve had a terrible sexist male boss and a really terrible angry nasty female boss. I’ve worked in a field dominated by women and seen those that use whining to try and get what they want. They defeated the purpose of those women who wanted to deal with and be dealt with professionally. And yes, it made for an uncomfortable workplace.

I saw first hand in the ’70′s and ’80′s when women felt the only way they could get power was to tear down men. Women rejected men and relationships and then got pissed when men wouldn’t commit. Relationships died. Men got angry and bewildered. It wasn’t pretty in the trenches. Men left. Women had to get jobs and juggle houses and families and they got tired and angry.

So, Elise, it’s all relative.

My hope is that women can continue to gain without all of the damage.

I am sorry if that was offputting, but if we are serious about fighting sexism, I believe you may as well keep it real. Statistics show that one in four people that read my post, have had a similar experience.

Correction: one in four WOMEN.

Well that’s sad. They don’t even know there are two different Amy’s? One quick search and I could figure that out. Whoever posted that needs to learn to do research. What a putz!

I only watched to catch Madeline Albright, but why should I have to explain that to anyone…

This really isn’t about destroying feminity. It is about equal rights, equal pay particularly in the business and political worlds, and that can mean altering, perhaps, what one wears.

On the other hand, personal relationships often need work if both partners do not treat each other with dignity, respect and, yes, equality. If those three things are present, sexuality should not be effected.

If those three things are NOT present in a personal relationship OR a business relationship, women learn from sources like “The New Agenda” to DEMAND dignity, respect and equality. And if they don’t get it, they should be out of there! That’s what we are talking about here.

Check the reading comprehension. It’s called inference or corollary and if you know your feminist history there was bra burning. A literal take on comments is not only counterproductive, it’s demeaning to the those that take a different tact or have lived through the first go around of feminists.

Senneth, what I describe was the case in my state for many years, NC. To be a southern state we had many women’s groups dedicated to women’s equality. We actually almost passed the Equal Rights Amendment with only two votes needed. I’m sorry, but NOW in my city was exactly the way I said. I’m sure some of the states’s chapters were different as you say.

I think the “bra burning” was basically a figure of speech and that was what I was trying to convey as well. I was a member of the Women’s Political Caucus. We were a very different organization from NOW. Did not mean to offend you. Sounds like you were one of the leaders.

Most opposing points of view are relative, I suppose. My experience of the 70s was entirely different. I felt we were doing something worthwhile. Our movement was overshadowed by the Civil Rights and Anti-war movements and the accomplishments were not as impressive, but they did make a difference. The right to choose was not the only change. Title ix had a very positive effect in the beginning although it has been marginalized since. Women were entitled to say no to sex with their husbands and marital rape was recognized. If the only means men had to fight against equality for women was to blame the women for being something other than what they were, they would use it with words like ball breaker, feminazi or bitch or question their sexual orientation. I will agree men were angry and bewildered because a free and independent woman is frightening to some. To others, it is a beautiful thing to see. I don’t like to make personal references, but my first husband near the end of our marriage, called me a “little mouse”. I realized that was exactly what I had become after fighting for my equality as a young woman. Do you see the irony?

You seem to make a lot of assumptions based on your own opinions Fedup. It feels rather controlling…. just my reaction.

LOL Wow – several times you’ve declared your pronouncement of the hierarchy of priorities in the world. But I’m certain we could even find things “more important” than women’s rights – those dying children you mentioned, for example. You seem to have an issue with gays and blacks, and keep trying to find things that are more important, so those “unimportant” issues can be scuttled.

Is there any chance that those people might be allowed to decide their own priorities for their own lives? You seem to be a lesbian who thinks gays should keep their life “private” – is it really fair to tell other women to “go back in the closet”?

And I think you misread my post you were responding to, based on your “catfight” comment. I was talking about a woman and a man living together potentially having a conflict over gender roles. My point was that gays don’t have to deal with that conflict, because they have the same goals.

Buzz, I don’t believe any of us knows these women personally. What we “know” is what we see, and what we believe. I can’t believe they’re so perfect as to never feel or show anger (would you call that “hate”?), but they are public figures and present a certain facade. Hillary may very well have been “whining” to Bill that the misogynistic DNC screwed her over – and I’d be really surprised if she weren’t “angry” about it! She’s smarter and more worldly than most of us, I’m sure, but I would guess she has our same emotions, and is angered by sexism. We see what she shows us.

Well, just off the top of my head, blind, deaf, and paralyzed people have assistants, family members, and non-profit and governmental organizations to help them secure their rights.

Amy,

If you happen to come back to this thread –

Did Together4us come to New Agenda? There was a really nice woman named Jennifer (if I’m remembering correctly) working for them.

Did you look at the site? Every other word is bigot. Bigot seems to be synonymous with not agreeing with Obama.

They’ve kind of painted themselves in a corner for when they start having disagreements with what he is doing.

truthisgold,

Off Topic: Things are going well, despite the fact I was recently laid off! However, I’m busy working to raise public awareness about the “truth” regardingelection (not voter) fraud, which has been going on for decades now.

Keep up the good work in keeping the truth front and center and standing up for diversity. Without diversity and different points of view, there is no democracy to keep us balanced.

Group Think destroys democracy.

Hi, Miss Tickly,

I experienced extreme oppression. That along with 16 year of activism, reading and thinking make me the feminist/leftist I am today.

PUMA 4-EVA.

I have actually been banned from their site too. They clearly have good intentions but they don’t stray too far from the dogma of the liberal Democrat. I still have hope they will more accurately represent women and women’s issues. As far as NOW goes, I resent their using the word “women” in their title. They are nothing but the well trained ladies axillary of the men’s liberal Democrat movement.

I’ve been around the block in all these movements! I was a frequent commenter at Feministing the first year it won Best Political Blog in the Bloggers Choice Awards. No Quarter is also the Best Political Blog. I am attracted to political blogs because women’s rights and politics are very intimately linked.

Sexual assault and domestic violence are mostly intra-racial i.e. perpetrated by the same race and universal. It’s the same in every country. Women of color focus on racist sexism i.e. sexism perpetrated by whites and these discussions invariably turn into discussions about racism and feminism bashing. See Pleasegos and my comments on the thread I linked. Sexist sexism is universal and all women have that in common and that is what we discuss at TNA.

I still believe Carrie Prejean should have won the Miss USA 2009, and not Kirsten Dalton.

Carrie was looking stunning in her swimsuit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI3N5CrIusE