Note - there are a few factual changes and some explanatory info is added
Landing at National after 5 days at the NOW conference in Indianapolis, I decided to save a few dollars and took Metro home. Blue line to orange line, then a bus. Smooth and fast, while elsewhere on the red line, people were mangled and dying. So arbitrary - you're on one line, you live; another, you don't.
Anyone who thinks that because they've planned and worked and saved and been good citizens and good parents, they and the ones they love are safe - is in a dreamworld. Life doesn't make sense.
For example, all of those who thought the "dream team" of Latifa Lyles, etc., would win the NOW presidency and vice-presidencies...because we needed a youthful, fresh face for the aging, tired women's movement...were wrong. Eight votes - that's all it took for Latifa, a woman of color in her early thirties, to lose to Terry O'Neill, a mid-50s white woman. (Race does matter - a lot - in the women's movement.) Terry and her team may succeed in turning NOW around - I hope so - but I'm worried. There's nothing fresh there. Policy ideas are stale and positions are delivered in a rote, scripted fashion. The veterans on the ticket - Terry and the Illinois NOW prez - do not inspire me in terms of vision or practical skills or ability to deliver. The "new" faces on the ticket - two women in their late 20s, early 30s - have a lot to learn. A lot.
Eight votes. The red line.
A few people have asked me to write more about the NOW elections. Both teams - Latifa Lyles and Terry O'Neill - had strengths and weaknesses. But it's not about ideals or visions or even skills - it's about who can turn out the most voters. Total numbers of voters - 404 (really). [There were more people than that at the conference - but 407 were credentialed to vote and 404 voted. You must be a member for a certain period in advance of the conference to vote.] Late Saturday, people were coming in from California to vote for Terry - she was supported by a woman named Shelly Mandell of Los Angeles, who supported McCain-Palin publicly after Hillary lost the nomination. Shelly says she didn't support McCain-Palin as a NOW person - but the press thought otherwise.
Because this is the women's movement, we want to build a feminist culture. Not just win votes or elections or pass bills, but empower women - and men - to think and behave with equality and for justice.
Really! The people who won were nasty. I wish I had been in the plenary when the vaunted Patricia Ireland (Terry's treasurer) lashed out at Kim Gandy, questioning her budget figures - while supporters of the Terry team lined the back of the room, shouting at Kim to "tell the truth" - in reference to the budget situation. (I was working on credentialling so wasn't in the plenary.) Financially, NOW is in bad shape. So we have reason to be worried. But is this feminism? Perhaps this is a new version - attack-dog feminism. How does that distinguish us from every other political group? It doesn't.
The anger and bitterness of this crew - desperate to hang on to power, refusing to believe anyone else could run the organization - was shocking. (You've got to remember - these folks have a lot of history together - they're like Chicago politicos - byzantine alliances - cross them at your peril.) There were people I like and respect on Terry's side - people who felt she had the brains and experience to turn the membership decline around and that Latifa was just not ready for prime time. But they didn't sway many voters (although granted, Terry was only in the race about 3-4 weeks!) - all they did was win by eight votes. And what the hell were they doing in the past eight years to stop the hemorrhaging of members and money - or - as one Terry supporter said - the "death throes" that NOW is in? Come to think of it - what was the person who said "death throes" doing during the past eight years?
In addition to PI (as Ireland is known), another vaunted figure - Carol Moseley-Braun - embarrassed herself by storming down the aisle and interrupting Kim's "farewell" remarks. Apparently she thought she had been labelled as anti-Obama and pro-Sarah Palin and that was just too much for her. But did she have to interrupt the NOW president of eight years to make her irate and (as it turned out, incorrect) statement?
Ireland and Moseley-Braun both apologized on Saturday for their outbursts. Ireland admitted it was the wrong way to behave at a NOW conference - it would have been ok to be rude and disruptive, she said, at a congressional hearing on the ERA (maybe that's what's wrong with NOW - its obnoxious outbursts) but not at a NOW conference. Mosely-Braun said she had misunderstood what people were saying about her. Now she's a person who served in the Senate and was an ambassador - is she really that confused?
That wasn't all - there also was the sideshow of the Hillary Clinton supporters who remain permanently (apparently) pissed off about her loss. The so-called "PUMAS" - Party Unity My Ass. Clinton seems to have gotten over it - why haven't they. Some of these ladies are angry at NOW for not being supportive of Sarah Palin; apparently, the fact that she's a woman is sufficient qualification. A few blame Kim Gandy for EVERYTHING they don't like. I'd dismiss them as idiots except they are contributing to the anger within the women's movement and the splintering of the women's movement and they are very good at getting publicity.
It's too soon to tell whether younger feminists - those who were crying over Latifa's loss- will leave NOW and find another organization...or get over it... or take up the guitar, yoga, meditate, whatever. As for me, an "older feminist," probably the best thing I can do at the national level is be an active board member for the remainder of my term (over in Nov. 2010) and be watchful as to what the new officers do.
Will they keep their promises? Will they be transparent? Will they find something new to say and do? Will they lead?
Who cares? With only 404 voters in this "watershed" election to guide the women's movement, there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm or interest in NOW, I fear.
As for our state chapter, I think Virginia NOW has a lot of promise and can do a lot of good work - members are supportive and caring and good people. So if anyone reading this wants a progressive, feminist "home," Virginia NOW is that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Marj, it has nothing to do with supporting Palin politically. It has everything to do with fighting sexism wherever it rears it's ugly head. I am glad to know that someone who feels the same way will have the megaphone.
ReplyDeleteRead here if you have any further questions about PUMA:
http://thewiddershins.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/sarah-palin-supporters-did-not-swing-the-now-election/#comments
PS, how is all that ageism working out for you?
ReplyDeleteKim Gandy is 55 years old right now, boy she is way past her prime.
You are an unreliable source.
ReplyDeleteIf you really hope that O'Neill and her team are able to accomplish some good, I find it hard to believe you would write such a post.
ReplyDeleteI figure "attack-dog feminists" will accomplish a lot more than the "don't rock the boat" kind.
ReplyDeleteI find it amusing that you're shocked that older feminists aren't eager to step aside for a younger generation that thinks their elders are irrelevant. If you don't respect them, why should they respect you?
Hi Marj. I appreciate all of your thoughts about the election. One correction though. I was a poll-watcher and knew this would be a close one, but it was eight votes difference, not six. I also feel the same charge to remain on the board and be watchful of the new administration. It will be interesting to see how well their strategies work.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting to see how inter-group politics can take up so much energy and time, which could be used toward working for the organization's goals. Seems like there's need for a new system of leadership, which promotes solidarity instead of divisiveness. Thanks for providing this account so people can learn about the inner workings!
ReplyDeletelol "aging" "tired" not "fresh" "bitter" "white" women = Obama supporters describing the women who fought for a woman's right to choose, run for office, receive equal pay for equal work, etc. Even Obama would be embarrassed by you.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, the Gandy administration did everything in its power to stall discussion of NOW's financial situation. Without openness and transparency, it's impossible for anyone to confront the hemhorraging, much less do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteErin Matson is one of our smartest and most passionate feminist activists under OR over thirty (she's 29). You don't sound very confident about her, but I've been working with her in Minnesota for over six years. I know that she is going to impress the hell out of you.
I have read that Terry won because of years of mismanagement financially under Gandy and lost membership (40%) between 2005 and 2007.
ReplyDeleteSo this is a feminist blog? Describing Terry as a "mid-50s white woman." and that "There's nothing fresh there" reeks of ageism. Prejusdice, in any form, is wrong.
My misspelling 'prejudice' is wrong too. So sorry. But, it gives me another chance to continue. Trashing a US Senator (our first AA senator-Moseley-Braun)as "confused" is also ageist as well as undignified of a progressive feminist. Calling the women "ladies" is just, well, old fashioned.
ReplyDeleteI'll say it again: So this is a feminist blog?
Don't think so.
Eight votes. Plus a few delegations unseated. Not unlike last year's primaries but someone at NOW was worse at math than the DNC. Yeay, Larry Summers!
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, the fact that Palin/anyone else is a woman is sufficient qualification for a defense against sexism. There was nothing of the sort from NOW for any woman candidate being attacked - no matter the political spectrum.
There are so many things I could say.
ReplyDeleteHere's an important one:
Describing, categorically, women who have moved beyond their reproductive years as "old" "tired" "not fresh" -- essentially, useless -- is a well-worn misogynistic cliche. Women should be valued for their ideas and their efforts no matter how old they are.
You should know better. And you owe a lot of women an apology, because you just repeatedly insulted them.
One day you will hit 40 and some 25 year old will call you old and useless (that's the category I keep getting lumped into). Believe me, you won't like it. And it won't be true.
Now - grow up, start checking your facts, consider the meaning of your words, and get the hell off your high horse.
Marj and I do not agree on the election results, but I will not stand for this "more feminist than thou" stuff. She's a feminist, and a damn good one.
ReplyDeleteMarj,
ReplyDeleteI support you and your account of the events. I have loved every minute of my involvement in NOW, but I was appalled at the open hostility toward "young feminists" at the conference from those in the O'Neill slate's campaign garb. Multiple times, I heard "young feminist" used as a derogatory label. My disappointment stems not from my view that the "elders" are irrelevant--they are our heroes!--but that they fail to see how irrelevant NOW is to the women I think of as young feminists (18-25). Most of my undergrads, many self-identifying as feminists, have never even HEARD of NOW until they're in my classes. This is as much a problem for NOW as the financial disputes that prompted the loss of decorum in the plenaries. Our feeling upon leaving the conference was that half of NOW feels young women's contributions and agendas are unwelcome and irrelevant.