Blue Notes from a Red Zone

When Feminism is Misogynistic

While on vacation April 25, I picked up a New York Times and read the op-ed piece by Linda Hirshman, titled "Off to Work She Should Go." Ms. Hirshman is alarmed by statistics which indicate that only 60% of mothers with preschool children are in the workforce, and only 53.5% of mothers with infants are working. This represents a distressing reduction of four percentage points in 10 years (six percentage points for the mothers of infants). The conclusion Ms. Hirshman has reached is that unless something drastic happens, thus forcing 100% of all mothers to toss their children off at the closest sub-standard day care and flood the job market, all chance of a fair and equal society will be lost.

Oddly, I equate Ms. Hirshman's vision of a gender-neutral society to be an appalling piece of misogyny. I am reminded of the old adage that describes marriage: and the two shall become one, and the one shall be the husband. Ms. Hirshman looks at the genders, and says, and the two shall become one, and the one shall be the man. If we do not all conform to male models for success, we are worthless.

I'm not terrically impressed with the male-run model as practiced for the past 10,000 years or so, and I refuse to invest in the idea that unless we are following the same paths men blazed for themselves millenia ago, we as women lose our ability to create a better society.

Perhaps Ms. Hirshman could take a few moments and consider that, since the old, well-worn male-patterned path has led to eternal war, income inequality on a colossal scale, steady rape of the environment, along with steady rape and violence against women, then, perhaps, it isn't such a great guide.

Of course, Ms. Hirshman thinks that if women trod the same path, they would somehow change it, and the results at the end would be different. Once women make it inside the golden parachute, they will reform it completely and create a new and just society.

I don't buy that at all. The women I know who have followed the male business model most explicitly have become clones of the worst kind of men: ruthless, vicious, and rapacious. I don't think these women are going to create a kinder, gentler place should they land in a position of power.

What I do believe is that women will make incredible changes by following their own paths. When I was a college newspaper editor in 1972, I interviewed Gloria Steinem for hours. We sipped wine and talked, and I was pulled into her dream of a society where women could succeed on their own terms, and not have to play mini-men. When Gloria Steinem told me every dream I had was a wide open opportunity, and I could chase every one of them, I believed her. I also believed her when she said the dreams I pursued would change the world, or at least my part of it.

I still believe her. I have embraced dreams for myself, my family, my community and my world, and I have gone wherever they led me. And no matter what dream I was following, I was making an enormous difference not just to me, but to my world.

After college, I became a big-league journalist, a newspaper reporter in an all-male newsroom. This was not as fun as it might appear, and I rather quickly got disillusioned about tilting at windmills in that environment. When my husband was accepted to Georgetown University Medical School, I happily moved to D.C. and started working as a law clerk by day and attending Georgetown Law School at night.

As we neared completion of our degrees, I became pregnant with our first child. I fell in love in a way that changed my aspirations and world view for all time. I toyed with the idea of finishing school (I had very little left), taking the bar, and eventually becoming the first woman on the Supreme Court. And then I reconsidered. Someone else would take that honor, but no one else can be my child's mother. So I embarked on an 18 year maternity leave, having four children over the years.

Contrary to the belief of Ms. Hirshman and many others, life spent with children is not a barren wasteland. It is rich with learning and gaining new skills. I did work on civil rights law cases from time to time money got a little tight, but mostly I reveled in the growth and development of four young children. I organized and led three Girl Scout troops simultaneously, served a regional coordinator, trained new Scout leaders, and organized camping trips in which I led 200 or more girls into the wilderness. I introduced girls to places they had never seen, food they had never eaten, people who spoke languages they had never heard of, women older than they could imagine. I taught each girl to be strong, capable, and worthy of praise.

I also organized Odyssey of the Mind teams, a program that challenges children to do impossible things, and teaches them that they can do it. My son's group once built a balsa wood and glue construction weighing less than your standard envelope, which then held 800 pounds of weight before breaking. A daughter's group took five Greek myths and told all of them in five minutes, complete with scenery and costume changes. The rule, which is sadly not always enforced, is that kids do it all. They come up with the concept, purchase the materials, create the materials, write and perform the skits, balance the weights. My kids learned to stretch minds in a dozen different ways, and it was thrilling.

I could have been content to do this stuff forever, but my oldest entered college, and I found that was expensive. I went back to work. Now, Ms. Hirshman will quickly tell you that 18 years as SuperMom does not equip you for a professional job, and that I had forfeited all hope of a living wage by raising my very own children. I would respectfully disagree, and fortunately, found an employer first shot out of the box who was willing to let me create my own job at a decent salary. I began 10 years of work there as a grant writer, organizer of community partnerships and coalitions, needs assessor, and catalyst for social change. After 10 years, I was on solid footing with state legislators, judges, congressmen, county commissioners, wealthy businessmen - and homeless individuals, victims of sexual violence, the mentally ill and substance abusing clients who came to my agency. Every newspaper and TV journalist in the area has my number of speed dial, and I helped each of my causes along with regular op-ed pieces to our local paper.

A few weeks ago, I made another 90 degree turn. I became the executive director of an agency dedicated to coordinating and expanding services to the homeless, while maintaining a free-lance career as a business writer. Despite my having followed a distinctly feminine path toward success, I still managed to make major headlines by changing jobs, then again by releasing information about the work of my agency. And whereas I haven't landed in the golden parachute of the Fortune 500, my income is sufficient that I am not concerned about paying my son's college tuition, or my retirement, or paying for weddings, or any of the other financial stressors facing my age group. I can do a great deal just for fun, like buy my parents a car, and I can still pay for the utilities and buy the groceries. Yes, my husband is a doctor, but my salary alone can support my family and my dreams.

Over the years, I have had a significant impact on my community. I have earned a comfortable salary, I have made myself known in the public places beloved by Ms. Hirshman. I feel with certainty that I have advanced the cause of a just and equal society far more than 100 women working at a brokerage firm or a personal injury law firm.

The key to my success was not trying to see how men succeed, and duplicating their every effort. The key was in setting the priorities that worked for me, and staying true to what really matters. For all of us, men and women alike, our children are the touchstone of our lives. Neither they nor their parents flourish when parents and children are apart 12 hours every day. The best quality day care in the world cannot overcome the estrangement that follows, and hardly anyone can find or afford the best quality day care.

Also, being with my children; working in their schools; teaching their peers to read, write and calculate; meeting my peers, parents who themselves could not read, write or calculate; brought home a lesson that you can't get sipping fine wine at a restaurant in Paris (I know - I have done that too). The lives of those who have little matter. These children who have been shunted off in poor day care for 12-14 hours a time while their single mothers work two jobs are important. They will shape the future every bit as much as mine will, and I want them and my children and grandchildren to make the most of it.

It was no accident that the first job I applied for was one that give me the opportunity to affect social change. My employer hired me because I convinced him that I could make social pioneering profitable, while enhancing the corporate image. It worked, and I gained the skills to branch off on my own, concentrating on those who have the least, and matter the most.

Unlike this new breed of feminist, we don't have to play by the male rulebook, and toss the children aside to fend for themselves while we scramble for gold. We can follow our hearts, observe the world around us, gain experience, and then focus our efforts where they will do the most good personally, socially, culturally.

Nancy Pelosi raised her children, then launched her political career. She seems to be effective in making a difference. Hilary Clinton has had a few off years as well, and they don't seem to be holding her down.

There are far too many women who do not have a choice about having a sequential life, in which we mine the most out of one life stage before moving on to the next. These women are working two to three jobs to support their families, and do without so that their children might have a better, easier life. They may be following the path laid down by these male-envying feminists, but they don't have the time to make the world over into a femininist paradise. Men are setting their rules, and it isn't working out to their advantage.

Our world needs strong women, just as it needs strong men. And the world will be better when all of our strengths are valued, and we each use our own hearts and dreams to light our own paths.

posted by Lenore Wilson @ 12:40 AM 2 comments

Government by the RNC?

The latest scandal to break over the White House involves the use of Republican National Committee network servers in order to conduct official business. The scandal, as outlined by Senator Leahy, is that the White House was attempting to get around presidential records acts by using networks that automatically destroyed e-mails over 30 days old. Given the White House obsession with secrecy, I'm sure this was the primary motivation.

A secondary concern has been built around the dissemination of information with potential national security implications through a network that required no security background checks or other precautions.

These considerations are valid concerns, and lay at the conscious decision to move away from White House networks to Republican National Committe networks. But they don't bother me nearly as much as the fact that it is instinctive for the White House to view the RNC as part of the government. Of course they would use RNC servers. They use the RNC for virtually every bit of government business.

John Bolton famously, and stupidly, went on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart in order to tell us that the President's responsibility is to represent only those who voted for him; otherwise, why have an election?

Oddly enough, I thought the point of an election was to vote for a leader to represent the entire country. But George W. Bush is intractable in his view that he governs for his base, and the rest of us are of little concern.

Bush and his cronies have one guiding principle: to advance the interests of the RNC, if not politically, then economically, but hopefully both. The war in Iraq has been a phenomenal success for the Republicans economically, so Bush lives with the destructon of Iraq and young American lives without much care or concern.

In the same way, Bush views the entire executive branch as an extension of the Republican party, so it seems completely logical and natural to utilize the Justice Department to wage partisan witchhunts against Democrats and ignore Republican bribes, crimes and utter corruption. Rather than prosecute a Duke Cunningham, Carol Lam should been have investigating voter fraud. After all, the Republicans have made the prosecution of voter fraud a top priority, so as to give rationale to the Republican Party claim that voter identification cards are required to ensure democracy (as opposed to the real reason, which is that voter ID cards are required to suppress the Democratic vote). After a while, it became apparent to at least 8 prosecutors that this priority was skewed. After six years of being on the top burner, prosecutors had uncovered only 86 cases of voter fraud, mostly based on confusion as to how to fill out a form. The complete total of actual documented intentional fraud amounted to about 2-3 votes per national election - not quite enough to fix the outcome.

By making the RNC the fourth arm of government, we have completely tossed out the preamble to the Constitution. It still remains in theory, proclaiming government to be for the people, by the people, of the people. As currently practiced, it is now government for a small select group within the triumphant party; by and of the select group.

We need our government back. There isn't a Republican candidate on the horizon willing to do this. So, let's get behind a Democratic candidate and bring the
Constitution back home. And get the Republican National Committee servers out of the White House.

posted by Lenore Wilson @ 10:52 PM 1 comments

Futility?

Over the past six years, the Bush administration and its lapdogs among the Republican party have committed many sins. But perhaps the most insidious legacy was created not just by Bush and his cronies, but all the enablers among the media and among "moderate" Democrats. For three years, they all spoke with one voice, and dismissed any dissent as being irrelevant. Now,pundits, politicians and bloggers ask: "Where is the outrage? Why aren't people storming the capital? Why aren't the streets filled with people demanding change?"

Well, many, many of us are and have been furious about what is being done in our name, by our government, since the sham of an election in 2000. We have watched as years of work toward a more just, humane and environmentally safe society are callously and lightly ripped away. Private individuals have lost their rights to privacy and civil rights, while the government shrouded itself in secrecy and unlimited power. Above all, an unjust war goes on and on, one in which we sacrifice young lives in creating havoc in Iraq and a generation of new terrorists in the Middle East. We are hardly lacking for sources of outrage, and if we were, the Bush administration keeps up a steady supply of new fuel.

What saps our will to fight is the fact that we saw all this coming. Millions of Americans looked at the so-called evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and said, "this makes no sense." Hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the street trying to stop the madness. We wrote letters and columns and circulated petitions. We might as well have been sipping lemonade on the front porch. No one noticed; no one cared. An enormous protest was held in New York. C-SPAN covered it, and we watched as seas of Americans tried to get someone's attention. Even the New York Times yawned, and gave short shrift to what was going on at their front door.

All those columnists, pundits, politicians and fellow citizens who wonder why we aren't rallying now were very condescending then. The refrain heard in Washington, New York, and other political capitals was that foreign affairs and diplomacy was just too sophisticated and complicated for those left-wing nuts to grasp. Any protest about economic policy was shrugged aside as "class warfare." Liberal ideas were in disfavor even among previously liberal bastions. Liberal thought was outmoded, passe. It was time for new ideas, and new intellectual capital to become ascendant. Compassion and diplomacy were for wimps. In order to be a vigorous unitary superpower, we had to put down our words, take up our guns, and turn over our minds to a unitary executive.

Maybe I would have handled this better if there had been any intellectual content in this much-heralded "intellectual capital." As it is, I still consider "conservative think tank" to be an oxymoron, particularly when it derives from neo-conservatives. Someone who rests his or her intellectual construct on creationism is not mentally gifted, which I would define at least in part as being willing to question beliefs and consider new information.

And yet, these are the people we were supposed to defer to. Even today, one reads the Washington Post editorial pages (which I usually don't, not having the strong stomach I used to) and gathers that even if the war is wrong today, the people who protested it at the beginning are still more wrong than those who embraced it. We must still entrust the war's implementation to the people who haven't made a correct decision yet, because they have the data and the nuance, and we don't.

So frustration sets in. Every day my inbox is filled with appeals to write my Congressman, to let him know there are people who are not enamored of his stance on the issues. My immediate thought is that those organizations sending out these mass e-mails should proof their mailing lists, and not bother to send these calls for action out to people who are represented by certifiable idiots. I guarantee you, my Congressman is every bit the match for Bush in feeling self-satisfied and smug and not caring a hoot about what anyone else thinks. And my second thought, as I hit the delete icon, is that it's a shame that I feel so totally unempowered. I know it took more than Jeff Miller to make me feel this way.

Still, as I have said often, my basic personality is one of optimism, and I don't feel alone in that. It may be that those of us who mounted protests and wrote letters and signed petitions early on are still protesting in their way. It's just that our protests are on a smaller scale. Last Friday I left a secure job with a decent paycheck, in order to give more focus to my passion for a just society. On my own, I can speak more plainly, tackle obstacles more directly, and at least move my own small community a little closer to what I consider the American dream.

I may not be sounding off on national issues as much, but I am demonstrably changing my little corner, and the pace of change is picking up. Perhaps my story is being echoed all over. There are many of us who have decided not to bang our heads against the brick wall of a bubble presidency and an aloof media, but who are making our voices heard just the same. The Republicans have taught us that trickle-down theories do not work. Maybe those of us who consider ourselves liberal Democrats can prove that trickle-up theories are successful.

Postscript: It is my strong feeling that Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer puts him in far better touch with what is real and doable and necessary than years of being pandered to in Congress. The resistance many feel toward Hillary Clinton is that she can't let go of her support for a militaristic foreign policy. That isn't real, or doable, and it certainly isn't necessary. I do like John Edwards, because he left the "establishment" behind in order to see what poverty was really like, and how it can be alleviated. Perhaps 2008 will restore hope for many of us.

posted by Lenore Wilson @ 1:30 AM 0 comments