feminist blogs

Representative Bart Stupak, formerly an obscure Member of Congress who rose to notoriety when he introduced the anti-choice Stupak Amendment to health reform, is being challenged in the Democratic primary in Michigan. From TPM:

Connie Saltonstall, a former commissioner in Charlevoix County, told me this evening she's challenging Stupak over his refusal to allow health care reform to move forward without abortion language attached.

Saltonstall told me her "two passions" are health care reform and choice. And after spending the last 20 years voting for Stupak, Saltonstall said he managed to run afoul of both of them.

I don't know much about Saltonstall yet except that she is, in her own words to RH Reality Check, "Without a doubt pro-choice." That's already a big improvement over Stupak, who has been urged by the DCCC to run for re-election.

I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about Saltonstall soon. I hope she turns out to be a great candidate with a range of socially just positions, and that folks in Michigan help her create a positive campaign that can successfully unseat this anti-choice zealot.

Now is a great time, when the campaign is just getting underway, for folks in Michigan who want to help shape the agenda of their next Congressperson to learn more and get involved.

Campaign finance reform is famously one of the most convoluted and complicated issues in politics. But there's nothing ambiguous about the most recent development in the long saga of regulating campaign contributions: the Citizens United decision. It's bad for progressives, and bad for women.

Last week's ruling reverses previous limitations on corporate spending, and allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns based on the legally shaky premise that corporations' "speech" should be protected by the First amendment.

But, as David Kairys points out on Slate in one of the most persuasive arguments against the ruling I've read so far, money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. He sums up the consequences of the Court's latest decision like this:

The Citizens United decision will make it harder to achieve reforms opposed by major corporations and change business as well as politics. Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers...Taken as a whole, the conservative court's First Amendment jurisprudence has enlarged the speech rights available to wealthy people and corporations and restricted the speech rights available to people of ordinary means and to dissenters.

And he's not the only one highlighting these consequences. The NY Times reports that President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

So we already know that the decision is bad for "everyday Americans". Many have argued that it's bad for democracy. But what effect will it have on women?

I'm sorry to say, it's not looking good, for a few reasons:

1) The "powerful interests" that Barack Obama and others have deemed most poised to benefit from this ruling, namely big business and corporations, are overwhelmingly male and conservative. This ruling means their influence will increase, which will make it even harder for women and progressives to thrive in the political landscape. Translation: you can expect to see even less representation. How do we expect to increase representation of feminist women's voices in politics when conservative men have a disproportionate amount of sway?

2) Under the new ruling, women candidates have the potential to be exposed to more scathingly sexist criticism than they already are. We're already familiar with the disproportionately high amounts of criticism and ridicule female political candidates face when pursuing election, but this ruling increases their risk of facing criticism. The NY Times reports that "The case had unlikely origins" in that it emerged from a case involving "Hillary: The Movie," an anti-Hillary documentary, but I'd argue these are the most likely origins there are. We don't have to look far to see the gross double standard and horrific criticism Hillary's been exposed to during her career, to which her male counterparts have not been introduced to a comparable degree. The Citizens United ruling, both explicitly in its immediate practical consequences for the Hillary documentary, and implicitly in the long-term legal precedent set by the decision, condones corporate-funded attack ads that- if history is to give any indication- disproportionately affect women.

3) The ruling benefits corporate interests, and corporate interests are often anti-feminist. From labor rights and unionization efforts to the environment, more often than not corporate interests get in the way of feminist ones. For more on the intersection of anti-corporatism and feminism, check out Naomi Klein's self-proclaimed feminist book, No Logo.

Tonight, Barack Obama is slated to give his first State of the Union address. Rumor has it that he will criticize the Citizens United decision, as he did last week. He may not mention women or feminism specifically in his remarks on the subject, but those with feminist sensibilities should support his efforts to criticize and curb the effects of this anti-progressive, anti-feminist ruling.

Today is the special election in MA to fill the late Senator Kennedy's seat and we need Martha Coakley to win. But while women's groups have thrown down support for her, it seems that she is not getting the support she needs from women voters. Dana Goldstein looks at why this might be so,

Coakley did not go out of her way, especially during the general-election campaign, to play up her feminist credentials. She never filmed a general-election ad that presented a positive image of herself as a defender of reproductive rights and civil liberties, as opposed to just attacking Brown on those issues. She also never fully embraced the message that her ascension to the Senate would be historic, putting the number of women serving in the upper chamber at 18, an all-time high. She has called her gender "secondary," eschewing the more emotional feminist appeal that Hillary Clinton made in the final months of her presidential campaign.

It is so hard to predict which is the most effective tactic, hiding your feminism or making it blatant, but Dana continues with discussing the shifting mood of the country against repro rights after the health care debates, which has re-centralized value voter issues. Go read the rest of the article to get a clear picture of how gender is playing out in this race.

And sadly Brown's people are using sexist tactics and intimidating voters.

Today is a very important election. If you are interested in supporting getting the vote out but are not in MA, you can always phone bank.

Today is the special election in MA to fill the late Senator Kennedy's seat and we need Martha Coakley to win. But while women's groups have thrown down support for her, it seems that she is not getting the support she needs from women voters. Dana Goldstein looks at why this might be so,

Coakley did not go out of her way, especially during the general-election campaign, to play up her feminist credentials. She never filmed a general-election ad that presented a positive image of herself as a defender of reproductive rights and civil liberties, as opposed to just attacking Brown on those issues. She also never fully embraced the message that her ascension to the Senate would be historic, putting the number of women serving in the upper chamber at 18, an all-time high. She has called her gender "secondary," eschewing the more emotional feminist appeal that Hillary Clinton made in the final months of her presidential campaign.

It is so hard to predict which is the most effective tactic, hiding your feminism or making it blatant, but Dana continues with the shifting mood of the country against repro rights after the health care debates, which has re-centralized value voter issues. Go read the rest of the article to get a clear picture of how gender is playing out in this race.

And sadly Brown's people are using sexist tactics and intimidating voters.

Today is a very important election. If you are interested in supporting getting the vote out but are not in MA, you can always phone bank.

Democratic Congressional Campain Committee Chair Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) wants to make sure Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) runs for re-election. Stupak, who may prove to be the worst thing to happen to abortion access since Henry Hyde, is considering a run for governor. Stupak's seat in Congress would be vulnerable to a Republican candidate, and he says the DCCC chair has already called "urging him to run for re-election."

Because it matters if the person restricting reproductive rights has a D or R next to their name? Because the Democrats want to do the work of limiting abortion access all by themselves? Because it wasn't obvious enough there's no major party in the US willing to take a stand for women's health?

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check hits the nail on the head:

There you have it, gals. The Democratic Party once again has your back.

To the firing squad.

Last Tuesday I stood outside of a polling station at 6:45 a.m. holding a sign for a candidate for U.S. Senate. For more than two hours I was out there, cold and bored, while people trickled into the voting station alone or two by two. A handful of morning commuters beeped and waved as they drove by, but otherwise, the morning was quiet and, I thought, uneventful.

I spent the rest of the day –until 7:30 that night –making calls asking people to get out and vote. The work was mind-numbing. Over and over, I left the same message.  “Please remember to vote today.” I almost nodded off a few times the work was so repetitive and dull and I wondered if all the time I was spending would amount to anything. Each individual call seemed so inconsequential.

After the polls closed, I headed into the city for the campaign party. I was tired and thought about bailing, but I know that showing up is important too, so I rallied. And when I got there, and the room was buzzing with excitement, and our candidate came out and accepted the nomination, I realized, it all adds up.

Every sign hold, every phone call, all add up to something greater. Even though an action may seem small or optional at the time, they really do lead to something. It wasn’t my volunteering or my phone call that made the difference, it was the sum of so many actions that added up to victory. And standing in that hotel ballroom, I realized just how many ways we can apply that lesson.

If you are improving your health, it all adds up – everything you put in your mouth, every decision you make.

If you want to run a road race, it all adds up – every step you take; no matter how slow or how small.

If you are raising children, it all adds up – everything you say, every rule you make, every rule you break.

If you are saving for a house, it all adds up — every penny you save, every penny you spend.

If you are trying to affect change, it all adds up – every letter you send, every phone call you make, every person you reach.

Yes, I have heard the phrase, “the sum is greater than the parts.” But I needed to learn that lesson again, at that time. And even though I had an “aha” moment last Tuesday, I know I will probably relearn the same lesson several more times.

A few days after the election, I was sharing my discovery with someone older and wiser. He nodded in appreciation and shared his most recent lesson, “It takes something.” This man is very successful. Clearly he already knew this. But for some reason, he recently re-learned the lesson, and it resonated with him.

If you want to do something small, like throw a party, you can. But it takes something – cooking, cleaning, prep time.

If you want to achieve something big, like get promoted at work, you can. But it takes something – hard work, long hours, smart decisions.

Another wise friend of mine reminds us often, “Focus is your friend.” Same idea. We all know what to do. We all know what it takes. It’s just that sometimes, we need to re-learn what we already knew.

We are happy to announce the launch of ¡PRESENTE! an online organizing effort to support and make powerful voices of the Latin@ community. From their introduction letter,

Our goal is to create a broad-based online community of Latinos and our allies strong enough to make the United States honor its promises and protect our people. We're starting with immigration, but we won't stop there--we'll provide you with ongoing opportunities to make change on the issues that most affect our communities.

Get more information here and retweet and re-post widely.

via Nezua.