Parable of a girl from Kansas (or Louisiana)…..
February 10, 2009
by The New Agenda
|
“I hope they don’t pick people who look like us and think like them—that’s the worst possible combination.”
Gloria Steinem, TIME, 1976
This is the story of a young girl from Kansas. But the girl could be from anywhere. She could be from Arkansas or Georgia or Washington or Louisiana, for that is hardly the point.
Our story takes us back several decades. A young girl who witnesses the injustices of society. She becomes a young woman and develops an inner strength. This young woman decides that she will speak up for those that do not have a voice. This young woman knows that she can change the world.
And so it goes and the years pass. The young woman does much good. She fights against what is so obviously wrong. She gives up much to make things better for those oppressed.
But with the passage of time, things change. The young woman now battle scarred but with many accomplishments has risen to a position of leadership and prominence. She is no longer fighting in the streets of Kansas. She has moved inside the gates, or perhaps the beltway, and life within the gates is much different for our heroine.
Suddenly, within the gates, our heroine discovers something new. That men and women seek her out, want to be around her, and value her input. Our heroine finds this all rather dazzling. Her new friends within the gates are not so interested in what happens on the streets, and alas, our heroine, having done so much good, discovers that her passion of earlier years may have faded.
Our heroine continues her upward climb. She finds new friends who are leaders themselves. She seeks their counsel, as she admires their success and power. Our heroine now, within the gates, finds herself amongst men and women with so much. And she is thrilled. And so it goes.
And when the “nagging” voices of women with ideas for progress and demands for real “change” surface, our heroine simply cannot hear them. For our heroine’s sole mission now is to be surrounded by the comfort of those who agree with her and her with them. After all, is this not the reward for having done so much good already? Our heroine has risen to being allowed within the gates and in a different circle, and within this circle, she feels quite intoxicated. Life is good where she sits. Our heroine decides that she will do whatever it takes to stay inside the gates and this circle.
But alas, there is a wind of change. Women know they can and must do more to advance the cause of women everywhere. They are prepared to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. They demand respect. Those in the streets, their voices having not been heard for so long now, decide to take up the fight. Be it in Colorado or Ohio or New Mexico or Oregon or Massachusetts, a brave new group of women and like-minded men experience an awakening.
We did not leave the National Organization for Women’s Kim Gandy. She left us. And so it goes. We must say goodbye Kim. You did not support us. We cannot support you. While disappointed, our resolve is made stronger. Our growing chorus of diverse women and like-minded men committed to real “change” is our inspiration.
And so it goes. And so a new chapter begins.
We fight on!!!
As there is a “growing chorus” in favor of Ms. Gandy, a hard-working, trieless advocate for women for her entire life. It’s perfectly fine if you think there are other women who would be great in the job, but what do we, as women, gain when there are women trying to publicly discredit someone, rather than advocate for someone they feel is better?
Parables might be nice, but the one you have created out of whole cloth does a disservice to Gandy, you and all women who fight for change.
There is a growing chorus on both sides of a debate. There are those who would advocate for others as better choices. That is our choice based on what we aptly describe in this simply parable.
We respect that differing minds might disagree.
I think it is important to support other women, but we also have to call them out when we feel they don’t do the same. I’m not interested in discrediting Gandy, I think she has done a fine job of that herself, for which she is now asking a reward. I don’t care for that. It offends me as a woman. I will not be told to shut up about it. We can do better.
Women have a right to speak out and announce their lack of support for Gandy and like women, if they feel Gandy and those women received position , money and credit for women’s work, which they not do it. Women even have the right to say that they will work against such women like Gandy, because of her lack of support for women, based on her record and her choices which were more self-serving than of public (women’s) interests. Most galling is 501 status etc which is granted NOW.
This happens in Canada too, with a completely useless Status of Women organization, staffed by bureaucratic careerists who would never bit the hand that feeds them. And the funding they receive could go to orgs that would actually benefit women’s rights. They chose to pad their own nests.
General Comment
By writing something like this, creative as it may be, you put forth via your story-telling presumptions, a possible oversimplification along with the perpetuation of potential disinformation toward what end? I think it far more credible to state the facts as they stand, which I beleive has been done of this site via posts and comments.
Why is it that so many here have cheered Clinton, have so lovingly acknoweldged that she took things as far as she could during the primaries, have given her room to be human, have not expected her to fall on her sword, etc, yet there is what appears to be a whole other standard for Ms. Gandy.
Can we not celebrate the achievements of women, knowing that along the way, they may make a turn in the road where we part ways, where we disagree?
I find the treatment of Gandy and Clinton on this blog a bit curious. Why the breathing room for Clinton and the sledge hammer for Gandy?
————————————————————————————–
Thia
“I think she has done a fine job of that herself, for which she is now asking a reward.”
Where is the evidence that Gandy is asking for a reward?
—————————————————————————————
Let’s move forward in a proactive way. If we don’t support Gandy, fine. If we want to put forth alternative names for the administration’s position, fine. Established and done. Can we move on and/or continue to explore alternatives? Perhaps it would be helpful to have posts that are educational regarding the women TNA suggested as an alternative to Gandy?
PS II think the painting posted along with this post is an annoying subliminal message that is unfair, as if Gandy, or Steinem for that matter, are part of some wholey other generation.
Anna, I refer to the job as Director of the Women’s Bureau = reward.
are TNA’ers really PUMAs…are TNA’ers really Republicans in non partisan clothing…blahblahblah. this isn’t about politics, it’s about whether or not a person would be the best choice for a job.
forming an opinion on whether Kim Gandy would be the best choice for Women’s Bureau was easy for me. all I had to do was go back to the election season with its myriad sexist attacks and then remember how many times I asked myself the question “where’s NOW and why aren’t they saying anything about this?”
imo the answer is that under Gandy’s leadership NOW was practically invisible during the 2008 elections. so why would I support her appointment to head up the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor?
has nothing to do with whether I’m a PUMA or a Republican (though fyi I’m neither). has nothing to do with Obama-like or Obama-dislike. it has everything to do with most recent performance and considering the amount of sexism in the 2008 election there was plenty of opportunity to step up.
the truth is, I’m seeing more of Gandy’s name in conjunction with her seeking out this appointment than I did all of last year.
What exactly has Gandy done that is so great? Because I have been on the E-mail list of NOW for years and the only thing I ever received were notices of how gay rights have been violated or how someone has been treated badly because of their race. Do you think the gay rights and people of color orgs are going to take on women’s issues for us? Not bloody likely as they haven’t yet. I have been disgusted with NOW for years and I have e-mailed suggestions, I don’t even know if they received them because they don’t respond. The NOW web site is not interactive, it doesn’t serve as a women’s forum, it talks at people. Did NOW speak out about what the press and Democrat establishment did to Hillary and Palin? Gandy is a well behaved “feminist” of the east coast brand. I am not going to waste my time and expend the energy needed to ignore what the Dem establishment and media did in terms of misogynist behavior during this election, They may be twirlling around in circles trying not to see sexism but don’t waste my time and don’t call me a Dem, I know what I saw.
Anna-
As to the differences you perceive in the standards for Clinton vs. Gandy, they SHOULD be held to different standards regarding women’s issues. Clinton is a politician who was elected to represent a broad range of both men and women as a Senator, and now as SOS. As part of those jobs it is admirable that she reaches out and helps women when she can, but that is not the only function of her jobs. Gandy on the other hand, as President of NOW has only one job, help the women of this country. National Organization for Women – one job and one focus. That is why I expect much more of her, because that is the job she took.
Great parable. I think this has happened to a lot of famous feminists, like Gloria Steinem, who are no longer in the trenches. They become surrounded by their own admirers and rhetoric that they lose perspective and can no longer see how vicious the enemy really is.
It is obvious that Kim Gandy no longer understands the urgency of gender equality by simply looking at her new multi-issue agenda at NOW. How can gender equality be a priority when she is also spending time, energy, and resources on a host of other unrelated causes.
I am not gonna say that Kim Gandy is evil or that she wasn’t effective at one point in time. However, I do feel comfortable saying that Gandy and NOW have become ineffecitve. What advances has NOW helped women achieve in the last 10 years? I honestly can’t think of anything.
Perhaps we will all get comfortable and complacent as we get older or more removed from these issues. That happens to humans. But I hope if I do and I am in a powerful position to represent women, that someone will remove me from my post and put someone more effective and passionate in my place.
KayJL-
I had the same experience. I kept watching the media and saying “ohhh NOW is going to get them for that…”
I heard nothing but crickets…
And I should add to my above post, that I don’t think most of the women who make up NOW were happy about it either. I think it was a leadership issue.
Thia – I understand. I was just wondering about the evidence that she is now “asking” for a reward.
General comment – Is it possible that, as this post points out, that the Obama admin is considering Gandy precisely because of what has been a long commitment to women’s rights? Many of us are focused on her actions, or lack thereof, this past year, but if she has, indeed, been the strong advocate for women for a long time as the post notes, perhaps some are looking at her with this longer view, forest vs trees perspective, in mind.
I don’t support Gandy and I’m not a fan of Obama’s, but I have to try to see both sides sometimes lest I get too tunnel-visioned and lost in anger and resentment, which ultimately, saps my ability to take action and move forward and which also makes me become a victim of my own dogma. But, that’s just me…
Thia @ 2:15 pm – Point taken!
This @ 2:18 pm – True, right, and LOL!
Jane @ 2:18 pm – “Perhaps we will all get comfortable and complacent as we get older or more removed from these issues. That happens to humans. But I hope if I do and I am in a powerful position to represent women, that someone will remove me from my post and put someone more effective and passionate in my place.” I think those are very wise words, while wondering how easy it is in real life to remove those in power.
…sorry, ThiA…
“Suddenly, within the gates, our heroine discovers something new. That men and women seek her out, want to be around her, and value her input. Our heroine finds this all rather dazzling. Her new friends within the gates are not so interested in what happens on the streets, and alas, our heroine, having done so much good, discovers that her passion of earlier years may have faded.”
I wonder if this is how it goes in Washington and in life. When people take it to the streets, they’re usually young and the tenor of action takes on a certain ilk. As people age, become more established, as the fight takes on new strategies, the overall gestalt shifts. Let’s face it, have those in power in DC ever really welcomed into the fold (male, female, black, white, etc) those who were still in the taking it to the streets mode? I don’t think so. I think this is all part and parcel of how things go. DC embraces what is established, safe, etc.
I’m not saying it’s the right way to go and I’m not condoning Gandy for this postion, just making an observation. Things don’t remain static. Who knows where TNA will be in 30 years if it proves viable and ever-growing, if it gains prominence on the national stage? Will TNA be as it is now? Of course not. Do we know for sure that it won’t morphy in undesirable ways? No, we don’t.
We just gotta keep on truckin’.
Hm. So if Gandy does get appointed up to some pink bureau that never does anything anyway … then who is next in line to lead NOW?
fsteele – Now THAT’S good thinking! We should be investing energy in making sure NOW gets someone at the helm who will create a new culture and set of priorites! I’m in. Anyone know what’s happening with the politics over at NOW should Gandy move on?
Regarding getting old and mellowing out……I think that middle age is a time of being less radical but that after the kids are out of the house and you aren’t worried about stressing them out by getting arrested then older women will go back to being more radical. I think it is clear what is missing from women’s struggle is violence, it is a tactic men understand on a primal level and gays and race based movements have used it effectively. It is important to communicate with the people in charge in terms they can understand. Talking nicely has not worked, odds are it won’t. Another problem women’s movements have is we are the people who run the world and take care of everyone and everything. For that reason our women’s movement must be streamlined and efficient like the rest of our existence.
The Women’s Bureau has a requested budget of $10,237,000 and 10 regional offices. I would suppose that the entire budget is used up in rent and payroll. This no doubt is an unwanted stepchild within the DOL.
Given that TNA is opposed to this Gandy woman, perhaps encouraging her to move on and aligning with some Firebrand seeking the top post at NOW would be the better move.
Anna, John,
Now that we’re thinking further outside the box, what will be the result of TNA opposing Gandy? I doubt that we’d have much influence on Obama, he’ll probably appoint her anyway. However TNA opposing Gandy might have some influence within NOW, helping the more fiery faction. And it would get TNA some more publicity (and maybe pressure Gandy to shape up within the new job). So it may be a card worth playing, even if we’re sure Obama will trump it.
fsteele – Ever the strategist extraordinaire!
This is a good article about a woman who has not done what she was entrusted to do. However, I quite NOW a long time ago, since I perceived they didn’t do much, if anything, for women anyway, other than a closed clique. So maybe she did what she was entrusted to do? Nothing?
fsteele,
I think that TNA is obligated to continue to object publicly. A whole host of Progressive women, who portray themselves as the leaders of all women have shouted Sit Down and Shut Up. Well, this is still a democratic republic.
Meanwhile, in the background TNA or its members could encourage a change of leadership in several of the established Women’s organizations, including NOW.
Anna & Thia,
You both make good points. I am stunned at the lack of action by NOW during the campaign. On the other hand, I’m not quite comfortable with imagining what Gandy’s personal journey or evolution or psychology has been. I have no idea what it is like to be in her shoes. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to ask her?
Jane,
Regarding getting tired as we get older, I’m having quite the opposite experience. When I was younger and trying to raise children while working in a male-dominated field (my degree is in physics; I ended up selling for a technology company), I faced lots of sexism (my first boss had a Penthouse calendar on his wall, and the list goes on…) But at that time, I thought that women should quit yapping about sexism and just do a better job than the guy in the next cube. I thought that by the time I handed off the world to my children, things would have evolved. Well now my children are grown and sexism is as prevalant as ever. So I’m far more energized to fight it now than when I was young.
Which all brings me back to the point that we are all on our own life journeys. Without judging anybody else’s life trajectory, I do feel comfortable saying that based on Gandy’s actions within the last year, she doesn’t seem to be a good fit for a women’s advocacy position today.
Where’s the line,
I agree! Imo the kind of moral judgment that tries to look into a public figure’s “personal journey or evolution or psychology” is a waste of one’s own energy. Imo you’re right in looking at recent patterns of action and requirements of the current job (and at who else is likely to get the current job if Gandy, eg, is rejected).
There are a lot of ways to show support for the kinds of individuals you believe will fulfill the mission of your organization.Offering unsubstantiated visions of someone many women don’t even know about seems to be one of the weakest tactics I’ve seen.
You want to persuade people? Use facts, use examples, be concrete. Show us who IS an example of what you support and tell us why.
For all the words spent tearing down this one person for this one position, do you have any idea how much good you could be doing by profiling the kinds of leaders you seek to promote?
No one wins or succeeds by telling others who to vote against (to wit, McCain and Palin’s negative campaigning against Obama). But the mission of getting more women – a critical mass of women – into leadership roles by profiling each and every one of such women whom you can support certainly would go far and be something like a catalogue that you can keep pointing to as examples.
At least I know it would certainly better define what The New Agenda is for and who it envisions as the leaders for the 21st century, rather than only defining who isn’t the kind of person you think should be a leader.
Thanks.
Life is so damn short. Elucidate, enlighten but for goodness sakes, move forward.
We shall Jill.
I notice that on your blog you have taken the liberty to refer to us an a PUMA organization. Can you provide any evidence of this false accusation?
“You want to persuade people? Use facts, use examples, be concrete.”
Oh, and Jill as you state below, perhaps you should move forward. To try to disparage a group because they do not share your POV, I would just respond:
“Life is so damn short. Elucidate, enlighten but for goodness sakes, move forward.”
Amy, I’m happy to change the description. Can you provide me with a link to where you saw that and provide me with your prefered wording. I assume you’re aware that The New Agenda appears on numerous blogrolls of sites that do affiliate as PUMA organizations. You might need to contact each of them too to correct that possibly interpretation.
Now – about the disparaging – I don’t understand. Are you saying that to be ID’d as a PUMA organization is disparaging? If not, I’m not sure where I disparaged The New Agenda. Feel free to point that out too.
Last, who are you saying doesn’t share my point of view? No one has responded to my comment other than you, so far.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Jill,
FYI- I’m guessing you haven’t had a chance to see this list yet.
“The New Agenda would endorse the following candidates for
Director of the Women’s Bureau:
Anita Perez Ferguson, Former President Natl. Women’s Political Caucus
Mary Beth Maxwell, Founding executive director of American Rights at Work
Ellen Bravo, Former National Director of 9to5
Robin Leeds, Winning Strategies”
It was in a previous article. Read around the site a little. There are a lot of articles and tons of ways to “enlighten” yourself.
Jill,
Your letter has good ideas, which would be better illustrated if it did not include the paragraph referring to the November 2008 election, which had considerable negative campaigning on both sides.
Anna,
A friend of mine who is a lawyer often says; “less is more.” The piece stands on its own and the message is quite clear and one of the oldest tales in the existence.
This is not about a hammer – it is about silk.
Jill,
We have thousands of members in all 50 states.
Some of our members are part of the PUMA group and we welcome their support. We have members that are Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Independent and everything inbtw. Instead of rushing to judgment, and hence appearing to be guilty of what you are charging our organization of, why not look at WHO WE ARE and our MEDIA section and get a sense of the depth and breadth that our wonderful organization has done in 6 months. There obviously was a huge void to fill and we are filling it. The VOID was left by orgs such as NOW.
Oops another post…
Jill, I don’t share your point of view.
Also, I addressed the “PUMA” issue in a previous thread but (sigh) one more time couldn’t hurt. I like that we associate with lots of other blogs and different kinds of people. It keeps my mind open, and our group is varied. I like that too!
Just for the record, I am not a PUMA and have never been a PUMA, although it escapes me why being a PUMA would be a bad thing? I should admit that I have on occasion spoken to a PUMA (gasp) and have been known to blog where one or two of them might show up. (gasp again) It’s starting to feel a little weird the way the word is being used, and I can’t imagine how it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Likewise Thia. I am not a PUMA but I admire and respect their work.
And what is a PUMA? It is a Democrat that did not agree with the way that the party handled itself in 2008. What is goodness sake is wrong with that. The Democratic Party allowed a woman candidate to be a victim of media sexism and misogyny and not until May 31st did Howard Dean finally speak out!
I admire any organization that stands up for what they believe on principle.
If TNA welcomes PUMAs and sees nothing wrong with that identity, why did Ms. Siskind refer to Jill as making a “false accusation”? If someone *inaccurately* identified me as black, I wouldn’t call it an “accusation,” I’d just point out that, actually, I’m not. I wouldn’t say that I had bee disparaged or accused. Also, Jill’s blog did note the list of alternative candidates TNA suggested, but a list isn’t the same as profiling this alternative candidates and making the case for why they would be better advocates for working women — the role of the Women’s Bureau — than Gandy would be.
http://www.writeslikeshetalks......-director/
Because the connotation is that our focus would be limited to that of a PUMA org.
We welcome those that are PUMA’s – but most of our members are not. We are a big tent and we welcome any and all.
Amy, you wrote:
“Instead of rushing to judgment, and hence appearing to be guilty of what you are charging our organization of, why not look at WHO WE ARE and our MEDIA section and get a sense of the depth and breadth that our wonderful organization has done in 6 months. There obviously was a huge void to fill and we are filling it. The VOID was left by orgs such as NOW.”
Again – I apologize for asking for clarification a second time, where did I rush to judgement about…what exactly?
Thanks.
Jill, I don’t share your view, either. and as I mentioned upthread I’m not a PUMA or a Republican. I’m not even a Democrat. I don’t belong to any political party.
What is so wrong about opposing a candidate or prospective appointee? Under Kim Gandy’s leadership in 2008, NOW had a year during which it was marginalized and mocked as *the Ladies Auxiliary of the Democratic Party”. jmo but that is not a result that would recommend someone to a position of leadership on women’s issues.
Thia –
I LOVE Ellen Bravo – I’ve interviewed her and have written about her at least a few times. I don’t know any of the other women – that’s why I suggested profiling them would be so advantageous.
Thanks.
Not only have I spent time browsing here, I introduced myself to a New Agenda person who went to Fem2pt0. I love seeking people out – Amy can tell you that I sought her out too though I haven’t called her yet.
Thanks.
FSteele -
I’ll politely disagree – the McCain/Palin side was cited as having more negative campaigning, and I also felt that way about it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2.....8738.shtml
But people can disagree on this, obviously.
Thanks.
Thia – you wrote, “It’s starting to feel a little weird the way the word is being used, and I can’t imagine how it is relevant to the topic at hand.”
I couldn’t agree with you more! I only used once in the post I think Amy is referencing – but she hasn’t put up the link yet so I’m not sure.
Thanks.
Jill: Kim Gandy has had her chance to lead and she has lead NOW nowhere. That said, judging from the misogyny displayed by team Obama and the Media towards Hillary and Palin Gandy is probably the perfect person to fit this administrations view of a womens advocate.
But the question is why even have this appointment that Gandy is angling for? If it is to make Team Obama feel like they are really doing something for women without actually having to put out or even listen to a few ideas then Kim is your Woman. If on the other hand team Obama is trying to make women feel represented or actually accomplish some new agenda then Gandy is not going to cut it and whomever they pick would need to actually appeal to and have the trust of women (other than excuse making liberals).
Hi Kay,
You ask, “What is so wrong about opposing a candidate or prospective appointee?”
Goodness – nothing – whenever we say yes to one thing, we’re saying no to something else, most definitely in the case of voting, at least, that’s how I’ve often seen it. So opposition is inherent.
Thanks.
Constance,
I like your questions but I don’t agree that Gandy has led NOW nowhere.
I confess, from reading the legislative charge of the Women’s Bureau, it sounds like they make recommendations and reports, for the most part. Is that your understanding?
Maybe it really requires an academic. What do you think about that?
Just a general note:
I’ve been blogging for a little less than four years now. I’ve been involved in nonpartisan women into the pipeline efforts for a little over two years. The women I meet who want to get into politics, into that pipeline, and who want to support women – the ones I’ve met – they want help, assistance, advice, examples.
It just seems, from the excellent interaction I’ve been fortunate to have with Cynthia Ruccia in particular, that you all have so much to offer in that vein. Of course we do not need to agree on a whole host of things in order to benefit women who want to get into the pipeline. And I can accept that I’m speaking from where I am, as opposed to where you are coming from. But where I am coming from, which is in part based on where the women I’ve heard from are coming from – in terms of getting into the pipeline for women in leadership, they want support and assistance and advice and examples.
That’s what I was expressing in my first comment, that’s what I’m expressing here – a wish of what ELSE I hope to find here – I hope other women who come here will find.
And if I’m completely wrong, well, then, you’ve shown me.
Thanks again.
Jill,
Possibly you could re-read your original comment and consider the tone? We welcome discussion here and we rarely all agree, but your original post was very combative and frankly snooty! We try really hard here to be respectful even when we disagree. If you have felt a little ganged up on, perhaps you could consider that we are forming a team of women here, who plan to really make changes to benefit women, in an environment of camaraderie. You came in and started slapping us around, and we don’t like that.
Thia – that is fair. I had to have The Talk with one of my school-aged kids this weekend about the one-dimensional nature of the Internet and how hard it is to really put dimension into conversation, no matter how multi-media we get. I’m not immune from needing that reminder either.
My goal was to offer thoughts on re-purposing some of the thoughts being expressed in these threads which, to me, just feel so overrun with Gandy NOW Gandy NOW, Gandy NOW. And we don’t even have Hilda Solis in yet – whom I know from several blog posts here The New Agenda supports. How about an effort to get that moving again – I am livid over her appointment being held up.
Anyway – that was my frustration in reading this thread: I got the preference to not support Kim Gandy, I got the preference for other women, but I want/wanted more about the other women (since I get the part about not wanting Kim Gandy.) That’s what I was seeking to say.
Thanks again.
Ye gods. We need to have some of us inside the gates. I’m personnally very, very happy Kim Gandy has arrived there. Perhaps she’s more diplomatic than some; but perhaps that will keep her longer within those gates, where she may well be waiting, with patience and maturity, for a moment. when action will be most effective. I’ve seen her do this before. She is a fine lawyer, a fine feminist, and good on her!!! Sandy Rapp
This is slightly off subject but I’d like to use this platform to say that I think it so unfair that people don’t use their names when commenting on blogs. As you will note my email address is my name because I will always be accountable for what I say. I wish all would do the same and come out of all those closets.
Sandy,
Nice to see you here.
I hope that you are right. There is no evidence of this in the short time I have observed her work, but hope springs eternal. And as you have been around this venue a heck of a lot longer than I have, I value you input!
Marilyn, Sandy – I know what you mean – it is a never-ending debate re: the anonomi as I call them but you know, you do start to get a sense of some personality – and people have their reasons. But yeah – I always point out that people can find me, and I think that’s good (maybe not always so good for me! but as a general rule, it’s the right thing, for me at least).
Thanks.
And Sandy and Marilyn,
If she does get the post, and once on the inside she changes back to the Gandy of ole, you better bet that TNA will be the first org to cross over and have her back.
Marilyn,
I use my full name on the articles I write, but I understand some people wanting to maintain a level of privacy. With a full name and even just a state you could wind up with someone unpleasant on your doorstep. In this day and age I wouldn’t post an email address I wanted to use for any future purpose. Someone can get mad at you and fill your email with all sorts of garbage. (it has happened to me before I wised up)
Amy
Per your comment addressed to me: Huh?
Anna,
You had an earlier comment that we did not show specific evidence. That was what I was referring to.
It sure seems like someone touched a nerve by bringing up the PUMA’s. But if the shoe fits …..
The other women are qualified, I’m sure, but it seems like the major objection that The New Agenda has to Gandy is that NOW supported Obama AFTER Clinton withdrew from the race.
Obama was not my first choice as the Democratic candidate. Nor was he my second. But I fail to see who is served by waging a campaign to paint a dedicated feminist as something less than worthy.
Hi PunditMom!
Sorry, the shoe doesn’t fit me–although I like the shoe just fine! I’m more of a barefoot kind of gal
I wonder if you could point out where The New Agenda said this?
” the major objection that The New Agenda has to Gandy is that NOW supported Obama AFTER Clinton withdrew from the race.
I have a lot of objections to Gandy, but personally my main objection is that she doesn’t represent all women. I would hope for a position like Director of the Women’s Bureau they could find someone a little less partisan.
KayJL says it best and its worth repeating:
“[A]ll I had to do was go back to the election season with its myriad sexist attacks and then remember how many times I asked myself the question “where’s NOW and why aren’t they saying anything about this?” . . . . the answer is that under Gandy’s leadership NOW was practically invisible during the 2008 elections. so why would I support her appointment to head up the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor?”
Thia, I ask with all seriousness: you wrote, “personally my main objection is that she doesn’t represent all women.” Is there really any woman who represents all women? Is that even a reasonable expectation?
I agree in each of us expressing how we feel that any one particular possibility does or doesn’t come close to that hope, but who do you think comes even close to representing “all women”?
What woman, or any person, represents all women or all people? That is a non-starter.
What troubles me is that the campaign isn’t so much in favor of a candidate that some prefer, but is an apparent campaign to smear someone who has worked hard to benefit women, whether you agree with each and every move she’s made or not.
You can be against Kim Gandy without writing fictional parables.
I think if you can approach things in a less partisan way, you have a better chance of representing MORE women. Perhaps I should say she doesn’t even TRY to represent all women. How about that? My other issue as I stated above, was the pitiful response to what I felt was rampant sexism during the election. It was directed at everyone including Clinton, Palin, Michelle Obama and others. I just kept waiting for NOW to start raising he** but nothing happened. I can only assume that reflects on Gandy since she was running the organization at the time.
PunditMom,
You are way off base. Read our piece that was posted Sunday where we do suggest 4 candidates. We will be writing further on this matter.
This seems like sour grapes to me. We don’t agree with you on Gandy and so you attack us. Fine – that is your right. And we very purposely chose to not list line items as to why we do not endorse Gandy. But suffice it to say that it was unanimous (less one) amongst our Founders group who are prominent women from around the country and perhaps, through our connections, we know more information than you know. Could that be?
You are always welcome here to comment in a constructive way. I think you have gone off course.
PunditMom,
You seem an intelligent woman, but you seem to have totally missed the gist of the parable. How you draw the contention that you write about above is unfounded.
This ain’t rocket science – read it again!
Thia – while I do not feel that NOW’s actions regarding the sexism were inadequate, I appreciate you being more specific in your expression here. I think it’s great when organizations do do the heavy lifting but I confess, I don’t expect it – and I kind of like speaking out anyway (that’s a no-brainer, huh!?).
Thanks.
Some commenters suggest that the head of the Women’s Bureau should be a non-partisan pick. Is this a criterion that was demanded of past heads, or is this being applied only to Obama? It was my understanding that the position was a political appointment, not a civil service merit position, and therefore it’s standard for it to be filled by someone who aligns with the president politically.
I am bewildered by 1) the ongoing, erroneous claim that Gandy and NOW failed to protest the sexism in the media’s treatment of Clinton and Palin (which I rebutted with multiple links in the other post on this topic); and 2) the idea that one’s activism on sexism in the media is determinative of how well one would do working on women’s labor issues. I have no reason to think Gandy is the best candidate for that job, but no one has said why she is BAD for that job. Bringing up how she did poorly at some other task you assigned her is irrelevant.
“But suffice it to say that it was unanimous (less one) amongst our Founders group who are prominent women from around the country and perhaps, through our connections, we know more information than you know. Could that be?”
So TNA is resting its power solely on the “prominent women from around the country” with “connections,” rather than on persuading those of us who had never heard of any of the founders (with the exception of law prof blogger Ann Bartow) prior to TNA’s coming into existence.
Marilyn, here’s one reason to be anonymous: instead of depending on your name to make an argument, you are forced to win people over by the strength of your reasoning. I could be a “prominent woman with connections,” or I could be a nobody who lives on the street and goes online for free at the Apple store. I expect to get only as much credit for my opinions as I can win through persuasion.
Jill – I guess I just expected more based on the history of the women’s movement. But you’re right we should all speak out for ourselves too! I get mouthier every day
Amy – I think your comments to Pundit Mom are defensive and have a tone that is not what I would expect of the President of an organization that hopes to grow to a major national organization. This isn’t the first time I’ve thought that. Just the first time I’m posting it.
Thia – this is a great line: “I get mouthier every day” Though I do not want my middle-school daughter to know I feel that way.
Jill,
Was it you who thought TNA was a nest of PUMAs? If so, gratuitously accusing McPalin of negative campaigning, and then pursuing the subject with a cite from CBS — might be considered, er, somewhat non-exemplary in a post about sweetness and light.
F. Steele (PUMA)
Jill- I don’t have kids so I can run amok!
Oy I’m begging ya can’t we let the PUMA thing go? Everyone is welcome here! See my above posts re PUMA’s.
Thia,
Not if Jill keeps pursuing irrelevant charges against Palin.
Sexism in the media and politics is only one of many, many issues that NOW works on. During the election, NOW had to keep track of the candidates’ positions on the entire range of women’s issues, carefully navigating the changing political landscape so that at the end of it all, it would be in the best position possible to help women. This could not have been easy, but New Agenda chooses to target Gandy for ONE issue out of many, sexism. And frankly, though sexism is an important women’s issue, it is not nearly as important as other issues, such as wage equity and women’s health which directly effect women’s lives on a daily basis, and on which NOW and other women’s advocacy orgs are currently in a strong position to advance with the new administration. So far, New Agenda does not seem to have accomplished much but criticize OTHER battle-scarred women for not doing enough? Where are your battle scars, Amy Susskind? It’s one thing to prefer other candidates, but it’s quite another to actively target one individual — one who has been fighting the good fight for decades and proven her commitment time and again — with nothing but opinion and mean-spiritedness for your own mysterious reasons. This is all very destructive and divisive. I am disappointed because when I first learned of New Agenda and visited your site, I was impressed that you were about “working together on the issues we have in common,” which has proved to be not true at all.
Wrdfrk,
If you want to see our accomplishments and battle scars, read our press releases and media. We have been in the trenches.
We happen to prefer four other candidates. Can you explain to us why Gandy is better than our four picks?
fsteel- I guess I missed the Palin conversation…
I like Palin, PUMAs, pretzels, poptarts, plantains, popsicles, pimentos, mmmm pizza, pumpernickel, pumpkin pie, pomegranates, pickles, peaceful discourse…
fsteele:
you wrote:
“Jill,
Was it you who thought TNA was a nest of PUMAs? If so, gratuitously accusing McPalin of negative campaigning, and then pursuing the subject with a cite from CBS — might be considered, er, somewhat non-exemplary in a post about sweetness and light.
F. Steele (PUMA)”
No, I didn’t think this site or organization is a “nest of PUMAs.”
Thanks for asking and giving me a chance to be extremely clear.
The total lack of any expressed outrage by NOW over the sexist attacks on Hillary and Sarah says it all. The 2cd only woman candidate for VP was hung in effigy for God’s sake and she was openly called a cun* and not one damn peep of protest from the NOW camp. Hillary was trashed, called a ball crusher and literally robbed and not a peep of protest – she then was symbolically groped for God’s sake and not a word of outrage from NOW. How obtuse can people be to simply overlook this and pretend it has no significance?
Here, here goesh.
Goesh…you said it all and you said it well.
Enough bickering!!
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...