Barbara Ehrenreich's Letter to My Feminist Friends

Dear sisters,

As the election grows closer, I am increasingly dismayed by the nasty rhetoric deployed by some feminists against Ralph Nader and his supporters, of whom I am one. Gloria Steinem in particular, a woman I have always admired until now for her graciousness, has chosen to attack not only Nader but his supporters, whom she derides as overly white, male and middle class - completely ignoring Winona LaDuke and Nader's sizeable contingent of feminist supporters.

Yes, the choice between Nader and Gore was a difficult one, and I retain my respect for those of you have come down on the Gore side of it. The risk to abortion rights, in case of a Bush victory, is a real one, and an understandable reason to choose Gore.

But I wish to remind you:

First, feminism is not and cannot become a single-issue movement. While we retained abortion rights under the Clinton-Gore administration, we lost welfare - a blow not only to the about 4 million women who depended on it in 1996, but to uncounted others who would have turned to it as an escape from a violent relationship. For this and other reasons, political scientist Gwendolyn Mink has called welfare reform "the most aggressive invasion of women's rights in this century." The extent of the damage - in increased hunger, homeless, and possibly infant mortality-- is just beginning to emerge. In the meantime, Gore boasts of welfare reform and even claimed, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, to have been the major force behind it. There are, in other words, feminist reasons to reject Gore and to fear a Gore administration.

Second, while some prominent feminists are insisting on loyalty to the Democratic Party as if it were a feminist principle, they forget that only 8 years ago, NOW announced a tentative plan to launch a new feminist political party. I was at one of the meetings to discuss the new party, so was Patricia Ireland, and the feeling then was of disgust for the Democrats and weariness with being taken for granted by them. In that year the Republican candidate, Bush Sr., was far more openly aligned with the Christian Right than his son is now. So, even by NOW's standards, rejection of the Democratic Party is hardly treason.

Finally, our movement needs both its pragmatists and its dreamers, its inside-players and its utopian outsiders. We would never have begun without the dreamers, and never have lasted without the pragmatists. I believe our movement derives strength from the creative tension between the two groups, and that for one side to write off the other would be suicidal.

Whoever wins the election, we will need to pull together, both to protect women's reproductive rights and advocate for economic advancement. If you have contributed to the divisive rhetoric about Nader supporters, I ask you to stop. If you are in touch with others who have contributed to it, I ask you to urge them to stop.

Please pass this letter along.

In sisterhood,

Barbara Ehrenreich

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), November 04, 2000

Answers

political scientist Gwendolyn Mink has called welfare reform "the most aggressive invasion of women's rights in this century

What a load of horseshit. What gives you the right to sit on your ass and steal the money I bust my ass earning?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 04, 2000.

Don't shoot the messenger unk. I'm just 'passin it along'.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), November 04, 2000.

Wasn't aimed at you.

;-)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 04, 2000.

Unk,

Do you have childern?

What was the bus drivers name when they road it in the 6th. grade?

Shoe size?

Doc's name?

What was their favorite color?

What time did they go to sleep?

At what age?

Allergies?

Who was there first love? Who was there real first love?

When was the first time your sons heart was broken? What did you do to help?

When was the first time your daughters heart was broken? What did you do to help?

Her? Him?

Can you look beyond your own concepts of reality and ask what can I give, instead of what do I need?

-- - (antkicker@aol.com), November 05, 2000.

"we will need to pull together, both to protect women's reproductive rights and advocate for economic advancement."

Then why in hell is she voting for Nader?!

-- What a joke (jokes@Nader.com), November 05, 2000.

The Nader Voters: Ralph Nader seems at this point to be beyond the reach of reason, but there is still time for his voters to consider whether they want to be enablers for a political narcissist. Even the well-intended environmentalists who want to see the Green Party reach the 5 percent threshold ought to realize that this is not the year for tactical voting. A vote for Mr. Nader is a vote to defeat, in the person of Al Gore, the best-informed and most committed environmentalist to run for president since Theodore Roosevelt.

Green Party voters in swing states need to understand that they are, in effect, voting for Mr. Bush's proposals to treat polluting industries more gently. They also have to face the fact that the Nader candidacy represents a direct threat to a woman's reproductive freedom. Mr. Nader's argument that a Supreme Court dominated by Bush appointees would make no real difference for abortion rights is delusional.

But Mr. Nader's zeal has put him beyond such concerns. As Jacob Weisberg explained in Slate, the online magazine, last week, the arguments about the damage Mr. Nader is causing have only emboldened him in his cause, which is to elect Mr. Bush precisely because he is more threatening to liberal values than Mr. Gore. The idea is to elect someone whose policies will be so outrageous they will galvanize the left wing of the Democratic Party.

Advocating defeat for your own cause in an election in order to come back stronger in the long run has a long, muddled tradition. The era of Richard Nixon was ushered in partly by sullen liberals who wanted to punish Hubert Humphrey in 1968. It is an act of supreme arrogance for Mr. Nader to consign the country to bad policies for some imagined ideological payoff down the road. Our advice to Green Party voters confronted with Mr. Nader's effort to elect Mr. Bush is to just say no.

-- More food for thought (nader@question.net), November 05, 2000.

antkicker,

"...ask what can I give..."

Yes -- absolutely.

but, "ask what MUST I give because there's a gun (you know -- higher taxes, increased regulation, etc.) pointed at me"

Is quite another thing entirely.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 05, 2000.

"Do you have childern?

What was the bus drivers name when they road it in the 6th. grade?

Shoe size?

Doc's name?

What was their favorite color?

What time did they go to sleep?

At what age?

Allergies?

Who was there first love? Who was there real first love?

When was the first time your sons heart was broken? What did you do to help?

When was the first time your daughters heart was broken? What did you do to help?

Her? Him?

Can you look beyond your own concepts of reality and ask what can I give, instead of what do I need? "

The answers to your questions are simple... these are the things that should be considered BEFORE an adult decides to bring a child into this world. This is a big problem with the world today, too many immature adults having children before they evn know how to provide for themselves. It's just plain irresponsible, and they shouldn't make other people responsible for THEIR mistakes.

-- (no.one.rides@for.free), November 05, 2000.

-- (presto@italics.off), November 05, 2000.

Kicker,

Your questions are moot.

There is a HUGE difference between getting some help when you are down on your luck and having the RIGHT to collect welfare for eternity.

And whether you have children or not, there is ZERO excuse for a healthy woman to collect welfare for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS so that she can sit on her ass all day eating bon-bons and watching Jerry Springer.

I thought that Feminism was about empowering women, why is this Mink nutcase in favor of women becoming slaves to the welfare system? Or is the feminist empowerment rhetoric just a bunch of gussied-up horseshit?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 05, 2000.

Unk:

I would agree with you that this article astounded me as much as it did you. I think that the welfare-to-work program was one of the best programs put forth in this country in a long while.

On perhaps a more humorous note, I've checked out the options on my ballot for representatives. I have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat for my U.S. Senate rep. Of course I have no information on which to base my decision because the Democrat has never held office and I have no clue how the person would have voted on ANYTHING. So it's the Republican that I KNOW voted for what I didn't want and the unknown. For the U.S. House rep, I have the choice between the incumbant[ent?] Republican and an unknown Libertarian. Here again, I have the choice between the person that I KNOW voted for what I didn't want and the unknown. My State House and State Senate selections are limited to only one person running...Republicans in both instances. I can't wait to see the list of Judges. [Ah...the choices and the information available.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 05, 2000.

Unk:

And whether you have children or not, there is ZERO excuse for a healthy woman to collect welfare for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS so that she can sit on her ass all day eating bon-bons and watching Jerry Springer.

No offense, but I think that should be punishment enough.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 05, 2000.

"And whether you have children or not, there is ZERO excuse for a healthy woman to collect welfare for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS so that she can sit on her ass all day eating bon-bons and watching Jerry Springer."

Unk, I take offense with your remarks! I watch "Days of our Lives", "As the World Turns", "All My Children", and then "Oprah", I do NOT watch Jerry Springer!!

And I don't eat bon-bons either! (I like Twinkies better).

-- Big Fat Welfare Momma (disabled@by.obesity), November 05, 2000.

I thought that Feminism was about empowering women, why is this Mink nutcase in favor of women becoming slaves to the welfare system? Or is the feminist empowerment rhetoric just a bunch of gussied-up horseshit? --Unk

Unk,

There is alot of diversity within the movement. Some feminists back the welfare-to-work program, some don't. [I happen to think it is a very good program.]

You should be careful that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water ... it's not ALL 'gussied-up horseshit'. And to be fair ... even the Libertarian movement contains some of that 'gussied-up horseshit'.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), November 05, 2000.

Ha! Ha! Can't wait till tomarrow!!

Will we settle for a man who gives wants?

Or a man who needs that gives?

Did you have kids, Unk? Who was the bus driver?

-- -- (antkicker@aol.com), November 07, 2000.

Hmm, please do not "collect" my grammer.

Like a bug under a glass.

-- -- (antkicker@aol.com), November 07, 2000.

Unk,

Who said the social,"give me some", masses had to do with the intimacy of knowing who is driving your kids BUS!!!!

WHAT WAS THEIR FAVORITE COLOR?

Age? Gender?

-- -- (antkicker@aol.com), November 07, 2000.

antkicker, I just don't get it! What does this have to do with the feminist movement? Unk should know the bus drivers' name? For what purpose? I didn't know the name of the bus driver but I did know how that person drove the bus, the rules on the bus, and their enforcement. I complained many times to the school district about them. So what does this have to do with Gloria Steinem? How does giving my hard earned taxes to some woman to have more babies help answer any of these questions? Do you think this welfare recipient know the answers to these questions? I would bet no.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 07, 2000.

>> Do you think this welfare recipient know the answers to these questions? I would bet no. <<

For someone who apparently knows no welfare recipients, you seem to be very sure what they are like. That is the trouble with ignorance. It has never been tested by knowledge or experience and therefore is distinguished by absolute certainty.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 07, 2000.

Well Brian how presumptuous of you. I *do* know welfare recipients, my dear. I've seen them come into the store where I worked and I have had a few friends collecting from the gov. My, my, I'm surprised at you. You'd be surprised at my life's experiences; I grew up in a very poor area.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 07, 2000.

The school bus driver's name was Otto. And the principal's last name was Skinner. What the hell do your stupid-ass questions have to do with anything in that feminist letter? Crawl back under your rock.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 07, 2000.

Unk, I can tell that you've been watching some very stimulating TV! :>

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 07, 2000.