Annual Fundraising Appeal

The US Geological Survey recorded a minor earthquake this morning with its epicenter near Wasilla, Alaska, the probable result of Sarah Palin opening her mail box to find the latest issue of CounterPunch magazine we sent her. A few moments later she Instagrammed this startling comment…

Palin2

The lunatic Right certainly has plenty of problems. We’ve made it our business to not only expose these absurdities, but to challenge them directly. With another election cycle gaining steam, more rhetoric and vitriol will be directed at progressive issues. More hatred will be spewed at minorities, women, gays and the poor. There will be calls for more fracking and war. We won’t back down like the Democrats. We’ll continue to publish fact-based critiques and investigative reports on the shenanigans and evil of the Radical Right. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day10

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Reclaiming the F-Word

Feminism Makes Another Curtain Call?

by RON JACOBS

If one reads the New York Times and other popular journals, you will find the occasional feature discussing the end of feminism.  Depending on the editorial stance and intended audience of the journal, this article will either decry or celebrate the "return" of feminine sexuality and sexiness.  No matter what the slant, this faux return, along with other indicators pulled out of the empty air that denotes much of popular culture, will be portrayed as proof that feminism is dead and may have even failed.  The truth of the matter, however, is that there was no return because feminine sexuality and sexiness never left.  Neither did sexism.

It is this last point that the authors of Reclaiming the F Word use as a beginning point for their recently published book.  Furthermore, write authors Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune, neither has feminism.  Indeed, as long as the issues denigrating women and forcing them to accept less than what they are capable of exist, then feminism will exist.  Today’s feminism does not look like the mass movement of the 1970s, but is arguably more integrated into women’s daily lives.  It also does not always call itself feminism.

It was that movement of the 1970s–a movement known historically as second-wave feminism–that made the phrase "the personal is the political" popular.  The essence of this statement is that what we do in our private daily lives is as political as the overtly political actions we take on the public stage.  One effects the other and to pretend otherwise is not only hypocrisy but dishonest.  Overall, the entrance of this concept into the leftist and countercultural movements of the time did create a greater consciousness regarding the relationship between the private and the public personas we all have.  Simultaneously, it also created a dynamic where a personal mistake could often become a greater issue than one’s positive political acts, consequently destroying whatever potential those political acts may have had.  Perhaps the most obvious example of this for many liberals in the United States was the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.  Those liberals who truly appreciated Clinton’s political acts and policies were forced to watch the man’s personal mistakes being used as a justification by those who hated the man and his policies to discredit both.  The irony is that Clinton’s destroyers had absolutely no use for feminism, but were able to manipulate "the personal is political" dictum into one more element of a hypocritical puritanical attack on everything he stood for.

Second wave feminism–or women’s liberation as it was called back then–assumed that the liberation of women would occur within the wave of universal liberation that many believed was near in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  As we know, that struggle for universal liberation ultimately slipped into the particularities and occasional pettiness of identity politics.  Identity politics is a politics that, among other things, removes the question of class struggle from the equation and replaces it with a combination of victimhood and special privilege designed to "make up" for previous wrongs.  Of course, many of these wrongs cannot be compensated for because they are based on one’s economic relationship to the masters of capital, not to the relationships between different elements of those subordinate to the masters.   Reclaiming the F Word walks a fine line between these two opposing understandings.  While generally understanding that women’s rights can only be obtained through the struggle for universal human rights, the authors tend to work within the framework of identity politics when it comes to specifics.  Consequently their failure to discuss the world’s greatest violator of human rights–imperial war.–weakens the book.  This is especially the case in a time when Washington and London have both used women’s rights to justify their wars against Muslim nations.

Redfern and Aune are British and therefore write mostly about Britain.  They discuss current efforts to end violence against women, for equal pay and for sexual and reproductive freedom and choice.  While doing this, they comment on the nature of British society in the 2000s.  It is a society that is considerably more ethnically and religiously diverse, with a large population of Muslim and other non-Christian women.  This fact creates a new way of looking at conventional women’s issues.  The need for cultural sensitivity is a challenge to conventional western feminists who may not understand the reasons a woman might wear a burqa or chador or accept the roles proscribed by non-Western cultures.  Yet, oftentimes women working with these women find that the common bond of womanhood is enough and it is from that point that they begin their work.

A discussion in the book that I found particularly intriguing revolved around the relationship between feminism and  religion.  No religion is held out for special scorn or praise and all of the monotheistic ones (which form the bulk of believers in the West) are looked at honestly.  Attempts by feminists who consider themselves believers to transform their churches are discussed as are those women who want nothing to do with religion, considering such attempts to be pointless in the face of those religions’ fundamental patriarchal belief systems. 

The overriding theme of Reclaiming the F Word  is that women’s rights are human rights.  From the right to control one’s own body to the right to an education and healthcare, Redfern and Aune do a good job of elucidating the current approach modern-day feminists are taking in the struggles for these things.  If one wants to read an honest discussion of where modern day western feminism stands, this book is a good place to begin.  Accessible and informative, it is a brief survey of many of the  issues faced by women in the early part of the 21st century and the attempts by many to address them.

RON JACOBS is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net.