FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Not a Women’s Party? 

by

Recent news about sexual harassment and violence have lit up every bulb on the political light string.  The most discussed include mainstream Democrats, like Harvey Weinstein; aggressive conservatives, like Roger Ailes; white-nationalists, like Donald Trump; and to left-liberals, like Al Franken and John Conyers.

It seems increasingly clear that gender and sexuality are separate from the left-right spectrum we usually use to understand politics.  Equally clear is that the the two major parties do not fully represent those of us who are on the down sides of gender and sexual hierarchies.

Perhaps it’s time for something new.  Why not a Women’s Party – or, hewing more closely to contemporary usage, a Gender Equality Party?

The idea sounds radical.  But in addition to the fact that Britain has had a Women’s Equality Party since 2015, the notion also has a distinguished pedigree in the United States.

After women’s suffrage, a wing of the movement birthed a National Woman’s Party.  This imperfect organization, almost all wealthy and white, tried to create an autonomous women’s political bloc.  The Party’s defining initiative, starting in 1923, was for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution.  Parallel to the National Woman’s Party was the League of Women Voters, which operated within the major parties but was similarly dedicated to using women’s votes to change policy.

By the 1930s, activist women had mostly been incorporated into the traditional political parties.  Thousands became Democrats, thanks in part to recruitment efforts headed by female pol Molly Dewson.  Democrats made good on part, although not all, of the organized women’s agenda.

In the 1960s and 1970s, disappointment with male-dominated politics resurfaced.  White women complained that male activists wanted them to “put out” and make coffee for the cause.  Some African American women were fully accepted by black men fighting for civil rights.  But a variety of women of color feminisms emerged from the impatience women felt with posturing male warriors for Black Power, Brown Power, and Red Power.

Feminist anger from the period still crackles: Robin Morgan insisted: “No more, brothers.  No more well-meaning ignorance, no more co-optation, no more assuming that this thing we’re all fighting for is the same.”  Michele Wallace lamented: “Now that freedom, equality, rights, wealth, power were assumed to be on their way” for black men, many believed African American women “had to understand that manhood was essential to revolution – unquestioned, unchallenged, unfettered manhood.  Could you imagine Che Guevara with breasts?  Mao with a vagina?  She was just going to have to get out of the way.”

Feminists created their own organizations.  The National Organization for Women and National Women’s Political Caucus were joined by efforts for liberation beyond law courts and ballot boxes.  These efforts were nourished by organizations of politicized LGBTQ people and non-sexist men.

There were gender-based mobilizations behind Shirley Chisolm’s campaign for President and Hillary Clinton’s near miss.  Neither was independent of the Democrats.  Now, after Clinton’s loss and the nonpartisan opening up about sexual harassment, we can appreciate anew the value of building autonomous organizations for gender subordinates and gender rebels.

A Gender Equality Party faces challenges.  Most profound are the twin questions: what is its agenda?  And who are its members or subjects?  Feminists know that women’s political needs are inseparable from their race, class, geography, (dis)abilities, and nationality – and therefore not uniform or obvious.  Feminism today adds extra complexity by embracing women born as men and people who don’t identify with any familiar gender categories.

Challenges aside – why not give it a try?  A Gender Equality Party could serve as a spur to new thinking, reminding Democrats and Republicans that feminists, LGBT people, trans people, and their allies, are part of every winning coalition.  It might stop Democrats from throwing reproductive rights, and sexual and gender expression, off the boat and into sharky waters.

Theorist Juliet Mitchell claimed five decades ago that women’s was the “longest revolution” in world history.  Judging by the news from Hollywood and Washington, the revolution is still far from won.  Perhaps a Gender Equality Party can get us a little closer to where we ultimately want to be.

* This piece will air, in abbreviated form, as a commentary on Vermont Public Radio on Tuesday, December 12, 2017.  

More articles by:

Felicia Kornbluh is an Associate Professor of History and of Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies at the University of Vermont.  She served for six years as Director of the GSWS Program at UVM and has also served as a Commissioner on the Vermont Commission on Women and as President of United Academics, the UVM faculty union (AFT/AAUP).  Kornbluh holds a B.A. from Harvard-Radcliffe and a Ph.D. from Princeton University.  Her books include The Battle for Welfare Rights (2007) and, with Gwendolyn Mink, Ensuring Poverty: Welfare Reform in Feminist Perspective (forthcoming, 2018).  Her articles have appeared in a wide array of academic and non-academic journals.   

Weekend Edition
January 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Dr. King’s Long Assassination
David Roediger
A House is Not a Hole: (Not) Caring about What Trump Says
George Burchett
How the CIA Tried to Bribe Wilfred Burchett
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Plan B for Syria: Occupation and Intimidation
Michael Hudson – Charles Goodhart
Could/Should Jubilee Debt Cancellations be Reintroduced Today?
Marshall Auerback – Franklin C. Spinney
Boss Tweet’s Generals Already Run the Show
Andrew Levine
Remember, Democrats are Awful Too
James Bovard
Why Ruby Ridge Still Matters
Wilfred Burchett
The Bug Offensive
Brian Cloughley
Now Trump Menaces Pakistan
Ron Jacobs
Whiteness and Working Folks
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Keeper of Crazy Beats: Charlie Haden and Music as a Force of Liberation
Robert Fantina
Palestine and Israeli Recognition
Jan Oberg
The New US Syria “Strategy”, a Recipe For Continued Disaster
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
The Return of the Repressed
Mel Gurtov
Dubious Partnership: The US and Saudi Arabia
Robert Fisk
The Next Kurdish War Looms on the Horizon
Lawrence Davidson
Contextualizing Sexual Harassment
Jeff Berg
Approaching Day Zero
Karl Grossman
Disaster Island
Thomas S. Harrington
What Nerve! In Catalonia They are Once Again Trying to Swear in the Coalition that Won the Most Votes
Pepe Escobar
Rome: A Eulogy
Robert Hunziker
Will Aliens Save Humanity?
Jonah Raskin
“Can’t Put the Pot Genie Back in the Bottle”: An Interview with CAL NORML’s Dale Gieringer
Stepan Hobza
Beckett, Ionesco, and Trump
Joseph Natoli
The ‘Worlding’ of the Party-less
Julia Stein
The Myths of Housing Policy
George Ochenski
Zinke’s Purge at Interior
Christopher Brauchli
How Trump Killed the Asterisk
Rosemary Mason - Colin Todhunter
Corporate Monopolies Will Accelerate the Globalisation of Bad Food, Poor Health and Environmental Catastrophe
Michael J. Sainato
U.S Prisons Are Ending In-Person Visits, Cutting Down On Reading Books
Michael Barker
Blame Game: Carillion or Capitalism?
Binoy Kampmark
The War on Plastic
Cindy Sheehan – Rick Sterling
Peace Should Be Integral to the Women’s March
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
No Foreign Bases!
Matthew Stevenson
Into Africa: Across the Boer Heartland to Pretoria
Joe Emersberger
What’s Going On in Ecuador? An Interview With Wladimir Iza
Clark T. Scott
1918, 1968, 2018: From Debs to Trump
Cesar Chelala
Women Pay a Grievous Price in Congo’s Conflict
Michael Welton
Secondly
Robert Koehler
The Wisdom of Mass Salvation
Seth Sandronsky
Misreading Edu-Reform 
Ann Garrison
Full-Spectrum Arrogance: US Bases Span the Globe
Louis Proyect
Morality Tales on the American Malaise: the Films of Rick Alverson
David Yearsley
Winston and Paddington: Marianelli’s Musical Bears
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail