tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22006693266691389862024-03-17T22:59:23.512-04:00The Next Stage: Women and RetirementKaren Bojar explores the rewards and challenges of retirement.karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.comBlogger493125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-5214994956136337812023-09-21T10:19:00.001-04:002023-09-21T15:54:13.492-04:00<br />The Democratic Party defends our system of electing judges by insisting on the critical importance of the voters choosing judges. Judicial candidates meet the voters, listen to their concerns and respond to their questions. Many judicial candidates themselves have said that meeting voters in neighborhoods around the city has been an educational process for them.<br />
<br />However, despite arguing for the election of judges, leaders of the Philadelphia Democratic Party cynically encourage judges who plan to retire to do so at the last minute, thus opening up new judicial seats. Since it is too late for candidates to run in a primary, the party has the power to appoint the Democratic nominees in the general election and thus short-circuit the electoral process. Instead of being elected by the voters, the nominees are chosen by a small group of party leaders and, given the overwhelming Democratic voter registration edge, they are almost certain to win in the general election. <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/philadelphia-democratic-party-judge-election-bob-brady-20230915.html?query=magic%20seats">Chris Brennan has noted</a> that appointees for these last-minute openings, known as magic seats, enjoy “fast-track candidacies for 10-year judicial terms paying $212,495 per year while not having to raise money for an expensive primary, hire political consultants, or even campaign.”<br />
<br />So much for the importance of meeting the voters.<br />
<br />The judicial candidates who run in the primary are interviewed and vetted by a range of community groups which endorse candidates aligned with their values. For the Democratic Party, the main criteria for endorsing candidates appear to be providing pro bono legal work for the Party and willingness to pay a substantial sum to the Party, ostensibly to defray the costs of printing and disseminating City Committee’s sample ballot.<br />
<br />The chief beneficiary of our system of electing judges is not the citizenry but rather the Philadelphia Democratic Party. Party Chair Bob Brady is quite open about this. <a href=" https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/pa-democratic-party-chair-josh-shapiro-sharif-street-20220617.html">The Inquirer reported</a> Bob Brady’s dismissive remark in response to progressive challengers to the results of ward leader elections: “They want to go to court? That’s fine,” he said. “One thing I have is plenty of attorneys. We’ve got a lot of people who want to be judges.”<br />
<br />Brady’s remark underscores what is wrong with our system. It is difficult to become a judge in this city without spending substantial sums on payments to the Democratic City Committee, to Democratic ward leaders, and to Democratic ward committee people. The encouragement of “magic seats” is one of many examples of how the Philadelphia Democratic Party undermines democracy.<br />
<br />In the wake of the January 6 insurrection, there has been much discussion of the fragility of our democracy and the need to strengthen our institutions and the democratic culture which sustains them. The essential work of defending democracy begins on the local level.<br />
Tkarenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-58224763091772833802023-02-13T13:27:00.001-05:002023-02-13T13:31:31.247-05:00Seth Anderson Overman for the 8th councilmanic district!<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghni3VBunZXyrZ5XOHRMP5qLFKAAHU2AnseeqlrkDHnJlHLqlhPANPLySVl7idD_7jcOsYoZ5mo9GlfdQCkp5PaEIzD757S9BNHi40Qu9NWuzxAkk5KdmdBcN3kP3OrlcKxOIA50s4ZDZCl-C3dJBKkdAG6yJm1FeH4x6xrq3ncED5knL37-QkvhykMQ/s768/seth-4-768x512.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="768" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghni3VBunZXyrZ5XOHRMP5qLFKAAHU2AnseeqlrkDHnJlHLqlhPANPLySVl7idD_7jcOsYoZ5mo9GlfdQCkp5PaEIzD757S9BNHi40Qu9NWuzxAkk5KdmdBcN3kP3OrlcKxOIA50s4ZDZCl-C3dJBKkdAG6yJm1FeH4x6xrq3ncED5knL37-QkvhykMQ/s400/seth-4-768x512.jpg"/></a></div>
<br />On February 11, I attended the campaign launch for Seth Anderson Overman, candidate for the 8th councilmanic district. I've been to many such events over the years and they always provide some insight into the candidate's prospects. Seth's launch was probably the best attended, most enthusiastic campaign launch I’ve attended in recent years. It had more the feel of a social movement than that of a traditional campaign-- appropriate given Seth's background as a civil rights activist as well as a union organizer.<br />
<br />Among the most powerful of the testimonials was Chris Rabb's tribute to his good friend, whom he described as a good person as well as a gifted organizer with the intellect, the values and political skills which will enable him to make a real difference in the lives of citizens in the 8th district. Also among the most memorable speeches was Seth's wife's soft spoken, gracious tribute to her husband.<br />
<br />The event got a little raucous at times with one speaker acting a bit like a stand-up comedian, but when Seth spoke with dignity and conviction, the audience quieted down; everyone seemed to realize that this was serious business, an opportunity to make real change. Seth spoke about his values and positions on issues. See Seth on the issues: <a href="https://seth4thepeople.com/issues/%3Cbr%20/%3E">https://seth4thepeople.com/issues/<br /></a>
<br />When I watched everyone walk out, they all looked very happy. Finally a candidate they could support with enthusiasm,a candidate they really believed could make a difference in the lives of people in the district and the city. I saw a few people who live outside the district. They know political representation is not just geographic; it's also ideological. Seth will initiate/ support initiatives that will help working people city-wide and will advance the local progressive movement.<br />
<br />When later in the day the euphoria of the launch wore off, I faced the reality that his would be a struggle--a winnable fight--but a real struggle nonetheless. Seth started his campaign late and has a lot of ground to make up. However, he's been quite successful at fund-raising despite the relatively late start. Defeating a long-term incumbent takes money and let's hope Seth's supporters will do as much as they can to fully fund his campaign. You can contribute to his campaign at <a href="actblue.com/donate/seth-for-the-people-1">Seth for the People</a>
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-37114145081207831532022-11-02T09:56:00.001-04:002022-11-02T09:56:43.651-04:00A BETTER WAY TO RUN SPECIAL ELECTIONS<br />This article appeared on October 27 2022 on <i>THe Philadelphia Citizen</i> at https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/better-way-special-elections/<br />
<br />When citizens go to the polls on Election Day, they will be asked to choose among nominees for a special election to fill a vacancy for the two Council-at-large positions left open when Allan Domb and Derek Green resigned to run for mayor. (Domb has not officially declared his candidacy.) There has been little publicity about this election; most voters know little about the candidates. The nominees have not made their positions known to the public at candidates’ forums or (to my knowledge) through any other communications with voters.<br />
<br />Special elections have been widely criticized as undemocratic. Democratic and Republican Party ward leaders in the district, not the voters as in a primary election, choose the candidate to run under the Democratic or Republican Party banner. If another Democrat or Republican wants to run, that person must run as an Independent along with any minor party candidates who choose to run. Given Philly’s seven-to-one Democratic voter registration edge, the endorsed Democrat is almost certain to win and has the advantage of running in the next primary as an incumbent.<br />
<br />The current system gives a powerful tool to leaders of political parties — a way to maintain loyalty and control. Those who aspire to elected office and who don’t want to run in a contested election curry favor with party bosses, hoping their loyalty might be rewarded by endorsement in a special election. Thus many would-be elected officials see special elections as a very easy route to political office, and quite a few of our elected officials have begun their careers this way, including Democratic Party Chair Bob Brady, who won a special election to represent the 1st Congressional District in 1998<br />.
<br />Although the ward leaders are the decision makers in the 2022 special election, somewhere back in the mists of time, committeepeople had a say in selecting the endorsed candidates. If committeepeople were among the decision makers, it would be an improvement. There would be hundreds of people involved instead of a handful of ward leaders. But this still would leave voters out of the process of choosing their party’s standard bearer.<br />
<br /><b>A better way</b> <br />
<br />Instead of having the political parties choose the candidate, why not allow all those who want to run under the Democratic or Republican banner to do so? The political parties could still endorse their preferred candidate, who would presumably have an edge as the endorsed candidate. But the voters would ultimately decide which candidate they want to fill the seat for the remainder of the term. In most of Philadelphia’s largely Democratic districts, one of the Democrats would no doubt win — but at least Democratic voters would have a choice of which Democrat. The winner would serve for a relatively short time and would soon face the voters again as a candidate in the primary and, if successful, in the general election.<br />
<br />Since the rules governing special elections are a matter of state law, the rules would have to be changed by the Pennsylvania legislature. Since the current system gives considerable power to party insiders, legislators would be under considerable pressure to oppose any changes — and many would not need any persuasion to back the party insiders over the voters’ interests. It won’t be easy, but it’s time to change the rules governing special elections.<br />
<br />Pennsylvania representative Chris Rabb has introduced legislation (HB 1661) seeking to democratize special elections. The bill stipulates:<br />
<br />Individuals interested in becoming a candidate in a special election would be required to do the following:<br />
<br />File their candidacy with the political party within each county of the legislative district.
Pay a $250 filing fee.
Prepare, or opt-out of preparing, a short video announcing their candidacy which will be posted on the websites of the Department of State’s and the county party with which candidates are affiliated.<br />
<br />The adoption of this legislation would also require political parties to advertise and hold a meeting accessible to any voter eligible to vote in the special election, whether in person or remotely, with the majority of eligible committeepersons present, to consider each individual who seeks consideration as a candidate in a special election. Representative Rabb notes, “Special elections have left habitual voters out of the process in favor of back-room benedictions.”<br />
<br />Defending democracy is not just a matter of demanding respect for democracy on the presidential level. Failure to demand democracy and transparency in local politics can lead to an erosion of commitment to democratic values on the national level. Rabb’s bill will bring voters back into the process and is an important step forward in upholding democratic values. We need to fight for it.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-22859739169461438022022-08-11T14:57:00.001-04:002022-08-11T15:24:33.279-04:00Philadelphia Writers on Philadelphia History<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAvpMWOBAeKAkrj-GkEdguC-nJf-gzSe_T5w1NU7lS-NXe4HZ5W51COfLg15t8rIaN-nvfPs5RqAY1RcXZYWnI75XLJah_bMWpy3lVvnUQ2-0r-csjMd8ufmp5hFJNjPi3VSKg8cB2z1a8OI97yysgA2Hiq0MjCwIogYe5j6ar2l_rTKdPMauHGptgOg/s1333/20220727-144908-Hilltop.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="1333" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAvpMWOBAeKAkrj-GkEdguC-nJf-gzSe_T5w1NU7lS-NXe4HZ5W51COfLg15t8rIaN-nvfPs5RqAY1RcXZYWnI75XLJah_bMWpy3lVvnUQ2-0r-csjMd8ufmp5hFJNjPi3VSKg8cB2z1a8OI97yysgA2Hiq0MjCwIogYe5j6ar2l_rTKdPMauHGptgOg/s400/20220727-144908-Hilltop.jpg"/></a></div>
The folloswing article by Len Lear about a panel discussion "Philadelphia Writers on Philadelphia History" in which I particpated appeared in the <a href="https://www.chestnuthilllocal.com/stories/three-local-authors-bring-their-politics-to-hill-bookstore,24505?"> Chestnut Hill Local</a>
<blockquote><br />Three local authors, one from Chestnut Hill and two from Mt. Airy, will discuss their books at a signing event on Thursday, July 28, 6 p.m., at Hilltop Books, 84 Bethlehem Pike. The event is titled "Philadelphia Writers on Philadelphia History.<br />
<br />Karen Bojar of Mt. Airy, will talk about her new book, “Feminist Organizing Across the Generations” (Routledge Publishing), which draws largely on Philadelphia feminist history; John Kromer of Mt. Airy will discuss his book on Philadelphia politics, “Philadelphia Battlefields” (Temple University Press), and Chestnut Hill resident Nelson Diaz will speak about his autobiography, “Not from Here, Not from There” (Temple University Press).<br />
<br />Kromer is an instructor in urban development policy at the University of Pennsylvania, former director of housing for the City of Philadelphia under Mayor Ed Rendell and a participant in local political campaigns. He is the author of a previous book,”Fixing Broken Cities: The Implementation of Urban Development Strategies.”<br />
<br />“It's not enough to be a good person with a nice resume and a reform agenda,” Kromer told us in an interview last week. “I tried it in 2011 when I ran for Philadelphia sheriff, and it didn't work. To be successful, an upstart candidate needs a creative campaign strategy that captures people's attention, an effective way of communicating with voters on a daily and weekly basis and an understanding of how the campaign can be made relevant to issues that people care about.”<br />
<br />A 1971 Haverford College graduate who majored in Russian (“I was interested in the turmoil going on in the Soviet Union at that time”), Kromer has lived in West Mt. Airy for 36 years. He joined the Rendell Administration after being active in nonprofit organizations that focused on housing and development issues in North and South Philadelphia.<br />
<br />Karen Bojar is a professor emerita of English and women’s studies at the Community College of Philadelphia, where she founded the Women’s Studies/Gender Studies program. Her new book - suitable for students and scholars in women's and gender history, political history and gender studies - spans almost 60 years of feminist history and traces the evolution of feminist activism from the 1960s until the present.<br />
<br />Using the Philadelphia chapter of the National Organization for Women as a starting point, Bojar explores how feminist organizing was unfolding in similar ways across the region. The book examines the enormous energy put into building feminist service organizations such as women's shelters and rape crisis centers.<br />
<br />“The book also looks at the differences between the organizing strategies of 'second wave' feminists and those of the 21st century,” she said. “Much 21st-century feminist organizing is taking place outside of explicitly feminist groups, with young feminists bringing a gender justice perspective to a range of racial, economic and climate justice organizations.”</blockquote><br />
<br />The event was a success, despite our having to move to the July 29 rain date. We had a lively, engaged crowd and Hilltop books is a friendly, welcoming space with an excellent and reasonably priced selection of used books. <br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-87995704507827318672022-06-17T16:58:00.020-04:002022-07-02T03:08:19.564-04:00Democracy in Danger: The January 6 Insurrection and the June 6 Ward Leader Elections<br />Granted there’s a totally different order of magnitude, but there is a connection between the trampling of democratic traditions during the January 6 insurrection and the violation of democratic rights that occurred in some of the June 6 Philadelphia ward leader elections. The parallel has been most effectively drawn by <a href="https://www.phillymag.com/news/2022/06/16/philadelphia-open-wards/">Philadelphia Magazine’s Ernest Owens</a> who notes: <br />
<blockquote>It’s hard to watch the ongoing January 6th committee hearings into the attack on democracy at our nation’s Capital and not be a little concerned about the democratic principles in our own backyard.</blockquote>
<br />There is a shared contempt for democratic processes. Of course, the consequences of the June 6 ward leader elections are nowhere near as dire as those of the January 6 insurrection, but they are not trivial. <br />
<br />According to <a href=" https://billypenn.com/2022/06/10/philadelphia-democratic-committee-open-wards-election-fight-blackwell-bass/?mc_cid=cb4926cfab&mc_eid=368e4ad35d"> Billy Penn: </a>the conflict in West Philadelphia’s 46th ward… “devolved into a physical fight” between supporters of incumbent Jannie Blackwell and progressive challengers contending they were denied the opportunity to nominate a candidate<br />
<br />Such violations have a long history in Philadelphia politics. When I interviewed scores of committee people and ward leaders for my book Green Shoots(2016) I heard many stories of reorganization meetings similar to some of the June 6th meetings--no clear process, everyone confused, and a vote happening (or sometimes suppressed) in the middle of the confusion. Sadly, many elected officials who decry the attempts of the mob to overturn democracy on January 6 turn a blind eye to violations of democratic process on the ward level. <br />
<br />The good news is more citizens (and journalists) are paying attention to the failures of the Philadelphia ward system. Despite Democratic ward elections marked by bitter arguments, violations of ward policies and procedures — and in at least one case, a physical struggle — progressives in Philadelphia this week made significant movement towards their goal of making local politics more democratic and transparent. Furthermore, Progressives have built an organization <a href="https://www.openwardsphilly.com/about">Open Wards Philly</a> which brings together individuals who may disagree about policies and about candidate endorsements but who share a commitment to democracy in the ward system. <br />
<br />There is mounting evidence that the voters have lost faith in the Democratic Party. Chair Bob Brady, who seems to be investing more energy into defeating progressives than into defeating Republicans, h<a href=" ttps://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/chris-rabb-elizabeth-fiedler-rick-krajewski-democratic-primary-dark-money-mailers-20220511.html"> ran an ugly campaign against progressive incumbents in conjunction with a PAC affiliated with the Republican Party. </a> However, voters rejected by large margins the candidates Democratic City Committee put forth to oppose progressive candidates. <br />
<br />Voters are decisively rejecting the argument that progressives do not belong in the Democratic Party. I have heard Democratic Party activists and elected officials associated with the Party machine argue that progressives should not be running as Democrats but should run as third-party candidates because they are not “real” Democrats. They seem unaware that there is a long tradition of progressives building a base within the Democratic party. The labor movement did this; the civil rights movement did this. Also, there are progressive caucuses in many state legislatures and a progressive caucus in Congress. <br />
<br />Progressives are an integral and rising part of the Democratic Party. They have demonstrated in the recent ward leader elections that they value and understand the importance of democratic procedures. With their recent successful lawsuit Bob Brady and Councilperson Cindy in Common Pleas Court, they have also demonstrated their determination to fight for the rights of committeepeople to participate fully in endorsements and in ward governance. <a href=" https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/pa-democratic-party-chair-josh-shapiro-sharif-street-20220617.html"> The <i>Inquirer’s</i> Chris Brennan </a>reports Bob Brady’s dismissive remark in response to progressive challenges to results of ward leader elections: “They want to go to court? That’s fine,” he said. “One thing I have is plenty of attorneys. We’ve got a lot of people who want to be judges.” <br />
<br />Brady’s remark underscores what is wrong with our system. It is difficult for a judicial candidate to be elected without support from the Democratic City Committee. Brady’s words could be taken as a warning to attorneys with judicial ambitions that they would do better to ally themselves with the Party than with progressives. Acquiescence in this system and the failure to demand democracy and transparency in local politics can lead to an erosion of commitment to democratic values on the national level. There is a connection between January 6 and June 6. <br />
<br />This article appeared in the <a href="https://chestnuthilllocal.com/stories/letter-the-january-6-insurrection-and-the-june-6-ward-leader-elections,24217"> the
June 30 2022 Chestnut Hill Local.</a>karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-85036106587524578172022-05-22T09:04:00.041-04:002022-06-15T15:48:24.953-04:00New political landscape demands new Democratic Party Leadership
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggrYiWEjUptwfR6rfrMfFivjzzhXJKBkYlfzCBmFNg7nbw-BcQCxfP_gmYFYMEyBfPiQUfYlaQcmQODiB4OmQP0k2YgiXrtrqUu4fcPiE6HNoYCsZD_N5CPhy0pGPoyXDso6bgz3mruc7DPePoQSd8482yV2nFhvtlsZ5e8Ahzc9Ezrks3NPH2dSyWww/s500/603078856725563654%20brady.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggrYiWEjUptwfR6rfrMfFivjzzhXJKBkYlfzCBmFNg7nbw-BcQCxfP_gmYFYMEyBfPiQUfYlaQcmQODiB4OmQP0k2YgiXrtrqUu4fcPiE6HNoYCsZD_N5CPhy0pGPoyXDso6bgz3mruc7DPePoQSd8482yV2nFhvtlsZ5e8Ahzc9Ezrks3NPH2dSyWww/s400/603078856725563654%20brady.jpeg"/></a></div>
<br />Candidates from all walks of life are running for and winning public office; the ranks of those aspiring to become elected officials are no longer dominated by those with backgrounds in law and business. <br />
<br />The old route to election, gaining the endorsement of the Democratic or Republican Party, is no longer the road to victory, either in Philadelphia or for state-wide races in Pennsylvania. Conor Lamb, whose campaign was based on his presumed electability and who was endorsed by a host of elected officials, lost to John Fetterman by a 30 point margin state-wide. In Philadelphia, he came in third place (25%) behind John Fetterman(36%) and Malcolm Kenyatta(33%). A cautious, conventional politician who presented himself as a centrist, he was the kind of candidate who won in Pennsylvania in the past, but he was clearly not the candidate of the present moment.<br />
<br />The value of party endorsement has dwindled over the years and in some cases has arguably become a liability. Party endorsement did not help Lamb and served only to demonstrate that the party establishment was out of touch with the electorate.<br />
<br />Democratic Party endorsement counted for little both in the statewide race and in several high-profile races such as Chris Rabb’s race for a state house seat in Northwest Philadelphia. Rabb’s opponent was endorsed by every elected official in the Northwest, but Rabb won decisively with over 60% of the vote. In my conversations with voters, they frequently indicated they chose Rabb because of his political independence.<br />
<br />Political endorsements have declined in importance , but money matters, especially so in state- wide races. In the past, funds have been raised mostly through large donations. Now, a candidate with widespread support can raise significant sums through the contributions of many small donors. Still, a state-wide campaign demands considerable resources, and until we get campaign finance reform and public funding of campaigns, progressive candidates like Kenyatta will be at a disadvantage.<br />
<br />This is much less the case in local races, where candidates are likely to be known to voters. Given that Kenyatta was vastly outspent by his opponents, his high vote totals in Philadelphia are impressive, as are those of the progressives targeted by Bob Brady for defeat, Elizabeth Fiedler, Rick Krajewski and Chris Rabb, who were re-elected by wide margins.<br />
<br />The breakdown in political institutions that has led to progressive victories has led also to victories of Trump loyalists who believe against all evidence that 2020 elections were stolen. For progressives, the breakdown of the Democratic Party machine is an opportunity to work towards building a society committed to economic, gender, and racial justice. However, the breakdown of the Republican political machine has left the Democrats with far more frightening opponents than the Republicans of the pre-Trump era. The major challenge for Democrats is to engage young voters, especially young voters of color, who trend Democratic but who do not vote their numbers. <br />
<br />However, the Democratic Party has turned to candidates who strike most young voters as a return to the past and has at times sent the message that progressives do not belong in the Democratic Party. I have heard Democratic Party activists argue that progressives should not be running as Democrats but should run as third-party candidates because they are not really Democrats. They seem unaware that there is a long tradition of progressives building a base within the Democratic party. The labor movement did this; the civil rights movement did this. Also, there are progressive caucuses in many state legislatures and a progressive caucus in Congress. Progressives are an integral part of the Democratic Party.<br />
<br />Party Chair Bob Brady seems to be putting more energy into defeating progressives than into defeating Republicans. He ran an ugly campaign against progressive incumbents <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/chris-rabb-elizabeth-fiedler-rick-krajewski-democratic-primary-dark-money-mailers-20220511.html"> in conjunction with a PAC affiliated with the Republican Party. </a> This city deserves better. We are, for good or ill, a one-party town, and almost all our elected officials pass through the Democratic Party. Given this, we cannot afford a Democratic Party leadership whose endorsements are so out of touch with the electorate, who are unable to motivate more than 20% of citizens to vote in mid-term elections, and who are so threatened by progressives that they focus on defeating them rather than the real threat posed by far-right Republicans. <br />
<br />In June, Ward leaders will elect party leadership. If new leadership is not elected in 2022, there will not be another opportunity for four years. We can’t afford to wait.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-33717647018058557142022-05-14T16:22:00.001-04:002022-05-14T16:26:11.970-04:00Why I support Malcom Kenyatta for US Senate<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpROpaAd9OEV2lcm2GDHQZ23Fs49FIj-KnQ3FLWyu5_8OgyPclcqrXx0IfhygiYQC_Qa57NRDx2DQuaKrGFtaRWCgZVckIePCDz0hlI5WqoliLLAi4gylkdIBsh6gMR9HP85Lo8UxNyzYm6RykWmT4SS7jbue7MfFnvZ4_tCheFvTsf9FP6mjAfjpWnQ/s1641/244668007_281041573837562_8560854032624423765_n.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="721" data-original-width="1641" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpROpaAd9OEV2lcm2GDHQZ23Fs49FIj-KnQ3FLWyu5_8OgyPclcqrXx0IfhygiYQC_Qa57NRDx2DQuaKrGFtaRWCgZVckIePCDz0hlI5WqoliLLAi4gylkdIBsh6gMR9HP85Lo8UxNyzYm6RykWmT4SS7jbue7MfFnvZ4_tCheFvTsf9FP6mjAfjpWnQ/s400/244668007_281041573837562_8560854032624423765_n.png"/></a></div>
<br />If everyone who thought Malcolm Kenyatta was the best candidate voted for him, he would have a very good chance of winning. Although Malcolm may not win, I think he will do far better than expected. I would like to see his campaign do well as an investment in the future. He is foregrounding issues of racial/gender/economic justice, and a strong showing for Malcolm will mean a strong showing for those issues and demonstrate that people of color can do well in an increasingly diverse state like PA.<br />
<br />I’ve decided to vote not on grounds of presumed electability, but for the person I would most like to see in the Senate. <br />
<br />The three major candidates currently agree on many issues such as abortion rights; however, there are differences in emphasis . Also, some of Conor Lamb’s progressive positions are relatively recent, which raises questions about his core beliefs. Organizations such as Pro Publica, Roll Call and Intercept have documented : <a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/08/06/conor-lamb-senate-pennsylvania/"> the evolution of his positions. </a><br />
<br />John Fetterman’s positions for the most part have been held consistently over a longer period; however, his personal behavior has at times been troubling —e.g his pursuit of an unarmed African-American with a shotgun. Granted, this was a one-time occurrence, not a troubling pattern of behavior, but it is cause for concern.<br />
<br />Malcolm has the strongest and most consistent record on a range of progressive issues and perhaps <a href="https://www.politicspa.com/differences-similarities-among-democratic-senate-candidates/100219/"> differs most dramatically on environmental issues. </a><br />
<br />Kenyatta supports a moratorium on new fracking sites and an end to tax breaks for producers in the Commonwealth. Fetterman and Lamb, both of whom are from the western part of the state, oppose any ban.<br />
<br />We know the candidates’ positions on issues currently on voters’ minds. We don’t know how they will respond to issues before the Senate in the years to come. All we have to go on is what they have stood for in the past and what life experiences they bring to the public policy debate. Malcolm will bring the perspective and experiences of an African-American gay man from a working class background—a perspective sorely needed in the Senate.<br />
<br />It is worth looking at
<a href="https://www.cityandstatepa.com/content/here-are-endorsements-pennsylvania-us-senate-race"> what groups and individuals have endorsed in this race. </a><br />
<br />There is a progressive movement building around Malcolm, including unions generally thought of as progressive such as : SEIU Pennsylvania State Council; American Federation of Teachers; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers; AFT Pennsylvania, AFT Local 2026, Community College of Philadelphia; AFSCME Local 1199C; AFSCME District Council 33; Temple Association of University Professors; Teamsters Local 623; and Teamsters BMWED.<br />
<br />And progressive organizations such as:
Americans for Democratic Action; Collective PAC; One Pennsylvania; Working Families Party; Democracy for America; Victory Fund; Brand New Congress; the Chester City Democratic Party; Chester County Young Democrats; Philadelphia 1st Ward Democrats; Philadelphia 2nd Ward Democrats; Philadelphia 8th Ward Democrats; Philadelphia 18th Ward Democrats; Philly for Change; the 22nd Ward Open Caucus; Neighborhood Networks; Liberty City LGBTQ+ Democratic Club<br />
<br />Other than Pennsylvania NOW, Conor Lamb has few endorsements from the progressive community. Lamb is courting endorsements from some of the most conservative segments of Philadelphia politics— <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/conor-lamb-bobby-henon-local-98-us-senate-democratic-primary-20220218.html">the Northeast Philly ward leaders. </a><br />
<br />Conor Lamb presents himself as the kind of centrist candidate who can win in Pa. That may have been true in the past, but Malcolm’ Kenyatta's candidacy challenges that expectation. Malcolm is pushing back against the narrative that he cannot win: ““I don’t think people have to look like me or love like me to know that I’m going to fight for them… I think that the perspective that I bring is critical not just to have ornamental diversity, it is about policy.” He told the Inquirer: <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/malcolm-kenyatta-pennsylania-senate-race-20220223.html">“I reject this idea that Pennsylvania is so bigoted they would never vote for me.”</a><br />
<br />Finally, we need political leaders who will inspire voters—especially young voters-- to re-invigorate our hollow democracy. We need political leaders who will educate voters about how our system of government works and about the tools they will need to make government work for everyone. The candidate best equipped to do this is clearly Malcolm Kenyatta. <br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-71770918897165810952022-04-10T18:36:00.002-04:002022-04-10T18:38:28.994-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations will soon be on shelves of the Philadelphia Free Library<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVQrgNcJxnK94eXk5-X5gTn-o7n2AYRW7GlRqLVYmOXfeF63plg-TobJZnaYE7OEJUIWH4Ta9WRptmKIjzn5Nr6aJFq1iKv3LOGfa0G9YJpPl7EyIle98ENcibLd0bZUDS2HnyoDZmEuyKbPlNtCZyff9hQddesnxlJmoBkIeSfDsgllDxz55oHPvi7Q/s499/31REGb8MPuL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="327" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVQrgNcJxnK94eXk5-X5gTn-o7n2AYRW7GlRqLVYmOXfeF63plg-TobJZnaYE7OEJUIWH4Ta9WRptmKIjzn5Nr6aJFq1iKv3LOGfa0G9YJpPl7EyIle98ENcibLd0bZUDS2HnyoDZmEuyKbPlNtCZyff9hQddesnxlJmoBkIeSfDsgllDxz55oHPvi7Q/s320/31REGb8MPuL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg"/></a></div><br />Since my book <i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations</i> was still unavailable at the Philadelphia Free library during Women’s History month, I published excerpts from Part I on www.the-next stage.com<br />
<br />Although the author copies were mailed at end of November, I did not receive them until the end of March! I was told that the first shipment “was lost in the supply chain.” The second shipment was delayed because it was misdelivered by Fed Ex.<br />
<br />When I finally received my author copies, I delivered several copies to the Free Library. The process of getting it onto the shelves takes a few weeks. So—-fingers crossed--it should be available to borrow very soon! It should also be available through inter-library loan.<br />
<br />The publisher, Routledge, markets to a global audience so when I checked availability on World Cat, I found that there were copies in a range of libraires including the American University of Nigeria and the American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates—but none at the Free Library of Philadelphia!<br />
<br />At some point this ridiculously overpriced book should be available in paperback and also as a reasonably priced ebook!<br />
<br />I now want to pivot to my next book--<i>The Evolution of Socialist Feminism from Eleanor Marx to AOC</i>. I need to put this book on a fast track while I still have eye sight and brain cells left.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-73238332839981302422022-03-30T15:41:00.001-04:002022-03-30T15:46:28.404-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I: Building the feminist movement, Chapter 3, The struggle for gender justice and racial justice<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicgFn3x5j4t2CxrHF2zqJJRRjxPOUv_w17zyqgA0O12NlhE-ekM-Op17pePgQZy1EVHvO5_Ou-zmVCZjjwoojij05uICDizYzoiwD9z3liuwrH4fQ8GXClIei5-PylHmf4mpNdshCjZCcdMkZmXjug0SSkz89FNr16zPXiDmtValV1wSEFvkE0tGTUfA/s720/Jocelyn%20Morris.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="720" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicgFn3x5j4t2CxrHF2zqJJRRjxPOUv_w17zyqgA0O12NlhE-ekM-Op17pePgQZy1EVHvO5_Ou-zmVCZjjwoojij05uICDizYzoiwD9z3liuwrH4fQ8GXClIei5-PylHmf4mpNdshCjZCcdMkZmXjug0SSkz89FNr16zPXiDmtValV1wSEFvkE0tGTUfA/s400/Jocelyn%20Morris.jpg"/></a></div>
<br />Jocelyn Morris placing flowers on the grave of Lucretia Mott, November 11, 1980 <br />
<br /><b>The struggle for gender justice and racial justice<br /></b>
<br />Although NOW’s structure provided avenues for managing political and ideological conflict, racial tensions proved to be a far more intractable problem. Over the years, the persistence of racism has been the most difficult issue for NOW and for the feminist movement in general. At all levels of the organization, NOW has struggled with how to address racism within NOW. The ease with which members could form new chapters focused on racial justice, and the committee structure initiated by national NOW, served as vehicles for advancing ideas that the full membership was not ready to embrace.<br />
<br />The tension between the struggles for gender equality and for racial equality has a long history. Although 19th-century feminist leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony participated in the abolitionist movement, in the post-Civil War period they became disillusioned with their former allies, who, they thought, placed less importance on women’s voting rights than they did on rights for African-American men. Catharine Stimpson, among others, has documented this tension, and explores historical connections between the struggle for gender equality and that for racial equality in both “first wave” and “second wave” feminist movements.1 Movements for gender equality have tended to emerge at times when there were broad-based social justice movements. Perhaps because gender roles seemed so “natural” to so many, it took times of intense social upheaval to create conditions where gender discrimination would be challenged. Movements for gender equality have historically followed movements for racial equality. The 19th-century women’s suffrage movement followed the antislavery movement; the second-wave feminist movement followed the civil rights movement.<br />
<br />Sadly, Stanton and Anthony and their former allies in the abolitionist movement became bitter antagonists over the dispute as to whether the 15th amendment, which guaranteed the voting rights of Black men, should also include women. Tensions between the movements for racial equality and gender equality erupted again in the civil rights movement in the 1960s. The conflicts were not as severe those in the 19th century, but a similar pattern of disillusionment can be found among women veterans of the civil rights movement, particularly among white women, as they discovered that the men they worked with did not share their commitment to gender equality.2 In 2008, the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama resurrected many of the old arguments about which form of oppression was deeper, racism or sexism. The tension between Clinton’s supporters and Obama’s caused real strain among feminists. The scars have yet to fully heal.<br />
<br />Although by the mid-1970s combating racism became part of national NOW’s core mission, it was not central to NOW’s initial mission—not surprising in view of the deeply entrenched racism in American society in the mid-1960s. NOW’s 1966 “Statement of Purpose” contained a brief reference to “Negro women who are victims of the double discrimination of race and sex,3 but made no mention of combating racism within NOW. Furthermore, the early position papers of national NOW, such as the 1971 “Poverty Statement,” did not address the link between race and poverty.4<br />
<br />The absence of explicit references to racism was generally true of local NOW chapters in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In Philadelphia, the elimination of neither racism nor poverty was cited among the chapter’s goals. Furthermore, a 1970 survey of members included no questions about racial identity or racial attitudes.5 In response to a question about the race/class composition of the founding members of Philadelphia NOW, the chapter’s second president, Jean Ferson, responded in a 2004 interview: “We were predominantly white middle class,” and she acknowledged that the organization had not made much of an effort to reach out to women of color.6 The 1975 chapter president, Betsy Parziale, stated that by the late 1970s the group was working on issues relevant to women of color, but there were still very few women of color involved in NOW.7<br />
<br />NOW chapters expanded through the social networks of the members, and as the members acknowledged, those networks were largely white and middle class. In the minutes of 1970s meetings of Philadelphia NOW there is no evidence that members seriously considered developing a strategy of outreach to women of color. On the contrary, there is evidence that the members had something of a tin ear regarding what might resonate with African-American women. In 1976 Philadelphia NOW awarded one of its Barefoot and Pregnant awards, given to those guilty of egregious sexism, to civil rights icon and then city councilman Cecil B. Moore. The press release that announced the award cited “his appalling sexism and absolute inhumanity including his remarks and attitudes toward rape victims.”8 I doubt if many African-American women or fair-minded Philadelphians would agree with the characterization of the “absolute inhumanity” of the man who led the battle to desegregate Philadelphia’s public and private institutions in the 1960s. Moore was a controversial figure, but few would deny the assessment in a 1987 Philadelphia Inquirer article that “Nobody did more than Moore to break down barriers against Blacks’ securing industrial and government jobs.”9 As a defense attorney, Moore’s treatment of rape victims may have been reprehensible,10 but it was probably not all that different from many defense lawyers in the 1960s and early 1970s. Singling him out for special opprobrium was not likely to make Philadelphia NOW attractive to African-American women.<br />
<br />Even if NOW chapters had had an aggressive strategy to recruit African-American women, they would have had a difficult time. African-American women who identified as feminists usually formed separate organizations, such as National Black Feminist Organization, National Alliance of Black Feminists, Third World Women’s Alliance, Combahee River Collective, and Black Women Organized for Action. Sociologist Benita Roth, among others, has attributed the formation of these organizations in part to a “resurgent masculinism in the Black movement [which] sought to contain women within the domestic sphere.”11 Many Black women who had held positions of responsibility in the civil rights movement were not willing to accept the constraints of traditional gender roles. For Black feminists with a strong commitment to Black empowerment, joining the largely white feminist movement was not an option—hence the formation of separate Black feminist groups.<br />
<br />These organizations were short-lived, largely due to lack of resources. Historian Kimberly Springer has noted: “Overall, Black feminists’ organizations had few material resources to rely on because their constituents, Black women, had few material resources to give.”12 Black women fighting for gender equality were under enormous pressure to dissociate themselves from white feminists. Springer documents the antagonism towards feminism among many in the Black community, who thought it a white woman’s disease. She describes the cover of the April 1974 issue of Encore magazine featuring an African-American woman with an Afro and wearing an African-print coat, who appeared “to be staving off the advances of feminism.” The cartoon character Olive Oyle, representing feminism, was depicted offering the Black woman a can of “feminist spinach.” Olive Oyle was dressed in male clothing, reinforcing the message in the accompanying articles that feminism was inextricably bound up with lesbianism and therefore irrelevant to Black women.13<br />
<br />No doubt because of the difficulty of recruiting Black women to NOW, Black Women Organized for Action was founded by NOW’s second president, Aileen Hernandez, and two members of NOW’s National Task Force on Minority Women. Despite their involvement in and commitment to NOW, these women also saw a need for an organization exclusively for Black women. National NOW was deeply concerned about the negative perception of feminism in the African-American community and eager to recruit women of color. By 1974 National NOW had an active National Task Force on Minority Women; it was clearly far ahead of most local affiliates. In May 1974 NOW published the Report of the Task Force, documenting chapters’ activities in this area, and asking members “What should be the Role of the National Task Force on Minority Women and Women’s Rights?” Sixty-seven chapters from across the country responded; the report did not indicate the total number of individual respondents. Although the majority of the responses suggested members supported the work of the Task Force, some indicated that internal education on racism was sorely needed. The majority of the responses were variations on the following: “Help chapters develop techniques for recruiting and working with members of minority groups without being patronizing to them (because of unconscious race or class bias).”<br />
<br />However, there were some responses that suggested that Black women’s lack of feminist consciousness was the problem: “Minority women must realize that they are oppressed as women—this lack of realization is what hampers us so badly. Get them to stop trying to liberate Black men. Have pride in their strength—stop sacrificing.” There were a few responses that suggested that combating racism should not be a priority for NOW: “I really think NOW takes on too much. We should work most hard on ERA since if that doesn’t pass we don’t have anything … . I think the best thing the Task Force on minority women can do is disband.”<br />
<br />Finally, a few responses were disturbingly racist and surprising to see in a survey of NOW members:<br />
<blockquote>Many Blacks seem to want all “whites” to commit suicide out of sheer remorse for what has happened in the past. This seems to be the only thing that could possibly satisfy some Black speakers. Unless of course these Black speakers could simply stab and rape and shoot us all—to them that would be even better than suicide on our parts … they say that no matter how hard we try, it is not good enough.14</blockquote>
<br />As the above quotations demonstrate, the authors of the report were clearly interested in presenting an honest portrait of racial attitudes within NOW. National NOW was ahead of many of its members in its determination to address the existence of racism both within NOW and in the larger society.<br />
<br />Some of the racial tensions described in the 1974 report diminished in the late 1970s and early 1980s, no doubt as a consequence of the winding down of the social movements which arose in the 1960s. For those of us who lived through those days, the cooling down of passionate commitment and intense emotions was palpable. Also, increasing opportunities for Black women in post-civil rights America meant that Black and white women had greater contact in the workplace and in educational institutions, thus increasing opportunities for mutual understanding. The involvement of Latina, Asian-American, and Native-American women in the feminist movement diffused the intensity of Black/white conflict, shifting the focus to the broader agenda of women of color confronting discrimination in white-dominated America. These changes in the larger society probably account for NOW’s (albeit limited) success in recruiting women of color in the late 1970s and early 1980s.<br />
<br />Another reason for NOW’s increasing gains in recruiting women of color may have been white women’s growing awareness of racism, thanks to the outpouring of literary, historical, and sociological works by women of color in the 1970s and 1980s. Jane Mansbridge has noted that it was not until a significant literature by women of color appeared that the feminist movement began to seriously grapple with racism<br />:
<blockquote>It was too painful for each Black woman individually to have to teach White feminists in her organization about the differences in their experiences. But through the written word, which can teach many at once … the movement is now beginning to absorb, confront, and be transformed by these new insights.16</blockquote>
<br />Reading lists of texts by women of color began to appear in the Pennsylvania NOW Times in the early 1980s. “Eliminating Racism: A Bibliography” by then vice president of Germantown NOW, Nancie Dent, included a lengthy list of works by and about African-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, and Iroquois women. In addition to feminist classics such as fiction by Alice Walker and Zora Neale Hurston, there were some surprising choices. Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, for example, did not usually appear on feminist booklists. However, Dent acknowledged: “This list is, also, not a feminist book list. It includes books that depict a variety of cultural experiences of minority women. And sexism is certainly a cultural experience we all share.” Dent also cautioned: “The list is not intended to be a short-cut whereby a person becomes an instant expert … . The books should be read and discussed with your friends of whatever race.”17<br />
<b><br />Pennsylvania NOW’s increasing focus on racial justice<br /></b>
<br />There was considerable variation in the willingness of NOW’s state and local affiliates to address racism. Pennsylvania NOW was one of the leaders among state organizations in addressing the interconnections of sexism and racism and, in the 1970s, had greater success in reaching out to women of color than did Philadelphia NOW. In 1976 Pennsylvania NOW held a Black Feminist Conference at the University of Pittsburgh organized by the African-American Women of Pennsylvania NOW. According to the Pennsylvania NOW Times, “A great number of Black feminists are geographically separated. Sometimes there is only one Black woman in a chapter … . It is hoped that a communications network will provide the moral and emotional support that Black women in the feminist movement so desperately need.”18<br />
<br />In the late 1970s, addressing racism became a major priority for Pennsylvania NOW. The change was sudden and dramatic. According to the list of priorities for 1976 reported in Pennsylvania NOW Times, racism was not among the top priority issues.19 However, no doubt in part due to the above-mentioned Black Feminist Conference, attitudes about the importance of confronting racism were about to change dramatically. The February 1978 “Pennsylvania NOW State Board Report” states that eliminating racism both within NOW and within the larger society had become the top priority of the organization.20 In July 1979 Pennsylvania NOW Times published a special issue dedicated to “Eliminating Racism.” The lead article stated that responses to the 1974 survey conducted by NOW’s National Task Force on Minority Women indicated that all minority respondents and most non-minority respondents witnessed or experienced racism within NOW. Racism was described as:<br />
<blockquote>The pretense that racism does not exist in NOW. The belief that [education on racism] is unnecessary, that “it is divisive.” The belief and practice that consciousness-raising groups are not the place to discuss racism. (“They are not ready for it.”) The introduction of minorities into a conversation right away leads to discussion on poverty.21</blockquote>
<br />NOW members were cautioned that “being feminist does not necessarily mean being non-racist” and were urged to work to change the image of NOW as a white middle-class organization. The 1979 article concludes: “Racism is a sickness. It is as dangerous as a malignant tumor … . Racism should be abhorred for what it does to the practitioner of racism as well as to the victim of racism.”22 Pennsylvania NOW leader Jo Ann Evans-Gardner acknowledged that the leadership was far ahead of its grassroots members. She believed that probably none of the white feminists have the elimination of racism as a first priority. A tiny number might accord it equal priority. A moderate number … if pushed will accept some responsibility. Far too many can be heard to argue that to make racism a concern is divisive (or diluting) to feminism.mGardner challenged white feminists “to be as knowledgeable and militant about racism as we are about sexism.”23<br />
<br />To underscore its commitment to eliminating racism, Pennsylvania NOW held two major conferences on racism and sexism, one in Pittsburgh in 1979 and one in Philadelphia in 1980. As result of the Philadelphia conference a new chapter, Germantown NOW in Northwest Philadelphia, was formed to focus on the connections between sexism and racism. The core Philadelphia chapter remained focused on the ERA; Philadelphia NOW members interested in working for racial justice either became involved in Pennsylvania NOW or joined Germantown NOW. Furthermore, the formation of a new chapter such as Germantown NOW gave its members a greater voice in the state organization and thus a larger arena in which to advance their issues. The state organization was partly responsible for the formation of Germantown NOW and the Germantown NOW members who were active on the state level played a role in Pennsylvania NOW’s increasing focus on racial justice.<br />
<br />There was a similar push to confront racism from Pittsburgh’s Brenda Frazier, who was encouraged by what she experienced at the 1978 national conference: “Before then, I felt I was knocking, trying to get in, to make someone see that we have issues. This year, it was not ‘their’ conference; it was ‘our’ conference, and I felt it profoundly.” Frazier was willing to challenge white feminists about racism and African-American leaders about sexism. She described her conversation with Jesse Jackson about the women’s movement:<br />
<blockquote>I told him that I didn’t hear him say anything about women’s issues. He said ‘I talked about women … I talked about my grandmother.’ I asked him if he supported the Equal Rights Amendment. Then he looked at me and he realized that he was looking at a real live Black feminist. He wasn’t ready for it. I offered to meet with him. He said he was busy—had to be in California. I said I could go to California: just let me know.24</blockquote>
<br />In “East End NOW—A Racially Integrated Chapter,” Frazier describes how she and five other NOW members left Pittsburgh’s East Hills NOW to form a new chapter which “would fight against sexism and racism at the same time and with the same energy.” Once again the ease with which a new chapter could be formed forestalled conflict. As with Germantown NOW, the separation in Pittsburgh appears to have been amicable. There was general agreement in both cases that those with different priorities should have the option of forming a new chapter. East End NOW gave Frazier an organizational base within NOW. In the July 1979 <i>Pennsylvania NOW Times</i>, she reported: “I am so on fire. I can’t tell you how good it feels to hear other people talk about the elimination of racism as a feminist issue and mean it … not just words, but a willingness to act.”25 The new chapter allowed Frazier to exert considerable influence on national NOW and on Pennsylvania NOW; she was instrumental in the creation of committees addressing racism on the state, regional, and national levels. Both the ease of forming new chapters on the local level and forming task forces or committees on the state and national levels enabled members to deal with differences in priorities while still maintaining allegiance to the national organization.<br />
<br /><b>Germantown NOW: Dedicated to advancing racial and gender justice</b><br />
Philadelphia NOW member Jocelyn Morris noted that combating racism was not among her chapter’s top priorities, and concluded that rather than trying to change the priorities of Philadelphia NOW she would have more success addressing the interconnections between racism and sexism in a new chapter, Germantown NOW. Lillian Ciarrochi, then president of Philadelphia NOW, reported that her chapter did not discourage the formation of Germantown NOW, but wanted to stay focused on what members identified as their primary objective, passage of the ERA. Ciarrochi described the reactions of Philadelphia NOW members to the formation of Germantown NOW:<br />
<blockquote>I remember people saying it’s not the NAACP; we represent all women and there was a certain group who wanted it all to be about race. We had to concentrate like a laser beam on women’s rights because it helps all women and we can’t be sidetracked with other issues.27</blockquote>
<br />According to Ciarrochi, Philadelphia NOW members “didn’t think Germantown NOW would last because it was founded for the wrong reasons. I don’t think there was ever any fight about it.” Ciarrochi recalled that there were times when the Philadelphia chapter had meetings to discuss racism, and that some members wanted to have meetings in minority communities: “Some of the chapter members agreed and were willing to do it. Others had issues of safety in some of these neighborhoods at night. It just never happened.”<br />
<br />Ciarrochi thought that the focus of Germantown NOW would be on poor women and that it “would have been a mammoth task. These women were poor, single moms, a lot of times battered women. The last thing they were going to do was form a NOW chapter in their area. They were fighting for food stamps, a way to survive, to stop the battering.” According to Ciarrochi, the possibilities for outreach to women of color are now much greater:<br />
<blockquote>Now, there are minority professional women who believe in women’s rights and want to work on issues related to sexism. A lot of that is because of the Women’s Movement. I think it has directly affected the lives of minority women greatly. Our employment committee fought hard for affirmative action. That was the one issue related to minority rights that clicked with everybody because it just seemed like an issue of fairness.</blockquote>
<br />During my 2008 interview with Ciarrochi, she expressed support for NOW’s current focus on combating racism and sexism, but in the early 1980s she believed Philadelphia NOW’s energies should be focused on the battle to ratify the ERA.<br />
<br />Jocelyn Morris did not recall any discussion with Philadelphia NOW about Germantown NOW’s focus on racism and sexism, and said she was unaware of any concern. Morris noted that Germantown NOW was not reaching out to women in extreme poverty, as some Philadelphia NOW members apparently thought:<br />
<blockquote>Germantown at that time was middle class or lower middle class, not impoverished. Not every Black person was on food stamps. I was never on food stamps; most of the people I recruited for NOW were not on food stamps or being battered. We had middle-class families, and that’s who we recruited. It’s not like 80% of us were impoverished.28</blockquote>
<br />Morris also wanted Black women to have a chapter closer to home: “Philadelphia NOW never reached out to the community. A lot of women did not want to travel from Germantown to Center City; Germantown women didn’t feel safe in Center City.” There apparently was reluctance to travel outside their neighborhoods on the part of both the mostly Center City residents in Philadelphia NOW and the members of Germantown NOW.<br />
<br />Morris saw her focus on women of color as directly advancing the cause of the ERA, arguing that outreach to minority women was critical to its passage. She noted that although most minority women had experienced racism, few were aware of how the “double jeopardy” of racism and sexism combined to limit their opportunities. In an article in the Pennsylvania NOW Times, Morris described her efforts reaching out to African-American women:<br />
<blockquote>Many of the minority women I have talked to in my efforts to recruit them as NOW members perceive the women’s movement as dominated by white middle class women who are advocating the breakup of the family. The enemies of the women’s movement plant these ideas and use them as a means of keeping all women from uniting around common issues.
Many Black women feel they have enough problems maintaining good relationships with Black men without adding the issue of women’s equality into their home life. One minority woman who came to the convening meeting of Germantown NOW said that what she was learning about sexism was making her angry, and that she did not want to have to deal with it. She has never returned.29</blockquote>
<br />Morris believed that African-American women and men heard only the misinformation spread by the anti-ERA forces, and she was determined to bring the feminist message to Black women.<br />
<br />Although Morris was correct that some Black women had been misinformed about the ERA, there is evidence that Black women were significantly more receptive to feminism than were white women. Jocelyn Morris did not recall any discussion with Philadelphia NOW about Germantown NOW’s focus on racism and sexism, and said she was unaware of any concern. Morris noted that Germantown NOW was not reaching out to women in extreme poverty, as some Philadelphia NOW members apparently thought:<br />
<blockquote>Germantown at that time was middle class or lower middle class, not impoverished. Not every Black person was on food stamps. I was never on food stamps; most of the people I recruited for NOW were not on food stamps or being battered. We had middle-class families, and that’s who we recruited. It’s not like 80% of us were impoverished.28</blockquote>
<br />Morris saw her focus on women of color as directly advancing the cause of the ERA, arguing that outreach to minority women was critical to its passage. She noted that although most minority women had experienced racism, few were aware of how the “double jeopardy” of racism and sexism combined to limit their opportunities. In an article in the Pennsylvania NOW Times, Morris described her efforts reaching out to African-American women:orris believed that African-American women and men heard only the misinformation spread by the anti-ERA forces, and she was determined to bring the feminist message to Black women.<br />
<br />Although Morris was correct that some Black women had been misinformed about the ERA, there is evidence that Black women were significantly more receptive to feminism than were white women. A series of polls conducted by the Lewis Harris agency, which measured women’s attitudes on political and social issues for the years 1970, 1972, 1974, and 1980, consistently reported that Black women sympathized with the feminist movement at a higher percentage than white women.30 Also, polling data indicated that Black women consistently supported the ERA in greater numbers than white women. Political scientist Ethel Klein reported that 27 percent of white women and 40 percent of Black women expressed serious disappointment with the failure of the ERA. However, the greater support for the ERA among Black women did not lead to Black women’s increased participation in feminist organizations. According to Klein, “most Black feminists [in the 1980s] were working outside of mainstream feminist organizations to create space for discussing the problems of Black women.31<br />
<br />In attempting to recruit more Black women for NOW, Morris was fighting an uphill battle. She was apparently concerned about the impact of starting a new chapter in Philadelphia, which might be perceived as a rival to the existing local chapter. She reached out to Pennsylvania NOW leaders for advice on starting Germantown NOW. In a letter to Morris, Pennsylvania NOW president Dixie White refers to her chapter’s statement providing the rationale for a new chapter in downtown Allentown. “Why another NOW chapter in the area? In all areas with multiple chapters, it has been clearly demonstrated that each chapter increases the level of activism in that area. Each additional chapter appeals to a slightly different segment of the overall feminist population.” White emphasized that the new Allentown chapter would focus on issues of particular concern to her community: “elimination of racism, discrimination against the lesbian and gay population, and budget concerns that have a greater impact on economically disadvantaged segments of the population.”<br />
<br />White further argued that multiple chapters provide more opportunities for leadership and that “variations in chapter ‘image’ also make the point that we are everywhere, and that we come in all shapes, sizes, colors, styles, but have the same overall goals.” She saw the new Allentown chapter as a vehicle for “debunking the media mythology that feminism is primarily for upper-middle-class white professional women.” She noted the diversity of the Allentown chapter, which was advancing what we now call intersectional feminism. White considered the ideal maximum size for a chapter to be 25–50 and stated: “If a chapter gets larger, the level of activism does not increase, but tapers off because it is more difficult to be in constant contact with the entire membership, and decision-making tends to become concentrated in a small group of people.” Emphasizing the importance of personal contact, White believed chapters wasted too much time and energy on newsletters, and was proud of the fact that Allentown NOW’s members were able to stay in regular contact with each other by telephone. She stated that her chapter chose “to grow very slowly, so we get to know each other well.” Considerable effort was put into strengthening personal bonds and meetings were regularly combined with potluck suppers.32<br />
<br />The philosophy of the Allentown chapter was very much in tune with many Women’s Liberation collectives, which placed a high premium on personal connections and decision-making by consensus. As Myra Marx Ferree and Beth Hess have noted, in the late 1970s NOW was “pulled towards less hierarchical and more participatory styles by incoming streams of grassroots members.”33 A consensus has emerged among historians of the feminist movement that the two arris agency, which measured women’s attitudes on political and social issues for the years 1970, 1972, 1974, and 1980, consistently reported that Black women sympathized with the feminist movement at a higher percentage than white women.30 Also, polling data indicated that Black women consistently supported the ERA in greater numbers than white women. Political scientist Ethel Klein reported that 27 percent of white women and 40 percent of Black women expressed serious disappointment with the failure of the ERA. However, the greater support for the ERA among Black women did not lead to Black women’s increased participation in feminist organizations. According to Klein, “most Black feminists [in the 1980s] were working outside of mainstream feminist organizations to create space for discussing the problems of Black women.31<br />
<br />In attempting to recruit more Black women for NOW, Morris was fighting an uphill battle. She was apparently concerned about the impact of starting a new chapter in Philadelphia, which might be perceived as a rival to the existing local chapter. She reached out to Pennsylvania NOW leaders for advice on starting Germantown NOW. In a letter to Morris, Pennsylvania NOW president Dixie White refers to her chapter’s statement providing the rationale for a new chapter in downtown Allentown. “Why another NOW chapter in the area? In all areas with multiple chapters, it has been clearly demonstrated that each chapter increases the level of activism in that area. Each additional chapter appeals to a slightly different segment of the overall feminist population.” White emphasized that the new Allentown chapter would focus on issues of particular concern to her community: “elimination of racism, discrimination against the lesbian and gay population, and budget concerns that have a greater impact on economically disadvantaged segments of the population.”<br />
<br />White further argued that multiple chapters provide more opportunities for leadership and that “variations in chapter ‘image’ also make the point that we are everywhere, and that we come in all shapes, sizes, colors, styles, but have the same overall goals.” She saw the new Allentown chapter as a vehicle for “debunking the media mythology that feminism is primarily for upper-middle-class white professional women.” She noted the diversity of the Allentown chapter, which was advancing what we now call intersectional feminism. White considered the ideal maximum size for a chapter to be 25–50 and stated: “If a chapter gets larger, the level of activism does not increase, but tapers off because it is more difficult to be in constant contact with the entire membership, and decision-making tends to become concentrated in a small group of people.” Emphasizing the importance of personal contact, White believed chapters wasted too much time and energy on newsletters and was proud of the fact that Allentown NOW’s members were able to stay in regular contact with each other by telephone. She stated that her chapter chose “to grow very slowly, so we get to know each other well.” Considerable effort was put into strengthening personal bonds and meetings were regularly combined with potluck suppers.32<br />
<br />The philosophy of the Allentown chapter was very much in tune with many Women’s Liberation collectives, which placed a high premium on personal connections and decision-making by consensus. As Myra Marx Ferree and Beth Hess have noted, in the late 1970s NOW was “pulled towards less hierarchical and more participatory styles by incoming streams of grassroots members.”33 A consensus has emerged among historians of the feminist movement that the two strands of the feminist movement—the liberal reform movement with its bureaucratic structure and the radical Women’s Liberation movement with its collectivist structure—for all practical purposes merged in the late 1970s and early 1980s.34 The Allentown chapter represented just such a fusion of these strands. It retained the hierarchical model of a NOW chapter with an elected leadership, but emphasis was on equal participation of all members within a unit small enough to accommodate this approach. The ease with which members could form new (often very small) chapters allowed those who subscribed to a model of feminist organizing different from that of their local chapter to simply form their own group.<br />
<br />Jocelyn Morris wanted to create a chapter, which like Allentown NOW would place greater emphasis on reaching out to women of color, but she was clearly not interested in a very small chapter relying primarily on close relationships among members. She wanted to increase membership and build a strong organization that would be a powerful player in the community. Furthermore, she was not interested in forming a separate Black women’s organization. She chose to get involved with NOW because she saw NOW “as the primary organization that speaks on women’s issues. That’s why I got involved and stay involved over 30 years later. My goal was to ensure there would be a Black woman’s voice and influence within NOW.”<br />
<br />Morris wrote to all those who attended the Pennsylvania NOW 1980 Conference on Racism and Sexism, inviting them to join Germantown NOW or, if they were already members of a chapter, to work with Germantown NOW on the interconnections between sexism and racism and outreach to women of color.35 The application to establish Germantown NOW was filed on July 18, 1980; among the founding members were former Philadelphia NOW president Betsy Parziale and noted African-American attorney Sadie Alexander.36 Interestingly, not all the members of Germantown NOW lived in Germantown, and some NOW members living in Germantown belonged to the Center City or the breakaway East Philadelphia chapter. Some of the support for Germantown NOW may have been related to old feuds with Philadelphia NOW as well as support for Germantown NOW’s focus on racism and outreach to women of color.<br />
<br />Jocelyn Morris cast a wide net in recruiting for Germantown NOW’s first public meeting and sent letters to many prominent women, including several women on Philadelphia City Council and on the staff of local political leaders, inviting them to attend the first meeting of the new chapter.37 The flyer for the event proclaimed: “The Elimination of Racism is a Feminist Issue!”38 According to the Germantown Courier, about 35 women attended the first meeting of Germantown NOW; among the speakers were then Pennsylvania NOW president Bridget M. Whitley and African-American educator Earline Sloan. Sloan urged the group: “Don’t get caught up in, ‘my oppression is greater than your oppression’ … . Black women shouldn’t have to feel they have to choose between being a feminist and being Black.”39<br />
<br />Despite Morris’s efforts, the only newspapers that covered Germantown NOW were the neighborhood paper and the major African-American paper, the Philadelphia Tribune. In a lengthy article in the Tribune profiling Morris, the reporter apparently felt she had to reassure her readers that “It’s not true that the feminist movement is a single-purpose group of lesbians and anti-male advocates” and quoted Morris that NOW was “in fact a social change organization with broad concerns” relevant to Black women.<br />
<br />Morris described the tensions in her personal life as she tried to juggle the roles of wife, mother, and working woman: “I soon learned that others felt the same way. A large percentage of divorces and separations among Black couples are due to sexism and the inability of women to combine the dual roles.” She stated that NOW never actively recruited Black women or placed them in policy-making positions, that there were few minorities in any level of the organization and that “what we are now doing is grooming Black women for leadership.”40 Some NOW leaders would no doubt dispute Morris’s contention that they had never “actively recruited” Black women, but their relatively low numbers within the organization and in leadership roles was beyond dispute.<br />
<br />Morris was frustrated by national NOW’s inability to produce the kinds of recruitment materials she needed. In November 1980, she wrote to the National NOW Action Center charging that the “lack of available materials needed to recruit minority women is detrimental to the goal of Germantown NOW, which is to do specific outreach to minority women.” She stated that since July 1980 she had been trying, without any success, to obtain the brochures “Minority Women and Feminism” and “Minority Women and the ERA,” and noted that “at a time when we have less than 600 days until we get three more states to ratify the ERA it is imperative that national effort be made to recruit minority women and educate them about the ERA.”41 The tone of her letter suggested real frustration and anger at what she perceived as national NOW’s lack of support for her efforts.<br />
<br />Morris worked tirelessly to build Germantown NOW. Beginning in February 1981 the chapter held two meetings per month at the Germantown YWCA and organized a series of forums, including “Black Women and the ERA” and “Political Power and how to go about getting it.” Morris managed to get some high-profile speakers for the forums, which ensured coverage in the Germantown Courier. Diane Kiddy, executive director of the Mayor’s Commission for Women, was the main speaker at the forum on “Political Power.” Kiddy urged the attendees to learn the rules of politics, get involved in political campaigns, donate money to political candidates of their choice, and back women candidates.42 Morris was making every effort to connect her focus on racism and outreach to minority women with NOW’s key priorities, the ERA and participation in the political process.<br />
<br />In addition, Morris, like the 1970s Philadelphia NOW leaders, was ever-vigilant about sexist practices in the media. In her capacity as president of Germantown NOW, she wrote to Alan Nesbitt, news assignment editor of WPVI TV, to complain about coverage of the swearing-in ceremony of the members of the Philadelphia Commission for Women: “I was infuriated and disappointed that the news assignment editor did not consider the swearing-in ceremony of 36 prominent women leaders in our community important enough to be given more than 10 seconds coverage!”43 From Nesbitt’s reply: “The fact that we covered the story, and gave it more than ten seconds, shows that we are sensitive to important events involving women.”44 His response was less conciliatory than responses to Philadelphia NOW’s complaints about media coverage in the mid-1970s. <br />
<br />Like Pittsburgh’s Brenda Frazier, Jocelyn Morris did not hesitate to take on African-American leaders for sexist practices. Leaders who came out of the civil rights movement, particularly those who became involved in electoral politics, were usually on record as in favor of gender equality. Unlike some leaders involved in Black Nationalist organizations, civil rights leaders and members of the Black establishment were unlikely to totally dismiss feminist concerns. Morris wrote to Walter Livingston, chair of the board of the Philadelphia Tribune, to protest the lack of women panelists at the Tribune’s December 1980 seminar on Black on Black Crime. She stated, “As president of the Germantown chapter of the National Organization for Women I suggest that all of your seminars feature top women Black leaders on your panel … . It is time the Black community stop treating women as second-class citizens.”45 Morris also wrote to Robert W. Sorrell, president of the Urban League, to protest the choice of Senator John Heinz as keynote for the organization’s 1981 annual dinner. While acknowledging that Heinz had “a good voting record on minority issues,” Morris noted that he was the co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment known as the Human Life Amendment, which would outlaw abortion and most forms of contraception.46<br />
<br />Morris put considerable time and energy into organizing petition drives against the amendment and writing letters to the editor to educate the public on its consequences. Somehow Morris managed to combine her commitment to NOW with her family responsibilities, her pursuit of an advanced degree, and her full-time job as an employment counselor. Given this grueling workload, it comes as no surprise to see Jocelyn Morris’s resignation letter sent to active members of Germantown NOW informing them that effective from May 31, 1981, she was resigning as president of Germantown NOW. Morris stated the reasons for her decision:<br />
<blockquote>I feel in the best interest of fostering shared responsibility of running the chapter by all members, not just the minority officers, I must resign. I also feel my family and school responsibilities dictate that I can no long carry the amount of responsibility that the Presidency of the chapter entails.47</blockquote>
<br />Morris was clearly frustrated that other members of the chapter did not share her commitment and work ethic. When she received no response to her resignation letter, she sent a second letter, expressing her frustration more directly and informing chapter members that she could no longer “carry the burden of running the chapter by [her]self”:<br />
<blockquote>We have a lot of work, and no one willing to take responsibility for any of it. Besides having a full-time job, I am currently working on my B.A. degree in Human Services at Antioch University. I have two small children and a husband who is not always supportive of my activities in NOW and the women’s movement. I will continue as chapter president until the October 1981 elections only if you will come out to meetings and lend your support.48</blockquote>
<br />This is a familiar story: a chapter leader throws herself heart and soul into the work of the organization; she becomes totally exhausted, and seeing that she is doing most of the work with relatively little support, decides she can no longer continue. There is very much a gender dimension to volunteer burnout. When activist commitments take time away from family responsibilities, women often suffer greater guilt than do their male counterparts—a burden of guilt which itself contributes to the overwhelming sense of exhaustion.<br />
<br />In an August 1981 interview with The <i>Philadelphia Tribune</i>, Morris acknowledged that recruiting Black women into the interracial Germantown NOW chapter “has not been easy. Black women are not exactly breaking down doors to join organizations such as NOW.” She noted that even the Germantown chapter, founded to combat racism and reach out to women of color, was a majority white chapter; of the 52 members of Germantown NOW, 20 were Black. However, Morris told the Tribune she hoped this would soon change, as “NOW has recognized the need for Black women to be involved if it is to speak authoritatively about the needs and concerns of all women” and has recently incorporated affirmative action guidelines into its bylaws.49<br />
<br />Thanks to its organizational structure, NOW had a decided advantage over the loosely organized Women’s Liberation collectives, which had no mechanism for mandating inclusion of women of color. However, as national NOW leaders would soon realize, affirmative action guidelines were necessary but far from sufficient for NOW to significantly increase the participation of women of color. National NOW did not mandate that its local affiliates revise their bylaws to include affirmative action, no doubt realizing how difficult it would be to ensure compliance. Consequently, after Morris left the Philadelphia area, the racial composition of Germantown NOW began to change. The new president, Betsy Parziale, was a white woman and the racial composition of the executive board of Germantown NOW also shifted. When Jocelyn Morris was president, the vice president was an African-American woman, Nancie Dent. All four of the officers were now white women. No doubt in an effort to create a more diverse board, in January 1982 the board was expanded to included two new state board delegates and two alternate delegates. Two of the delegates were African-American.50<br />
<br />The focus of Germantown NOW shifted to passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. This shift in priorities was not surprising, as NOW at every level of the organization poured all its resources into the final push for passage of the ERA. The leaders of Germantown NOW, although focused primarily on passage of the ERA, did not want to abandon their focus on combating racism, and at the January general membership meeting selected the following priorities for 1982: 1) ERA Ratification; 2) Reproductive Freedom; 3) Eliminating Racism; 4) Lesbian Rights; 5) Economic Justice.51 Germantown NOW also held a Black History Month event, “A celebration of Black Women in Pennsylvania History” presented by African-American educator Shirley Parham.52 Although much less focused on combating racism than during Jocelyn Morris’ presidency, Germantown NOW still retained its identity as an interracial chapter with a greater emphasis on racial equality than was the case with Philadelphia NOW.<br />
<br />As with Philadelphia NOW, Germantown NOW’s priorities reflected the national organization’s increased emphasis on participation in electoral politics. The reservations of some NOW members regarding electoral politics were largely swept away as a consequence of the ERA campaign, which had demonstrated the importance of feminists holding office. On April 29, 1982, Germantown NOW hosted a candidates’ forum for all candidates for state office residing in or near Northwest Philadelphia. Although both Pennsylvania NOW and Germantown NOW were on record as having eliminating racism as one of their top priorities, the Pennsylvania NOWPAC questionnaire distributed to the candidates did not raise the issue of racism. The lack of questions on racism was particularly surprising in the case of Pennsylvania NOW, given the resolutions passed by the 1981 Pennsylvania NOW Convention affirming that eliminating racism continued to be a top priority.53<br />
<br />How, then, does one explain the Pennsylvania NOWPAC 1982 questionnaire’s failure to include any questions on racism? Although National NOW and Pennsylvania NOW leaders declared their commitment to combating racism, Pennsylvania NOW activist Jo Ann Evans-Gardner stated that his was not the case with the grassroots membership: “Far too many can be heard to argue that to make racism a concern is divisive (or diluting) to feminism.”54 The commitment to eliminating racism apparently was not sufficiently internalized by the members, and the Pennsylvania NOWPAC questionnaire failed to include a question on racism.<br />
<br />One consequence of Germanton NOW’s 1982 prioritizing of the ERA over eliminating racism was a shift in press coverage of the chapter. Under Jocelyn Morris’s presidency, the Germantown Courier and the African-American-owned Philadelphia Tribune covered the events of Germantown NOW. In February 1982, apparently for the first time, an article about Germantown NOW appeared in the Chestnut Hill Local, the paper covering the most affluent neighborhood in Northwest Philadelphia. The Chestnut Hill Local reported that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment was “tops on the priority list” of Germantown NOW.55 An accompanying article noted that Germantown NOW would hold “A Celebration of Black Women in Pennsylvania History” presented by Shirley Parham.56 The chapter’s focus on racism and outreach to women of color remained, but the emphasis had changed.<br />
<br />After the defeat of the ERA in June 1982, Germantown NOW focused on what could be achieved for women under the Pennsylvania ERA. At some point in 1983, Betsy Parziale could no longer continue as president—again, the all too familiar burnout story.In the early 1970s when chapter leaders expressed similar exhaustion there were many new recruits ready to move into leadership. The landscape was very different in 1983. Although NOW’s national leaders worked hard to create a new post-ERA agenda for NOW, many members who had put their lives on hold to work for the passage of the ERA could no longer sustain the same level of commitment. The heady social movement phase of the feminist movement was ending and with it the exhilaration of participating in a world-changing (and life-changing) movement. When Betsy Parziale left Germantown NOW, there was no one to pick up the torch and the chapter dedicated to racial and gender justice fell apart. Although leaders like JoAnn Gardner were championing the cause of racial justice, there were not enough members who shared sharing this commitment to sustain the chapter. The dissolution of Germantown NOW also illustrates a downside of very small chapters: when the leaders burn out, the pool of potential successors is small; eventually, the chapter dissolves or winds down to one or two members keeping the memory alive.<br />
<br />However, breakaway chapters had their advantages, in keeping dissident members within the big tent of NOW and thus paying dues to the national organization. The breakaway Germantown chapter was formed in response to philosophical differences as to what counts as a feminist issue and whether the struggle for gender justice and racial justice were intertwined. In the 1980s, the leadership of National NOW and of Pennsylvania were trying to educate their members about racism but the membership of the Philadelphia chapter was not yet ready for this. Chapters had a great deal of autonomy and national NOW had no mechanism for forcing the conversation. The struggle to educate NOW members about racial justice continues into the 21st century.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-60171097174108710282022-03-27T21:56:00.002-04:002022-03-28T09:27:48.746-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I: Building the feminist movement, Chapter 2, Managing conflict<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioUjucZembMXsmbIIFMDvVpSoRSSDFi5PH6q7y-Wr1LfeUUI3I9fKMSEhWk0Zg9MkDIGL_G1ptWvIGEcuH3piPBXfZqUjKkO6whVhO956w-Pvw4noOmFbI0UjLmdlpq9ZFVDFi-U7XEWbs/s1600/De-Crow-obit-master495.jpg++nYT.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioUjucZembMXsmbIIFMDvVpSoRSSDFi5PH6q7y-Wr1LfeUUI3I9fKMSEhWk0Zg9MkDIGL_G1ptWvIGEcuH3piPBXfZqUjKkO6whVhO956w-Pvw4noOmFbI0UjLmdlpq9ZFVDFi-U7XEWbs/s400/De-Crow-obit-master495.jpg++nYT.jpg" /></a> Karen Decrow, past president of national NOW and pioneer of what we now call intersectional feminism<br />
<b><br />Managing conflict<br /></b>
<br />The enormous energy NOW members put into achieving their many victories led to exhaustion and volunteer burnout spreading throughout the organization. In its weakened state NOW on all levels was more vulnerable to internal division. By the mid-1970s the social movements that arose in the 1960s were experiencing deepening internal conflicts. The New Left was imploding and many of the loosely organized Women’s Liberation collectives were seriously weakened and in some cases torn apart by internal strife. Unlike NOW, most of these collectives had no formal mechanism for dispute resolution. NOW had a formal grievance procedure; elected boards on the national, state, and local levels, which made decisions by majority vote; and a process for ousting current officers and electing new ones whose priorities were in tune with the majority. In short, NOW had mechanisms for conflict resolution, which enabled it to survive the battles of the mid-1970s, bruised and battered but still standing.<br />
<br />Conflicts in national NOW were becoming increasingly bitter and, as a consequence of hosting the 1975 national conference, Philadelphia NOW was drawn into the disputes tearing apart national NOW. In the early 1970s, Philadelphia NOW newsletters focused on local projects and did not report on the dissension at the national level. The first account of problems in national NOW was then Philadelphia NOW president Karen Knudsen’s 1974 report: “The Convention in Houston taught us that ‘feminist politics’ aren’t much different than any other politics. They are intense, heated, stimulating, and sometimes unfair and cruel…. [often] feminists appear to confuse personal and political conflict.”46 The difficulty of disentangling personal tensions and competing ambitions from genuine political differences is a recurrent theme in the history of NOW. Maryann Barasko in her study of the structure of NOW quotes an unpublished 1973 letter from NOW activist Jo-Ann Gardner describing a power struggle within national NOW over “the question of who should run NOW and how. Some of the issues are ideological … and some are about power—e.g. whose project shall have how much funding, who shall make critical decisions, etc.”47<br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW in the early 1970s seemed largely free of such conflicts, but this would change in the middle 1970s. In the January 1975 national NOW president Karen DeCrow and her allies broke from the rest of the national board and formed a group they called the Majority Caucus.48 The Pennsylvania NOW board voted to escrow the dues owed to national NOW and to join the Majority Caucus, pledging to pursue “radicalization, decentralization, returning control to the membership and integrity to the organization.”49 There was no explanation as to what Pennsylvania NOW meant by “radicalization,” and members must have been confused as what actual issues divided the two increasingly antagonistic factions of NOW.<br />
<br />The situation deteriorated to the point where the two sides faced each other in court. The Majority Caucus had initiated a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of proposed bylaws amendments; the judge decided in favor of the Majority Caucus, and “the bylaws were enjoined from further progress.” Fortunately, NOW had a structure and an existing set of bylaws, which a court could interpret to resolve the dispute. After coming dangerously close to splitting into two separate organizations, the two factions managed to agree on procedures for the October 1975 NOW conference in Philadelphia.50<br />
<br />The Majority Caucus then adopted the slogan, “Out of the Mainstream, into the Revolution.” This was quite a departure from the Statement of Purpose adopted at the first NOW conference in 1966: “The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society.”51 In sharp contrast, national NOW president Karen DeCrow stated in 1975:<br />
<blockquote>Most feminists have concluded that it is time for our aspirations and our actions to go out of the mainstream and into the revolution. To emerge from trying to get a piece of the pie which is tasteless and unfulfilling at best—to changing the very fabric of life for women and men and children alike.52</blockquote>
<br />Many NOW members in the mid-1970s saw themselves as at a turning point in the feminist movement. This was especially the case with Pennsylvania NOW and Philadelphia NOW, which were among the strongest supporters of the Majority Caucus.<br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW saw the Majority Caucus as the more inclusive feminist group, which would reach out to non-elite women. From Philadelphia NOW activist Lillian Ciarrochi’s description of the opposition to the Majority Caucus: “We nicknamed them the whole-wheat caucus because they were so namby-pamby … . And they were the ones who wore white gloves and pillbox hats and nylon stockings and we were the rabble-rousers.” The opposition to the Majority Caucus formed a short-lived “network” called “Womensurge,” which according to Ciarrochi, “didn’t want to support abortion rights like we did: ‘Oh that offends people you know and we’re going to lose people.'" An article in <i>Electric Circle</i>, a Majority Caucus publication, expressed a similar perspective, noting that as the feminist movement achieves more public support, some NOW members have wanted “to abandon the abortion issue until the ERA is ratified … [and] push lesbians back into the closet and pretend the 1971 resolution supporting lesbian rights, doesn’t exist.”55<br />
<br />Although some Philadelphia NOW activists saw the split as at root a class divide exacerbated by lingering tension over abortion and lesbian rights, in its official publications the Majority Caucus did not present the divide in those terms. Despite the radical theme—“out of the mainstream into the revolution”—the booklet prepared by the Majority Caucus for the National NOW Conference was far from incendiary and stressed democratic process and procedures, pledging “to create an organization that will be responsive to and controlled by the membership … [and] adhere to principles that permit and demand open discussion, deliberation and fair play.56 Although the Majority Caucus conference booklet de-emphasized issues and focused on procedures, there clearly were serious ideological disagreements with the opposing faction about the direction of the organization. Beverly Jones, in an <i>Electric Circle</i> article, argues that the structural and procedural changes advocated by the Majority Caucus were essential to the realization of their radical vision:<br />
<blockquote>A decentralized NOW will be more radical and aggressive … . With respect to racism, the poor, lesbianism, and classism as well as sexism, the national board and particularly its still-dominant conservative faction have played a timid, stand-pat game. Decentralizing NOW will free radical and aggressive state organizations … . It will liberate us to fight sexists instead of power-oriented sisters.57</blockquote>
<br />In addition to demands for greater autonomy for state affiliates, the dominant theme emerging from <i>Electric Circle</i> was a longing for a feminist movement that would address broad social justice issues. Decades before Occupy Wall Street, Toni Carabillo framed the issue in terms of the 99 percent against the 1 percent. She argued for building coalitions “not only with all the dispossessed in our society—the women, minorities, the poor, the aged—but also with the disenchanted—those members of the middle class of our society who have in the past been manipulated into being angry with all those below them on the economic ladder, when their anger and hostility should be redirected up-ward to the top 1%.”58<br />
The second issue of <i>Electric Circle</i> contained the platform of the Majority Caucus, and unlike their official conference booklet, the platform focused on revolutionary vision rather than democratic procedures:
<blockquote>The Majority Caucus affirms the necessity to include and support within the movement women who are doubly and triply oppressed because of the combined effect of sex discrimination and race, age, ethnic, religious, sexual preference, and economic discrimination. There should be no doubt regarding our conviction that creating jobs for all women who want them is as much a feminist issue as obtaining better jobs for those women who are already employed.58
</blockquote>
<br />The platform further committed NOW to “ensuring that its public image and all facets of NOW’s action program reflect the multi-racial, multi-cultural nature of feminism … utilizing NOW’s political clout, financial resources and membership energies to combat racism in America.”59 The Majority Caucus appears to have made a tactical decision: creating a convention booklet with moderate arguments designed to appeal to a broad cross-section of the membership and publishing the <i>Electric Circle</i> manifesto designed to inspire and energize those already committed<br />.
<br />What Toni Carabillo, Karen DeCrow, Eleanor Smeal, and other members of the Majority Caucus saw as a broadening of the movement essential to its continued growth and success, their opposition saw as de-emphasizing gender discrimination and thus betraying the original mission of NOW. According to Jacqui Ceballos, who ran against DeCrow for the presidency of national NOW (but withdrew after the first ballot): “The Majority Caucus is taking the feminism out of the feminist movement and making it a political movement that will kill feminism in this country.”60 The election was close. On the second ballot Karen DeCrow faced one opponent, South Dakota’s Mary Lynn Myers. DeCrow won with 1,132 votes to Myers’ 1,034 votes.61 Each side saw victory as essential to the future of feminism and each claimed to be the majority. Mary Lynn Myers contended, “we represented at least one-half of the members here … . And we’re sure we represent the majority of the organization.”62 She did not, however, contest the election, which had been conducted by the American Arbitration Association.<br />
<br />Although what we now call intersectional feminism is often thought to be a movement of the 1990s, the concept was central to the Majority Caucus vision in 1975. In her keynote address Karen DeCrow declared: “This is not a woman’s movement; this is a people’s movement.” She made a public apology to lesbians and gays noting that “our failure has been in not seeing the unbreakable connection between sexual stereotyping and fear of gay people.” She also made an apology to women and men of color, pledging that NOW must use its resources to fight against racism in America, and affirming “this is not a white organization.”63 Although DeCrow’s message resonated with members of the Majority Caucus, whether NOW should move beyond women’s issues (strictly construed) and become a broad social justice organization remained controversial.<br />
<br />The divisions at the 1975 national conference provide an explanation for the very different perceptions of NOW in the 1970s; on the one hand, NOW was viewed as a white, middle-class liberal reform group; on the other hand, as an activist organization with a radical, counter-cultural edge. Someone who lived in Pierre, South Dakota and was a member of Mary Lynn Myers’ chapter would no doubt have the former impression; someone who lived in Syracuse, New York and was a member of Karen DeCrow’s chapter would in all likelihood have the latter impression. Karen de Crow’s determination to “move out of the mainstream and into the revolution” reflected the extent to which the Women’s Liberation movement and the social justice movements of the 1970s had influenced NOW.<br />
<br />In addition to differences about the scope of NOW’s concerns, divisions also existed over tactics. Despite its radical rhetoric and advocacy of more street demonstrations, the Majority Caucus also espoused tactics that were decidedly mainstream. Karen DeCrow and Eleanor Smeal were convinced that NOW must be directly involved in electoral politics; in her keynote speech DeCrow urged: “We should be the mayors, the governors; we should be President of the United States … . Instead of accepting those persons, we intend to be those persons.”65 Congresswoman Bella Abzug urged NOW members to run for political office and argued “the lobby is the outer room … . We have to be prepared to have our people in the outer and inner rooms of power.” Abzug, then a candidate for the US Senate, noted that although there were 19 women in the House of Representatives, “We have a stag Senate.”66 The opposition to the Majority Caucus was wary of involvement in electoral politics and in some cases adamantly opposed, fearing that endorsing candidates would tie NOW to the Democratic Party and alienate Republican feminists. However, the Majority Caucus call to enter the electoral arena resonated with many NOW members and permanently changed the organization, which formed a political action committee in 1977. Despite this shift in direction, how closely NOW should be allied with the Democratic Party remained a source of tension.<br />
<br />The bitterly fought 1975 election for the presidency of national NOW was both an exhausting and exhilarating experience for NOW activists and particularly so for Philadelphia NOW. Lillian Ciarrochi’s recollections of the 1975 conference convey the stress, the excitement, the passionate commitment to a new direction for NOW as well her fear of forces she thought were threatening the gains of the feminist movement: “We realized that we were infiltrated by the FBI, CIA; we even had people working for the FBI on our national board … . I can give you some names.” Ciarrochi’s fears of FBI infiltration were confirmed in 1977 when FBI files obtained under the Freedom of Information Act documented that the FBI used women informants between 1969 and 1973 to infiltrate feminist groups.<br />
<br />However, the FBI infiltration was no laughing matter. Historian Ruth Rosen, who documented the extent of FBI surveillance of the feminist movement, stated: “Still in my wildest flights of paranoia I never imagined the extent to which the FBI spied on feminists or how many people did the spying. We may never know the full extent of this infiltration, what damage it caused or how it affected the trajectory.” FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was obsessed with finding communists and convinced that the women’s movement was a communist front. According to Rosen, when FBI regional offices, unable to uncover any subversive activity, asked Hoover to end surveillance of the women’s movement, Hoover refused, stating “that members of the women’s movement should be viewed as part of the enemy.”68 The infiltration, and the belief that such infiltration was occurring, sowed discord in the feminist movement, fostering a tendency to suspect that ideological opponents were government agents or informers.<br />
<br />illian Ciarrochi saw threats to NOW coming from both government surveillance and left-wing organizations seeking to infiltrate NOW and disrupt planning meetings for the 1975 national conference. She recalled:<br />
<blockquote>We started to notice at meetings that we were being infiltrated by members of the Socialist Workers Party. They would disrupt meetings and scream and yell. They all joined for ten dollars, which was the cheapest rate we had. They tried to make us dysfunctional, to shut down our meetings.</blockquote>
There was considerable fear of foul play at the conference and concern about security. Ciarrochi stated that the Majority Caucus thought it necessary to hire security twenty-four hours a day for DeCrow, Smeal, and several other leaders. As a result of members’ concerns about the credentialing process, NOW hired the American Arbitration Society to run the election for national NOW president.<br />
<br />For Ciarrochi and other Philadelphia NOW members, the 1975 conference was a transformative experience, one of the peak experiences of their lives, but it took a toll. There was considerable soul-searching about how feminists dealt with conflict in the aftermath of the conference. Toni Carabillo, in the post-conference issue of the national NOW newsletter, shared her thoughts on feminist ethics. She held feminists to high standards: “I know that to be genuinely feminist and committed to sisterhood, I cannot harbor or practice racism, ageism, or sexism, that sisterhood must encompass the old as well as the young, and that one can and must be sisterly to a feminist brother.” She advocated the values of participatory democracy, associated with the New Left and Women’s Liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which largely disappeared when those movements imploded (in the case of the New Left) or lost some of their social movement fervor (in the case of the feminist movement). Carabillo pledged to “never sacrifice principles of participatory democracy to the false idol of organizational efficiency.”71<br />
<br />At a time when women were beginning to get jobs in feminist service and advocacy organizations or were building careers (e.g., in journalism, politics) as a result of their involvement in organized feminism, there were increasing possibilities for conflict of interest. Carabillo noted:<br />
<blockquote>While my participation in a feminist action organization, particularly as a leader, may provide some financial rewards, I must be wary of becoming dependent on the organization and my position in it as a source of support or as a platform for professional advancement, knowing I may run the risk of confusing my personal needs or ambitions with the political necessities of our cause.72</blockquote>
<br />Carabillo’s delineation of a “Feminist Ethic” is informed by her belief in women’s different values and different voice, which characterized much feminist thought in the 1970s and 1980s, a strand usually associated with Carol Gilligan among others.73 Carabillo argued that “cooperation and collaboration—not competition or authoritarianism—are the feminist approach.”74 It’s not clear to what extent NOW’s membership as a whole was grappling with the issues Carabillo addressed, but it is clear that members were learning, as Karen Knudsen did in the aftermath of the 1974 national conference: “feminist politics aren’t much different than any other politics. They are intense, heated, stimulating, and sometimes unfair and cruel.”75<br />
<br /><b>The perceived threat of the Socialist Workers Party</b><br />
<br />Although national NOW eventually emerged from the 1975 conference stronger despite the battle scars, this was not the case with Philadelphia NOW. In 1977, a combination of exhaustion, volunteer burnout, and personal and political tensions threatened the existence of the Philadelphia chapter. Finally, the entrance of members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) into the chapter was a source of tension, and according to some veteran members, the primary cause of the near-dissolution of the chapter in 1977.<br />
<br />Socialist Workers Party members were not the only new members with an anti-capitalist analysis who joined NOW in the mid-1970s. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, critiques of capitalism were absent from NOW publications—the focus was very much on integrating women into existing socio-economic structures. The entrance of new members in the mid and late 1970s, many of whom were abandoning the then disintegrating New Left, led to an increasing number of NOW members questioning the US economic system. In <i>Electric Circle</i>, a series of articles called for redistributive measures such as a full-employment policy and massive public works programs concentrated in human services. The series began with a call to action: “If poverty is to be eliminated, the economic class structure must be eliminated.”77<br />
<br />The big tent of NOW could accommodate the perspectives of left feminists who questioned the compatibility of feminism and capitalism. What it would not accommodate was the attempt of a highly disciplined left-wing organization like the Socialist Workers Party to take over NOW. In the mid-to-late 1970s, the Socialist Workers Party attempted to infiltrate NOW on the national and local levels. Political scientist Jo Freeman documents that the SWP and its youth movement, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), had deliberately targeted the feminist movement as early as the late 1960s. Freeman quotes a 1970 YSA publication, which concludes: “the movement for women’s liberation represents an historic opportunity for the revolutionary socialist movement …The openness of the women involved in the movement, and the anti-capitalist thrust of the movement as a whole, offer excellent opportunities to the YSA to win the best of these women to revolutionary socialism and to the YSA.”79 The YSA may have over-estimated the anti-capitalist thrust of the feminist movement, but it was certainly correct about its openness.<br />
<br />NOW leaders feared that the openness of which they were justly proud would provide an opportunity for SWP infiltration, and they issued repeated warnings to members. An article in the October 1978 California NOW Times, “SWP in NOW: The Persistent Parasites,” alerts NOW members to an “insidious invasion into our organization,” and warns that the Socialist Workers Party will be attending the 1978 NOW National Conference in Washington “in full force with their usual hidden agendas, and a bag full of gratuitous resolutions—fashioned in SWP meetings, by SWP leaders—to accomplish SWP purposes, not NOW’s.” The California NOW Times asserted: “Most activists in NOW are feminists first and foremost and only incidentally Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, or whatever. This is not true of members of SWP when they join other organizations. Their primary allegiance remains to SWP.” Interestingly, the 1978 California NOW Times article refers to the 1966 NOW “Statement of Purpose” “to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society,” rather than the radical 1975 statement, “out of the mainstream, into the revolution.”80 The 1975 slogan gradually disappeared from the literature of national NOW. NOW’s focus was increasingly on passage of the ERA; the 1975 slogan would not have helped build broad-based support necessary for its passage.<br />
<br />California NOW’s prediction of a significant Socialist Workers Party presence at the 1978 National NOW Conference proved to be accurate. NOW members were aware of the dangers of over-reacting to the SWP and compromising their democratic beliefs in an attempt to squelch the perceived SWP threat. Yet they could not simply ignore SWP attempts to take over NOW chapters. They noted that when large numbers of SWP members joined a NOW chapter, that chapter tended to become embroiled in internal conflict and as a consequence declined in numbers and activity—a pattern that had been reported in all regions of NOW. The members at the 1978 conference passed the following resolution in an attempt to balance democratic values with the need to protect the integrity and independence of the organization: “WHEREAS, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has always been an independent feminist organization … THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that no political party be allowed to use NOW or any subunit of NOW as a vehicle to further its political goals.81<br />
<br />The tension between SWP and NOW chapters played out differently in different parts of the country. In Philadelphia, the situation was complicated by personal tensions and volunteer burnout. According to founding member Judy Foley: “Near disintegration of the ten-year-old chapter in December 1977 was a sobering reminder of the fragility of a purely volunteer organization.” She noted that membership had fallen and attendance at regular monthly meetings was minimal. SWP members who had been a vocal minority in the organization saw an opportunity to take over Philadelphia NOW. However, according to Foley, long-time NOW members mobilized to save the chapter.82 The response of founding members to the threatened demise of the chapter was a testament to their deep loyalty to the organization. However, in the Philadelphia case it is impossible to disentangle tension created by SWP influence from conflicts of a more personal nature.<br />
<br />The problems came to a head in the fall of 1977, leading to a split in the chapter leadership. There were several newspaper reports on the split, which is evidence that NOW was considered an organization with significant influence. (It is inconceivable that disagreements within a local NOW chapter would get press coverage today.) Marci Shatzman in the <i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i> reported that Philadelphia NOW was in disarray due to the resignations of eight of its nine officers and the closing of its office. Shatzman quotes resigning officer Kay Whitlock, who claimed that the root of the problem was the increasing SWP presence at chapter meetings: “At almost every meeting there were hideously long debates over mass action.”83 Shatzman reported that the one officer who did not resign, SWP member Clare Fraenzl, denied that the SWP presence was the cause of the split and said she would ask those who resigned to reconsider their decision. The eight were not interested in returning and applied to national NOW for a charter to form a new chapter in Philadelphia.<br />
<br />NOW president Eleanor Smeal approved the appointment of an interim steering committee chaired by Karen Knudsen to govern Philadelphia NOW until elections for new officers could be held.Knudsen thought that splitting into two chapters would only exacerbate the chapter’s financial difficulties, and she invited the former chapter officers to return: “Whatever the reason for their disaffection, we urge them to put the unity of the movement ahead of petty disagreements … . We will welcome back those who made a hasty and ill-considered decision to resign.”84 The tone of Knudsen’s overture with its reference to the resignations as a “hasty and ill-considered decision” suggests the statement was intended more as a reproach than as an olive branch. Knudsen charged that the chapter had outstanding bills and that the financial records were not in good order. Also, she reported that the newsletter had not been mailed regularly, phone calls went unanswered, mail was not picked up, and member participation was at an all-time low.<br />
<br />Press reports detailing the ensuing charges and countercharges continued to frame the split as a dispute over the SWP role in Philadelphia NOW. The local press for the most part tried hard to be even-handed, with the Philadelphia Bulletin printing a letter from each side under the heading: “Despite tensions, NOW is alive and well!”85 Longtime NOW member Judy Foley faulted the press for what she considered an exaggerated emphasis on the SWP. In her article “Sexism and the System: 19 Nonsensical Days in December,” Foley contended that only Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Sue Chastain told the full story by stating that the resignations followed months of conflict, that the former president acknowledged being overworked, that membership was shrinking, and that there were only seven SWP members among the 200 members of Philadelphia NOW. Foley saw the real story as: “feminists who try to maintain a big organization, homes, jobs and sanity eventually get tired.”86 In an interview thirty years later, Judy Foley’s analysis was unchanged. She recalled the emphasis on an SWP takeover as overblown and not the root cause of the problem, which she identified as volunteer burnout.87<br />
<br />Whatever the reasons for the near-dissolution of Philadelphia NOW, the founding members rallied to save their chapter. Newly elected secretary Irene Osborne reported that the December 19 meeting to elect new officers drew about a hundred people, many of them former members returning. According to Osborne, “The atmosphere was one of quiet celebration, of homecoming, of old friends glad to be back.”88 The election of new officers received a generally positive spin in the local press. From Marci Shatzman’s report in the <i>Philadelphia Bulletin:</i> “There was a collective ‘high’ at the meeting which produced a reunion of the faithful …Most of the women who brought feminism to Philadelphia a decade ago were there.”89<br />
<br />National president Eleanor Smeal attended the meeting and noted that chapters in large cities often experienced difficulties due to an influx of new members.89 The support Smeal provided to the chapter illustrates the advantage of being a part of a national organization. If a chapter becomes non-functional for a period of time, the organization continues to exist on the national level; thus it is relatively easy to revive the local affiliate. When small, unaffiliated organizations cease functioning they are far less likely to rebound. This was the case with many of the Women’s Liberation collectives, which consisted largely of unaffiliated groups, without any national organization that could mediate disputes.<br />
<br />Although the Socialist Workers Party had faded from the scene in Philadelphia NOW after the 1977 chapter election, it continued to be a source of concern on the national level. NOW publications focused on the disruptive tactics of the SWP but not on the ideological challenges. From its earliest days NOW had claimed that feminists of all political persuasions could find a home in NOW and that the movement for gender equality transcended political ideology. Socialist feminists who entered NOW in the mid-1970s challenged the idea that feminist beliefs trumped all political ideology. Claire Fraenzl in a letter to the <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i> stated: “Many feminists, in their experiences in fighting for the rights of women, come to see the capitalist system as the source of their oppression and become convinced of the need for fundamental change in all social relations.”92 Fraenzl presented no evidence supporting her claim that a “significant” number of women in NOW shared this view. The literature suggests that her views were a minority opinion within NOW, but there were certainly NOW members and members of the broad feminist movement who questioned whether gender equality could be achieved under capitalism.<br />
<br />Some NOW members would argue that feminist goals were not incompatible with all forms of capitalism, but that the US model of low tax, largely unregulated capitalism could not provide the supports needed by working women and their families. They looked to the hybrid economies of the social democratic countries of Northwestern Europe for policies that would advance gender equality. However, direct arguments in favor of social democracy (or socialism) were rarely made in official NOW publications and were probably viewed as unhelpful in the struggle to build support for the ERA. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the backlash against the utopian visions of the 1960s and early 1970s was in full force and the left-wing groups of those decades disappeared or were greatly diminished in numbers. The political center of gravity had shifted dramatically to the right and there was no longer any reason to fear disruption from the SWP.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-22622496057514747182022-03-26T14:20:00.000-04:002022-03-26T14:20:50.945-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I: Building the feminist movement, Chapter 2, Victories in education and employment opportunities<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8F9SJ_08UxV8EtTCXDfnZA1ly_unrirnH3BFi9k1M_CNxFYfJhfrhLP5EHpSeL5OSNF8Me83jxz26qEa79QlZzDcjrVaksCtmpjGg4Im_Tm8d1IiBEtWkJ_kDksLUDBEpAgONwp2BHhjiEyW6H5c3hrjs_U6A4Iztp9M8Ok03UgbCxD3ybYaOHMeP_w/s720/Penelope%20brace.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="720" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8F9SJ_08UxV8EtTCXDfnZA1ly_unrirnH3BFi9k1M_CNxFYfJhfrhLP5EHpSeL5OSNF8Me83jxz26qEa79QlZzDcjrVaksCtmpjGg4Im_Tm8d1IiBEtWkJ_kDksLUDBEpAgONwp2BHhjiEyW6H5c3hrjs_U6A4Iztp9M8Ok03UgbCxD3ybYaOHMeP_w/s400/Penelope%20brace.jpg"/></a></div>Penelope Brace, the first woman detective in the Philadelphia police department.<br />
<br />Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act, for which NOW had aggressively lobbied, had placed a powerful tool in feminist hands. Any educational program receiving federal financial assistance could not discriminate with regard to sex; athletics programs quickly became a major focus of feminist efforts to provide equal educational opportunities for girls. Also, Billy Jean King’s trouncing Bobby Riggs certainly provided inspiration and much-needed publicity for women’s sports. NOW was not fighting for “separate but equal” athletics programs but rather for integrated gym and extracurricular sports activity. In a lengthy article in the Pennsylvania NOW Times Beverly Jones explained the rationale for NOW’s position on integrated sports activity:<br />
<blockquote>One, we are interested in equality of opportunity not just to participate but to excel. And history has shown that when those who are under-privileged and discriminated against are shunted off into separate programs, the opportunity for any of their number to excel in the total community is ephemeral indeed.16</blockquote>
<br />Jones contended that there was no evidence that in a fair, integrated athletic program girls and women would be unable to hold their own. In 1974 most people (including some feminists) were not ready for Jones’ vision. From the perspective of the 21st century, with women soldiers courageously serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jones’ ideas seem far less radical.<br />
<br />On March 19, 1975, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 5 to 1 that the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) rule prohibiting girls from competing against boys in interscholastic athletics was unconstitutional. The majority decision, written by Judge Genevieve Blatt, rejected PIAA’s contention that, as a whole, girls are weaker and more injury-prone. NOW members were well aware that progress was not just a matter of changing laws. NOW itself was founded because of frustration with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s unwillingness to enforce existing laws against sex discrimination. In her analysis of PIAA’s decision to comply with the Commonwealth Court ruling, Philadelphia NOW member Carol Kranick concluded with a warning that the struggle had just begun:<br />
<blockquote>For those who feel that once you win the legal battle, the war is over, they need only to look at the abortion scene. We won the Supreme Court decision. But we are still in the battle of improving the climate so that decisions can be, in fact, the law of the land.</blockquote>
<br />Kranick noted that in sports, as in the battle for abortion rights, feminists have eliminated the legal barriers: “The legal victory placed us in the position of being able to fight the next barrier and we are much closer, much sooner than any of us dreamed to the goal of total equality—at least in sport."21<br />
<br />NOW used a variety of tactics, lobbying, rallying, demonstrating,and when all else failed, resorting to legal action. Philadelphia NOW found it necessary to take legal action to win one of its major victories over the Philadelphia School Disrict—-the protracted struggle to integrate Central High School, the once male-only school for the academically talented. In 1974, Susan Lynn Vorchheimer, an honors student and winner of multiple awards, decided she wanted to attend Central High School because “it had a better reputation than Philadelphia High School for Girls, the other academic high school in the City.”23 Although her academic qualifications were undisputed, Vorchheimer’s application was rejected. Her parents sued the School District and the court ruled in Vorcheimer’s favor. The Philadelphia Board of Education successfully appealed the decision, and Vorchheimer returned to her neighborhood school. The appellate court claimed that gender had never been a suspect classification, requiring the level of scrutiny required for claims of racial discrimination. The suit eventually made its way to the US Supreme Court which in 1977 issued a four-to-four decision allowing the appellate court ruling to stand.<br />
<br />The situation was not resolved until 1983, when Common Pleas Court Judge William M. Marutani ordered the Philadelphia School District to admit six girls to Central High School. Marutani’s ruling stated that Central’s facilities were “materially superior” to those at Girls High, and that the “educational opportunities are materially unequal”; therefore, the district’s policy violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution and the Equal Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution.27 The desegregation of Central High received national attention; the <i>New York Times </i>reported:<br />
<blockquote>The girls who walked up the steps at about 8 A.M. today to break the tradition appeared self-contained and pleased. “I’m excited, but nervous,” said Karen Seif. Elizabeth Newberg, the young woman who a year ago persuaded two friends to join her in instituting the suit, proclaimed. “I’m here. I feel fine.” Miss Newberg said she planned to start a women’s organization at Central but would not exclude males.28</blockquote>
<br />Despite continuing opposition from Central alumni, the School District bowed to the pressure of public opinion and did not pursue appeals. By the time of the final victory in 1983, NOW was one of many organizations supporting the end of gender segregation. The tide of public opinion had turned, with the local establishment generally in support of integrating Central High. A <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i> editorial stated: “Thus it is understandable, but no longer defensible, that the two schools have continued to maintain single-sex enrollments despite changing laws and customs.”29 Very quickly the enrollment of girls at Central, once unthinkable to some alumni and local power brokers, became the new normal. Sometimes NOW’s victories were swift and decisive (e.g., the desegregation of Help Wanted ads), at other times long and protracted (e.g., the nine-year battle to integrate Central High), but the trajectory of NOW in the 1970s was victory after victory.<br />
<br />NOW has sometimes been characterized as a middle-class women’s organization primarily concerned with expanding opportunities for relatively privileged women and girls. However, a major priority for NOW in the middle 1970s was the struggle to desegregate what were for women “non-traditional jobs”—well-paid blue-collar jobs traditionally held by men. Given the dramatic changes in our society, it is easy to forget what a radical notion it was to demand that police and fire departments and construction sites be open to women. According to historian Nancy MacLean, when civil rights groups fought to open jobs to African-American women, they targeted white women’s jobs rather than the relatively well-paid jobs held by white men. Female union activists focused on improving conditions and pay in the jobs women already held. MacLean quotes one labor activist: “We never questioned it when they posted female and male jobs…we didn’t realize it was discrimination … .”30 It took the conceptual breakthrough of the feminist movement to build labor union support for opening up traditionally male jobs to women.<br />
<br />National NOW’s ground-breaking campaign against AT&T in the case of Lorena Weeks vs. Southern Bell Telephone established the principle that an employer could not automatically assume physically demanding jobs could be performed only by men, but must consider the qualifications of individual applicants without regard to sex. The beneficiaries of this decision were largely working-class women. In 1966, Lorena Weeks, who had worked as a telephone operator for Southern Bell, applied for a better paying job as a “switchman” and was told this job could be performed only by a man. Weeks sued in Federal Court, but the US District Court ruled against her because the job involved “strenuous activity” such as lifting 31-pound equipment, a violation of a Georgia regulation prohibiting women employees from lifting weights in excess of 30 pounds. When Weeks’ court-appointed lawyer refused to file an appeal, she contacted NOW, whose attorneys took the case. NOW attorney Sylvia Roberts, “a little smaller than the average woman casually lifted all of the equipment required for the job,” thus demolishing the “strenuous activity” argument.31<br />
<br />On March 4, 1969 the Fifth United States Circuit Court ruled that sex was not a bona fide qualification for the job; thus, Southern Bell was in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred sex discrimination in employment. From the decision as quoted in NOW Acts: “Men have always had the right to determine whether the incremental increase in remuneration for strenuous, dangerous, obnoxious or unromantic tasks is worth the candle. The promise of Title VII is that women are now on equal footing.” The Court told Southern Bell it must consider Weeks for the job, and sent the case back to the lower court for “determination and appropriate relief.” NOW Acts reported: “Appropriate relief” came March 4, 1971, when Weeks was appointed to a switchman’s job, but then subjected to harassment on the job: “A Supervisor in her area told workers to treat her “just like any nigger” and co-workers took to calling her “switch bitch.” Her union, Communication Workers of America, condemned the use of “nigger” but dismissed “switch bitch” as “humorous office camaraderie.” In response to this harassment, on March 29, 1971, NOW members staged a nation-wide demonstration in 15 cities; among the picket signs was “Switch Bitch is Beautiful.” As a consequence of the media attention, Southern Bell took measures to protect Weeks from harassment.32 <br />
<br />The major effort in Philadelphia NOW’s campaign to open non-traditional jobs to women was its strong, sustained support for NOW member Penelope Brace’s battle against discrimination in the Philadelphia Police Department. Brace had been a police officer in the Juvenile Aid Division for nine years when she decided she wanted to become a detective—a more challenging, better-paid position. She was told she wasn’t qualified to take the exam because she was a woman. She filed suit against the department; three days later she was fired. According to NOW member Lillian Ciarrochi, “The reason given was that she had not logged her coffee breaks!”33 The City Civil Service Commission ordered Brace reinstated three months later but, as Ciarrochi reported: “The harassment was just beginning. She was ordered to take psychiatric examinations, assigned to the district farthest from her home and received anonymous threats that her house would be fire-bombed.”34<br />
<br />Ciarrochi described how NOW supported Brace and encouraged her to file a lawsuit. The United States Justice Department also filed a lawsuit against the Philadelphia Police Department and withheld $4 million of federal funds because of its treatment of Brace. The Philadelphia Police Department appeared not to realize that the world had changed, and in federal court it “admitted to discrimination because, they said, women are constitutionally, emotionally, and psychologically unable to do the job.”36<br />
<br />On March 7, 1976, the City of Philadelphia and the US Justice Department entered into agreement in the Penelope Brace case. Under the terms of that settlement, the Police Department would hire a hundred women for street patrol duty and conduct a two-year study of the women’s performance. When a hundred new female police officers entered the Police Academy in June 1976, the Police Department did everything imaginable to discourage the new recruits. According to a <i>Philadelphia Daily News</i> article written on the 20th anniversary of 1976 agreement:<br />
<blockquote>The women were to chop their hair off into what was called a “butch” cut. They were given men’s uniforms and shoes, and were told to wear T-shirts under their dress shirts so no trace of a bra showed. Finally, they were assigned to the six police districts with the highest crime rates in the city. And when they arrived at those districts, they were sent out on patrol alone, without the benefit of a breaking-in period with an experienced officer that all of the male cops enjoyed.37</blockquote>
<br />Ironically, despite placing women officers in dangerous conditions, Police Commissioner O’Neill claimed that his reason for opposing women on the force was concern for their safety. In a 1996 interview with the then retired O’Neill, he still claimed to be motivated by concern for the women officers’ well-being: “I’m still very much concerned about their personal safety. Every time I see them roaming around alone, I express concern.”38<br />
<br />In 1978, under an order from US District Judge Charles Weiner, Brace became the city’s first woman detective. However, real change would come only with a change in top command. As late as 1978 in response to a federal attorney’s question why women were not assigned to patrol duty, O’Neill replied:<br />
<blockquote>Because God in his infinite wisdom made them different … . In general they are weaker than males. I believe they would be inclined to let their emotions overtake their good judgment. I don’t mean to embarrass the ladies but there are periods in their life when they are psychologically unbalanced because of physical problems occurring within them.39</blockquote>
<br />It was not until O’Neill retired in 1980 and Morton Solomon took over as police commissioner that the six-year lawsuit between the federal government and the Philadelphia Police Department was finally settled. Women were given the opportunity to work throughout the department, and Commissioner Solomon ended the petty cruelty of forcing women to wear uniforms designed for male officers, ordering that uniforms designed specifically for the female body be made available to women officers. The agreement also called for the city to pay $700,000 in back pay to be divided among the victims of sexual discrimination and committed the department to a 30 percent hiring goal for female police officers. Given what Brace and other female police officers endured, the financial settlement was woefully inadequate, but Brace and other victims had reached the end of the legal road. Brace said she would do it all again: “Looking back … if I had to do it again, I would file the suit, but I would have done it sooner.”40<br />
<br />As a result of her lawsuit, An important principle had been established, but the Police Department was very far from gender parity. Slow but steady progress occurred throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. In a 1996 interview with the Philadelphia Daily News, Brace urged other women police officers to continue the struggle: “I’m sure there are many qualified women … . I would urge them to file suit. It takes a revolution. You can’t change the Joe O’Neill’s of this world so you have to take them to court. It’s an old boys’ network that has to be stopped.”42<br />
<br />The ugly treatment of women aspiring to non-traditional jobs was not confined to the Philadelphia Police Department, but occurred in police and fire departments around the country. In her account of the resistance encountered by New York City fire fighter Brenda Berkman, Nancy MacLean stated: “What Berkman and her colleagues encountered when they crossed those once-undisputed gender boundaries was not simply reasoned, judicious skepticism from people who doubted the capacity of the new-comers to do the job. Repeatedly what they met was elemental anger that they would even dare to try.”43<br />
<br />The progress made in the Police Department would not have been possible without courageous women like Penelope Brace and without a feminist support network, which encouraged Brace to file her suit and supported her struggle. Both Brace and her allies in NOW saw her case as part of a much larger battle against employment discrimination—one played out on national, state, and local levels. With its federated structure, NOW was well positioned to mobilize politically to pressure politicians and judges, whether appointed by politicians or elected by voters.<br />
<br />By 1975, the feminist movement in general and NOW in particular had much to be proud of: the Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing the right to abortion and ending gender segregation in classified ads; the landmark settlement with AT&T; and Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act, which expanded athletic opportunities for women, to cite a few of the most dramatic victories. Major social institutions were undergoing rapid changes, which only a few years earlier would have struck many citizens as unthinkable. NOW activists themselves were dazzled by the speed and extent of the changes the feminist movement had wrought. Very few women’s lives were untouched.<br />
<br />NOW members were poised for still greater victories and confident that they would achieve passage of the ERA by the end of the decade. But the strains of building a movement on volunteer energy alone were increasingly apparent.There were clearly too few people doing too much work. In the early 1970s, the president may have been suffering from exhaustion, but there was always a new energized leader ready to take her place. By the mid-1970s, at a time when Philadelphia could justly savor its victories, burnout and exhaustion were spreading throughout the organization.<br />
<br />Not only were there many more phone calls for the volunteer staff to respond to, new members brought new ideas about the direction and focus of NOW. Throughout 1975, the national organization was roiled by major disagreements about the direction of NOW, culminating in the bitterly fought election at the national NOW convention in Philadelphia in October 1975. The following year, deep divisions were to emerge in the Philadelphia chapter as well. In many ways the conflicts were the inevitable by-product of NOW’s success—its dramatic growth and increasing ideological diversity.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-70240970345964072642022-03-25T12:27:00.002-04:002022-03-25T12:50:24.092-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I: Building the feminist movement, Chapter 2, Building a Structure for the Long Haul<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpSyN0xMqcgjSCd_JuhpJAJeOj3I3o-0oGW1QpiNECDQX61IjPBA8Zt-sfdidurvlk5Aa1YWLFuzQOc2GXOHzD4Nufi4sNvhxwEGBJRDgy7pVx8I3zsM04YxAdfXDE9rJD0WY-WEc_0j7-kdF9QBCSEVNSglheIbJ76qkGib1rHzaZnIl2Lh-pVLfvZw/s400/Eleanor%20Smeal.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="363" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpSyN0xMqcgjSCd_JuhpJAJeOj3I3o-0oGW1QpiNECDQX61IjPBA8Zt-sfdidurvlk5Aa1YWLFuzQOc2GXOHzD4Nufi4sNvhxwEGBJRDgy7pVx8I3zsM04YxAdfXDE9rJD0WY-WEc_0j7-kdF9QBCSEVNSglheIbJ76qkGib1rHzaZnIl2Lh-pVLfvZw/s400/Eleanor%20Smeal.jpeg"/></a></div>Eleanor Smeal, past president of National NOW and architect of NOW's federated structure<br />
<br />Although social movements include a range of organizations, they are generally powered by a handful of strong organizations, with NOW considered the engine behind the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. At the same time as NOW was fighting for gender justice in the media, educational institutions, and employment, it was also focused on building an organizational structure for the long haul. Many of the victories of the early and mid-1970s would not have been possible without this attention to structure, which spurred membership growth and laid the groundwork for future victories. It is surely a major reason NOW is one of the few organizations to emerge from second-wave feminism still standing.<br />
<br />The women who built NOW in the early years had considerable experience in building and running organizations. Many of the women on the national level were likely to have worked in national progressive organizations, including labor unions and professional associations. Local leaders were likely to have been involved in neighborhood civic organizations and local affiliates of professional organizations. Thus, NOW’s early leaders were comfortable with hierarchical structure, elaborate bylaws and officers elected by well-defined procedures, in sharp contrast to those who identified with the Women’s Liberation Movement, which was amorphous, non-hierarchical, and generally without an elected leadership. Many histories of second-wave feminism have viewed NOW’s emphasis on structure as evidence of its conservative bent in contrast to the revolutionary potential of the supposedly more radical Women’s Liberation Movement. Many NOW members, on the other hand, saw themselves as the real radicals, using mainstream tactics to achieve radical goals.<br />
<br />Nationally, NOW’s focus on structure reflected the leadership of brilliant strategic thinkers such as Eleanor Smeal, who realized the importance of developing organizations which could accommodate NOW’s dramatic growth. NOW’s development of hierarchical structures may have made the organization less attractive to younger feminists in the late 1960s and 1970s, but it enabled the organization to operate effectively in the political arena and navigate the increasingly bitter divisions and disagreements within the feminist movement. The ease with which NOW members could set up local affiliates provided a vehicle for managing internal conflicts without rupturing the organization—especially important for a volunteer-dependent organization, particularly vulnerable to disintegration due to internal tensions.<br />
<br />Creating a national organization with state and local affiliates was an enormous challenge, and the basic structure evolved over roughly a ten-year period. Betty Friedan, NOW’s charismatic founder, was not all that interested or skilled in grassroots organizing. However, many NOW activists were very much concerned with building local affiliates. The time and careful thought they devoted to creating this network of grassroots organizations provide at least part of the explanation as to why NOW survived while so many other organizations had their brief moment in the sun and then disappeared.<br />
<br />NOW was creating a structure to accommodate growth and adopted a “Statement of Purpose” Carabillo considered “almost elastic enough to encompass the enlarged agenda of women’s issues that emerged in the next ten years.” The mission statement provided room for NOW to expand its agenda and recognized that “women’s problems are linked to many broader questions of social justice.”3 <br />
<br />Considerable thought was given to managing NOW’s growth and integrating the various levels of NOW (local, state, regional, and national) to create an organization with effective channels of communication between the national organization and its affiliates.<br />
<br />The rationale for creating a federated organization was developed in 1973 by Pennsylvania NOW member Beverly Jones who distinguished between issues that must be addressed at national level and those more suited to state level, arguing that changes in society’s basic institutions can be made only at the national level: “If we are ever to get decent full-day nursery schools in this country for all parents who need or want them, the federal government must of necessity supply the funds and the legislation.”5 Jones argued that state-level organization is essential, as much of what is agreed to at the national level must be implemented by the states; she cited the ERA (which must be ratified by the states) as an example of the critical importance of state-level organization. Jones also understood that emotional sustenance and personal bonds usually could be created only on the local level.<br />
<br />According to Jones, feminist organizations acting independently of each other cannot advance the feminist cause: “Non-coordinated activity can and will squander women’s time, money, and energy for little purpose.” She believed that women needed one democratic, feminist organization, and contended that only NOW was up to the job. She noted that NOW was the first organization to form in the second-wave feminist movement and that “it predated even the first of the woman’s liberation groups, which rose in a different constituency and developed a sort of loose parallel formation starting in the late 1960s.” Jones linked the woman’s liberation movement’s distrust of NOW’s formal structure with broader generational tensions. She believed that a younger generation of women influenced by the New Left’s distrust of centralization was abandoning the opportunity to change institutions: “[They] want to talk about changing their life style rather than changing institutionalized sexism, [and] in the name of democracy repudiate structure and rule in little cliques.” Jones’ argument had a somewhat defensive tone, no doubt reflecting the criticisms of NOW coming from younger members of the feminist movement.<br />
<br />Like Jo Freeman, who also analyzed the dangers of “structurelessness” in social movements,6 Jones argued that if leadership emerges without some electoral process, it cannot be easily dislodged; there are no orderly processes for resolving conflicts. The document reads as though Jones was struggling to suppress her own intense irritation with feminists who reject formal structures. The anger breaks through loud and clear in the final pages:<br />
<blockquote>That organized oppression can be fought by unorganized opposition is almost too silly a statement to comment on … unaffiliated women often feel they are making individual progress of a feminist sort struggling alone in the home and on the job. And they think of this over-all struggle of the unaffiliated as unorganized opposition. However, if there were no organized groups bringing lawsuits, lobbying, marching, conducting boycotts, and otherwise making headway and headlines, unaffiliated women would have precious little leverage to apply in individual struggle.
</blockquote>
<br />There’s no evidence as to how widely Jones’ analysis was read or may have influenced the younger women drawn to the unstructured organizations Jones attacks. No doubt, some would have been alienated by the somewhat hectoring tone rather than impressed by the strength of Jones’ arguments.<br />
<br />It is undeniable that NOW’s focus on structure was one of its great strengths and was generally acknowledged as one of its defining characteristics. Like many advocacy organizations, NOW at times conveyed the impression that it was the sole force behind legislative victories and changes in government regulations. In the area of employment discrimination, NOW can certainly claim that it played the leading role. NOW was also a major (but certainly not the only) force in combating sexism in educational institutions. NOW acknowledged it shared the credit, noting it had “substantially aided the passage of amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1972 which include … prohibitions against sex discrimination in any educational program or activity receiving federal funding.”<br />
<br />Not all the accomplishments NOW cited in the 1972 press release were tied to specific pieces of legislation or changes in government regulations. Some were in the more nebulous category of changing hearts and minds, such as, “raising the consciousness of the country to the stereotyped images of women pervasive in the media and in advertising.” NOW was clearly not alone in this effort; however, NOW focused not only on changing consciousness but also on changing the rules of the game.<br />
<br />NOW would not have been as effective had it not been for the many local chapters across the country working to advance national policies. Among the national NOW objectives most vigorously pursued by Philadelphia NOW was the desegregation of classified ads in local newspapers. When the United States Supreme Court ruled sex-segregated want ads unconstitutional on June 21, 1973, Philadelphia NOW pressured major daily newspapers to comply with the court decision immediately. Philadelphia NOW’s public relations officer Judy Foley wrote letters to the local newspapers urging speedy compliance. The responses to her letters indicated the newspapers were less than enthusiastic about the change.<br />
<br />With the same message coming from both national NOW and local chapters, NOW’s message was amplified and the pressure intensified. the major daily newspapers capitulated and announced they would end their sex-segregated reporting as of August 29, 1973. Philadelphia NOW cautioned:
"Let none of us think the battle stops there... Some persistent monitoring can help see to it that this does not become a means of subtly evading the spirit of the ruling."<br />
<br />Given that the Supreme Court ruling was a 5–4 decision with liberal icon William O. Douglas among the four dissenters, NOW members had reason to fear attempts to undermine the ruling. Douglas framed his dissenting opinion in terms of freedom of speech, asserting: “I believe that commercial materials also have First Amendment protection … there can be no valid law censoring the Press.” It is inconceivable that the Supreme Court in 1973 would let stand separate classified ads for whites and Blacks on first amendment grounds. The dissenting justices’ justification of gender-segregated ads as protected by the first amendment speaks volumes about the depth and pervasiveness of sexism in the early 1970s.<br />
<br />Although NOW was generally acknowledged as the major feminist organization fighting sexism in the media and discrimination in employment, in the struggle to eliminate sexism in education other organizations played key roles (for example, the American Association of University Women, the National Education Association, and numerous women’s caucuses in teachers unions and professional organizations). It appeared that just about every woman (and some men) involved in education awoke at the same time to the pervasive sexism in schools. In the mid-1970s national NOW made combating sexism in schools a top priority, focusing on advocacy for Women’s Studies programs in high schools and colleges and for expansion of athletic opportunities for girls. NOW chapters across the country took up the crusade; the Philadelphia chapter was especially active, no doubt because of the many educators among its activist core. NOW’s federated structure was well suited to wage the battle to eliminate sexism in education as educational policy was made on national, state, and local levels, providing NOW activists with the opportunity to coordinate strategy on all three levels of government.<br />
<br />Although NOW was generally acknowledged as the major feminist organization fighting sexism in the media and discrimination in employment, in the struggle to eliminate sexism in education other organizations played key roles (for example, the American Association of University Women, the National Education Association, and numerous women’s caucuses in teachers unions and professional organizations). It appeared that just about every woman (and some men) involved in education awoke at the same time to the pervasive sexism in schools. In the mid-1970s national NOW made combating sexism in schools a top priority, focusing on advocacy for Women’s Studies programs in high schools and colleges and for expansion of athletic opportunities for girls. NOW chapters across the country took up the crusade; the Philadelphia chapter was especially active, no doubt because of the many educators among its activist core. NOW’s federated structure was well suited to wage the battle to eliminate sexism in education as educational policy was made on national, state, and local levels, providing NOW activists with the opportunity to coordinate strategy on all three levels of government.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-38030419950451763402022-03-22T12:40:00.001-04:002022-03-22T12:40:30.773-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I, Building the feminist movement: Chapter 1 Philadelphia NOW: The first NOW chapter to elect an open lesbian as president<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6nfrS1msXTs3GX3QgkCW1SxqgoUThD8q33Vzw8fPviPZ63C1FqMxSv43wVktGW-D_Tj3ECp8acUm0CWs1MAqMMbJBUyQ6R1O9utHShuH2cKjP6zu_4y9a_XFzLrMA-Nj2kfHMEnbfKBquPvSe0lXjSKNdv7bNAFNEo4RMrvF0NSXmiUwKSCyLV_4FMg/s960/Jan%20Welsh.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="784" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6nfrS1msXTs3GX3QgkCW1SxqgoUThD8q33Vzw8fPviPZ63C1FqMxSv43wVktGW-D_Tj3ECp8acUm0CWs1MAqMMbJBUyQ6R1O9utHShuH2cKjP6zu_4y9a_XFzLrMA-Nj2kfHMEnbfKBquPvSe0lXjSKNdv7bNAFNEo4RMrvF0NSXmiUwKSCyLV_4FMg/s400/Jan%20Welsh.jpg"/></a></div>Jan Welsh distributing 1973 Barefoot and Pregnant Awards<br />
<br />Because of the class background and elite credentials of the first leaders of Philadelphia NOW, the organization was viewed as an establishment group in contrast to the apparently more radical Women’s Liberation Movement which was garnering media attention in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, the Women’s Liberation Movement was not more radical than NOW with regard to lesbian rights. Although there was certainly a pro-lesbian strand in the Women’s Liberation movement, there was also a homophobic strand. As Alice Echols in her influential study of radical feminism noted: “many radical feminists … were often skittish if not hostile toward lesbianism.” Echols cited the radical group Redstockings’ view of lesbianism as a movement “to replace feminism or eliminate it, or else … dilute it.<br />
<br />Although in the early 1970s some NOW chapters saw limiting visible lesbian participation as essential to building their chapter, Philadelphia NOW viewed outreach to the lesbian community as an opportunity for organization building, becoming the first NOW chapter to elect an open lesbian as chapter president. The election of Jan Welch, a 35-year-old horticulture therapist, on June 26, 1973 attracted considerable media attention. Nancy Greenberg’s feature-length article in the <i>Sunday Bulletin Magazine </i>described Welch’s response to her election:<br />
<blockquote>My being elected in June has done something for me. You can count the lesbians in this NOW chapter on one hand; yet, I didn’t get one negative letter or phone call. Two weeks before the election I publicly announced my homosexuality and everybody took it as strength of character. It gave me an incredible high—no one was talking about my sexuality, only my candor. I was noble all of a sudden.</blockquote>
<br />As with other lesbians in her age cohort, for Welch coming out was a painful experience. Her mother refused to accept that her daughter was a lesbian and wanted her to have female hormone treatments. Her father was more willing to accept the reality of her sexual orientation. According to Welch, “He believed I was a lesbian but thought life would just be easier for me if I could change.” To please her parents, she went to a psychotherapist who told her to “just go out and date a lot.” She went out with “straight guys and then with gay guys and then gay women.” Her father came to terms with her sexuality and she reported that when she told him she was coming out, “he said he was joyous.”<br />
<br />Jan Welch eventually found acceptance both within her family and, somewhat to her surprise, in Philadelphia NOW. Thanks to Betty Friedan’s much publicized reference to lesbians as the “Lavender Menace,” anti-lesbian feelings have been associated with NOW. These attitudes, however, were largely confined to Friedan. NOW’s second president Aileen Hernandez, who succeeded Friedan in 1970, and its third president, Wilma Scott Heide, who took office in 1971, were both strong supporters of lesbian rights. At the 1971 national NOW conference a resolution was passed acknowledging that it was time to speak out directly and forthrightly on lesbian rights. The 1971 resolution stated: “No other woman suffers more abuse and discrimination for the right to be her own person, than does the lesbian … the lesbian is doubly oppressed, both as a woman and as a homosexual.” A second resolution passed at the 1971 conference specifically addresses the rights of lesbian mothers.<br />
<br />Although Betty Friedan’s position on lesbians has been widely reported, the repudiation of Friedan by grassroots NOW members on local and regional levels has received less attention. Jean Buckalew reported in the <i>Philadelphia NOW Newsletter</i> that Friedan “received a rebuke from a large contingent of lesbians” at the 1972 NOW Eastern Regional Conference. Buckalew expressed the frustration shared by many NOW members: “How on earth Ms. Friedan can exclude one segment of the female population, i.e., lesbians, from the Women’s Movement is beyond a reasonable woman’s comprehension. Does she not know that lesbians are women? Really, Betty!” In 1973, the board of Philadelphia NOW passed a resolution of censure against Friedan. From the text of the resolution:<br />
<blockquote>Whereas: Betty Friedan, a NOW member nationally recognized by the media, implied in a March 4, 1973, article in the New York Times that lesbians were “man-haters” and sought to divide the women’s movement …
Be it Resolved: That the Philadelphia Chapter of the National Organization for Women calls on the National Board of Directors of NOW to censure Ms. Friedan for her statements, and to state, unequivocally that these statements do not represent the policy of the National Organization for Women.
</blockquote>
<br />Although NOW’s image among feminists was tarnished by its association with Friedan’s statements, the reality was that most grassroots NOW members rejected homophobia, and sought to distance themselves from Friedan.<br />
<br />Jan Welch felt quite comfortable running for chapter president in Philadelphia, but she was concerned about Friedan, who, although no longer president of national NOW, was still very much associated with NOW by the press and the general public. According to NOW activist Lillian Ciarrochi, Friedan tried to pressure Welch to withdraw her candidacy. Friedan called Welch and asked her to come to New York to meet with some prominent feminists. Ciarrochi described them as “the Park Avenue crowd, famous Broadway female actors, famous women writers … all very well-known and very wealthy.” Clearly, the aim was to intimidate Welch. As Ciarrochi recalled Jan’s description of the encounter:<br />
<blockquote>Jan went in to this big law firm and into this conference room with all of these women in silk dresses, and Betty was screaming and yelling at her saying she wanted her to withdraw from running for president of Philadelphia NOW because she thought it would hurt the movement and that people would be turned off. Jan could be whatever lifestyle she wanted but it shouldn’t be advertised.</blockquote>
<br />According to Ciarrochi, “Jan stood her ground and she said that she didn’t see why she had to lead a secret life. She didn’t want it to be an issue but she wanted it known because that’s who she was.” Friedan’s hardball tactics failed and Ciarrochi reported that by the time the meeting was over many of the women were “going over to [Jan] and hugging her, saying stick to your guns, you’re right.”<br />
Ciarrochi thought that Friedan was not personally homophobic but that she was motivated by fear that association with lesbianism would hurt the movement and deeply concerned that NOW be taken seriously as “a select committee of professional women.”77 It is difficult to disentangle anti-lesbian feeling from Friedan’s distaste for what she allegedly called “scruffy feminists.” From Roxanne Dunbar’s account of her joint appearance with Friedan on a New York television program:<br />
<blockquote>She began a verbal assault on me in the dressing room when I refused to have make-up applied, and she did not stop until the show was over. I was dressed in my very best army surplus white cotton sailor trousers and a white man’s shirt. She said that I and scruffy feminists like me were giving the movement a bad name.
</blockquote>
<br />Although concern about a respectable image may explain Friedan’s behavior more than homophobia, there is evidence that Friedan in the 1960s and early 1970s had some visceral antipathy towards homosexuals. Her biographer, Judith Hennessee, described her personal attitudes as “an uneasy jumble of contradictions,” and quoted passages in The Feminine Mystique that were clearly homophobic. According to Hennessee, Friedan “saw homosexuality ‘spreading like murky smog over the American scene’ and considered it ominous.”<br />
<br />Despite the tendency of the press to conflate Friedan’s views with NOW’s, by the early 1970s she was increasingly out of step with the organization she founded. However, Friedan’s attitudes clearly evolved and at the 1977 National Women’s Conference in Houston she made a famous speech repudiating her former opposition to lesbian rights. From Lillian Ciarrochi’s recollection of Friedan’s speech: “I sat about three feet away from Betty Friedan when she turned and there was a whole contingent of young gay women up in the balcony, carrying purple balloons. Betty was crying and said she was wrong and begged forgiveness from the women.”<br />
<br />When Jan Welch announced her candidacy for the presidency of Philadelphia NOW, she received strong support from Philadelphia NOW executive board members, and from founding member Ernesta Ballard and outgoing president Jean Ferson. Ferson recalled that Welch made sure everyone on the executive board knew about her sexual orientation:<br />
<blockquote>Jan wanted us to know this about her, and I remember the night she told us all and just wanted to be reassured. ‘Do you still want me to run for president knowing this about me?’ And we all said, ‘Absolutely. We think you’d be a good president. We want you.’ We were strongly behind her and that was that.</blockquote>
<br />Welch wanted to make sure the entire membership was aware of her sexual orientation, and wrote an open letter to the Philadelphia NOW membership setting forth her vision for the organization and affirming her sexuality: “So no one feels misled, before the election, let me state that I am a Lesbian … . I am able now to state publicly my sexual orientation because of the sisterly love and support I have received over the past year from many NOW members.” In the open letter, Welch also sought to reassure members that although she considered lesbianism a priority issue for NOW, she intended to work on additional priority issues, as her past history in NOW would indicate. She cited her service as chair of the Philadelphia Chapter’s Employment Task Force, and as NOW spokesperson in favor of the passage of the ERA. In a real shift in direction for Philadelphia NOW, Welch designated 1973 “NOW’s priority year against poverty.”<br />
<br />Although the overwhelming majority of Philadelphia NOW members supported Jan Welch’s candidacy for president, an opposition candidate, Elizabeth Feldman, emerged. The election attracted a good deal of attention and the Philadelphia Bulletin reported that 125 women were present at the meeting to elect a new president. All 81 dues-paying members were present and all cast ballots. Welch won by a wide margin, as did members of her slate. According to the Bulletin, “Ms. Feldman drew hisses and shouts from the audience when she referred to her opponent’s ‘undistinguished credentials.’” In an interview with a Bulletin reporter, Feldman denied that she was running as a “straight” candidate, and that she simply wanted to make the election democratic by giving voters a choice: “I’ve known Jan was a lesbian for a year. I just thought that each office should have more than one person running for it.”<br />
<br />Veteran Philadelphia NOW members Lillian Ciarrochi and Judy Foley were unconvinced by Feldman’s claim that she was running to make the organization more democratic; they saw Feldman’s candidacy as a Betty Friedan-like rearguard action against the “Lavender Menace.” According to Foley:<br />
<blockquote>[Feldman] just didn’t want a lesbian president, so she ran at the last minute as a write-in candidate … it was very tense but she got one, maybe two votes, hers and somebody’s else’s, so it was all right. But it did get us a lot of publicity and I think probably most of it good.</blockquote>
<br /><i>The Drummer</i> reported that Jan Welch won by a vote of 72 to 10.82 Foley’s recollections might have been slightly off regarding the vote total, but she was surely correct that Welch’s election resulted in favorable publicity for Philadelphia NOW.<br />
<br />Jan Welch was elected as the lesbian feminist movement was growing both in numbers and visibility. Philadelphia NOW benefited from its association with the lesbian rights movement, gaining far more members than may have been lost. There was clearly a symbiotic relationship between the lesbian movement and the feminist movement. The talent and energy of many lesbian feminists was of critical importance in building NOW and the feminist movement in general; NOW’s embrace of lesbian rights contributed to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality and to the growth of the lesbian and gay rights movement. In the early 1970s, several lesbian rights groups worked in coalition with Philadelphia NOW and other feminist groups on efforts such as the August 26, 1972 Women’s Equality Day Celebration. This close cooperation was already established in 1972, a year before Welch ran for the presidency of Philadelphia NOW, and no doubt laid the groundwork for her election. In turn, Welch’s election helped to further strengthen these ties.<br />
<br />Although Jan Welch was strongly supported by a majority of Philadelphia NOW members, she recalled, “Because there were only two opponents to my candidacy on sexual preference grounds, I tended to be naive about the election of a lesbian. I felt the issue of lesbianism was as much an accepted principle of NOW as equal pay for equal work.”83 Three-quarters through her term she realized that although her NOW sisters were not personally homophobic, they were sometimes hesitant to speak out against anti-lesbian biases:<br />
<blockquote>
Even though there has been continued break-down of the myths and stereotypes about lesbianism in the past year, much more should be done by “straights” to relieve the fear of non-NOW members that NOW women are “just a bunch of dykes.” If NOW members would point out vocally and firmly that there is the same percentage of homosexuals in NOW as in a local business or neighborhood church instead of quickly denying or ignoring the issue completely, the feminist movement would, in general, gain popularity and strength.</blockquote>
<br />Although feminists were generally far ahead of most of their fellow citizens, in the early 1970s many were reluctant to directly confront bias against lesbians and gays.<br />
<br />In addition to outreach to the lesbian community, Jan Welsh also sought to build NOW by reaching out to feminists involved in organized religion. Immediately after her election, Welch organized Sistercelebration, an ecumenical religious service for Women’s Equality Day, August 26, 1973. The religious focus of Sistercelebration was a departure from previous Women’s Equality Day rallies, but not surprising, given that, according to a 1970 survey of Philadelphia NOW members, 59 percent were affiliated with a religious organization. Fifty-nine percent may seem low in comparison with the general population, but it was a relatively high number for those who identified with progressive causes in the early 1970s.<br />
<br />There were frequent references to a feminist perspective on religion in the Philadelphia NOW Newsletters of the early 1970s. Although national NOW’s publications in the early 1970s had fewer such references, in both cases opposition to anti-feminist attitudes in organized religion was a recurrent theme. Among the resolutions passed at the 1971 National NOW Conference was one encouraging women “to divert all or part of their religious contributions to the NOW Ecumenical Task Force on Women and Religion for work being done to improve the role of women in religion.” NOW leaders clearly understood that religion was a powerful institution in American life; to achieve gender equality and combat homophobia, major changes in religious attitudes toward gender roles and sexuality were essential.<br />
<br />For many Philadelphia NOW members, religion was a sensitive subject, as many clearly wanted to maintain their religious affiliation without compromising their feminist values. Philadelphia NOW members apparently did not find it problematic to hold a religious celebration for a secular holiday, the anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote. Unfortunately, there did not appear to be much effort to include non-Christian organizations in the Sistercelebration. Although many Jewish women were involved both in National NOW and in the broad Women’s Liberation movement, and although there were many Jewish women involved in Philadelphia progressive organizations, there were relatively few Jewish women among the NOW leadership in the early 1970s. NOW chapters tended to expand through friendship networks, which may explain the relative absence of Jewish women among the activist core in the 1970s.<br />
<br />Although secular feminists may have been uncomfortable with turning Women’s Equality Day into a religious celebration, outreach to women in religious organizations certainly made sense in terms of organization building. The challenge to the patriarchal values of organized region was becoming a powerful movement fueled both by feminism and by the lesbian and gay rights movement. The leaders of both the sponsoring organizations of the Sister Celebration (Philadelphia NOW and the Task Force on Women in Religion) were open lesbians and advocates of lesbian and gay rights; however, the “Feminist Letter to the Congregations” made no mention of organized religion’s discrimination against lesbians and gays. Perhaps the organizers thought the congregations were not ready for this. The Philadelphia NOW Newsletter reported:"The Sistercelebration was attended by about “100 women of all ages and life styles” and was a “feminist celebration that was joyous, life-affirming, and thought- provoking. Let’s make it a new tradition!” <br />
<br />Although the Sistercelebration did not become a new tradition, it enabled Philadelphia NOW to expand its networks in the religious and lesbian communities. Energized by its success, Jan Welch launched an ambitious agenda and asked for written reports from the rapidly increasing number of committee chairs.<blockquote>Let me assure you that what I am consciously doing is delegating responsibilities for this organization to responsible persons, that is, you. In order to work effectively as an administrator I want complete reports of what each of you is doing! The entire board should know as well so that the unit is functioning effectively!88</blockquote>
<br />As any leader of an all-volunteer organization knows, it is not so easy to delegate responsibilities. The delegatees may just (despite the best of intentions) ignore the charge.<br />
<br />In her first speech to the membership after her election to the presidency, Jan Welch reminded the members that Philadelphia NOW was an all-volunteer organization. She announced plans to hold one additional meeting a month—an informal community meeting. She also announced that she had offered her home for the first NOW office in Philadelphia, a transitional office to be maintained by volunteers until a permanent office was found. Welch also expressed her thanks to her partner, Dian Kramer, “for her invaluable service to date and her patience. I must see that the heavy load on the two of us gets eased quickly so we don’t become basket cases.”89 Welch announced that the chapter would also host the first Pennsylvania State-wide NOW Convention in October 1973, and the national convention in Philadelphia in 1975.<br />
<br />Anyone who has ever run an all-volunteer organization can see where this story would end. Jan Welch’s organizational skills, her energy, and commitment got her through the Pennsylvania State-wide NOW Convention, which was generally regarded as a successful event. According to Welch’s report in the Philadelphia NOW Newsletter, the conference was “full of unbelievable enthusiasm”; many new members joined NOW, and the Philadelphia Chapter had “three new committees formed right out of the Convention—Females and the Criminal Justice System, Nurses NOW, and Sports.”90 Despite the impressive organizational skills of Jan Welsh and the other founding members, this increasingly ambitious agenda was difficult to sustain with volunteer energy alone. <br />
<br />The hectic pace continued, and immediately after the Pennsylvania NOW Convention, Philadelphia NOW awarded (and got considerable publicity for) the 1973 “Barefoot and Pregnant” awards. One of these awards would be given to the Union League, “which maintains the outmoded policy of refusing to admit women in the public areas of its building and in the main dining room even though the women are invited guests.”91 The 1973 Barefoot and Pregnant Award was the opening salvo in what would be Philadelphia NOW’s long protracted war against the discriminatory practices of the Union League, an influential all-male club frequented by local business and political leaders. The battle to integrate the Union League, like the outreach to women religious leaders from mainstream religious organizations, reflected Betty Friedan’s strategy to pursue growth through outreach to women from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Although Friedan was quite clear that was her goal, there was no evidence that later leaders, particularly local leaders, adopted this as a deliberate strategy. More likely it just came naturally to them to focus on issues of concern to relatively privileged women.<br />
<br />The issues that Philadelphia NOW addressed continued to proliferate and the phone calls pouring into the NOW office continued to increase in number. Jan Welch and the officers of Philadelphia NOW also had the challenge of building the state organization and, looming on the horizon, the national NOW conference to be held in Philadelphia in 1975. Welch had expected that her high-pressure term as president would end in June 1974; however, in order to have uniform election dates in all chapters throughout the state, the Pennsylvania NOW board extended the terms of all chapter officers for six more months. Welch was not prepared to continue the heavy responsibility of the chapter presidency for another six months and in a letter to the members explained her reasons for resigning in June 1974: “Had no other factors been involved, I might have stayed in the presidency for the extra months. But I could not anticipate some major problems, (the lengthy illness and death of my mother; a break in a close relationship; three job changes; and two moves, to name some).” Welch noted that the first Philadelphia NOW office had been housed in her small apartment and had been handling upwards of three hundred calls a month. With a new office soon to open in center city, Welch hoped more volunteers would be able share in the office responsibilities. Welch concluded her letter with regret at having to resign: “I believe so in the importance of NOW. Resignation deeply saddens me, but needing rest as I do now, I do not feel capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the office.”92<br />
<br />The sense of exhaustion Welch expressed recalls Jean Ferson’s comments when her presidency came to an end. It is striking how much NOW activists were willing to give to the movement, but that degree of commitment was not sustainable (certainly not on a volunteer basis). During the peak years of the feminist movement in the 1970s, many women were eager to assume leadership roles and devote their impressive organizational skills, honed in a wide range of professional and civic organizations, to building the feminist movement. In later years, the numbers were far fewer. The feminist movement was in some ways a victim of its success. Certainly, the expansion of professional opportunities for women in the 1970s contributed to the diminishing pool of talented women available to assume leadership roles in feminist organizations.<br />
<br />I met Jan Welch at NOW’s 40th Anniversary conference in Albany, N.Y in July. 2006. Like many veteran members, she had maintained her affiliation with NOW for decades. I told her that I planned to write a history of second-wave feminism with a focus on NOW, and she agreed to arrange a time when I could interview her. The profiles of Welch in Philadelphia newspapers written soon after her election to the presidency of Philadelphia NOW were consistent with my impression of her more than three decades later. From Ruth Rovner’s 1973 profile: “As she spoke, there was a tone of quiet strength in her voice, and in her whole manner. One could only imagine the kind of internal struggle that led to this calm.”93 Sadly, Jan Welch died of pancreatic cancer on March 31, 2008, and the interview I had looked forward to never took place.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-17356021507878829512022-03-19T23:09:00.003-04:002022-03-19T23:16:54.198-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I, Building the feminist movement: Chapter 1,NOW’s reluctance to become involved in electoral politics<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj681F_C_HU7KRYb2mMwPpD8Dc0ugssszHWT5__6CmgsybCIlHBZ_0ITAAxSrLFR0fzKLgQbPczznv81r37unCAwd5fUTjPNeK2t5Xd3CeosuSxzga9l6FStC77VeijCMwzA6HOfguz6thqTgZWQ06W6oTkt9wQd99xPz0mr-cnFcKox0DT4m3qnirp2g/s1006/Jean%20Ferson%20and%20Sharon%20Wallace.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="743" data-original-width="1006" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj681F_C_HU7KRYb2mMwPpD8Dc0ugssszHWT5__6CmgsybCIlHBZ_0ITAAxSrLFR0fzKLgQbPczznv81r37unCAwd5fUTjPNeK2t5Xd3CeosuSxzga9l6FStC77VeijCMwzA6HOfguz6thqTgZWQ06W6oTkt9wQd99xPz0mr-cnFcKox0DT4m3qnirp2g/s400/Jean%20Ferson%20and%20Sharon%20Wallace.png"/></a></div><br />Jean Ferson (Philadelphia NOW)and Sharon Wallis (Philadelphia Women’s Political Caucus)<br />
<br />NOW shared the distrust of electoral politics, pervasive among the progressive
movements in the late 1960s and 1970s. Historian Alice Echols reported that at
the left-wing counter-inaugural demonstration in 1969, a group of women
identified with the radical strand of the Women’s Liberation Movement burned
their voter registration cards, declaring that “suffragism, which they claimed
had vitiated the earlier wave of feminism, was dead and that a new movement for
genuine liberation was underway.” They actually asked the legendary suffragist
Alice Paul if she would join them in “giving back the vote.” Alice Paul
reportedly “hit the ceiling.” As someone who had devoted her life to the
struggle for suffrage, had been jailed and endured a hunger strike, Paul was not
sympathetic to their contention that voting was a “mockery of democracy.” <br />
<br />Echols makes the sweeping generalization: “To women’s liberationists who had acquired
their political education in the civil rights movement and the new left, voting
was a mockery of democracy.”57 Echols surely exaggerates, but the refusal to
participate in electoral politics, especially involvement in the Democratic or
Republican parties, ran deep among progressive/feminist groups in the late 1960s
and 1970s. Although Philadelphia NOW members were politically active in lobbying
legislators, most were not ready to risk compromising NOW’s non-partisan
identity—hence the appeal of the Women’s Political Caucus, which provided an
opportunity for individual NOW members to support feminist/progressive
candidates without involving NOW directly in partisan politics.<br />
<br />Politicaldivisions among the members might have been another reason Philadelphia NOW
opted not to participate in electoral politics. A “Survey of NOW Members”
published in the Philadelphia NOW Newsletter reported that in the 1968
presidential election, 55.5 percent of Philadelphia NOW members voted for Hubert
Humphrey, 18 percent for Richard Nixon, and 4 percent for Dick Gregory.58
(Presumably 22.5 percent either did not vote or chose not to respond to the
survey.) Philadelphia NOW members made different choices in the voting booth,
but most participated in the electoral process and were certainly not interested
in burning their voter registration cards. <br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW members, andPhiladelphia progressives in general, had a powerful reason
for not burningthose voter registration cards—his name was Frank Rizzo, a Philadelphia police
commissioner with a national reputation for brutality, especially directed at
African-Americans, lesbians and gays, feminists, hippies, and anti-war
activists. The “Stop Rizzo” movement was one of the galvanizing forces behind
the founding of the Philadelphia Women’s Political Caucus (PWPC) in July 1971.
NOW played a major role in forming PWPC and the relationship between the two
organizations was quite close with considerable overlapping membership. The
October 18, 1971 press release announcing the official formation of PWPC stated
that the group was “against the candidacy of Frank Rizzo for mayor on the basis
of the sexism, racism and violence of his past record.”59<br />
<br />Rizzo was not deterredby PWPC’s condemnation. The Bulletin reported Rizzo’s response to
a questionregarding his position on appointing women to high-level positions in city
government: “The Democratic mayoral candidate reacted by first looking the
reporter (female) up and down. He then commented enthusiastically on her
features, told her he’d be more than happy to discuss the matter with her after
the election and jovially offered her a job.”60<br />
<br />Rizzo ran an extraordinarilyugly, racially charged campaign. Despite sweeping the African-American
wards andreceiving strong support from white liberals, the Republican candidate Thatcher
Longstreth lost narrowly to Rizzo.61 Viewed as a disaster by most liberals,
Rizzo’s election was a boon to progressive organizing, especially to the growth
of African-American political power. Police abuse in the African-American
community during Rizzo’s tenure as police commissioner and later as mayor has
been well documented. Although feminists had to endure Rizzo’s ridicule andcontemptuous
dismissal of their concerns, for African-Americans the situationwas more dire. Rizzo did
not raid the NOW office or arrest members on trumped-upcharges; rather, he encouraged a culture
of contempt for feminist aspirations.<br />
<br />Despite the stark difference between Rizzo and Longstreth, PWPC declined to
endorse Longstreth. Nonetheless, PWPC president Sharon Wallis urged Philadelphia
women to vote for Longstreth.62 PWPC took the same position that national NOW
did when it formed a political action committee in the late 1970s. For NOW and
for PWPC (at this point), endorsement was reserved for those candidates who met
the highest feminist standards; both organizations, however, would urge members
to vote for candidates who fell short but were clearly superior to their
opponents. A distinction without a difference to some, but for both NOW and
PWPC, endorsing only those meeting the highest standards was essential to
protecting their organization’s integrity. Also, given that some NOW members had
ties to the Republican Party, political endorsements could potentially lead to
internal divisions, thus weakening the organization. <br />
<br />However, whatever theirparty affiliation, NOW and PWPC members were united in their
opposition to FrankRizzo. Although NOW and PWPC maintained their position against endorsing
candidates unless they met the highest standards, both organizations encouraged
political participation. PWPC launched a political education initiative designed
to encourage more women to run for political office, including party offices
such as committeeperson and ward leader. A similar political education effort
was underway with the Philadelphia Black Political Forum. Electoral politics and
social movement politics were closely intertwined as feminists and
African-Americans organized against the Democratic machine, fighting for
inclusion and fair representation as elected officials and as Democratic Party
ward leaders and committeepersons.<br />
<br />The organizational genius behind the feminist political education effort was Florence
Cohen,who was a member both ofPhiladelphia NOW and PWPC and of a group she formed called
the New DemocraticCoalition. Cohen was well aware of the distaste many feminists had for
partisanpolitics; she challenged the attendees at the December 1971 political workshop
to overcome their reluctance to get involved: “Politics is dirty but we MUSThave a part of
it. The machine will control parties to the extent that there isbapathy, to the extent
that we are disorganized. We must use our collective strength—women are 52% of the
electorate.”63 Cohen clearly understood ward politicsand was eager to share her knowledge
with other feminists. NOW memberswere eager to learn,and the close relationship and
overlapping membership between Philadelphia NOW and PWPC continued throughout the 1970s.<br />
<br />PWPC launched another major initiative in 1971, the campaign to pass a sex
discrimination ordinance. PWPC minutes report that newly elected Philadelphia
councilperson Ethel Allen, an African-American physician and a Republican, was
providing key support for the ordinance and strategic advice to PWPC. The
minutes report discussion about whether to also include discrimination based on
sexual orientation. A majority of PWPC members voted to support the ordinance to
ban sex discrimination, but discrimination based on sexual orientation was not
included.64 PWPC members apparently thought the city was not ready for a measure
banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and did not want to
jeopardize the ban against sex discrimination. The ordinance passed on August
24, 1972 without language prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community.
Banning sex discrimination was beginning to strike more and more politicians as
reasonable. Perhaps more to the point, politicians could count, and feminists
kept reminding them that women were a majority of the electorate. <br />
<br />PWPC was a pragmatic group. According to Judy Foley, a founding member of both PWPC and
NOW, PWPC was willing to work with politicians not known for their gender
sensitivity, if that’s what it took to get pro-woman legislation passed. Foley
described PWPC efforts to get a council ordinance passed banning sex
discrimination: “We got that bill passed right away. Dr. Ethel Allen was the
woman on city council but Isadore Bellis, he put it in for us; that was the
difference between the true believers in NOW and the pragmatists in Women’s
Political Caucus. We got Izzie to put it in, hey, we’ll take Izzie; we didn’t
care.” PWPC took support where it could get it and was quite willing to accept
sponsorship from machine politicians like Isadore Bellis. Despite the
overlapping membership between PWPC and NOW, PWPC appears to have been far more
comfortable with the messiness of political deal-making.<br />
<br />PWPC leadership alsoappeared to be more actively involved in reaching out to women
of color than wasthe leadership of Philadelphia NOW. One of the three founding officers
of PWPC, Ruth Harper, was an African-American woman, elected in 1976 to the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives. PWPC had more success in building alliances with women
of color than did Philadelphia NOW, perhaps because PWPC members tried harder,
or perhaps because those women of color interested in electoral politics were
most likely to forge alliances with white women.<br />
<br />Also, the National Women’sPolitical Caucus (NWPC), like its Philadelphia affiliate (PWPC),
was moresuccessful than national NOW and Women’s Liberation groups in reaching out to
women of color. In a 1971 article, which expressed deep distrust of the Women’s
Liberation Movement and asserted that there “is no rush of Black women into the
chapters of NOW,” Toni Morrison expressed a positive view of the newly formed
National Women’s Political Caucus: The liberation movement has moved from
shrieks to shape. It is focusing itself, becoming a hardheaded power base, as
the National Women’s Political Caucus in Washington attested last month … .
Representative Shirley Chisholm was radiant. Collectively we’ve come together,
not as a Women’s Lib group, but as a women’s political movement … women talking
about human rights rather than sexual rights.65 <br />
<br />Morrison and Chisholm saw theNational Women’s Political Caucus as having a broader
agenda and believed NWPC was a better vehicle for achieving both racial and gender
justice,and thus less likely to drive a wedge between Black women and Black men. This
may have been due to NWPC’s 1971 “Statement of Purpose,” which argued: “Women
must take action to unite against sexism, racism, and institutional violence and
poverty,”66 a much stronger statement than the brief reference to “Negro women
who are victims of the double discrimination of race and sex” in the 1966 NOW
Statement of Purpose.67 The difference in language is no doubt partly a
consequence of the change in political climate from 1966 to 1971. For many women
of color, Women’s Liberation collectives, with their generally exclusive focus
on gender and unwillingness to work with male allies, were the least attractive
strand of the feminist movement.<br />
<br />The National Women’s Political Caucus, like NOWand unlike many Women’s Liberation groups
of the 1970s, welcomed male members. However, in the Philadelphia Women’s Political
Caucus (PWPC), initially there was some resistance to the participation of men. At
the December 1971 meeting, a motion was introduced that PWPC should not limit membership
on the basis of sex.The opposition to the motion echoed arguments often heard in Women’s
Liberation groups, such as the fear that “if men join they soon begin to head all
committees and women are intimidated.”68 The motion to allow male members with
voting rights passed with 23 members in favor and three opposed. PWPC, like
Philadelphia NOW, stood apart from the separatist current which characterized
much feminist organizing in the early 1970s.<br />
<br />Rather than focusing exclusively onthe creation of women-only spaces (e.g.,
consciousness-raising groups, radicalfeminist collectives, lesbian bars, women’s
bookstores and coffee houses), both PWPC and Philadelphia NOW were building broad-based
organizations which welcomed all allies committed to advancing a feminist agenda. The
1971 vote allowing male members underscores how Philadelphia NOW and PWPC were similar
in core values;they worked closely together, often issuing joint statements.<br />
<br />Considering howmany issues were on Philadelphia NOW’s agenda, Jean Ferson no doubt
was quite happy to have PWPC take over political issues which, although important to her,
were not among her top priorities.<br />
<blockquote> I got myself into a state of practically
physical collapse. And I had to slow down. I had to learn to say no to things. I
stayed as a dues-paying member, and probably always will be forever and ever
amen. I was exhausted to tell you the truth. I had been in effect carrying two
jobs for a long time. And there was a lot of burnout in the beginning. Now I’m
doing what I can financially. I don’t want to be giving speeches and running to
meetings.</blockquote>
<br />Ferson’s experience is all too common. Many organizations have not
figured out how to keep people involved after a period of intense activity.
Taking a sabbatical and returning to activism is a much less frequent path than
Ferson’s, in which her once total involvement wound down to the financial level.
The feminist movement still needs all the activist energy and talent it can
muster, and preventing the cycle of intense activity followed by total
withdrawal continues to be an ongoing challenge.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-36172079429259944022022-03-18T03:44:00.000-04:002022-03-18T03:44:11.476-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. Part I, Building the feminist movement: Chapter 1, An Ever-Expanding Agenda<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgA7qzuHBNQhTt5MutuNSmZXcNxfG2uNGUM8XnpnbnFN864OdufAxvrqunU20G2NNcdXAwQ-lpiMjvSpI4-0IAoVlpaX-NoCSYttt9an2gG05VpvyYGb5bBUdh3ps9aLqcaff21IcHwo9sagkVIueQlIcZiFobJ3EyPBfDf5uUJ7CCCWCL3aUlhqTf0TA=s718" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="718" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgA7qzuHBNQhTt5MutuNSmZXcNxfG2uNGUM8XnpnbnFN864OdufAxvrqunU20G2NNcdXAwQ-lpiMjvSpI4-0IAoVlpaX-NoCSYttt9an2gG05VpvyYGb5bBUdh3ps9aLqcaff21IcHwo9sagkVIueQlIcZiFobJ3EyPBfDf5uUJ7CCCWCL3aUlhqTf0TA=s400"/></a></div>
<br />Pennsylvania NOW activist JoAnn Gardner addressing a rally in Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square<br />
<br /><b>An ever-expanding agenda</b><br />
<br />Jean Ferson, a skilled organization builder, was elected the second president of Philadelphia NOW at a time of tremendous growth in the feminist movement; fortunately, she was up to the challenge of managing that growth. In December of 1971 national NOW claimed 5,800 members; by the spring of 1973 the number had grown to over 20,000. 24 Most of NOW’s founding members were political/civic activists prior to their involvement in the feminist movement. As the movement broadened in the early 1970s, it drew women who had never before been involved in political activism. Their primary interest was the impact of feminism on their personal lives and they were drawn to the consciousness-raising groups cropping up everywhere. Jean Ferson, a psychologist, was in many ways the ideal person to lead the organization in the early 1970s; unlike some NOW activists, Ferson was very receptive to the rapidly growing consciousness-raising movement.<br />
<br />National NOW and many local NOW chapters initially had an uneasy relationship with the consciousness-raising groups that came to define early 1970s feminism. Many NOW leaders were suspicious of consciousness-raising and some were downright hostile. Pennsylvania NOW activist Beverly Jones argued: “Such groups cannot possibly excel in developing the self-confidence, initiative, and ability of their women … consciousness-raising itself, divorced from the possibility of relevant political activity, cannot operate effectively.”25 The hostility to consciousness-raising was not confined to NOW. Jacqueline Rhodes in Rewriting Radical Women noted that radical women’s liberation groups such as Redstockings and Women’s International Conspiracy from Hell (WITCH) were suspicious of consciousness-raising groups, which some of their members saw as all talk and no action.26<br />
<br />However, local NOW chapters often made their accommodations to consciousness-raising, and some chapter leaders like Jean Ferson enthusiastically embraced these groups. Maren Lockwood Carden speculated, “By the end of 1972, perhaps as many as half of NOW chapters made such sessions an integral part of their overall program.”27 Some NOW chapters built formal ties between the chapter and the consciousness-raising groups; New York City NOW, for example, incorporated consciousness-raising into its committee structure.28 The genius of the chapter model was that it allowed for a range of projects which resonated with local members. And in the early 1970s nothing resonated quite like consciousness-raising.<br />
<br />Ferson acknowledged that the structure of the consciousness-raising group was the antithesis of national NOW with its formal procedures and clear leadership structure, but she saw no problem with NOW’s encouraging and sponsoring these groups. Unlike Beverly Jones, Ferson saw them as a form of political education rather than as a flight from political action:<br />
<blockquote>There were a lot of women who had just been so … brainwashed; they were just beginning to think about certain issues that had never even entered their heads. This was something that we took from the Cultural Revolution in China. They used to have groups of peasants called “Speak Bitterness Groups.”29</blockquote>
<br />Ferson saw consciousness-raising as a form of political education, “trying to get people to think about what they were worth, what they had a right to demand.” She understood that the chapter had to make room for the consciousness-raising movement if it was to meet the needs and expectations of the growing numbers of women eager to join NOW.She managed to maintain the traditional NOW structure at the same time as she encouraged consciousness-raising groups. The chapter was the formally organized political wing, the consciousness-raising group the source of support and sustenance that made political action possible.<br />
<br />Consciousness-raising certainly helped many women free themselves from internalized gender stereotypes and thus become more effective advocates for gender equality. However, groups that were generally seen as “safe spaces” also served to re-enforce race/class divisions. Shirley Geok-lin Lim notes that “safe spaces” are problematic because of “who gets defined outside these spaces” and that women of color, immigrant women, blue collar women whose class and familial positions did not permit them the time to participate, women who did not easily share the cultural values that enabled them to openly discuss ‘the intimate details of their lives’ were much less likely to be invited to participate in consciousness raising groups.Lim recalled:<br />
<blockquote>Living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I heard my Anglo-European-American college acquaintances plan for baby-sitters and car rides to their women’s groups; but even as a graduate student in a prestigious university, I was never invited to attend one of the many consciousness-raising groups that [Sara] Evans’s history made out to be so democratically accessible.30
</blockquote>
<br />Through the early 1970s consciousness-raising groups generally did not reach out to women of color, the groups associated with NOW did reach out to men from members’ social networks. Contrary to the stereotype of man-hating feminism, at both the local and national level NOW welcomed male participation. The October 1970 Philadelphia NOW Newsletter announced the formation of a consciousness-raising husband and wife discussion group as well as an all-male discussion group.31 NOW leaders consistently stressed that individual men were not the enemy; the enemy was the patriarchal system. Men were sometimes damaged by their inability to live up to gender stereotypes and could benefit from the consciousness-raising movement’s challenge to traditional therapy, with its assumption that the patient was ill and that getting well involved adjusting to a sexist society. Rather than relying on an all-powerful doctor prescribing treatment, women [and men] in the consciousness-raising groups struggled to help each other heal.<br />
<br />Feminist anger against the medical establishment was intense. The 1971 <i>Philadelphia NOW Newsletter</i> reported that psychologist Phyllis Chesler called for “$1 million in reparations for the damage done to women via psychotherapy and institutionalization in mental hospitals.”32 Jean Ferson reported that the chapter kept “records of doctors who failed to treat us well … . We wanted a place where you could look up your doctor and find out what kind of rating he got from us. Did he treat women with respect and with dignity?” The chapter did not publicize the information in a formal way, but rather circulated it informally among chapter members. Philadelphia NOW in the early days tried to be both a service and advocacy organization—an unsustainable goal for an organization without paid staff.<br />
<br />Ferson’s personal and professional experiences no doubt played a role in her distrust of the medical establishment and receptiveness to the consciousness-raising movement. In an interview with Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Linda Lloyd, she discussed her struggles with self-doubt and fear that she was ugly. At 27, she earned a doctorate in psychology from the University of Texas, ranking top of her class. She recalled: “Instead of rejoicing and building on it like a man would do without thinking, I got a major depression.” She credits the feminist movement with helping her to win her battle with depression: “I got such support out of NOW, such a feeling of it’s all right! I have allies; I have support.” She described how her personal life had been transformed by feminism and that her relationships with both men and women have improved: “The comfort I feel with men is unexpected, but delightful! And men love it—some of them, that is. Those who want a relationship with another human being instead of a cheering gallery or a servant or a mother.”33 Her five-year marriage ended without rancor, just a sense of disappointment.<br />
<br />Ferson thought she had been recruited by Ernesta Ballard to be the second chapter president because she presented the right image:Ernesta thought I would be a good candidate. First of all, I had finished my degree. I was already divorced—because the movement broke up a lot of marriages. And I had the doctorate and I had a professional job. I probably looked okay. They couldn’t say, ‘Of course she’s a feminist. Look how ugly she is.’ Or something stupid like that.<br />
<br />When Ferson assumed the presidency of Philadelphia NOW, the media was increasingly covering the feminist movement, both nationally and locally. Thanks to her good looks, she generated considerable media interest. Press coverage always stressed her physical attractiveness and usually expressed surprise that a conventionally attractive woman like Ferson would become a liberationist. Even female reporters appeared to share the assumption that there was something surprising about a beautiful woman becoming a feminist. From Linda Lloyd’s profile in the <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i>:<br />
<blockquote>Dr. Jean Ferson didn’t have to become a liberationist. One basic premise from outside the women’s movement is that women who reject their conventional role—housewife and mother—must be losers who couldn’t play the game, so they want to change it. Jean Ferson, on the other hand, is by all appearances a winner.34</blockquote>
<br />Her good looks and professional success certainly contributed to enhancing the image of NOW that was often seen as an organization of ugly, man-hating harridans.<br />
<br />NOW gave Ferson the courage to pursue her goals and provided validation for her choices. Ferson in turn was loyal to NOW and, convinced that strong organizations were essential to advancing the feminist agenda, she devoted considerable time and energy to organization building. Since Ferson didn’t have children or family responsibilities, she was free to devote considerable time to NOW: “It kind of took over my life rather quickly.” The chapter held two monthly meetings—an educational forum, which Ferson thought at times attracted a hundred people, and chapter business meetings open only to officers and the committee chairs. In addition, the officers ran a Speakers Bureau. According to Ferson, all kinds of local organizations, including men’s service clubs and Rotary Clubs wanted a speaker to explain what NOW all was about. The members who staffed the Speakers Bureau prepared for hostile audiences. Ferson reported: “We had a kind of game we played, ‘Hostile Audience.’ People would come up with insulting kinds of questions. And we would practice how to handle those things. And it was good practice because you would get a certain number of wise guys inevitably.” It is astonishing that all this work was done by volunteers, including volunteers like Ferson with full-time, demanding professional jobs.<br />
<br />Both Ferson’s ferocious work ethic and media savvy were characteristic of many NOW leaders in the 1970s. NOW’s media skills created the illusion that the organization was larger and stronger than it actually was. According to national vice president Toni Carabillo’s report on the first national NOW conference, “When the organizing conference opened, there were actually only about 30 of the 300 members present, though many of us who joined later long had the impression the whole 300 had been in attendance. NOW’s flair for making the few seem many began with this first formal meeting.”35<br />
<br />This ability to conjure up a presence much larger than the organization’s numbers warranted was also noted by the founding members of Philadelphia NOW. Founding member Judy Foley recalled: “One of the things that always amazed me about NOW was that we always had a larger than life image in Philadelphia … even though we were only a little gang.” She recalled someone calling for information about a press release and asking if he could come over to our office and interview me, to which she answered: “It’s really a bad time.” Foley acknowledged: “We didn’t have an office; but there was no way that I was going to let him know that we didn’t have an office. But it just cracked me up because we did have this gigantic image for this little group of people.”36<br />
<br />NOW was concerned both with effective use of the media to advance its agenda and with analysis of the media’s role in upholding sexist institutions. Jean Ferson reported that her most popular committee was the one focused on images of women in the media; women were angry about the hyper-sexualized images of women and the stereotype of the ugly, man-hating feminist. Sexist advertising was a major target of feminist anger, as NOW chapters across the country organized letter-writing campaigns and boycotts against products promoted by sexist ads. Philadelphia NOW published its list of the “Ten Worst Ads of the Year” and urged members to write letters of protest to the ad agencies and sponsoring companies and to boycott the products. Among the ads on the ten worst list were: a print ad for Amelia Earhart Luggage which portrayed a naked woman painted with stripes to match the luggage; a television commercial for Chrysler portraying a mother and daughter looking for a new car in which the mother advises her daughter that she “must not appear bright and capable if she wants to catch a man.”38<br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW’s media savvy activists took on the constant barrage of ridicule directed at feminists, meeting insult with insult. And while anti-feminist tirades are now for the most part limited to the cultural margins, in the early 1970s they were mainstream. The Philadelphia Inquirer in 1971 ran a regular weekly column by Donald C. Drake, Alias “The Gypsy,” appearing in the “For and About Women” section of the paper ridiculing the feminist movement.39 Drake was not the most talented satirist and his point was often lost in his heavy-handed prose, but his animus towards feminism came through loud and clear. Like so many of those attacking feminism, Drake interpreted the demand for equality as a demand for role reversal. On January 8, 1971 Philadelphia NOW awarded Drake the first of its annual “Barefoot and Pregnant” awards for “Male Chauvinism par Excellence.”40 Predictably, Drake used the award as an occasion to heap more ridicule on feminism in general and NOW in particular. However, Drake’s column provided free publicity for NOW, and his columns arguably did more to advance feminist rather than antifeminist attitudes. The Barefoot and Pregnant awards continued through the 1970s, serving as a useful vehicle for attracting new recruits to the chapter. In 1972 the award was accompanied by greater fanfare and went to multiple recipients, among them was the Philadelphia Office of National Airlines for their participation in the sexist “Fly Me” ad campaign.41<br />
<br />Not only did feminists have to deal with rampant sexism and male ridicule of their demands for gender equality; they also had to contend with women who attacked and ridiculed their agenda. The backlash was not, as is sometimes assumed, a phenomenon of the 1980s. The backlash, including female anti-feminism, began as soon as the feminist movement emerged. Before Phyllis Schlafly built an exciting, lucrative career out of arguing that other women should just stay at home, three New York City professional women—Lucianne Goldberg, Jeannie Sakol, and Joan Elbaum Gordon—clearly saw a business opportunity in bashing feminism. They formed an organization, the Pussycat League, to mock the feminist movement and challenge the claim that gender discrimination exists…
Criticism of the feminist movement from women writers drew attention. As Elizabeth Duff put it in her <i>Philadelphia Inquirer </i>article on the female backlash against feminism: “Anti-lib articles have popped up like dandelions lately, authored both by movement outsiders and deserters. They are the new ‘in piece’ to write. Backlash is fashionable.”45 Philadelphia NOW’s founding members for the most part viewed the backlash as a measure of their success and continued to utilize the attacks as an opportunity to gain publicity for the feminist movement in general and NOW in particular.<br />
<br />The media’s refusal to treat the feminist movement as newsworthy angered many Philadelphia NOW members. In addition to responding to the barrage of anti-feminist material in the women’s sections of local papers, they also kept up a steady drumbeat of objections to the very existence of a section labeled “For and about Women.” NOW member Babette Newberg [Joseph]’s letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer challenged the rationale behind publishing a separate women’s section. She expressed her dismay that a report of a talk by Gloria Steinem appeared only in the women’s section of the Inquirer and asked the editors: “Would you name a section of your newspaper ‘For and About Blacks’ and report there and only there that Rev. Leon Sullivan endorsed Longstreth for Mayor?”46<br />
<br />NOW chapters combatted the backlash and pursued their agenda with a range of tactics: media campaigns, demonstrations, lobbying campaigns, and where applicable, legal action. Through its Barefoot and Pregnant Award, Philadelphia NOW engaged in a media campaign against the “Fly Me” ad campaign and also held a demonstration in Philadelphia in front of the National Airlines ticket office. Judy Foley reported that the demonstrators had posters with the ad and signs saying “Get Cheryl out of the Back of the Plane;” they gave out the addresses of the advertising agency and of National Airlines and urged people to write to them.47 This was the kind of coordinated strategy Toni Carabillo advocated in which the media message worked in tandem with grassroots actions.<br />
<br />At the same time as NOW members were combating the backlash, they were also trying to build an organization with an ever-expanding agenda. The list of four issues cited in the press release for the 1970 Women’s Equality Day Rally (passage of the Equal Rights Amendment; equality in jobs and education; 24-hour day care facilities; and abortion on demand) had expanded to include divorce reform, women in prison, and women in politics. Also, the childcare issue, which had not received a great deal of attention in Philadelphia NOW’s first year, assumed much greater importance under Jean Ferson’s presidency, no doubt in part because of her profession as a psychologist specializing in child development. Many feminists thought the country was ready to institute a universal childcare program, available to all citizens as a basic right, similar to the programs in European social democracies. Unfortunately, despite widespread public support for childcare, President Nixon vetoed an ambitious federal childcare bill in December 1971. Affordable, high-quality childcare is still part of the unfinished agenda of second-wave feminism.<br />
<br />As was usually the case with NOW chapters across the country, the officers emphasized issues of special importance to them. An issue that received increasing attention during Jean Ferson’s presidency was the plight of incarcerated women. The Pennsylvania State Legislature was considering a bill proposing establishment of community centers as an alternative to incarceration for women convicted of narcotics violations. Ferson, in partnership with the American Association of University Women, organized a Committee for Community Treatment Centers for Women. Their recruitment flyer “SAVE WOMEN FROM JAILS” stated that most women are imprisoned for drug-related offenses and need treatment, not jails. The flyer urged citizens to write to legislators demanding establishment of treatment centers.48 An article in the Philadelphia NOW Newsletter, “Women Come First in Major Jail Reform,” reinforced the message.49 The language of the flyer and newsletter article suggested that women deserved special treatment, based on the presumption than female offenders are primarily victims.<br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW activists in the early 1970s did not appear particularly interested in the argument then raging in feminist theory circles as to whether women are fundamentally similar to men and therefore should be treated equally before the law or whether there are fundamental differences, biologically or culturally driven, which policy makers must take into account. NOW activists did not seem concerned about theoretical consistency and might argue for equal treatment in employment based on women’s fundamental sameness with men, while at the same time arguing for differential treatment in the criminal justice system. Historian Nancy Cott explored the same lack of theoretical consistency on the part of 19th-century feminist activists and characterized this as “a functional ambiguity rather than a debilitating tension.”50 In short, whatever works. Similarly, NOW activists in the early 1970s, overwhelmed with an expanding agenda and operating solely on volunteer energy, were understandably focused on improving women’s lives rather than engaging in theoretical debates about gender difference.<br />
<br />Despite the enormous energy and commitment of Philadelphia NOW’s founders, there were never enough hours in the day, never enough activists to deal with NOW’s lengthening list of priorities. A 1972 memo from Mary Bell Desborough to the Philadelphia NOW officers listed priorities identified by NOW members: Sexist Images of Women in the Media, 37; Employment, 35; Legislation and politics, 30; Abortion: 29; 14 write-ins for childcare centers.51 The records throughout the 1970s suggest that these remained the key issues for most members, with passage of the ERA moving up the list of priority issues as the decade wore on. Although Jean Ferson was clearly committed to addressing the issues of women in prison, she does not appear to have enlisted many chapter members in making this a priority issue. Given the race/class composition of Philadelphia NOW, it is not surprising that women prisoners would not have been a major concern; most members had no one in their families or friendship networks who had been incarcerated.<br />
<br />Jean Ferson described the demographics of Philadelphia NOW as “predominantly white and middle class … and a lot of teachers and professional people.” When asked if the chapter did anything to reach out to women of color and address their issues, Ferson replied: "I don’t think we did much of anything really … we sort of had a full plate as it was. We had enough trouble; we were not looking for it. But, on the national level it came up, and people did more things aggressively with it. But, locally? No, we didn’t do much of anything with it."NOW chapters expanded through the friendship networks of individual members, and in the segregated society of the early 1970s few NOW members had integrated social networks.<br />
<br />Although resolutions addressing the issues of minority and working class women, were passed at the September 1971 national NOWconference, this was not a high priority for national NOW in 1971, nor did these resolutions affect priorities in Philadelphia NOW.54 The August 1972 Women’s Equality Day Celebration organized by Philadelphia NOW in conjunction with other women’s organizations did not include groups led by and/or addressing issues of concern to women of color.55 Locating feminist organizations led by women of color would have been a challenge for Philadelphia NOW members in the early 1970s, especially as they were looking for coalition partners who identified as feminists and explicitly addressed gender issues. The best-known anti-poverty organization, the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), had a strong Philadelphia chapter led by the dynamic Roxanne Jones, who became the first African-American woman elected to the Pennsylvania State Senate. Roxanne Jones’ name does not appear in the Philadelphia NOW newsleNtters of the 1970s, and there appears to have been no connection between NWRO and Philadelphia NOW. However, as Annelise Orleck documents, there were connections between national NOW and welfare rights leader Ruby Duncan, who served for many years on the board of national NOW.56<br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW in the early 1970s did not appear to have had connections (certainly not close connections) with the broader progressive movement; its relationships were primarily with other explicitly feminist organizations. The early 1970s saw a proliferation of organizations advocating for or providing services for women and girls. Many were short-lived and, of the 18 organizations sponsoring the August 25–26, 1972 Women’s Equality Day Celebration, only three have survived. The survivors were local affiliates of national organizations: the League of Women Voters, the National Organization for Women, and the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA). The support from national organizations no doubt played a part in the staying power of their Philadelphia affiliates. Furthermore, the organizations with staying power were all structured and hierarchically organized, unlike the loosely organized, evanescent Women’s Liberation groups. Philadelphia NOW members were especially interested in building coalitions with structured, established organizations, like the League of Women Voters. The distrust of coalition work, which surfaced in Pennsylvania NOW and national NOW, was not a concern in the early days of Philadelphia NOW.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-73125923874062605002022-03-16T22:52:00.001-04:002022-03-18T03:26:29.230-04:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations. From Part I, Building the feminist movement: Chapter 1, The founders
Excerpt from Chapter 1 The founders
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiMIUjJwZf5mgBNdrnas4RDGv8qTHquAavsX5Xh43bh1jrLp-vdffyfqZTI8U2KOGbZ1nLa15jyWxFHpBZB40U2vXXmG-9q584_ITJA7aOTUznZch7Nv0DzXiq7sfupvj1A_YKZ505LEL0wdHfO796kD-redv92ueY0dNPPxW67EeYiUt2bVXUUrI8wfQ=s743" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="743" data-original-width="586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiMIUjJwZf5mgBNdrnas4RDGv8qTHquAavsX5Xh43bh1jrLp-vdffyfqZTI8U2KOGbZ1nLa15jyWxFHpBZB40U2vXXmG-9q584_ITJA7aOTUznZch7Nv0DzXiq7sfupvj1A_YKZ505LEL0wdHfO796kD-redv92ueY0dNPPxW67EeYiUt2bVXUUrI8wfQ=s400"/></a></div>Ernesta Ballard<br />
<br />The leaders of the second-wave feminist movement, particularly those who were drawn to structured groups such as NOW, were for the most part skilled organization builders, who honed their skills in civic and professional associations, labor unions, and local Democratic Party committees. They were generally older, whiter, and more affluent than the younger women drawn to the Women’s Liberation movement. Although many had experience in grassroots organizations, some of these early leaders had served on the boards of elite organizations and had a network of elite connections. Chapter leaders had a great deal of latitude in deciding which of NOW’s many issues they wanted to foreground. Thus, the issues that particular chapters chose to address were very much bound up with the talents and interests of the leaders.—<br />
<br />The founders of Philadelphia NOW each put their personal stamp on the organization. The founder of Philadelphia NOW, Ernesta Drinker Ballard, born in 1920 into a prominent Philadelphia family, was clearly not the typical founder of a local NOW chapter. Her socialite background and life-long affiliation with the Republican Party notwithstanding, she was a passionate, committed feminist. Such intense commitment usually has some deeply personal source. Ballard told a <i>Philadelphia Inquirer </i>reporter in 1981 that she had wanted to be a lawyer, but that her father “never took it seriously.”1 Although she enjoyed significant class privileges, her options were constrained by the rigid gender roles of her time and class. Despite expectations that she confine herself to a life as wife and mother, Ballard managed to build a successful horticultural business and transform the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society into a world-class organization. When the feminist movement burst on the scene in the late 1960s, Ballard found her calling and dedicated her considerable talents in organization building to Philadelphia NOW.<br />
<br />The first president of Philadelphia NOW was not elected until 1970. Ballard clearly wanted to be part of the feminist movement but, whether as a consequence of her elite background or personal reticence (or both), she did not want to be the public face of the chapter and recruited Mary Lynne Speers as the chapter’s first president and Jean Ferson as its second. In a 2004 interview, Ballard described her role in forming Philadelphia NOW:<br />
<blockquote>The way I got into it is kind of funny … . My mother was living with us and she was very ill; she was dying of cancer. She got a letter from Betty Friedan, and Betty’s letter said that she heard about my mother because my mother had written a book about music and women … and Betty said, ‘I’m forming this new organization called the National Organization for Women.’ And she wanted mother to go onto the board.</blockquote>
<br />Ballard wrote to Friedan and said that her mother “would’ve been so thrilled to have been invited, but she can’t. She’s dead. If there’s anything I can do to help you, let me know.” Friedan called her to say: “I’m sorry about your mother. But will you do it? You’ll be fine. We’re looking for … Mainline, you know, establishment sort of a person.” Ballard readily accepted the invitation: “I was definitely a feminist, and I was thrilled to be asked.” However, she was concerned about a conflict with her position at the Pennsylvania Horticulture Society, and worried that feminism and horticulture didn’t “really mix very well.” She reported receiving critical letters, mostly from men, asking her “Why don’t you stick to your petunias?”2<br />
<br />Friedan was very interested in recruiting rich, well-connected women like Ballard, both for their access to financial resources and for what she saw as their ability to lend credibility to the fledgling organization. Although Friedan is often credited with launching a broad-based, grassroots movement, that was apparently not her original intention. Political scientist Jo Freeman has noted that some of NOW’s initiators like Friedan were “very high-powered women who lacked the time or patience for the slow, unglamorous work of putting together a mass organization.”3 Susan Brownmiller reported that Friedan rejected her application for membership because she did not fit the model of the successful professional woman Friedan was trying to recruit.4 However, Friedan’s original conception quickly evolved as women around the country expressed interest in forming local chapters.<br />
<br />Ernesta Ballard served for a year on the national NOW board and was the driving force behind the formation of the Philadelphia chapter. She reported: “Then, it came the time to really be formalized and say we have a structure and a president. And I said, ‘Look, I really can’t do it.’ It was going to interfere with my job and the media publicity … . It just wouldn’t work. So, I sort of stepped aside.” Although Mary Lynne Speers, a 28-year-old woman who aspired to go to law school, was Philadelphia NOW’s first president, Ballard was generally acknowledged to be the prime mover. According to Philadelphia NOW’s second president, Jean Ferson: “The woman who really started all this in Philadelphia was Ernesta Drinker Ballard.”5<br />
<br />Unlike her hero, suffragist Alice Paul, Ernesta Ballard was not accustomed to public demonstrations; it was not the way she and the people in her social networks got things done. However, when asked by Speers to participate in a 1970 vigil at the Capitol to bring the Equal Rights Amendment to the floor of Congress for a vote, she appears not to have hesitated. Ballard and Speers took the train to Washington and went to the Capitol:<br />
<blockquote>And we were relieved that there were people on the steps. There weren’t that many. Three of us and maybe four or five others. Not many people paid attention to us, but we stayed there the whole night. And that was a little adventure. At about 6 or 7 o’clock some people came to relieve us. And we went to the station, got on the train, and went home.
</blockquote>
<br />Ballard recalled she knew the story would be in the newspapers when reporter Rose DeWolf called and said she heard that Ballard had spent the night in Washington.<br />
<br />The tone of Ballard’s 2004 recollection of the vigil contrasted sharply with her much less positive account reported by DeWolf the day after the event. During the 2004 interview Ballard recalled the event as an adventure and was clearly proud of the role she played. In the interview for DeWolf’s 1970 article, however, Ballard portrayed the vigil as a disappointment: “Do you know how many women were there, standing vigil? Four, that’s all. Why didn’t women come? There have been huge crowds when the issue was peace or civil rights. Don’t women care?” Mary Lynne Speers groped for an explanation: “Maybe women are just programmed to work for others, not themselves … . Or maybe they’re just tired of demonstrations…” Ballard raised questions about the wisdom of holding the event: “Maybe they were afraid to stay out at night. Maybe it was just our strategy that was wrong … maybe a 24-hour vigil just isn’t the way to make the point.”6 Another reason, no doubt, was that Philadelphia NOW’s founders did not have the resources to mobilize large numbers of people for demonstrations. Despite these setbacks, the founding members I interviewed clearly viewed the feminist movement as one of the peak experiences of their lives, and many, like Ballard, recalled the excitement and sense of solidarity much more vividly than the drudgery and disappointments<br />.
<br />Participation in demonstrations and vigils may not have come naturally to Ernesta Ballard. What did come naturally was using her social contacts to put pressure on powerful interests to open opportunities for women. One of Philadelphia NOW’s first and most successful actions was challenging the sexist assumptions underlying a local job fair called Operation Native Son, sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Once a year, the Chamber of Commerce provided an opportunity for Pennsylvanians attending college outside the state to be interviewed by prospective employers from the Philadelphia area. The program was blatantly discriminatory against women. According to Philadelphia NOW’s second president Jean Ferson:<br />
<blockquote>Operation Native Son was something that drove Ernesta nuts … . [She said,] ‘We need to change that name.’ And we did … we got the name changed. And there was a tremendous concern around that time in terms of how language was used to discriminate against women or to insult women, and we wanted people to get more aware of that.</blockquote>
<br />When told that Jean Ferson had credited her with the victory, Ernesta Ballard downplayed her role: “Well, I was writing letters. Thatcher [Longstreth, the Chamber of Commerce president] was a friend of mine, so I said we have to do something about this.”<br />
<br />Philadelphia NOW won the battle, but it’s not clear who or what gets credit for the victory. NOW’ s letter writing campaign? The threat of legal action? Ernesta Ballard’s behind the scenes lobbying? No doubt, all of the above. And it is certainly possible that the Chamber of Commerce realized the times had changed and locking women out of job fairs was no longer an option. The files of founding member Judy Foley included, along with news clippings about NOW’s protests against Operation Native Son, Foley’s handwritten note: “Ernesta talked to Longstreth. He’s sympathetic—tried to get it changed before.” Perhaps Longstreth welcomed the pressure from NOW, which made it easier for him to change course. For Ernesta Ballard and the other founding members of Philadelphia NOW, their modus operandi for ending discriminatory practices included letter-writing campaigns to public officials and business leaders, threats of legal action, and using their personal connections for behind-the-scenes persuasion. They were not yet utilizing such tactics as mass rallies and never even considered civil disobedience. In this respect, they were very much in accord with the tactics of national NOW in its early years.<br />
<br />Ending discrimination in employment and enforcing “equal pay for equal work” were clearly national NOW’s top priorities in the late 1960s and early 1970s. According to Ernesta Ballard’s daughter Alice, her mother strongly disagreed with the national NOW board’s initial reluctance in the 1960s to champion abortion rights and lesbian rights, the two issues Alice Ballard recalled her mother was most passionate about.8 In response to pressure from members such as Ernesta Ballard, National NOW expanded its agenda and by 1971 was on record in support of both abortion rights and lesbian rights.<br />
<br />However, on both national and local levels, the activist energy in the late 1960s and early 1970s focused on ending discrimination in employment. NOW was determined to end the practice of dividing classified ads into “Help Wanted for Men” and “Help Wanted for Women.” While some feminists would organize demonstrations and others would initiate legal action, Ernesta Ballard protested directly to those in power. After all, as she said, many of these people were members of her social circle. According to Ballard:<br />
<blockquote>The editor of the <i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i>, Bobby Taylor, was a friend of mine. I wrote a letter to him and said, ‘You know, this is terrible!’ He said they felt that what they were doing was right and fair and appropriate. He didn’t need any advice. It was a snooty, snooty letter. But it gradually did begin to change.</blockquote>
<br />Ballard knew where she had leverage and continued to pressure the local elite to end discriminatory practices and the ridicule of the feminist movement then filling the editorial pages.<br />
The June 1973 <i>Philadelphia NOW Newsletter</i> recounts her outraged response to an appallingly sexist article, ‘Why Can’t a Woman Be like a Woman?” in the <i>Delaware Valley Business Fortnight</i> written by Myles Standish. (Yes, that really was his name, not a pseudonym, as I originally thought.) The fact that a respectable business journal thought it fit to publish this article speaks volumes about the climate of opinion in the early 1970s. From Standish’s article, quoted in full in the Philadelphia NOW Newsletter:
<blockquote>It is difficult for me to see the masculine allure in an alleged male, wearing feminine, hip-hugging trousers over platform shoes made of a Joseph’s coat collection of colored leathers! Seemingly, the gay boys who got their revenge on the gals by making them look totally ridiculous in the clothes the gays designed for them, are trying to wreak the same sort of revenge on the men…9</blockquote>
<br />Standish associates the break down in rigid gender roles with homosexuality—a common theme in the early 1970s reaction against feminism. Also, quite typical was Standish’s sense that demands for gender equality were really a cover for a drive for dominance over men. He further argues that deviation from traditional gender “leads inevitably to the unhappiness of the female. And I have rarely seen more unhappy women at all age levels than in the United States.”10<br />
Blaming feminism rather than sexism for the unhappiness of American women must have enraged Ernesta Ballard. The Philadelphia NOW Newsletter reprinted her letter to Thatcher Longstreth, president of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce:
<blockquote>As an old friend, and one has been fair to women, I am asking you to read the editorial in the Business Fortnight and ask yourself: Does it go out of its way to belittle women? Does it go out of its way to insult homosexuals? Does it belong in Business Fortnight? Does it represent the view of the Chamber of Commerce?</blockquote>
<br />The <i>Philadelphia NOW Newsletter</i> also printed Longstreth’s response. Despite a reference to the “garbage” coming from “Women’s Lib extremists,” his reply suggested that he was more advanced than most men from his background and generation. The newsletter’s record of the correspondence ends with the injunction: LETTER WRITERS, PICK UP YOUR PENS!11 Philadelphia NOW members at this point were not taking to the streets, but using all the insider tactics at their disposal to end discrimination against women.<br />
Would Philadelphia NOW have been successful in getting the Chamber of Commerce to change its policies regarding Operation Native Son and its inclusion of blatantly sexist articles in its publications without Ernesta Ballard’s guiding hand and determination? My guess is it would not have happened so quickly. Ballard excelled in political persuasion and organization building—marshaling resources, securing funding, gaining the support of powerful opinion leaders—skills she had acquired though the volunteer work expected of women of her social class.
Although Ernesta Ballard cultivated relationships with the local elite, her name does not appear in the documents pertaining to Philadelphia NOW’s members’ early forays into partisan politics. She does not appear to have been directly involved in the formation of the Philadelphia branch of the National Women’s Political Caucus in 1971. In the early 1970s, her public political involvement appears to have been largely confined to non-partisan civic organizations such as the League of Women Voters. Ballard’s lack of direct involvement in Philadelphia partisan politics on behalf of feminist issues in the early 1970s is no doubt in part due to her affiliation with the Republican Party. In the 1970s a political realignment was beginning to occur, and Republicans were becoming increasingly marginalized in city politics. Both nationally and locally the Democratic Party was becoming the political home of the feminist movement.
<br />In my 2004 interview with Ballard, she bemoaned the change in her party. My guess is if she had lived, she would have left the party that had left her: “I stay Republican, partly out of stubbornness. Why should I quit … . There are a lot of moderate Republicans. We had a national organization about Republican Majority for Choice.” She wanted to go back to what she saw as the traditional Republican Party: “liberty, privacy, small government, national defense. You know they’re all good things. You couldn’t fault them.” Ballard saw no contradiction between equality for all women and the “small government” philosophy of the Republican Party. For her, feminism meant dismantling the legal barriers to women’s advancement in employment and education and safeguarding a woman’s reproductive rights; it did not include a commitment to a Scandinavian-style safety net.<br />
<br />As the feminist movement grew and became increasingly diverse, more feminists began to see a robust safety net funded by progressive taxation as essential for gender equality. Most of the women Ernesta Ballard worked with in the feminist movement were Democrats, advocates of government-funded social programs rather than the “small government” Ballard advocated; thus, maintaining distance from partisan politics was a way of avoiding conflict with her feminist allies. Ballard’s name appears in the membership lists of the National Women’s Political Caucus, a chapter of which was formed in Philadelphia in 1971, but the minutes do not indicate that she played a major role in the group. Her name generally does not appear in accounts of local public demonstrations—the 1970 vigil at the Capitol steps was a rare public protest for her.<br />
<br />Perhaps it was easier for her to engage in public protests when she was out of town. One of the few public feminist campaigns she was involved was the 1981 national NOW campaign to send feminist missionaries to Utah, the heart of the opposition to Equal Rights Amendment; they were to take the message of the ERA directly to the Mormon people, door to door. Ballard had just retired as executive director of the Philadelphia Horticultural Society and perhaps felt more comfortable engaging in overt political activity and activities such as door-to-door canvasing, but it was not something that came naturally to her.<br />
<br />During my 2004 interview with Ballard she recalled that she was canvasing in a “beautiful development.” When she rang a doorbell, the woman who opened the door asked, “Ernesta! What are you doing here?” Ballard remembered that the woman was on the board of the Garden Federation of the United States of America when Ballard was their horticulture chair. Ballard recalled: “She remembered me and said, ‘Come in. Come in.’ And she showed us her garden in the back, and I finally said, ‘I have to tell you why we’re here.” The woman replied: “I know why you’re here. I can see your buttons and everything. I can’t really do anything to help you, but give me your literature.” Ballard had not expected such a friendly reception and she was clearly moved by the woman’s response. Just as Ballard’s 2004 recollections of the 1970 Washington ERA vigil were more positive than her account reported the day after the event in the <i>Philadelphia Bulletin</i>, Ballard’s 2004 recollections of her involvement in the Missionaries to the Mormons campaign focused on positive memories in sharp contrast to the feelings she expressed to an <i>Inquire</i>r reporter at the time of campaign.<br />
<br />However, despite the hostile reaction from most of the Mormons, Ernesta Ballard did not regret participating in the campaign. During her stay she sent a postcard to the then president of Philadelphia NOW Doris Pechkurow: “I really feel like a martyr. It’s HOT, exhausting and we’re not popular! But the other missionaries are wonderful and the experience is one I wouldn’t have wanted to have missed.”12 Women from Ballard’s social world were not accustomed to the anger and rejection she experienced in Utah. In the final days of the campaign for the ERA, NOW had become more militant, more reliant on tactics like mass demonstrations and door-to-door canvassing, very different from the behind-the-scenes organizing that characterized Ballard’s participation in the early days of Philadelphia NOW. Ballard was a skilled organizer, but her tactics were usually the mainstream tactics she had learned in establishment philanthropic organizations. Her willingness to go beyond her comfort level and participate in the Missionaries to the Mormons campaign is surely an indication of the depth of her commitment to the passage of the ERA…<br />
<br />Philadelphia was a very segregated city in the 1960s and 1970s; unsurprisingly, the local NOW chapter reflected this. NOW chapters expanded through the social networks of the founders, and as they acknowledged, those networks were largely white and middle class. Although not expressed explicitly, the founders’ comments suggested that they just did not know how to develop ties with women from different racial backgrounds. Ballard told an Inquirer reporter that recognizing her own oppression as a woman enabled her to understand and overcome racial prejudice. Born in 1920, she grew up at a time when racial and religious prejudices were the norm. She recalled: “My grandmother used to say, ‘Always remember Ernesta, there are two really wicked things in life—whiskey and the Pope.’ And Blacks—when I grew up they were servants; they weren’t people. It took a while to get used to the idea that Jews and Blacks were people just like me, and I could love them. The moment of truth came when I began to realize that women too were discriminated against.”19 Very few women of Ballard’s generation and socio-economic background made this intellectual and emotional journey…<br />
<br />It was not just white affluent NOW members who had difficulty reaching across the racial divide. Feminist historian Alice Echols’ report on the first Women’s Liberation conference at Sandy Springs, Maryland in 1968 includes a transcript of a discussion on Black women and the Women’s Liberation movement. The transcript does not support the Women’s Liberation movement’s reputation for being the more radical strand of the movement and makes for uncomfortable reading from a 21st-century vantage point, revealing to what extent even the most progressive members of society lived in a segregated world, with little experience outside their racial group. From the transcript: “ok … I have problems dealing with Black people; I think everyone in this room does, with men or women. I think if we are really honest about it we don’t want to work with Black women because we are not sure what our relationship is.”20 Some members of the group did want to include Black women; most saw such outreach as problematic and were wary of doing so.<br />
<br />References both to racial discrimination and to the Vietnam War were generally absent from the NOW documents from the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, reflecting the growing influence of the anti-war movement on the feminist movement, in 1971 national NOW changed course and passed an anti-war resolution calling for an immediate end to all American military activity in Southeast Asia.23 National NOW has historically been ahead of local chapters in recognizing the connection of gender issues with other struggles for social justice. The 1971 resolution apparently did not have a major impact on Philadelphia NOW Philadelphia NOW in the early years was focused almost exclusively on women’s rights. The road to becoming an intersectional feminist organization would be a long and rocky one.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-81767812789036356262022-03-12T18:27:00.000-05:002022-03-12T18:27:19.923-05:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations: Introduction<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhDzLY0S3mvedC5bQ3uQUIdhL8hFf-7cdl31dcnZvZoS56tPKEa7RstZ9DYMMH7GnQWrMeMxnbBuDnkNfPPcPtRem8RhDArPy6LqgtE2gGlfgKiGFWNuvKyOSTiYw6Wc8CfiBSWtlL5UJlHA0hGj7xgyyimZd1931dKs7PW4eUf7Bfm_9WEbuQ-E5Hw3Q=s1600" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhDzLY0S3mvedC5bQ3uQUIdhL8hFf-7cdl31dcnZvZoS56tPKEa7RstZ9DYMMH7GnQWrMeMxnbBuDnkNfPPcPtRem8RhDArPy6LqgtE2gGlfgKiGFWNuvKyOSTiYw6Wc8CfiBSWtlL5UJlHA0hGj7xgyyimZd1931dKs7PW4eUf7Bfm_9WEbuQ-E5Hw3Q=s400"/></a></div>
<br />Introduction<br />
<br /><b>Part: The Roots and Growth of the Second Wave Feminist Battle Against Gender Discrimination</b><br />
<br /><i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations</i> traces the evolution of a social movement over time and argues that strong internal structure is necessary for the success of such movements. Part I, “Building the Feminist Movement,” analyzes the challenge to gender discrimination embedded in all major social institutions, a story unfolding in similar ways across the country, and focuses on a case study, the history of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Although this study covers a time period extending from 1966 to 2021 and explores a range of philosophies and organizational models, it largely centers on one city, connecting what took place in Philadelphia with what was occurring nationally.<br />
<br />In most major cities in the late 1960s, the local NOW chapter was the major engine of institutional change. Like most NOW chapters, the history of Philadelphia NOW is very much intertwined with that of NOW’s national and state organizations and its history thus has a larger dimension. On the national level NOW has been well documented; however, many of the local stories have yet to be told. This study examines both the national and local levels of NOW in the context of a powerful social movement, and analyzes NOW’s relationships with other mainstream feminist organizations, such as the National Women’s Political Caucus and its local affiliate, and with what was considered the more radical Women’s Liberation movement<br />.
<br />Although NOW may have been the focal point, it was certainly not the only locus of feminist activity in the late 1960s and 1970s. NOW activists were primarily focused on changing the rules governing society and opening up opportunities in government, business, and traditionally male occupations to women. Some, like Philadelphia NOW founding member and psychologist Jean Ferson, were also involved in the consciousness-raising movement, the feminist therapy movement, and the emerging women’s health movement. Other feminists focused on creating feminist free spaces—book stores, clubs, music festivals—rather than building feminist organizations. Some feminists did not belong to explicitly feminist organizations like NOW but worked tirelessly for gender justice in their unions, professional associations, educational institutions, and religious organizations. Some wanted nothing less than total revolution and were impatient with and often contemptuous of those trying to reform existing social institutions. The energy and creativity were astonishing. The changes in the status of women in the past half-century have been enormous and have become so much a part of the air we breathe that we no longer perceive the extent of the change.<br />
<br />The feminist movement, which emerged in the mid-1960s, may in retrospect appear inevitable, but this was not the case at the time. It was a revolution that virtually no one saw coming. Ruth Rosen begins her history of second-wave feminism with a 1967 quote from Harvard sociologist David Riesman: “If anything remains more or less unchanged, it will be the role of women.”1 Even many of the second-wave pioneers of the early and mid-1960s did not expect dramatic changes in gender roles. Civil rights workers Casey Hayden and Mary King’s influential 1965 memo, “Sex and Caste,” based on their experiences in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), concluded on a pessimistic note: “Objectively the chances seem nil that we could start a movement based on anything as distant to general American thought as a sex-caste system.”2 When political scientist Jo Freeman in 1966 applied to the Institute of Policy Studies to learn about political organizing, she told the directors she wanted to organize women. The response: “There’s no future in that.”3 <br />
<br />Although initially the second-wave feminist movement seemed to come out of nowhere, many of the leaders had considerable experience in building and maintaining organizations. The feminist movement that took so many by surprise is well documented on the national level and a rough consensus has emerged on the main contours of the national movement. Most historians of second-wave feminism define it in terms of two strands often characterized as the earlier, liberal reformist strand associated with hierarchical, structured organizations like NOW, and the somewhat later, generally considered more radical, “women’s liberation” strand consisting of small, loosely organized non-hierarchical collectives.<br />
<br />The first strand emerged in the 1960s, assisted by the networks formed by the Kennedy Commission on the Status of Women. Impatience with the slow pace of change, in particular the failure of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to take sex discrimination seriously, led to the formation of NOW in 1966, with the charismatic leader Betty Friedan as its first president. Friedan did not initially envision NOW as a mass movement.4 However, her original conception quickly evolved as women around the country expressed interest in forming local chapters.<br />
<br />Friedan’s <i>The Feminine Mystique</i>, published in 1963, resonated with millions of American women. In her study of the response to Friedan’s book, sociologist Stephanie Coontz documents a world of institutionalized gender discrimination persisting well into the early 1970s. Among the more egregious examples cited by Coontz: in 1965 only four states allowed a married woman the right to a legal residence separate from her husband’s. When a woman lived apart from her husband, she was usually unable to buy or rent a home on her own. Coontz reported that as late as 1972, a woman “could not rent an apartment until her husband, a patient in a mental hospital, signed the lease.”5 Sometimes discrimination was a matter of custom; sometimes it was a matter of statute. There was considerable variation from state to state, certainly contributing to the support for an Equal Rights Amendment which would wipe out all such statutes in one fell swoop.<br />
<br />Conditions were ripe for major change. Increasing numbers of women were in the labor force, had access to higher education, and were less likely to acquiesce to discriminatory practices. Only a relatively small number joined NOW, but many more were rethinking choices in their individual lives. Also, the civil rights movement had a profound impact on the entire society. The connection between the nascent feminist movement and the civil rights movement has usually been made with reference to the young women radicalized by their experiences in the civil rights movement. But the influence extended far beyond those few actively involved. Of course, not every woman beginning to challenge gender hierarchy likened the struggle against sexism to the civil rights movement, but the pervasive sense that all established institutions were being challenged and that a new world was in the making surely had an impact.<br />
<br />The Women’s Liberation strand of the feminist movement emerged in part from the women involved in the civil rights movement and in part from a somewhat younger cohort involved in the anti-war movement and the New Left organizations of the late 1960s. Although the women drawn to NOW were generally somewhat older than the women drawn to the Women’s Liberation movement, there were some notable exceptions. Gloria Steinem, for example, reports that though closer in age to the women in NOW, she was “drawn to the more radical and younger ones.”6 Although an over-simplification, the two strands have also been seen as structured vs. structureless organizations. The diffuse Women’s Liberation movement, which largely disappeared from the scene by the late 1970s, may have had a more radical vision than what was viewed as the liberal strand of the movement associated with NOW, but its impact on institutions was far less apparent and more difficult to measure.<br />
<br />The impact of liberal feminism associated with NOW is certainly easier to gauge. With a structure that enabled it to operate effectively on all three levels of government, NOW had a string of major legislative victories that transformed our society. Many NOW members saw themselves as the real radicals, using mainstream tactics to achieve radical ends. At a time when the term “liberal” is associated in the minds of many with the far left, and polling organizations frequently list “liberal” as the leftmost choice when asking for political allegiance, it may come as a surprise that in the late sixties “liberal” was often used contemptuously to describe a timid upholder of the status quo. In the 1970s historians tended to describe feminism in terms of three strands—liberal, radical, and socialist feminism. However, a movement as large and diverse as the feminist movement could never be reduced to a tidy, clear-cut taxonomy; these are contested terms, with evolving meanings. By the 1980s, references to socialist feminism tended to disappear, at least among American feminists, and the difference between liberal and radical feminism became increasingly difficult to disentangle.<br />
<br />The prevailing narrative, which sees liberal feminism supplanted by a more vibrant radical feminism associated with the Women’s Liberation’s movement, has not gone unchallenged. In 1975 political scientist Jo Freeman argued: “Some groups called ‘reformist’ have a platform that would so completely change our society it would be unrecognizable.”7 Sociologist Barbara Ryan noted that interviews she conducted in the late 1980s “show that feminists from a wide range of groups consider their goals to be radical—not because they were getting arrested by the hundreds, but because they believe they are attempting to achieve social relations that are radically different than what we have known in the past.”8 More recently, historian Stephanie Gilmore has also challenged the sharp distinctions between liberal and radical feminism.9<br />
<br />Histories drawing upon the documents of the time often perpetuate the conception of the “liberal” National Organization for Women (NOW) as the right wing of the women’s movement. National histories have tended to emphasize the widely publicized actions of the radical Women’s Liberation strand associated with groups like New York’s Redstockings, and often give the impression that this strand involved large numbers and was numerically a force equal to what was sometimes disparagingly referred to as the “liberal” reform strand associated with NOW. NOW kept membership records; the decentralized Women’s Liberation movement for the most part did not, making comparisons quite difficult. There was no hard and clear division between these two strands, and during the 1970s, NOW was influenced by the values and tactics of the Women’s Liberation movement. Towards the end of the 1970s, the Women’s Liberation movement faded from the scene. However, some of the feminist service organizations that grew out of small Women’s Liberation collectives endured for decades. Also, many of the values and approaches to organizing associated with Women’s Liberation were to resurface in the 21st century. By the end of the 1970s, the two strands of the women’s movement, radical and liberal, essentially merged within NOW, in some places the only feminist organization left standing.<br />
<br />The “second wave” feminist movement, which emerged in the United States in the late 1960s, was far more diverse, both ethnically and regionally, than is generally acknowledged. The term “second wave,” intended to distinguish the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s from the first wave, the 19th-century suffrage movement, has been challenged by feminist scholars who view the wave metaphor as a simplistic schema that ignores the continuities between “waves” and fails to acknowledge feminist activism between waves.10 Furthermore, according to historian Kimberly Springer, the wave metaphor has followed the trajectory of white women’s feminism and de-emphasized the feminist activism of women of color, an activist tradition not fitting so neatly into the wave schema.11 This of course is the historian’s dilemma: while some periodization is necessary to describe broad historical trends, the categories are always imprecise, the boundary lines fluid.<br />
<br />Some feminist theorists have tried to continue the wave metaphor, applying it to a “third wave” used to describe some strands of 1990s feminism emphasizing diversity and intersectionality. Although the term “second wave” has some utility as it is generally clear what it signifies, this is not the case with the term “third wave.” Used sometimes as a generational marker to describe feminists coming of age in the 1990s and at other times to describe a feminist philosophy grounded in intersectionality, the “third wave” was for the most part a cultural phenomenon, living largely online. No strong organizations capable of mounting a serious challenge to social institutions emerged from third-wave feminism. The term “fourth wave” is occasionally used to describe 21st-century feminism, but its meaning is even less well defined than that of “third wave” feminism, with the wave metaphor used less frequently by feminist theorists and historians.
<br />One of the best analyses of the wave metaphor, which captures both its weakness and its usefulness, is that developed Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor:<br />
<blockquote>The wave metaphor … may have more utility than we thought, as long as we understand that the lulls between the waves are still moving, that, from a transnational perspective, there may be choppy seas rather than even swells, and that waves do not rise and crash independently of each other.12
</blockquote>
<br />More recently, Annelise Orleck has challenged the wave theory, arguing that “the movement has been ceaseless. There have been bigger and smaller waves. But, as in the ocean, the waves have kept on coming.”13 Orleck cautions against underestimating advances made during what she calls “the trough years” of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s when trade union feminists waged battles for pay equity and better working conditions, paving the way for the major changes in women’s status associated with second-wave feminism.14<br />
<br />Whatever we ultimately call the explosion of feminist activism which occurred from the late 1960s through the late 1970s, momentous changes in gender roles were happening, albeit unevenly, all over America. Most of the published material documenting the second-wave feminist movement focuses on a few major urban centers—New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.15 These national narratives tend to be based on the same sources and often rely on the same anecdotes. Historians of the feminist movement have begun to complicate the story of second-wave feminism, which has often been viewed as largely white, middle class, and centered in a few major urban areas. More recent studies have focused on the role of working-class women and women of color16 and also on geographical locations outside the epicenters of second-wave feminism.17<br />
<br />Many feminists’ conception of the movement has expanded to include grassroots women who did not identify as feminists but whose activism is clearly part of the feminist project.18 Also, there were many feminist initiatives (e.g., feminist bookstores, coffee shops, music festivals, lesbian bars) organized by small groups of women independent of any feminist organization and usually not included in the grand narratives of second-wave feminism.19 Recently, much original research (rather than analysis and critique of existing narratives) has been found in regional and local histories. Scholars are just beginning to document the regional diversity of what Rosalyn Baxandall and Linda Gordon have called “the largest social movement in the history of the U.S.”20 These local histories will at some point be woven into a richer, more nuanced tapestry of “second wave” feminism.<br />
<br />Social movement historians usually consider NOW the major social movement organization of “second wave” feminism. Although many other feminist organizations were active in the 1970s, there were none with the influence and staying power of NOW. Toni Carabillo in the Feminist Chronicles, 1953–1993 saw the National Organization for Women (NOW)<br />
<br /><blockquote>justifiably as the organizing focal point of the movement … . Though Women’s Liberation groups emerged and flourished across the country for a few passionate years, they lacked national coordination, goals, an accepted leadership, and, not the least, an effective fundraising mechanism. Other organizations nurtured the movement … . But NOW has remained central to its existence and vitality.21</blockquote><br />
<br />What accounts for the staying power of NOW? Why was NOW in many places the only multi-issue feminist organization remaining in the early 1980s? As I delved into the archival material, I was struck by the degree to which the founding members of NOW thought deeply about structure. NOW’s emphasis on building a federated structure operating on all levels of government enabled the organization to function effectively in the political arena and was certainly a major factor in the legislative victories of the 1970s, as well as in its long-term survival. NOW shared credit with many other feminist organizations (as well as a loose network of feminist bookstores, coffee houses, and consciousness-raising groups) for the dramatic changes in hearts and minds, but NOW was the main engine behind victories in state and national legislatures and in the courts.<br />
<br />Unlike the loosely organized, evanescent Women’s Liberation groups, which formed in the early 1970s, local NOW chapters were to varying degrees connected to both the national and state organizations. The national organization owed much of its political clout to its local networks of grassroots activists, and local chapters benefitted from the resources of the national organization. This was especially the case with Philadelphia NOW because of its geographical proximity to the national NOW office and the personal relationships between Philadelphia activists and national and state leaders.<br />
<br />The founding members of Pennsylvania NOW—in particular, Eleanor Smeal and Beverly Jones—paid very close attention to structural issues, with Jones writing an influential rationale for creating a highly structured organization with both state and local affiliates.22 (See chapter 2.) Philadelphia NOW maintained a close relationship with Smeal during her presidency of Pennsylvania NOW and later of national NOW, and was clearly influenced by her attention to structural issues. The history of Philadelphia NOW illustrates how the interrelationships between local, state, and national levels of NOW worked in practice when there was trust and cooperation among the leadership on all three levels of the organization.<br />
<br />The basic unit of NOW, the local chapter, turned out to be very useful in accommodating the variation in the style and priorities of NOW members. The initial impulse for the founding of NOW chapters varied from region to region, although certain issues such as the ERA were priorities for virtually all chapters; however, as long as chapters were not acting in contradiction to NOW’s positions, they were free to choose their priorities from among the many issues NOW addressed. For example, Stephanie Gilmore documents how West Coast NOW chapters took up the cause of prostitutes’ rights, an issue not on the agenda for NOW activists in Philadelphia.23 In the pre-internet age most feminists identified primarily with their local organization; this was certainly the case with local NOW chapters. Only those who had friends and colleagues among the national leadership or aspired to it themselves closely followed the affairs of national NOW. Thanks to the internet, both the achievements of national organizations and the conflicts among feminists on the national level are now widely known and amplified by social media. Twenty-first-century feminists frequently see themselves as part of a national or international movement and can easily keep up with the struggles of feminists around the globe.<br />
<br />There was little evidence of such international awareness among Philadelphia NOW’s founding members in the 1960s. The initial direction of the Philadelphia NOW chapter was influenced by the skills and interests of its founding mothers Ernesta Ballard, Jean Ferson, and Jan Welch. (See chapter 1.) Ballard in particular brought her considerable experience in non-profit organizations to the task of founding Philadelphia NOW. These founding members focused primarily on expanding career opportunities for women, consistent with the focus of National NOW in the late 1960s. As the movement grew, it included more and more women who were not political activists and who were primarily interested in how traditional gender roles affected their personal lives. Philadelphia NOW’s second president, Jean Ferson, a psychologist, shared that interest and, unlike some NOW activists, was receptive to the growing consciousness-raising movement. Ferson’s embrace of consciousness-raising contributed significantly to the growth of the chapter.<br />
<b><br />Political and Racial Tensions Within NOW<br /></b>
<br />In addition to accommodating the diverse priorities of NOW members around the country, the chapter model also served as a safety valve for defusing political and personal conflicts and as a vehicle for surviving the increasingly bitter divisions which threatened to tear apart national NOW and also endangered some local chapters. In the mid-to late 1970s, the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) attempted to infiltrate NOW on the national and local levels. (See chapter 2.) The situation in Philadelphia was complicated by personal tensions; it appears that one faction may have been using the SWP presence as an excuse to split the chapter. As national NOW allowed the formation of a new chapter with only ten dues-paying members, the ease with which a dissident group could simply form a new chapter defused tension while keeping everyone under the big tent of NOW.<br />
<br />The chapter model also functioned as a vehicle for defusing racial conflicts. (See chapter 3.) National and Pennsylvania NOW newsletters in the late 1970s and early1980s reflect a growing emphasis on issues of race and class. As a result of Pennsylvania NOW’s commitment to eliminating racism, a new chapter, Germantown NOW, was formed in Philadelphia to fight for racial and gender justice. The core Philadelphia chapter remained focused on passage of the Equal Rights Amendment; Philadelphia NOW members who were interested in addressing racial justice issues joined Germantown NOW. These breakaway chapters raise questions about the wisdom of allowing small groups with priorities different from the core chapter’s to go their own way. Such chapters could be viewed as strengthening the organization by enabling members to focus on their priorities while keeping everyone within the big tent of NOW. They could also be viewed as a way of avoiding difficult conversations the organization needed to have.<br />
<br />Unfortunately, there is more than a grain of truth in the widely held view that NOW was primarily a white women’s organization. National NOW tried very hard to counter this perception, and because national leaders had contacts with women involved in the civil rights and labor movements, they had some success in recruiting women of color for national leadership positions. This was much more of a challenge for local chapters. Philadelphia, for example, was a segregated city in the 1960s and 1970s; it is not surprising that the local NOW chapters reflected this. NOW chapters expanded through the social networks of the founders, and as they acknowledged, those networks were largely white and middle class.<br />
<br />In the 1970s, women of color were organizing to improve women’s lives, but generally not under an explicitly feminist banner. Many were involved in civil rights organizations and in the movement for Black political empowerment; others were involved in grassroots neighborhood organizations. The African-American community activists from Philadelphia described in Nancy Naples’ Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work and the War on Poverty did not generally identify as feminists and their activism has usually not been considered part of the feminist project.24<br />
<br />Susan Hartmann, in The Other Feminists: Activists in the Liberal Establishment, documents the work of African-American feminists who “found the ACLU, the NCC [National Council of Churches], and the Ford Foundation more convenient or more congenial places than mainstream feminist groups to pursue feminist aspirations.”25 Once these women’s experiences are fully integrated into the history of second-wave feminism, a far richer narrative will emerge. The feminist movement is much broader than those organizations with an explicitly feminist agenda.<br />
<br />From the very beginning, NOW was a political player, engaged in lobbying and letter-writing campaigns to legislators; however, in the early years, many NOW members were deeply suspicious of direct involvement in electoral politics. In the early and mid-1970s, Philadelphia NOW dealt with this distrust by farming out electoral politics to the Philadelphia Women’s Political Caucus (PWPC), formed in 1971. Philadelphia NOW members were instrumental in the formation of PWPC but wanted to keep NOW itself unsullied by the messy compromises of partisan politics. Distrust of electoral politics was not confined to NOW members but was pervasive among progressive movements in the late 1960s and 1970s.<br />
<br />NOW’s attitudes towards participation in electoral politics evolved as the decade wore on; the battle for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and the struggle to protect abortion rights underscored the need for electing feminist legislators. (See chapter 4.) With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 the tide had turned in favor of the right; the final years of the struggle for ERA ratification were fought in the shadow of the Reagan victory. The ERA campaign itself became a training ground in the basics of the political process and many NOW members considered running for office. NOW had built a structure capable of effectively channeling the energy of its members and facilitating their entrance into the political arena as candidates, campaign managers, and volunteers, although the major prize, the ERA, eluded them. Unfortunately, the lack of racial diversity, the glaring weakness of NOW and the feminist movement as a whole, was not seriously addressed and remains a source of tension to this day. The heady social movement phase of second-wave feminism had come to an end, but organized feminism, particularly the feminist service organizations, in some cases grew stronger than ever.<br />
<b><br />Part II: The Feminist Service Organizations<br />
</b>
<br />The second-wave feminist movement is generally thought of as the political struggle to end gender discrimination in societal institutions and to dismantle deeply ingrained beliefs about gender roles, thus transforming both public and private life. The struggle to build feminist service organizations has received far less attention, despite the impact of these alternative organizations in providing much needed services and their influence on existing institutions. (See chapters 5, 6, 7.) The resources available for building feminist service organizations were for the most part available only in urban areas, hence their concentration in large cities. Although such organizations were forming in major cities across the country, they were particularly well developed and long-lasting in Philadelphia; some feminist service providers have attributed the city’s robust tradition of supporting non-profit organizations to the influence of the Quaker tradition. Obtaining funding for feminist service organizations was a major victory for the feminist movement, with these organizations securing grants from religious organizations (and their affiliated foundations) and government agencies, as well as significant donations from corporations and individuals.<br />
<br />Initially there was some resistance to the idea of professionally run feminist service organizations. While acknowledging that these organizations provided essential services, some feminists saw them as a mixed blessing. According to NOW member Judy Foley:<br />
<blockquote>I think professional service delivery women’s organizations [were] the death of volunteer organizations. The professional organizations took a lot of the steam out of volunteer organizations because [feminists] said well somebody’s doing it now; it was a victory in a sense but the political battles were still there to be fought.26</blockquote>
<br />Foley saw the service organizations as playing a role in depoliticizing the feminist movement. Incorporated as 501c3 charitable organizations, these agencies were restricted in their ability to engage in political advocacy. Also, as 501c3s, which could accept tax-deductible charitable contributions, they were a more attractive option for many feminist donors than were advocacy organizations such as NOW. Granted, the 501c3 funding came with strings attached and the radical edge of some of these organizations was blunted, but more women were receiving services and the women who had been providing them for free could now get jobs as service providers. However, Foley’s prediction of the impact of feminist service organizations on volunteer advocacy groups such as NOW was not experienced immediately; both nationally and locally NOW continued to grow through 1970s.<br />
<br />Historians of second-wave feminism have generally paid relatively little attention to feminist service organizations, for the most part charting the political dimension of the movement. However, the women who founded feminist service organizations were deeply influenced by the values of second-wave feminism, in particular the collectivist values associated with the Women’s Liberation strand of the movement. However, just as it is difficult to completely disentangle the liberal reform strand of second-wave feminism from what was considered the more radical Women’s Liberation movement, it is difficult to clearly separate the political movement against sex discrimination from the movement to build feminist service organizations. There were activists who pursued both paths, and the broad support for the feminist movement encompassed both.<br />
<br />Many activists began with little experience in service provision, but quickly learned what they needed to know; many of the organizations they built lasted for decades, with some still in existence in the 21st century. Those service organizations that survived were forced to adapt to the requirements of funders. A recurrent theme in my interviews with the founders of feminist service organizations was the ongoing tension between the feminist values of collective decision-making and non-hierarchal structures and the increasingly top-down decision-making and bureaucratic structures which were the inevitable consequences of growth. Funders demanded a governing board and staff hierarchy. In response, “feminists began to work more institutionally,” moving away from mass membership groups to organizations run by a board and staff.27 The great strength of second-wave feminism was in the range and diversity of its organizations and approaches. I have been struck by how many of the second-wave feminist activists I have interviewed were visionary leaders who were also were very skilled in the nuts and bolts of organization building. They were determined to build organizations that both provided services and advocated for social change, and they knew how to build for the long haul.<br />
<br />As the movement grew in the 1970s, both activist groups such as NOW and feminist service providers increasingly grappled with racial differences among women—a particularly urgent issue for the rape crisis and battered women’s movement. In the 1970s the majority of the leaders of the battered women’s movement were middle-class white women; many of the women their organizations served were likely to be low-income women and women of color, whose experiences with the criminal justice system were generally very different from those of middle-class white women. The racial blind spots of many feminist service organizations led to the formation of service organizations specifically focused on the needs of African-American women –for example, the National Black Women’s Health Project and its network of local affiliates.<br />
<br />In the 1970s women’s health organizations began to spring up around the country, founded to empower women to take control of their own healthcare. Many of the feminist health clinics founded in the 1970s did not survive the funding cuts of the Reagan years. In addition to the economic pressures, in the 1980s feminist clinics providing abortions were subject to violent attacks and harassment by the right-wing anti-abortion forces. Frequently, the organizations that survived were forced to change their organizational structure in order to meet funders’ requirements.<br />
<br />Some of those organizations, like the Philadelphia Black Women’s Health Project, that did not continue into the 21st century regrouped into similar organizations. Other disbanded organizations lived on in the influence they had on major social institutions; the Elizabeth Blackwell Health Care Center may not have survived, but its impact on mainstream healthcare did. As the years wore on and political climate became less hospitable to demands for radical change, the social service mission of the surviving agencies often became far more important than the social change agenda. This shift entailed a tendency to see problems rooted in individual behavior rather than structural impediments. As the 20th century drew to a close, many of those involved in feminist healthcare organizations came to recognize the limits of providing alternatives to powerful institutions and questioned whether alternative organizations alone could force existing institutions to undergo fundamental transformations. However, fundamental changes in the delivery and funding of health care were not among the politically possible options until the Medicare for All movement of the 21st century.<br />
<br />Fundraising was a never-ending challenge for feminist organizations, particularly feminist service organizations. (See chapter 8.) Unlike advocacy organizations, which could exist with very limited funds, service organizations could not function without staff and the funding necessary to provide high-quality services. In 1977, a group of women with experience in Philadelphia’s local non-profit/philanthropic community formed Women’s Way, a coalition of seven women-centered non-profits, to participate in a collective fundraising effort. Grassroots feminists were wary of Women’s Way’s relationship with the corporate world and with the elite credentials and connections of some of Women’s Way’s leaders. Yet increased funding for essential services for women and children was urgently needed, and, despite the reservations of some grassroots feminists, support for Women’s Way continued to grow.<br />
<br />Women’s Way was initially successful as a fund-raising coalition but also as a source of support and encouragement for leaders of the feminist non-profit community. However, the original Women’s Way model was not sustainable. Like the other survivors among the feminist service organizations founded in the 1970s, Women’s Way adapted to a changing landscape and assumed a new role as “convener,” bringing all stakeholders together, including people with “lived experience.”28 It no longer tries to provide significant funding for a small number of organizations, but rather provides smaller amounts to a larger and more diverse range of organizations.<br />
<b><br />Part III: Mapping the Landscape of 21st-Century Feminism<br />
</b>
<br />Part III of Feminist Organizing Across the Generations shifts from the achievements of second-wave feminism, which can be viewed from the perspective of some distance, to the much greater challenge of documenting and analyzing 21st-century feminism, a landscape which is changing as I write. This study focuses on two periods in which feminist activism was unfolding within the context of a social movement—second-wave feminism and the 21st-century upsurge in social activism, much of which is led by young feminists. Although feminist organizing continued after the heyday of second-wave feminism, references to the “women’s movement” gradually disappeared. What continued were references to more focused, issue-specific movements—e.g., the abortion rights movement, the equal pay movement, and the anti-violence movement. It wasn’t until the 2017 Women’s March that references to a unitary Women’s Movement reappeared.<br />
<br />In response to the election of Donald Trump, the 2017 Women’s March, which began as a Facebook post, coalesced almost overnight, demonstrating the power of social media-driven campaigns to rapidly mobilize millions of people, but also demonstrating their limitations. (See chapter 9.) However, when conflicts arise, there are no agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving tensions and for holding leadership accountable. Although a non-profit Women’s March Inc. emerged from the initial march, it was not a membership organization with members empowered to set the agenda, elect board members and officers, and develop procedures for holding leaders accountable.<br />
<br />As Zeynep Tufekci has noted in her study of internet-driven protest movements, <i>Twitter and Tear Gas</i>, without an organizational structure that allows for democratic decision-making, mass mobilizations can lead to a “tactical freeze,” with movements unable to agree on a path forward.29 Such an impasse occurred when long-smoldering conflicts in the newly incorporated Women’s March Inc. broke out into the open in 2018, when two of the group’s co-chairs were prominent attendees at an event sponsored by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite. Dissatisfaction with the co-chairs’ leadership led to calls for their resignation; however, the calls went unheeded. Women’s March Inc. was initially seen as an outpouring of female solidarity, but by 2019 was more likely to be to be viewed as a group splintering along lines of race, class, and political philosophy.<br />
<br />I began this study with an appreciation of the powerful tools available to 21st-century feminists but also an awareness of the limits of internet mobilization and the necessity of building durable social movement organizations to achieve fundamental social change. I also began with the assumption that although second-wave feminists excelled as organization builders, this was much less the case with 21st-century feminists, an assumption I have since learned is incorrect. Twenty-first-century feminists are not building explicitly feminist organizations along the lines of the National Organization for Women and for the most part have expressed little interest in joining NOW. However, they are building multi-issue progressive organizations, and bringing a gender justice perspective to these groups. Some are building groups with a federated structure along the lines of NOW; others are creating more fluid, internet-driven forms of feminist organizing, without hierarchical structures and elected leadership. What they have in common is a deep commitment to intersectionality, something largely lacking in second-wave feminism.<br />
<br />Although many young women were drawn to the Women’s March, established feminist organizations such as NOW have struggled to attract young women. (See chapter 10.) Also, although many second-wave feminists saw NOW’s federated structure as a significant advantage, some younger feminists see it as a stifling bureaucracy. Some young feminists are seeking to create new internet-driven organizations and have returned to the core ideas of the Women’s Liberation strand of second-wave feminism: horizontal structure, decision-making by consensus, and no formal leadership. The distrust of leadership is found in a range of 21st-century social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter, sometimes described by their members as “leaderfull” movements with no need of hierarchy. In contrast, NOW has historically made decisions by majority vote and elected leaders who were accountable to the membership. However, the younger NOW members I interviewed questioned the extent of NOW’s commitment to internal democracy, noting many procedural barriers to participation. The most frequently heard criticism is the reluctance of NOW’s old guard to move aside for a younger generation of feminist leaders. NOW’s failure to pass the torch is also bound up with its failure to build a racially, ethnically diverse leadership team, with generational tensions intertwined with race/class tensions.<br />
<br />Although relatively few young feminists are gravitating to NOW, many are forging new paths towards advancing a feminist agenda. (See chapter 11.) In some cases, they are rejecting formal organizations altogether. In her study of the mass protest movements collectively known as the Resistance, which swept the country in the wake of Donald Trump’s election, Dana Fisher reported that when her research team asked participants at each of the protest marches if they were affiliated with any of the organizations sponsoring the event, most reported “neither hearing about the event from a group nor traveling to the event with a group.”30 Although some young feminists are rejecting formal organizations, others are choosing to build organizations not explicitly feminist, such as Black Lives Matter or Sunrise. They are playing leadership roles (even when they deny they are leaders) in a range of social justice organizations and are bringing a feminist perspective to these groups. Much feminist organizing now occurs within progressive rather than explicitly feminist organizations.<br />
<br />Prior to the election of Donald Trump, many of the newer organizations, such as Occupy, were not involved in, and did not encourage their members to become involved in electoral politics. However, Trump’s election resulted in a shift towards political participation with the rise of groups such as Indivisible. Increasingly, younger women interested in political activism are drawn to socialist politics rather than to the liberal reform politics generally associated with Indivisible. For example, Reclaim Philadelphia, which grew out of the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign, is led by young feminists who bring to socialist politics what they characterize as “a deep understanding of the intersectionality of feminism.” Reclaim places a greater emphasis on gender justice issues than has historically been the case for a socialist organization. It played a leading role in the 2020 International Women’s Day rally and March for a “feminism that is socialist and a socialism that is feminist,” and has an active gender justice task force committed to advocacy for transgender rights. Although socialist feminists were involved in the second wave feminist movement of the 1970s, their numbers were few and the larger society was generally antagonistic to socialism. Socialist feminists in the 21st century are finding a far more receptive audience. Furthermore, 21st-century feminists increasingly have an international perspective, with many US feminists now thinking of themselves as a part of a growing worldwide movement for gender, racial, and economic justice, and with young women leading protest movements around the globe.<br />
<br />Notes<br />
<br />Unless otherwise indicated, all unpublished Philadelphia NOW archival material is housed at Temple University Urban Archives.<br />
<br />1 David Riesman quoted in Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America (New York: Viking, 2000), vii.<br />
<br />2 Casey Hayden and Mary King, “Sex and Caste,” in Sara Evans, The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), 237.<br />
<br />3 Jo Freeman, “On the Origins of the Women’s Liberation Movement from a Strictly Personal Perspective,” in The Feminist Memoir Project: Voices from Women’s Liberation, ed. Rachel DuPlessis and Ann Snitow (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998), 171–196.<br />
<br />4 Susan Brownmiller, In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution (New York: Random House, 1999), 3.<br />
<br />5 Stephanie Coontz, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 6.<br />
<br />6 Gloria Steinem, My Life on the Road (New York: Random House, 2016), 48.<br />
<br />7 See Jo Freeman, The Politics of Women’s Liberation (New York: Longman, 1975), 51.<br />
<br />8 Barbara Ryan, Feminism and the Women’s Movement: Dynamics of Change in Social Movement Ideology and Activism (New York: Routledge, 1992), 161.<br />
<br />9 Stephanie Gilmore, “The Dynamics of Second-Wave Feminist Activism in Memphis, 1971–1982: Rethinking the Liberal/Radical Divide,” NWSA Journal, 15, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 94–117.<br />
<br />10 See Nancy Hewitt, ed., No Permanent Waves (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2010); Jo Reger, ed., Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement (New York: Routledge, 2005).<br />
<br />11 Kimberly Springer, “Third Wave Black Feminism,” Signs: A Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 27 (Summer 2002): 1059–82.<br />
<br />12 Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor in “Foreword” to Different Wavelengths: Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement, ed. Jo Reger (New York: Routledge, 2005), xi.<br />
<br />13 Annelise Orleck, Rethinking American Women’s Activism: American Social and Political Movements of the 20th Century (Routledge, 2014), 217.
<br />14 Ibid., 39–44.<br />
<br />15 See Alice Echols, Daring to be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, l989); Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open (New York: Viking, 2000); Sara Evans, Tidal Wave: How Women Changed America at Century’s End (New York: The Free Press, 2003).<br />
<br />16 See Benita Roth, Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana and White Feminists Movements in America’s Second Wave (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Kimberly Springer, Living for the Revolution: Black Feminist Organizations, 1968–1980 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005); Winifred Breines, The Trouble Between Us: An Uneasy History of White and Black Women in the Feminist Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).<br />
<br />17 See Judith Ezekiel, Feminism in the Heartland (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2002); Anne Enke, Finding the Movement: Sexuality, Contested Space, and Feminist Activism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007); Nancy Whittier, Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical Women’s Movement (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995).<br />
<br />18 See Nancy Naples, Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work and the War on Poverty (New York: Routledge, l997); Anne Valk, Radical Sisters: Second-Wave Feminism and Black Liberation in Washington, D.C. (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2008).<br />
<br />19 See Enke.<br />
<br />20 Rosalyn Baxandall, and Linda Gordon, Dear Sisters: Dispatches from the Women’s Liberation Movement (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 1.<br />
<br />21 Toni Carabillo, Judith Meuli, June Bundy Csida, The Feminist Chronicles, 1953–1993 (Los Angeles, CA: Women’s Graphics, 1993), vii.<br />
<br />22 Beverly Jones, “Toward a Strong and Effective Women’s Movement: The Chambersburg Paper” (Pittsburgh, PA: Know, Inc., 1973).<br />
<br />23 Stephanie Gilmore, “Strange Bedfellows,” in No Permanent Waves, ed. Nancy Hewitt (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2010), 246–266.
<br />24 See Naples.
<br />25 Susan M. Hartmann, The Other Feminists: Activists in the Liberal Establishment (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 205.
<br />26 Judy Foley, Interview, conducted by Karen Bojar and Lindsay Schmidt (Philadelphia, PA: November 30 2007), transcribed by Lindsay Schmidt.<br />
<br />27 Orleck, 123.<br />
<br />28 Diane Corman Levy, Interview, conducted by Karen Bojar (Philadelphia, PA, March 6, 2018).<br />
<br />29 Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 77–82.<br />
<br />30 Dana R. Fisher, American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave (New York: Columbia University Press, 2019), 94.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-19730253670193585162022-03-09T14:39:00.001-05:002022-03-09T19:25:17.926-05:00Celebrating Women's History<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZhvgMsJswt4alQ7VSI5WFHLS6B2RIv0FSeqIyL9IDdJEwWk9kL1E6SHn4LjT7wwZ-SoepHT5OOsRlozis2sUYclKpbTN_c5LybqXXqainle1JlbLaT8fct1QFrHfLubj4rnVnfYZpfNUH/s499/31REGb8MPuL._SX325_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="327" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZhvgMsJswt4alQ7VSI5WFHLS6B2RIv0FSeqIyL9IDdJEwWk9kL1E6SHn4LjT7wwZ-SoepHT5OOsRlozis2sUYclKpbTN_c5LybqXXqainle1JlbLaT8fct1QFrHfLubj4rnVnfYZpfNUH/s400/31REGb8MPuL._SX325_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg"/></a></div>
<br />For Women’s History Month I am reposting my summary of my new book <i>Feminist Organizations Across the Generations</i> and will follow this with excerpts from the text. <br />
<br /><i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations </i>is very much informed by my perspective as a feminist activist. In turn, my choices as an activist have been influenced by my study of social movements--primarily the feminist and civil rights movements, both fueled by strong social movement organizations. A key theme of this book, emerging from both my research and my activism, is the critical importance of strong social movement organizations for achieving lasting social change.<br />
<br />The major social movements of the second half of the 20th century, the civil rights movement and the second-wave feminist movement, were fueled by structured, federated organizations comprised of empowered members with voting rights. I began this study with the assumption that 21st-century feminists, unlike second-wave feminists, were not committed organization builders; I discovered that assumption was incorrect. Although some young feminists are involved primarily in online activism and a relatively small number are members of NOW, many are building on the ground, multi-issue progressive organizations and bringing a gender justice perspective to these groups. Instead of explicitly feminist organizations focused on women’s rights, many young women are drawn to broad-based human rights groups in which gender justice is integrated into a more inclusive progressive agenda. They are becoming engaged in electoral politics and are increasingly drawn to socialist politics rather than to the liberal reform agenda associated with feminist groups such as NOW.<br />
<br />As I delved more deeply into the history of the feminist movement, I was struck by how many second-wave feminists were extraordinarily skilled at organization building. <b> <b>Part I,</b> describes a generation of women who had worked as volunteers, building community organizations, labor unions, and political parties who were re-directing their considerable talents toward building organizations combatting the discrimination they experienced as women.</b> They were also creating organizations to provide services to victims of gender-based violence and feminist health centers for women ill served by male-dominated medical institutions. Within a relatively short period of time, second-wave feminists built an extraordinary range of organizations, which transformed the political, economic, and cultural landscape.<br />
<br />Although I have centered my history of second-wave feminism in Philadelphia, the same trajectory was taking place all over the United States: the political movement to end gender discrimination, closely followed by the creation of feminist service organizations. In most cities and towns, the local NOW chapter was the major driver of institutional change. In Part I, my analysis of Philadelphia NOW is placed in the context of its network of relationships with other organizations, both national and local. This is far from the complete story of the second-wave feminist movement in Philadelphia. In the 1970s, women of color were organizing to improve women’s lives, but generally not under an explicitly feminist banner. Many were involved in civil rights organizations and in the movement for Black political empowerment;others were involved in grassroots neighborhood organizations. Much of the work of community groups and of small Women’s Liberation collectives was not documented, or if documented, not deposited in archives accessible to me. My subject is feminist organizations, feminism with a paper trail and now an internet trail. <br />
<b><br /> <b>Part II</b> focuses on a major strand of feminist history often left untold—-the enormous energy put into building feminist service organizations founded on a shoestring by committed feminists, organizations such as battered women’s shelters and rape crisis centers. </b> It is impossible in one book to document the range of service organizations nationwide; even with a focus on one location, the range of service organizations is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, I focus on the two kinds of organization most prevalent across the country—those providing services to victims of male violence (e.g., rape crisis centers and shelters for battered women) and those providing women’s healthcare services. <br />
<br />Although the advocacy groups and the service organizations were both outgrowths of the same movement, histories of the feminist movement have generally treated them separately, with historians and journalists documenting and analyzing the movement to end gender discrimination, and sociologists and social service professionals studying feminist service organizations. The feminist service organizations have received the least attention; to date there are only a handful of book-length studies. To my knowledge, there are no book-length studies that, like <i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations</i>, examine both the political movement and the service organizations as closely related outgrowths of the same movement.<br />
<br />Many of the women who built feminist service organizations were influenced by the rejection of hierarchy and commitment to participatory democracy that characterized much of the late 1960s and early 1970s feminist movement—particularly that strand generally referred to as the Women’s Liberation movement. Just as it is difficult to completely disentangle the liberal reform strand of second-wave feminism from what was considered the more radical Women’s Liberation movement, it is difficult to clearly separate the political movement against sex discrimination from the movement to build feminist service organizations. There were activists who pursued both paths, and the broad support for the feminist movement encompassed both. <br />
<br />The service organizations often started small, sometimes evolving out of Women’s Liberation collectives; however, as government and foundation grants became increasingly available, some of these shoestring operations morphed into strong organizations with stable funding, becoming the locus of feminist activism in many communities. As NOW chapters waned in significance in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in many localities the service providers such as rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and feminist health centers became the feminist movement.<br />
<br />By the late 1970s the multi-issue feminist movement had begun to fragment into separate movements: the anti-rape movement; the domestic violence movement; the abortion rights movement; the women’s health movement. The service organizations were certainly implicated in this tendency as they generally focused on one issue, although it’s not clear to what extent the service organizations were a cause or a consequence of the fragmentation. Suffice it to say, by the beginning of the 1980s we find fewer references to a unitary feminist movement. <br />
<br />As the movement grew in the 1970s, both activist groups such as NOW and feminist service providers increasingly grappled with racial differences among women—a particularly urgent issue for the rape crisis and battered women’s movement. The racial blind spots of many feminist service organizations led to the formation of service organizations specifically focused on the needs of women of color-–for example, the National Black Women’s Health Project and its network of local affiliates. <br />
<br /><b>P<b>art III</b> shifts from the achievements and blindspots of second-wave feminism, which can be viewed from the perspective of some distance, to the much greater challenge of documenting and analyzing 21st century feminism, a landscape which is changing as I write.</b> This study focuses on two periods in which feminist activism was unfolding within the context of a social movement—-20th century second-wave feminism and the 21st-century upsurge in social activism, much of which is led by young feminists. Although feminist organizing continued after the heyday of second-wave feminism, references to the “women’s movement” gradually disappeared. What continued were references to more focused, issue-specific movements—e.g., the abortion rights movement, the equa pay movement, and the anti-violence movement. <br />
<br />It wasn’t until the 2017 Women’s March that references to a unitary women’s movement reappeared. In response to the election of Donald Trump, the 2017 Women’s March, which began as a Facebook post, coalesced almost overnight, both demonstrating the power of social media-driven campaigns to rapidly mobilize millions of people, and also demonstrating their limitations. When conflicts arise, there are no agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving tensions and for holding leadership accountable. Although a non-profit Women’s March Inc.emerged from the initial march, it was not a membership organization with members empowered to set the agenda, elect board members and officers, and develop procedures for holding leaders accountable. <br />
<br />Although many young women were drawn to the 2017 Women’s March, established feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women have struggled to attract young women and meet the challenges of supporting grassroots activism in a climate very different from that of the feminist heyday of the 1970s. However, some 21st century feminists are choosing to build and become leaders in not explicitly feminist organizations, such as local chapters of Black Lives Matter (BLM) or Sunrise. They are playing leadership roles (even when they deny they are leaders)in a range of locally based social justice organizations and are bringing a feminist perspective to these groups. <br />
<br />Prior to the election of Donald Trump, many of the newer progressive organizations such as Occupy were not involved in, and did not encourage their members to engage in, electoral politics. Resistance to Trump’s election has resulted in more young women becoming engaged in electoral politics and running for office and winning. Also, younger women interested in political activism are increasingly drawn to socialist politics rather than to the liberal reform politics generally associated with NOW. Socialist feminists were involved in the second-wave feminist movement of 1970s; however, their numbers were relatively few and the larger society was antagonistic to socialism. Socialist feminists in 2021 are finding a far more receptive audience. Unlike the socialist organizations of the 20th century who were often hostile to feminism, 21st century socialist organizations are led by young feminists and place a high priority on gender justice, viewing all issues through a gender, racial and economic justice lens. <br />
<br />It may be too soon to gauge the strength and potential of socialist feminism, but we do know that feminist organizing in the 21st century will be multi-issue, intersectional, and international, with 21st century feminists bringing a feminist perspective to an ever-widening range of social justice issues. <br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-61855129726610873212022-02-18T16:17:00.003-05:002022-02-19T13:53:21.497-05:00 Trust by Domenico Starnone (aka Elena Ferrante)<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5q--OpfOoYZRFD-ruguuDoLIXe6KnCHaCNO0cbSKNha_SZNPh074V4FWXNVYmVtEP8HynVT2Iy7iMblNAUPbLUjibnCHwVI9HVBvGFi4rDewa8qV9iHnWnNgWJG7g0ZqMupLyUGRlQOUQIMqabpjw_V6RJLDMp5RzykklvwwNE9m7EMM67EcVgDK5jw=s499" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="321" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj5q--OpfOoYZRFD-ruguuDoLIXe6KnCHaCNO0cbSKNha_SZNPh074V4FWXNVYmVtEP8HynVT2Iy7iMblNAUPbLUjibnCHwVI9HVBvGFi4rDewa8qV9iHnWnNgWJG7g0ZqMupLyUGRlQOUQIMqabpjw_V6RJLDMp5RzykklvwwNE9m7EMM67EcVgDK5jw=s400"/></a></div><br /><i>Domenico Starnone’s <i>Trust</i></i> (2021)is part of a group of thematically interrelated novels beginning with <i>Ties</i> (2017) and followed by <i>Trick</i> (2018). All three works are narrated by an elderly man ruminating about the paths he has taken or failed to take in a long life. In all three books the narrators are often unaware of their blind spots but provide the reader with the necessary information to see what the narrators cannot.<br />
<br />I became intensely interested in Starnone when it became clear he was the principal writer of what I consider among the greatest novels of the early 21st century, the Neapolitan Novels (sometimes referred to as the <i>My Brilliant Friend</i> series). It is generally believed that Starnone and his wife Anita Raja are the writers behind the pseudonymous author Elena Ferrante. In response to the widespread curiosity about the authorship of Ferrante’s works, at least four teams of linguists using different text analysis programs independently concluded that Starnone was likely the principal author of the novels attributed to Ferrante. <br />
<br />In addition to linguistic evidence there are internal cues in Starnone’s work pointing to his role in the authorship of Ferrante’s novels. There are striking similarities between <i>Ties </i>and Ferrante’s novella <i>The Days of Abandonment</i>; both begin with a man abandoning his wife and children for a much younger woman, leaving his wife distraught, angry, and unwilling to accept the end of her marriage. However, <i>The Days of Abandonment</i>, set in the 1990s, takes a different turn from <i>Ties</i>, set primarily in the 1970s. In <i>The Days of Abandonment</i>, the abandoned wife, Olga, eventually looks to the future and develops a life and identity of her own. In <i>Ties</i>, Vanda focuses on getting her husband to return with the hope of restoring the life they once shared.<br />
<br />The first part of <i>Ties</i> consists of Vanda’s letters to her husband Aldo, demanding an explanation for his desertion, letters very reminiscent of Olga’s in <i>The Days of Abandonment</i>, similarly insisting that her husband explain himself. The second part gives the reader Aldo’s perspective—an outlook very similar to that of Olga’s husband, Mario, who believes he is entitled to pursue happiness with a younger woman. Unlike Mario, Aldo, ridden with guilt about his children, eventually returns to his wife. He must endure Vanda’s anger at his betrayal--an open wound after many years. The third part of the novella is narrated by their daughter Anna who describes the impact of her parents’ conflict-ridden relationship on their children, a legacy of pain which leads Anna and her brother to take shocking revenge on their parents. <i>Ties</i> is a cautionary tale for those who believe the parents in an unhappy marriage should stay together for the sake of the children.<br />
<br />As in <i>Ties,</i> there are echoes of Ferrante in <i>Trick</i>. The central relationship in the Neapolitan novels is the complicated friendship between two young girls growing up in a Neapolitan working class neighborhood in the 1950s. One escapes Naples; the other doesn’t. In <i>Trick</i>, like the Neapolitan novels, Naples itself becomes a character, although unlike the Neapolitan novels which depict both the beauty and the misery of Naples, <i>Trick </i>focuses on the misery. The central relationship in <i>Trick </i>is between Daniele Mallarico, an elderly artist struggling with the frailties of old age and disappointments of a declining career, and his precocious four-year-old grandson. Like Lila and Elena of the Neapolitan novels, Mallarico, generally referred to as Grandpa, grew up in 1950s working class Naples.<br />
<br />Like Elena, Mallarico longed to escape Naples and his difficult family, and like Elena, through education and talent he managed to do so. Several of the details of working-class life recalled by Mallarico in <i>Trick</i> are reminiscent of descriptions of Elena’s family dealing with the difficulties of a large family living in a small space: Elena describes the daily ritual of dismantling the dining room furniture, making up the beds at night and unmaking them in the morning, so the dining room could double as a bedroom. Similarly, Mallarico describes himself and his brother making their “beds in the evenings, in the living room, putting an end to my mother’s elegant aspirations."Elena often speculates on what she might have become if she hadn’t had the strength to leave Naples, and what her far more talented friend Lila might have become if her family had allowed her to continue her education. Similarly, the elderly artist in <i>Trick</i> becomes obsessed with the roads not taken.<br />
<br />Faced with physical frailty and declining career prospects, Mallarico is unnerved by the talent and physical vitality of his grandson Mario. Their relationship becomes a dangerous contest of wills, culminating in Mario’s telling his grandfather he intends to play a “trick” on him. He locks the door to the balcony and exposes his grandfather to the wind and the rain—echoes of King Lear, intentional or not.<br />
<br />Like the elderly male protagonists in <i>Ties</i> and <i>Trick</i>, former high school teacher Pietro Vella in <i>Trust</i> is haunted by the past--in his case a passionate love affair with Teresa, a brilliant former student. Teresa proposes that they tell each other a terrible secret, something that would destroy them if it became known. The shared secrets will bind them to each other forever. Soon after making this pact, they break up. Pietro marries Nadia, a soft-spoken woman very different from the brash Teresa who moves to the United States and becomes a successful scientist.<br />
<br />Career ambition and the extent to which developing and realizing such aspirations is gendered is a recurring theme throughout the work of Ferrante/Starnone. Pietro, who described himself as not particularly ambitious, finds to his surprise that an article he had written about the Italian education system is highly regarded, resulting in a book deal. Pietro’s ambitions developed almost accidentally; his wife Nadia’s were carefully planned and nurtured. However, traumatized by an encounter with a sexually predatory elderly mathematics professor, Nadia abandoned her dream of becoming a mathematics professor.<br />
<br />Pietro Vella’s indifference to Nadia’s disappointments recalls Elena’s husband Pietro Airota in the Neapolitan novels. Nadia is in some ways like Elena, the good girl, the diligent student; but unlike Elena, Nadia abandons her career goals and devotes her energies to her family. Teresa, “the bad girl who sparkled” is reminiscent of Lina. Despite their living on different continents the bond between Pietro and Teresa does not attenuate. They continue to correspond, and their weekly exchanges make him “feel more married to Teresa than to Nadia…In fact, the more time passed, the more I seemed to have a deep bond with that woman who lived far away, one I hadn’t even seen for years.” <br />
<br />In addition to similar themes, Starnone’s works contain many allusions to the pseudonymous Elena Ferrante. The most striking textual reference to Ferrante occurs in Starnone’s <i>Autobiografia Erotica di Aristide Gambía</i> published the same year that My Brilliant Friend appeared in Italian. Rachel Donadio in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/elena-ferrante-pseudonym/573952/"> the <i>Atlantic</i> </a> describes it as a “dizzying meditation on whether men can convincingly write about women and women about men." “Elena Ferrante” actually appears as a character in <i>Autobiografia Erotica</i> and the narrator Aristide Gambía decides he no longer wants to write about aging men: instead, he will explore women’s lives, and “the battle … to become a new woman.”<br />
<br />Along with frequent allusions to images, scenes, themes recurring throughout the body of work attributed to Starnone/ Ferrante—what translator Jhumpa Lahiri characterizes as intratextuality, there is also what she notes as “great deal of intertextuality with other authors,” such as the allusions to Henry James’ <i>The Jolly Corner</i> in <i>Tric</i>k. In the James’ story, the protagonist Brydon Spencer, who has been living for years in Europe, returns to the New York City house in which he has grown up. Like Starnone’s aging artist who has also returned to his childhood home, Brydon is obsessed with the road not taken and searches for the ghosts of possible alternative selves. The allusion to <i>The Jolly Corner</i> does add a dimension to <i>Trick</i>, suggesting the universality of the experience of mulling over never to be realized possibilities as one moves into one’s later years.<br />
<br />The intricate web of allusions is part of the pleasure of reading Starnone’s novellas. However, there are drawbacks to the brevity of the form. Through fast-forwarding in <i>Ties</i> and <i>Trust</i> and flashbacks in<i> Trick</i>, Starnone gives us the sweep of time we associate with longer works, but the brevity of these three novels means that we don’t have the experience of getting to know a character deeply. I don’t think I will ever forget Elena and Lina of the Neapolitan Quartet; I spent so much time with them, as I read and re-read the Quartet.<br />
<br />The last long novel attributed to Ferrante, <i>The Lying Life of Adults</i>, was a disappointment. It explores familiar Ferrante themes; however, while in the Neapolitan Quartet the narrative complexity and dazzling prose kept it from falling into melodrama, <i>The Lying Life of Adults</i> too often descends into soap opera. In <i>The Lying Life of Adults</i>, we have Ferrante’s themes without Ferrante’s astonishing talent. How do we account for this? <a href=" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/31/what-brings-elena-ferrantes-worlds-to-life">Judith Thurman in her <i>New Yorker</i> review</a> has suggested that the “ crude hinting and telegraphing[in <i>The Lying Life of Adults</i>] suggest an author who distrusts her reader’s discernment, and they made me wonder if Ferrante hadn’t drafted the story as a much younger writer, still honing her craft.” There will no doubt be linguistic analyses of <i>The Lying Life of Adults<i></i></i>; my guess is that Starnone will not be identified as the principal author, and this may account for the relative weakness of Ferrante’s latest novel.<br />
<br />I am hoping for another novel of the caliber of the Neapolitan Quartet. Starnone is in his late 70s and time is running out. Starnone has apparently published eleven works of fiction not translated into English and which I would very much like to read. If Starnone were publicly identified as the co-author of the Neapolitan Quartet, I expect some of these books would be translated and made available to the English-speaking reader. The decision to publish under the pseudonym of Elena Ferrante was made over two decades ago, before Ferrante became an international sensation. Could Starnone at this point in his life want recognition for his contribution towards the creation of the fictional character Elena Ferrante and her powerful novels? <br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-91265415833740251192021-12-19T16:42:00.003-05:002021-12-19T16:42:41.987-05:00Article about Feminist Organizing Across the Generations which appeared in the Chestnut Hill LocalSee https://www.chestnuthilllocal.com/stories/local-professor-pens-history-of-feminist-political-organizing,22017
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgg-B0O1C4-pIHWcc4g_HXj_uFixpylq5wdqZdPzlwpgUlxnCbvqDUs5U3Txkef-q3a2X58iq9wXNQ3X-P65FNZ8UyTYVqJVu-_BuQwoC9erKkUbASNCWOYGwYBF84ivm80EiMDOqav55nNsU9DMN0tW896Agxv8e5m6Pq6lDfm4Gb15np_H-7o7sbHRg=s499" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="327" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgg-B0O1C4-pIHWcc4g_HXj_uFixpylq5wdqZdPzlwpgUlxnCbvqDUs5U3Txkef-q3a2X58iq9wXNQ3X-P65FNZ8UyTYVqJVu-_BuQwoC9erKkUbASNCWOYGwYBF84ivm80EiMDOqav55nNsU9DMN0tW896Agxv8e5m6Pq6lDfm4Gb15np_H-7o7sbHRg=s320"/></a></div>
<br />Longtime Mt. Airy resident Karen Bojar, professor emerita of English and Women's Studies at the Community College of Philadelphia, where she founded the women's studies/gender studies program, has been thinking for 20 years about the issues explored in her new book, “Feminist Organizing Across the Generations.” The book, which traces the evolution of the feminist movement over almost six decades, was just released on Nov. 25 by Routledge, a leading academic publisher based in Oxford, England.<br />
<br />“This actually goes back to when I co-edited 'Teaching Feminist Activism,' in 2002,” said Bojar, who served as president of Philadelphia chapter of the National Organization for Women from 2001 to 2009 and in that capacity dealt directly with the challenges of feminist organizing. “Also, during this period, I began collecting archival material from the founding members of Philadelphia NOW. I published that material in 2013 in time for a panel, 'Documenting Our History,' at the 2013 National NOW Convention.<br />
<br />“I knew my study was far from complete and I intended to return to the material and write a more comprehensive account, which would include a major strand of feminist history often left untold -- the enormous energy put into building feminist service organizations such as battered women’s shelters and rape crisis centers which were founded on a shoestring by committed feminists.”<br />
<br />Bojar, who has contributed articles to the Local in recent years, earned a Ph.D. in English literature from Temple University and an M.S. in education from the University of Pennsylvania. “In neither program did I have an opportunity to take courses in women’s studies,” she said last week. “The total absence of any courses on women and feminism meant that, like other women who first developed women’s studies programs, I was self-taught. I read just about everything available about feminism... Now there is so much literature written on feminism and gender issues that it would be impossible for anyone to review all the literature in the field, as I attempted to do in the ‘70s and ‘80s.”<br />
<br />A former longtime committee person in the 9th Ward Democratic Committee’s 2nd Division, Bojar is also the author of “Green Shoots of Democracy within the Philadelphia Democratic Party.” When asked about her background and previous books, Bojar said she would rather “avoid personal questions … and questions about previous books and keep the focus on 'Feminist Organizing Across the Generations.'<br />
<br />“The personal experience that I do think is relevant is my political evolution. The short form: I was a socialist in the late '60 and '70s; in the '80s I lost hope in the possibility of fundamental change and became a Democratic committeeperson and a feminist activist. The feminist movement was changing women's lives all over the world, and I wanted to be part of a rising movement. I was not particularly enthusiastic about working within the Democratic Party, but I didn’t see any hope for socialism.<br />
<br />“Then Bernie (Sanders) came along, and I began to hope again that real change was possible. I believe that socialist feminism is the only hope of improving the lives of all women, but it has become clear that it will take a long time.”<br />
<br />One significant finding in Bojar's research was that women of color were organizing around feminist issues but did not receive media attention, which was largely focused on white, middle-class feminists. “Also,” she said, “many women of color were organizing to improve women’s lives but not under an explicitly feminist banner.<br />
<br />“Many were involved in civil rights organizations and the movement for Black political empowerment. Others were involved in grassroots neighborhood organizations. Susan Hartmann in 'The Other Feminists: Activists in the Liberal Establishment,' documents the work of African American feminists who found that the ACLU, the NCC [National Council of Churches] and the Ford Foundation were more convenient or congenial places to pursue feminist aspirations than mainstream feminist groups.”<br />
<br />Interestingly, Bojar said her new hardback book is very expensive but did not want to mention the exact price “as both Amazon and Routledge adjust price to attract sales… On the plus side, an academic publisher like Routledge can ensure the book will be available in libraries and provide access to a global readership. Although I cannot ask my friends and colleagues to buy an absurdly overpriced book, I have asked those who have access to university libraries to order the book.” <br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-8469829314379847332021-11-15T15:36:00.010-05:002021-11-16T12:16:26.319-05:00Feminist Organizing Across the Generations<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZhvgMsJswt4alQ7VSI5WFHLS6B2RIv0FSeqIyL9IDdJEwWk9kL1E6SHn4LjT7wwZ-SoepHT5OOsRlozis2sUYclKpbTN_c5LybqXXqainle1JlbLaT8fct1QFrHfLubj4rnVnfYZpfNUH/s499/31REGb8MPuL._SX325_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="327" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZhvgMsJswt4alQ7VSI5WFHLS6B2RIv0FSeqIyL9IDdJEwWk9kL1E6SHn4LjT7wwZ-SoepHT5OOsRlozis2sUYclKpbTN_c5LybqXXqainle1JlbLaT8fct1QFrHfLubj4rnVnfYZpfNUH/s400/31REGb8MPuL._SX325_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg"/></a></div>
<br />My new book <i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations,</i> which traces the evolution of the feminist movement over six decades, will be released by Routledge on November 25. Unfortunately, it will first be published in a crazily expensive hardback version. Although I cannot ask my friends and colleagues to buy an absurdly over-priced book, I would appreciate those who have access to university libraries to order the book. <br />
<br /><i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations </i>is very much informed by my perspective as a feminist activist. In turn, my choices as an activist have been influenced by my study of social movements--primarily the feminist and civil rights movements, both fueled by strong social movement organizations. A key theme of this book, emerging from both my research and my activism, is the critical importance of strong social movement organizations for achieving lasting social change.<br />
<br />The major social movements of the second half of the 20th century, the civil rights movement and the second-wave feminist movement, were fueled by structured, federated organizations comprised of empowered members with voting rights. I began this study with the assumption that 21st-century feminists, unlike second-wave feminists, were not committed organization builders; I discovered that assumption was incorrect. Although some young feminists are involved primarily in online activism and a relatively small number are members of NOW, many are building on the ground, multi-issue progressive organizations and bringing a gender justice perspective to these groups. Instead of explicitly feminist organizations focused on women’s rights, many young women are drawn to broad-based human rights groups in which gender justice is integrated into a more inclusive progressive agenda. They are becoming engaged in electoral politics and are increasingly drawn to socialist politics rather than to the liberal reform agenda associated with feminist groups such as NOW.<br />
<br />As I delved more deeply into the history of the feminist movement, I was struck by how many second-wave feminists were extraordinarily skilled at organization building. <b> <b>Part I,</b> describes a generation of women who had worked as volunteers, building community organizations, labor unions, and political parties who were re-directing their considerable talents toward building organizations combatting the discrimination they experienced as women.</b> They were also creating organizations to provide services to victims of gender-based violence and feminist health centers for women ill served by male-dominated medical institutions. Within a relatively short period of time, second-wave feminists built an extraordinary range of organizations, which transformed the political, economic, and cultural landscape.<br />
<br />Although I have centered my history of second-wave feminism in Philadelphia, the same trajectory was taking place all over the United States: the political movement to end gender discrimination, closely followed by the creation of feminist service organizations. In most cities and towns, the local NOW chapter was the major driver of institutional change. In Part I, my analysis of Philadelphia NOW is placed in the context of its network of relationships with other organizations, both national and local. This is far from the complete story of the second-wave feminist movement in Philadelphia. In the 1970s, women of color were organizing to improve women’s lives, but generally not under an explicitly feminist banner. Many were involved in civil rights organizations and in the movement for Black political empowerment;others were involved in grassroots neighborhood organizations. Much of the work of community groups and of small Women’s Liberation collectives was not documented, or if documented, not deposited in archives accessible to me. My subject is feminist organizations, feminism with a paper trail and now an internet trail. <br />
<b><br /> <b>Part II</b> focuses on a major strand of feminist history often left untold—-the enormous energy put into building feminist service organizations founded on a shoestring by committed feminists, organizations such as battered women’s shelters and rape crisis centers. </b> It is impossible in one book to document the range of service organizations nationwide; even with a focus on one location, the range of service organizations is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, I focus on the two kinds of organization most prevalent across the country—those providing services to victims of male violence (e.g., rape crisis centers and shelters for battered women) and those providing women’s healthcare services. <br />
<br />Although the advocacy groups and the service organizations were both outgrowths of the same movement, histories of the feminist movement have generally treated them separately, with historians and journalists documenting and analyzing the movement to end gender discrimination, and sociologists and social service professionals studying feminist service organizations. The feminist service organizations have received the least attention; to date there are only a handful of book-length studies. To my knowledge, there are no book-length studies that, like <i>Feminist Organizing Across the Generations</i>, examine both the political movement and the service organizations as closely related outgrowths of the same movement.<br />
<br />Many of the women who built feminist service organizations were influenced by the rejection of hierarchy and commitment to participatory democracy that characterized much of the late 1960s and early 1970s feminist movement—particularly that strand generally referred to as the Women’s Liberation movement. Just as it is difficult to completely disentangle the liberal reform strand of second-wave feminism from what was considered the more radical Women’s Liberation movement, it is difficult to clearly separate the political movement against sex discrimination from the movement to build feminist service organizations. There were activists who pursued both paths, and the broad support for the feminist movement encompassed both. <br />
<br />The service organizations often started small, sometimes evolving out of Women’s Liberation collectives; however, as government and foundation grants became increasingly available, some of these shoestring operations morphed into strong organizations with stable funding, becoming the locus of feminist activism in many communities. As NOW chapters waned in significance in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in many localities the service providers such as rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and feminist health centers became the feminist movement.<br />
<br />By the late 1970s the multi-issue feminist movement had begun to fragment into separate movements: the anti-rape movement; the domestic violence movement; the abortion rights movement; the women’s health movement. The service organizations were certainly implicated in this tendency as they generally focused on one issue, although it’s not clear to what extent the service organizations were a cause or a consequence of the fragmentation. Suffice it to say, by the beginning of the 1980s we find fewer references to a unitary feminist movement. <br />
<br />As the movement grew in the 1970s, both activist groups such as NOW and feminist service providers increasingly grappled with racial differences among women—a particularly urgent issue for the rape crisis and battered women’s movement. The racial blind spots of many feminist service organizations led to the formation of service organizations specifically focused on the needs of women of color-–for example, the National Black Women’s Health Project and its network of local affiliates. <br />
<br /><b>P<b>art III</b> shifts from the achievements and blindspots of second-wave feminism, which can be viewed from the perspective of some distance, to the much greater challenge of documenting and analyzing 21st century feminism, a landscape which is changing as I write.</b> This study focuses on two periods in which feminist activism was unfolding within the context of a social movement—-20th century second-wave feminism and the 21st-century upsurge in social activism, much of which is led by young feminists. Although feminist organizing continued after the heyday of second-wave feminism, references to the “women’s movement” gradually disappeared. What continued were references to more focused, issue-specific movements—e.g., the abortion rights movement, the equa pay movement, and the anti-violence movement. <br />
<br />It wasn’t until the 2017 Women’s March that references to a unitary women’s movement reappeared. In response to the election of Donald Trump, the 2017 Women’s March, which began as a Facebook post, coalesced almost overnight, both demonstrating the power of social media-driven campaigns to rapidly mobilize millions of people, and also demonstrating their limitations. When conflicts arise, there are no agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving tensions and for holding leadership accountable. Although a non-profit Women’s March Inc.emerged from the initial march, it was not a membership organization with members empowered to set the agenda, elect board members and officers, and develop procedures for holding leaders accountable. <br />
<br />Although many young women were drawn to the 2017 Women’s March, established feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women have struggled to attract young women and meet the challenges of supporting grassroots activism in a climate very different from that of the feminist heyday of the 1970s. However, some 21st century feminists are choosing to build and become leaders in not explicitly feminist organizations, such as local chapters of Black Lives Matter (BLM) or Sunrise. They are playing leadership roles (even when they deny they are leaders)in a range of locally based social justice organizations and are bringing a feminist perspective to these groups. <br />
<br />Prior to the election of Donald Trump, many of the newer progressive organizations such as Occupy were not involved in, and did not encourage their members to engage in, electoral politics. Resistance to Trump’s election has resulted in more young women becoming engaged in electoral politics and running for office and winning. Also, younger women interested in political activism are increasingly drawn to socialist politics rather than to the liberal reform politics generally associated with NOW. Socialist feminists were involved in the second-wave feminist movement of 1970s; however, their numbers were relatively few and the larger society was antagonistic to socialism. Socialist feminists in 2021 are finding a far more receptive audience. Unlike the socialist organizations of the 20th century who were often hostile to feminism, 21st century socialist organizations are led by young feminists and place a high priority on gender justice, viewing all issues through a gender, racial and economic justice lens. <br />
<br />It may be too soon to gauge the strength and potential of socialist feminism, but we do know that feminist organizing in the 21st century will be multi-issue, intersectional, and international, with 21st century feminists bringing a feminist perspective to an ever-widening range of social justice issues. <br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-51791184926152775182021-10-13T19:10:00.002-04:002021-10-13T19:16:42.902-04:00The Early Fall Garden<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ4W0Zsk4JmrnSW30NcHP1GK0wfIW5yJz94rsARn8hGu4fdSbKcoWhZJM1h3nfg4pdr4AI5tFP4XBlnPjsLg0Xp7h9nQ2JUJ13-IKa3H1PJFjEbuGRSB7NEFImA2hnNeTV_wnuXP1MJjqk/s2048/P1010328+jap+anem.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ4W0Zsk4JmrnSW30NcHP1GK0wfIW5yJz94rsARn8hGu4fdSbKcoWhZJM1h3nfg4pdr4AI5tFP4XBlnPjsLg0Xp7h9nQ2JUJ13-IKa3H1PJFjEbuGRSB7NEFImA2hnNeTV_wnuXP1MJjqk/s400/P1010328+jap+anem.jpg"/></a></div><br /> Japanese Anemone<br />
<br />We just got back from a trip to New England. We found our garden in that in-between stage; the summer flowers are mostly gone and the fall foliage fireworks have not yet begun.<br />
<br />The leaves are turning later than usual—as a result of the warmer night temperatures which are probably one more consequence of global warming.<br />
<br />Fortunately the Japanese anemone are in full flower—-the backbone of our fall garden along with the sedum<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir6IsXtria2ipGPWXHcZDn5EV-y7BpbtYIaf_g-FpqgswDmFj5YqlrX0iXBAxjIVM1p4fdR2pii42cgjezuCpG6XcTtuyKzLxon7O0U29IHel_-7Z9kvzSoVf7vVNB0RYmtDNuz4SB7WOr/s2025/P1010307+sedum.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="2025" data-original-width="1974" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir6IsXtria2ipGPWXHcZDn5EV-y7BpbtYIaf_g-FpqgswDmFj5YqlrX0iXBAxjIVM1p4fdR2pii42cgjezuCpG6XcTtuyKzLxon7O0U29IHel_-7Z9kvzSoVf7vVNB0RYmtDNuz4SB7WOr/s400/P1010307+sedum.jpg"/></a></div><br /> Sedum<br />
<br />My garden is mainly a shrubs and perennials garden but I always try to squeeze in some annuals. Some summer annuals are hanging in there and the marigolds and vinca usually make it until the first frost.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6mOXGDJml9qvPNkioBTnv1-G4wesNt1ypTish0MbEvC9_m-3bUp0ig2wvrInxKRRprKrjEu801hquuApTKF3hxGzfVw9bMFeCm7LXOKsuMB8QYL5uQ6aIhCgDtK5tSqZvYbRkkAAjG80e/s2048/P1010313+marigolds.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6mOXGDJml9qvPNkioBTnv1-G4wesNt1ypTish0MbEvC9_m-3bUp0ig2wvrInxKRRprKrjEu801hquuApTKF3hxGzfVw9bMFeCm7LXOKsuMB8QYL5uQ6aIhCgDtK5tSqZvYbRkkAAjG80e/s400/P1010313+marigolds.jpg"/></a></div><br /> Marigolds<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0nFTPhPZZvlhTqhiS5IZztwzJC6m0Sr7CLJ7n1v1RWf4Mf4bNPvdHxpP1tE0GfpCViBX1fDwsj_x7186OmZ-UlKdKchc7GDHLgzuh1hCLgORYYbkakHSx6FrbbDF3W9g6kbGi6kKR5kSY/s2048/P1010311+vinca.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1503" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0nFTPhPZZvlhTqhiS5IZztwzJC6m0Sr7CLJ7n1v1RWf4Mf4bNPvdHxpP1tE0GfpCViBX1fDwsj_x7186OmZ-UlKdKchc7GDHLgzuh1hCLgORYYbkakHSx6FrbbDF3W9g6kbGi6kKR5kSY/s400/P1010311+vinca.jpg"/></a></div><br /> Vinca<br />
<br />And the caladium are still lighting up shady spots.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzFSkatF92los73N4wTsnJt7oVPiPlSTT5o8Dr-hiSzMJ1IgOLQEB2o8RjcaeDSY7EAs_xSNSYNiL0mBDABq8j3s0ksn_jLiPvPFuBawFD6IxQqz8gYOFMCzk_bTuV4eGM7IbZOt_LTXV_/s2048/P1010314+Caladium.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzFSkatF92los73N4wTsnJt7oVPiPlSTT5o8Dr-hiSzMJ1IgOLQEB2o8RjcaeDSY7EAs_xSNSYNiL0mBDABq8j3s0ksn_jLiPvPFuBawFD6IxQqz8gYOFMCzk_bTuV4eGM7IbZOt_LTXV_/s400/P1010314+Caladium.jpg"/></a></div><br /> Caladium<br />
<br />We had hoped to catch the peak of fall foliage in New England but it was late this year. However our trip was mainly a friends and family tour rather than a fall foliage tour. We enjoyed reconnecting with friends and relatives, although unfortunately some of them are dealing with serious health issues.<br />
<br />For me, the garden is a consolation. Unlike us, the flowers return year after year, generally on schedule. But will we be able to continue to count on this? The poet Wallace Stevens confidently asked “What has endured as April’s green endures?” But with global warming we can no longer be confident that the seasons will unfold and Fall flowers and foliage will arrive on schedule as they have throughout our lives. I try not to dwell too much on this.
<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-32939483256913112021-08-28T09:05:00.001-04:002021-08-28T09:07:04.371-04:00The last of the lilies<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixUfCFxoCSVMmLbNmSwioEs0Zz-OKe-uTSsGkU1Xgxfka55eoFXkrozPh1QReh1Z8Dck45vCeJmt0U6WcRvZnlyVmvBZBoenk9KvsgaBX4mLfKeBcJvrD5rpWSs0podZMBNPBtJY0X-h3X/s2048/P1010264+casa+blanca.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1617" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixUfCFxoCSVMmLbNmSwioEs0Zz-OKe-uTSsGkU1Xgxfka55eoFXkrozPh1QReh1Z8Dck45vCeJmt0U6WcRvZnlyVmvBZBoenk9KvsgaBX4mLfKeBcJvrD5rpWSs0podZMBNPBtJY0X-h3X/s400/P1010264+casa+blanca.jpg"/></a>Casa Blanca<br />
<br />Fragrance is one of the main reasons I devote so much time and energy to gardening. You can’t buy it; you have to grow it. The florists shops are filled with flowers bred for durability and showy blooms. Fragrance tends to diminish or in many cases disappear altogether. <br />
<br /> The queen of the fragrant lilies is Casa Blanca which appears in mid-July and disappears in early August. I've heard some people describe its fragrance as cloying, sugary, like cotton candy. To me, it's a heavenly scent--more like vanilla laced with a whiff of musk.<br />
<br /> Then the species lilies with their elongated stamens. They are fragrant but you have to be up close-- unlike Casa Blanca, one of which can perfume a large garden. The first to bloom is the statuesque Black Beauty which can reach over 6 feet tall. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI9SU4EX9hUrxLnNYzf3Rx5l6LKPIxEoYuXdkiARdp8f6z9mIqsLHLaI-HvBm4bl5wQDuX1vRMTqKt5PCXKtP4_VdCK8_XZYDlMpL-UpSy-ZsRhWfEyIR77Hun87VXj16gnh3ICLcyHHii/s2048/P1010269+Black+Beauty.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1654" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI9SU4EX9hUrxLnNYzf3Rx5l6LKPIxEoYuXdkiARdp8f6z9mIqsLHLaI-HvBm4bl5wQDuX1vRMTqKt5PCXKtP4_VdCK8_XZYDlMpL-UpSy-ZsRhWfEyIR77Hun87VXj16gnh3ICLcyHHii/s400/P1010269+Black+Beauty.jpg"/></a></div>
<br />Then the delicate white species lilies:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhULYD_P6GqywzyTICykZHCaKZuw9VBLaibqm8UTAwW4_QhJY4-_zJxCHeTkGu1hgWAO1hk_CnyRtCCtqTts-H0UVHagesj5V0GZ3FHDejVJ2BNogZP7UFTkagzvTQGLv2bHt_Qo9n4wXnH/s2048/P1010284+white+spec+lily.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1270" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhULYD_P6GqywzyTICykZHCaKZuw9VBLaibqm8UTAwW4_QhJY4-_zJxCHeTkGu1hgWAO1hk_CnyRtCCtqTts-H0UVHagesj5V0GZ3FHDejVJ2BNogZP7UFTkagzvTQGLv2bHt_Qo9n4wXnH/s400/P1010284+white+spec+lily.jpg"/></a></div>
<br />And finally speciosum rubrum, the last of which is blooming in my garden in late August.<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSrDhiqWyKGRJorFyDU5CAYQfOhs8bWUaPezE1euHVnRk0pVfqJ_38JyiZqYxXX4gUXvZ1PbOeCVOm-hGqpma-ScTFzI9LZegtB2mDdA2PRs9vvo0sbZ8yyjs_dpFK0kCVJR7cJg6sNFzZ/s2048/P1010301+rubrum+lily.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1180" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSrDhiqWyKGRJorFyDU5CAYQfOhs8bWUaPezE1euHVnRk0pVfqJ_38JyiZqYxXX4gUXvZ1PbOeCVOm-hGqpma-ScTFzI9LZegtB2mDdA2PRs9vvo0sbZ8yyjs_dpFK0kCVJR7cJg6sNFzZ/s400/P1010301+rubrum+lily.jpg"/></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /> Sadly, I have to wait a year before I will see my lilies again.<br />
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-64168579768344186502021-07-10T22:59:00.003-04:002021-07-10T22:59:58.608-04:00Defending democracy in PA begins with the Judiciary<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMaWRuggn0luwF2AXj915T3NyEs_eNAjBdIFnkIy7ab2TUt6-US9I4VAgHsq67yDwFLXSv-PS1FB1sMJm4vMhxdMP-DnSuverDEjcfSFPku80JUeuXYQcGsohtKBbX1jzLi_g5WiNUcDbP/s1600/10294036-golden-brass-scales-of-justice-on-white--Stock-Photo-legal-justice-scale.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMaWRuggn0luwF2AXj915T3NyEs_eNAjBdIFnkIy7ab2TUt6-US9I4VAgHsq67yDwFLXSv-PS1FB1sMJm4vMhxdMP-DnSuverDEjcfSFPku80JUeuXYQcGsohtKBbX1jzLi_g5WiNUcDbP/s400/10294036-golden-brass-scales-of-justice-on-white--Stock-Photo-legal-justice-scale.jpg" /></a><br />
<br /><br />This article appeared in <a href="https://www.chestnuthilllocal.com/stories/defending-democracy-in-pa-begins-with-judiciary,18007">
this week's Chestnut Hill Local</a><br />
<br />Over the 4th of July weekend, I had quite a few discussions with friends and relatives about the state of our democracy. This 4th of July was the first time I seriously considered the possibility that our democratic institutions were in jeopardy. For the first few years of the Trump administration, I thought our institutions were strong enough to withstand Trump’s blatant assault, but by 2020 I began to seriously worry if the guardrails would hold. They did, barely.<br />
<br />Trump may no longer be president, but the threat to our democracy continues. The latest Trump-inspired attempts to undermine the electoral process target election workers with threats of stiff fines and prosecutions. Recruiting poll workers will become increasingly difficult if they face threats not only of bodily harm from right-wing zealots but also of criminal prosecution.<br />
<br />Republican-controlled state legislatures are racing to pass measures making it harder for citizens to vote. In March 2021, the Georgia state legislature passed strict constraints on the use of ballot drop boxes, barred election officials from sending out absentee ballot applications, reduced the time frame to apply for absentee ballots, and imposed identification requirements for voting by mail. Attorney General Merrick Garland intends to sue Georgia, stating: “The rights of all eligible citizens to vote are the central pillars of our democracy. They are the rights from which all other rights ultimately flow.”<br />
<br />Many of these voting rights disputes will be settled in our courts. Unfortunately, Trump’s legacy lives on in his judicial appointments. As the Guardian put it: “Donald Trump’s presidency was capricious and chaotic, but there was one issue on which he focused with laser-like discipline: tilting the judiciary to the right.” According to ballotpedia.org, Trump appointed 234 judges, including 54 appellate judges, more than Barack Obama’s first term total of 172 and George W Bush’s 204.<br />
<br />In the November general election, Pennsylvania voters have the opportunity to push back against Trump’s campaign to change the composition of judiciary as we elect one PA Supreme Court justice, one judge of the Superior Court, and two judges of Commonwealth Court.<br />
<br />Before the Republican party became the party of Trump, Republicans committed to democracy were elected in judicial races. Some of these judges, whose primary allegiance was to the Constitution rather than to partisan politics, dismissed Trump supporters’ lawsuits to overturn a fair, democratic election. Increasingly, however, Republican judicial nominees will be chosen by a Trump-controlled Republican party.<br />
<br />The statewide judges elected in November will in all likelihood become involved in the congressional redistricting process. In 2018, the Democratic majority on the PA Supreme Court threw out the state’s 2011 map of redrawn congressional districts contending it was it was gerrymandered to favor Republicans, who, despite losing the popular vote in the 2010 congressional elections held 13 out of 18 seats. The Court drew a new map, which was used in the 2018 elections resulting in a 9-9 division.<br />
<br />New maps will be drawn after the release of census data for the Congressional, state House, and state Senate districts in mid-August 2021. It is widely expected that the state courts will again play a role in the redistricting process and thus it is critically important that voters pay attention to statewide judicial races.<br />
<br />In Philadelphia’s general elections, statewide judicial races with no contested local races on the ballot have historically had very low turnout. In our one-party town, contested local races are decided in the Democratic primary, and many voters have relatively little interest in the outcome of statewide judicial races.<br />
<br />The 2013 race for Judge of the PA Superior Court was a close contest decided by a few percentage points, with only 11.3 % of voters participating in the decision. The media coverage of the race for Superior Court was almost non-existent, and in many neighborhoods around the city it appeared that committeepersons were making little effort to inform voters and get out the vote.<br />
<br />Fortunately party leaders and political activists made a serious effort to educate the voters in the 2015 Supreme Court race, and turnout in Philadelphia rose to 25.62%—still dismal, given the importance of the race, but a significant improvement over the 11.3% turnout in 2013. Turnout in off-year elections has not returned to the rock bottom levels of 2013, and has been slowly inching upward. Nonetheless, turnout for the 2021 May primary was only 21.29% -- certainly nothing to celebrate.<br />
<br />The judiciary is the first line of defense for our democracy. To begin to undo the damage caused by Trump’s assault on our democratic institutions, in November, we must elect judges who are committed to upholding free and fair elections. Our democracy is at stake.<br />karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200669326669138986.post-13469535695103847832021-06-28T15:56:00.001-04:002021-06-28T15:56:55.872-04:00June is the best month for flowers<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiXR76tOR-h68b5Lspb6kjKnwSVjzk6twuTC5c06HEHzoUuBzmcqVxNURCGAAI0AG0sER27Mao-1UOeuiHj6gSHWYWl1tGu0nOr3zecoZ5r6LDCFHoXJT2X_aTEpMOrK3ZUPhB-TujNkgx/s4000/P1010255+black+and+white+lilies.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="3000" data-original-width="4000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiXR76tOR-h68b5Lspb6kjKnwSVjzk6twuTC5c06HEHzoUuBzmcqVxNURCGAAI0AG0sER27Mao-1UOeuiHj6gSHWYWl1tGu0nOr3zecoZ5r6LDCFHoXJT2X_aTEpMOrK3ZUPhB-TujNkgx/s400/P1010255+black+and+white+lilies.jpg"/></a></div>First come the self-seeding foxgloves pooping up all over my garden in early June.<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLJU8LiCZu5kzpuNwl3F4gahUdBBlZuauGfgsIix-FVuGp9cJXh9xpleMlmFz2RdPfYIO1QiSJNgtAdGOgMhOlA6b-iDD_zQoTog4Jib0DryXJewHTXK_zTOv9tgArI4fJ9CN4Jp1eYvLz/s2587/P1010197++foxglove.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="2587" data-original-width="1216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLJU8LiCZu5kzpuNwl3F4gahUdBBlZuauGfgsIix-FVuGp9cJXh9xpleMlmFz2RdPfYIO1QiSJNgtAdGOgMhOlA6b-iDD_zQoTog4Jib0DryXJewHTXK_zTOv9tgArI4fJ9CN4Jp1eYvLz/s400/P1010197++foxglove.jpg"/></a></div>
Then the roses which usually peak in mid June. I haven’t had a great deal of success with roses. After losing many, many rose bushes, I finally settled on David Austin roses as the most reliable, combining something of the fragrance and disease resistance of old-fashioned roses with the repeat blooming of hybrid teas. For me the most reliable and most beautiful of all is Don Juan:<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDiP79mp-o_fIKIO7c0Ucc0G-W9OK-iv6tuvBvQ5wPSGYSvvqOhqHZI7R6kL0b466ymo_Qo94h9-vyi9-Yj1lrUf01nYagZ-g9xeluAfqT6S7qeY_XkrQU4gCEHLlrJA90Cg69zNjret3-/s2048/P1010247++Don+Juan+close+up.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDiP79mp-o_fIKIO7c0Ucc0G-W9OK-iv6tuvBvQ5wPSGYSvvqOhqHZI7R6kL0b466ymo_Qo94h9-vyi9-Yj1lrUf01nYagZ-g9xeluAfqT6S7qeY_XkrQU4gCEHLlrJA90Cg69zNjret3-/s400/P1010247++Don+Juan+close+up.jpg"/></a></div>
Like roses, Clemstis with their thin brittle stems area challenge to grow. I've lost a lot of clems over the years , but I will never give up on these beauties. One of the most reliable and long lasting is Niobe.<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkUwI6egTqegAs0xDyIk612s3kWnsPQ0F1xbJsIj33Lk8hBdguuROtfR3a6Up6sTxm8SBhVYAUxj15EkKfSzvbSj_pJFejqmV7jcwCT4I_wYjhdyfTtT2di_gJeRYkRhxi81VTxgva6yYj/s2048/P1010168+Niobe.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1116" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkUwI6egTqegAs0xDyIk612s3kWnsPQ0F1xbJsIj33Lk8hBdguuROtfR3a6Up6sTxm8SBhVYAUxj15EkKfSzvbSj_pJFejqmV7jcwCT4I_wYjhdyfTtT2di_gJeRYkRhxi81VTxgva6yYj/s400/P1010168+Niobe.jpg"/></a></div>
Then in late June the Queen of the garden: the regal lilies with their powerful fragrance:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFWpvD1qqj99De0svNBjjAhICj3ZN3SPwL6UmbRGi7ftks2kFYP6vblZIXUWZ_TzkzErEGg0ryrGnyoPVixIZfR8rLrZ-F1aythPNugL337zSH5tXylsziESN3dOytNVuWh2lpNI4T2TNk/s2048/P1010234+regal+lilies.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1425" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFWpvD1qqj99De0svNBjjAhICj3ZN3SPwL6UmbRGi7ftks2kFYP6vblZIXUWZ_TzkzErEGg0ryrGnyoPVixIZfR8rLrZ-F1aythPNugL337zSH5tXylsziESN3dOytNVuWh2lpNI4T2TNk/s400/P1010234+regal+lilies.jpg"/></a></div>
The Asiatic lilies also bloom in late June. Their large glossy flowers make up for their lack of fragrance:
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZy4jH722ExHM8MnJvVj4d9v1a3kURLRVz3AouWuFyb802m_solXRVBuYDIDjilz3uL2bjSXmRIxQmU7919zbijVhOvYykhjZxWZqd5OpYf7TlK_SmfaG53nTfAqZ4vNszPK9CCEP_xfFl/s4000/P1010254+black+asiatic.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="3000" data-original-width="4000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZy4jH722ExHM8MnJvVj4d9v1a3kURLRVz3AouWuFyb802m_solXRVBuYDIDjilz3uL2bjSXmRIxQmU7919zbijVhOvYykhjZxWZqd5OpYf7TlK_SmfaG53nTfAqZ4vNszPK9CCEP_xfFl/s400/P1010254+black+asiatic.jpg"/></a></div>
And the most fragrant lilies are yet to come--the orientals of mid July
karenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14135222421004804653noreply@blogger.com2