Fwd: Open Letter to Women, by Barbara Ehrenreich

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Press Release
November 3, 2000
CONTACT: Jake Lewis or Stacy Malkan,
(202) 265-4000

IN OPEN LETTER TO WOMEN, LEADING FEMINIST SUPPORTS NADER
Clinton-Gore leveled blow to women by ending welfare

Dear sisters,

      As the election grows closer, I am increasingly dismayed by the
nasty rhetoric deployed by some feminists against Ralph Nader and his
supporters, of whom I am one. Gloria Steinem in particular, a woman I
have always admired until now for her graciousness, has chosen to attack
not only Nader but his supporters, whom she derides as overly white,
male and middle class -- completely ignoring Winona LaDuke and Nader's
sizeable contingent of feminist supporters.
      Yes, the choice between Nader and Gore was a difficult one, and I
retain my respect for those of you have come down on the Gore side of
it. The risk to abortion rights, in case of a Bush victory, is a real
one, and an understandable reason to choose Gore.
      But I wish to remind you:
      First, feminism is not and cannot become a single-issue movement.
While we retained abortion rights under the Clinton-Gore administration,
we lost welfare -- a blow not only to the about 4 million women who
depended on it in 1996, but to uncounted others who would have turned to
it as an escape from a violent relationship. For this and other reasons,
political scientist Gwendolyn Mink has called welfare reform "the most
aggressive invasion of women's rights in this century." The extent of
the damage -- in increased hunger, homeless, and possibly infant
mortality -- is just beginning to emerge. In the meantime, Gore boasts
of welfare reform and even claimed, in his acceptance speech at the
Democratic Convention, to have been the major force behind it. There
are, in other words, feminist reasons to reject Gore and to fear a Gore
administration.
      Second, while some prominent feminists are insisting on loyalty to
the Democratic Party as if it were a feminist principle, they forget
that only eight years ago, NOW announced a tentative plan to launch a
new feminist political party. I was at one of the meetings to discuss
the new party, so was Patricia Ireland, and the feeling then was of
disgust for the Democrats and weariness with being taken for granted by
them. In that year the Republican candidate, Bush Sr., was far more
openly aligned with the Christian Right than his son is now. So, even by
NOW's standards, rejection of the Democratic Party is hardly treason.
      Finally, our movement needs both its pragmatists and its dreamers,
its inside-players and its utopian outsiders. We would never have begun
without the dreamers, and never have lasted without the pragmatists. I
believe our movement derives strength from the creative tension between
the two groups, and that for one side to write off the other would be
suicidal.
      Whoever wins the election, we will need to pull together, both to
protect women's reproductive rights and advocate for economic
advancement. If you have contributed to the divisive rhetoric about
Nader supporters, I ask you to stop. If you are in touch with others who
have contributed to it, I ask you to urge them to stop.
       Please pass this letter along.

In sisterhood,
Barbara Ehrenreich

Barbara Ehrenreich is a leading political essayist, social critic and
author of such books as  Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle
Class, and Re-making Love: The Feminization of Sex.

--- Begin Message ---

• To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Open Letter to Women, by Barbara Ehrenreich
• From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:50:28 -0500

[Evidently Barbara Ehrenreich didn't check with Leo Casey first, so
she doesn't realize she's acting like an unruly adolescent male.]

Press Release
November 3, 2000
CONTACT: Jake Lewis or Stacy Malkan,
(202) 265-4000

IN OPEN LETTER TO WOMEN, LEADING FEMINIST SUPPORTS NADER
Clinton-Gore leveled blow to women by ending welfare

Dear sisters,

     As the election grows closer, I am increasingly dismayed by the
nasty rhetoric deployed by some feminists against Ralph Nader and his
supporters, of whom I am one. Gloria Steinem in particular, a woman I
have always admired until now for her graciousness, has chosen to attack
not only Nader but his supporters, whom she derides as overly white,
male and middle class -- completely ignoring Winona LaDuke and Nader's
sizeable contingent of feminist supporters.
     Yes, the choice between Nader and Gore was a difficult one, and I
retain my respect for those of you have come down on the Gore side of
it. The risk to abortion rights, in case of a Bush victory, is a real
one, and an understandable reason to choose Gore.
     But I wish to remind you:
     First, feminism is not and cannot become a single-issue movement.
While we retained abortion rights under the Clinton-Gore administration,
we lost welfare -- a blow not only to the about 4 million women who
depended on it in 1996, but to uncounted others who would have turned to
it as an escape from a violent relationship. For this and other reasons,
political scientist Gwendolyn Mink has called welfare reform "the most
aggressive invasion of women's rights in this century." The extent of
the damage -- in increased hunger, homeless, and possibly infant
mortality -- is just beginning to emerge. In the meantime, Gore boasts
of welfare reform and even claimed, in his acceptance speech at the
Democratic Convention, to have been the major force behind it. There
are, in other words, feminist reasons to reject Gore and to fear a Gore
administration.
     Second, while some prominent feminists are insisting on loyalty to
the Democratic Party as if it were a feminist principle, they forget
that only eight years ago, NOW announced a tentative plan to launch a
new feminist political party. I was at one of the meetings to discuss
the new party, so was Patricia Ireland, and the feeling then was of
disgust for the Democrats and weariness with being taken for granted by
them. In that year the Republican candidate, Bush Sr., was far more
openly aligned with the Christian Right than his son is now. So, even by
NOW's standards, rejection of the Democratic Party is hardly treason.
     Finally, our movement needs both its pragmatists and its dreamers,
its inside-players and its utopian outsiders. We would never have begun
without the dreamers, and never have lasted without the pragmatists. I
believe our movement derives strength from the creative tension between
the two groups, and that for one side to write off the other would be
suicidal.
     Whoever wins the election, we will need to pull together, both to
protect women's reproductive rights and advocate for economic
advancement. If you have contributed to the divisive rhetoric about
Nader supporters, I ask you to stop. If you are in touch with others who
have contributed to it, I ask you to urge them to stop.
      Please pass this letter along.

In sisterhood,
Barbara Ehrenreich

Barbara Ehrenreich is a leading political essayist, social critic and
author of such books as  Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle
Class, and Re-making Love: The Feminization of Sex.

--
Stacy Malkan
Assistant Press Secretary
Nader 2000 Campaign
202.265.4000 ext. 42
202.265.0183 (fax)
www.votenader.org

Paid for by the Nader 2000 General Committee, Inc.
P.O. Box 18002, Washington, D.C. 20036

--- End Message ---