plus, not ALL the problems women face have to do with children.

I don't like this idea because it assumes that all women agree on the issues and have the same needs. We're a diverse group.

Do we need an all-women political party?

NO. NO. NO.

This is women-centric feminism at its finest.

it sounds counterproductive, but I'm not Australian. Furthermore, fringe political parties have a fairly different role in government than they do in the states.

it sounds counterproductive, but I'm not Australian. Furthermore, fringe political parties have a fairly different role in government than they do in the states.

I'm a child-free woman and I resent it that women's issues are always linked to children. Why aren't they called parent's or children's issues instead.
Additionally, when we seperate ourselves into a seperate catagory (i.e. "women's issues") I think it makes us sound whiney and therefore like we are asking for special treatment. We are asking for equal treatment, whether that's the right to make our own health care decisions, earn an equitable wage, or receive fair and reasonable compensation and acknowledgements for our contributions. We want equal representation in government and equal opportunities for advancement. We want the right to be safe in our homes and in our streets. And we want a work / life balance that allows us to earn a decent living while growing our families/relationships/ communities. These are not special women's issues, they are equal human rights. Perhaps if the GLBT groups, minorities, immigrant groups, and women's groups all worked together to secure these basic rights for everyone then we might be more effective.

I agree with all the comments so far. Based on the excerpt in the post, it seems that the message is: The only important women's issues are are actually "mothers' issues".

Bousefield's critiques concerning the lack of mother, child, and family friendly policies are certainly applicable to this country, and presumably all countries (except maybe Sweden - you all rock), in spite of all the empty pro-family rhetoric politicians throw around to appear "moral". I definitely believe that supporting these issues a fundamental to the feminist movement, but are women really the only ones who care about these things? Lord, I hope not. And, as Jessica says in the post, do we really need a "women's only" party to achieve these goals?

I'm definitely support of a FEMINIST party, but that doesn't seem to be what this is. Women's issues are the same as Mother's issue, even if they do sometimes intersect. Women's issues also include reproductive freedom, health services, pay equality, rape and other violent crime prevention, etc., etc., etc.

These are not womens' issues, these are parents' issues. I resent that just because I'm a woman then these should be my issues - they are not.

What a way to promote the stereotype that all women are particularly concerned with children (and men aren't for some reason?).

Well, I don't understand the Austrialian political system very well, but if it's a proportional multi-party system (where you vote for a party, which then gets allocated seats, rather than voting for individual candidates), then it seems like a great idea!

I'm definitely support of a FEMINIST party, but that doesn't seem to be what this is.

I think what's needed is not so much a women-only party, but rather a party for which women aren't seen as merely an occasional annoyance that is tolerated as long as they reliably vote the right way, which is about all we've been able to expect from the nominal two-party system over the past few decades.

I don't understand why "womens issues" is synonymous with childcare. As some of you also commented, this sort of thing only emphasizes the sexist idea that childcare is the sole responsibility of women and what all women are concerned about above all else.

Why isn't it a men's issue or a joint issue for people who are concerned about childcare?

Why is a "what women want" political party automatically women only, any more than a "feminist" party would be women-only?

Isn't it just a poorly-named equivalent? I know you're presenting it as a women-only party, but is it, really?

I agree that these are men's issues, or parents' issues as much as they are "women's issues", but as long as a disproportionate number of women are suffering due to inadequate support for parents, it is something (though certainly not the only thing) I am concerned about as a feminist.

I am childless - and plan to remain that way - but I still think that supporting childcare, maternity leave, and other child-oriented policies is feminist because these issues involve a woman's right to choose what to do with her life and her body. If a woman wants to have kids, she should get all the resources and support she needs, and she should sure as hell have access to childcare so that she can choose to continue working. At the same time, if a woman chooses not to have kids, her choice should not be questioned, and it should not be assumed that there is something wrong with her. For me, feminism is about supporting women's unique choices and their right to make those choices, whatever they may be.

This seems like a terrible idea. What about the male feminists? We can't really help the cause of feminism if we're being excluded.

Not to downplay mothers problems, but Im glad to see others (as in actual women) thought there should have a been a gnat winks less focus on that, like I did (even though it was from a blokes perspective).

I don't know, but it did work here in Iceland.

The women's party (Kvennalistinn) was hugely successful in increasing the participation of Icelandic women in politics back in the 80s. They did get quite a few women elected to parliament, and maybe more importantly,the other parties were forced to adress women's issues and put more women on the ballot. Many of the most influential women in Icelandic politics today, ingluding the foreign minister, started their carriers in the women's party. Icelandic parents get nine moths of paid parental leave per child, affordable daycare is widely available and members of Kvennalistinn were instrumental in starting the first shelters for victims of domestic and sexual abuse.

As long as women bear most of the responsibility of childrearing (as is the case in most countries) issues like maternity leave and daycare are very much women's issues.

As I said, I don't know if it would work in Australia or the US, but it did work here.

PS. And "what about the male feminists"? They got to play the traditionally female role of offering support and working behind the scenes.

"PS. And "what about the male feminists"? They got to play the traditionally female role of offering support and working behind the scenes."

I shake my head in disgust. It makes no more sense for a woman's group to exclude men than it would for a civil rights group to exclude Caucasians, or for a LGBT rights group to exclude heterosexuals.

I shake my head in disgust. It makes no more sense for a woman's group to exclude men than it would for a civil rights group to exclude Caucasians, or for a LGBT rights group to exclude heterosexuals.
Jeremy, did you even read the comment? She said that men can play a support role.
It's inappropriate for a man to lead the feminist movement, as it is for a white person to lead in an African American movement. Members of the majority can lend their support, but they shouldn't lead, due to the power differential.

Off-topic but yikes! What's up with the ad on the right with the half-naked woman with ample cleavage in the bikini? I had to scroll past half these comments in order to get her off my screen! I usually read Feministing at work and I'd prefer to have the near naked women confined to MySpace and its ilk, not on my favorite and most-frequented feminist site!

Hilda,
Thanks for the info. It sounds like the party accomplished some great things. Were only women allowed in the party, or was it a party focused on women's issues with male supporters/participants?

"Jeremy, did you even read the comment? She said that men can play a support role."

Yes, but relegating men to a support role is a sure-fire way to alienate them. Why would I want to fight for equality with an organization that promotes inequality in its own structure?

Yes, but relegating men to a support role is a sure-fire way to alienate them. Why would I want to fight for equality with an organization that promotes inequality in its own structure?
B/c if men led a woman's org., say NOW hypothetically, it would be just another man in power telling women what to do.
& if you can't understand why that's wrong, then I really question what you're doing here.

Personally, speaking as a pro-feminist male, I have no problems if a feminist group excludes men. I do have a problem with the whole "support role" thing.

Personally I think for the most part men neccesarily have to engage feminist issues in different ways than women but I don't think movements of social change should be structured along the lines of leaders and followers.

Hi Sedmunds
Men were members of the party, but only women were up for election. At the time (1983), there had only been 12 women MPs in the entire history of Iceland.

Jeremy
I guess you would want to fight for equality if you would be a decent person. I don't know what else to tell you. I don't feel particularly alienated by the LGBT movement or other minorities whose rights I support, even if they fail to create places of honor for my straight, Nordic self.

But then again, Moxie Hart already explained that to you. (Thanks Moxie)

I interned for a pro-choice organization one summer, and the Executive Director was a woman, but the much loved Assistant/Vice ED was a man who had been with the organization for over a decade. He was fantastic, charismatic, and definitely committed to the cause, and he deserved the high position he held. The interns had a bit of a fan club for him.
However, I agree with Moxie Hart on this one - had he been the ED, the dynamic of the organization would have been different. As part of the senior staff, he was a peer who also happened to be some people's supervisor. Had he been the Head Honcho, he would have seemed more like some guy who was in charge to make sure the women didn't get hysterical and screw things up. I think that men should certainly have integral roles in feminist activism, but it is best to let the ladies be in charge of their organizations.

"B/c if men led a woman's org., say NOW hypothetically, it would be just another man in power telling women what to do."

That's a pretty harsh generalization of men. If an individual is best suited to lead an organization, what difference does the gender of that individual make? Isn't the point of feminism to fight against discrimination based on gender? How is this really any better?

Oh wow, I've been hearing the term "concern troll" bandied all about the interwebs, and I was skeptical about the phenomenon. Thanks, Jeremey F., for providing a real-life example.

PS: I'm not sure that the proposed women's party would exclude men from participation anyway.

That's a pretty harsh generalization of men. If an individual is best suited to lead an organization, what difference does the gender of that individual make? Isn't the point of feminism to fight against discrimination based on gender? How is this really any better?

Because you're trying to pretend that the organization exists in a vacuum. All other things being equal, sure, the person with the best skill-set should have a particular job. But, things aren't equal.

They're just not, right now. And it's wrong to pretend that they are.

The reality is that having a man in charge of an organization that is trying to help women acheive equality is going to face problems. It just is. I don't think that it means that men can't have an important and active role in feminist organizations, but I absolutely think it's unreasonable to think that a man should be in charge of a major feminist organization right now- it ignores the entire social circumstances that currently require such organizations to exist in the first place. An organization promoting the advancement of women loses credibility if it's headed by a man.

I think this post and most of the subsequent comments here are over-hasty and people are making statements without adequately informing themselves. Why don’t you begin by looking at the party’s website?: www.whatwomenwant.org.au If you look at their membership form you will see that a new member has to declare only that they are eligible to vote in Australia, not that they are female (which would actually be illegal anyway). Their site also states that their membership includes men. A quick glance down their list of policy positions shows platforms on the environment, advocacy of equal rights for same-sex couples, and a commitment to fair industrial relations practices and a universal minimum wage.

No we don’t need an a women-only political party to get voters to care about women, but we may well need one to get politicians to care about women. For all those who think proportional gender representation won’t influence policy, try this on for size: not long ago there was a bill put to parliament to have regulation of the RU486 (“morning after pill�) controlled by the same medical regulatory authority as all other medications, instead of by the federal government, as it was at the time. In the Australian upper house there are 76 seats, currently 30 held by women and 46 by men. Of those 46 men, 25 voted against the bill. When it came to the women only 3 of the 30 were prepared to vote against it. Do you think that proportion of more than half the men in the senate was thinking about whether their female voters would rather see their reproductive health being regulated by doctors or politicians?

I say, if there’s any way to make the sort of noise that will force these men to look to the influence their actions has on women, then go for it, at least until that glorious time when we don’t need it anymore. And a bit of support from a feminist website shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Eh, why not? If presenting women as a voting bloc gets women's issues on the table and women into power, I don't have a problem with it. It's true that this party seems to focusing on motherhood-related issues, for all the reasons that others have already outlined, but that may be appropriate. I don't know enough about Australian politics; it may be that that's what's being neglected the most right now.

Quite frankly, given the horror show that the US political system has become, I'm open to options.

"For all those who think proportional gender representation won’t influence policy, try this on for size: not long ago there was a bill put to parliament to have regulation of the RU486 (“morning after pill�)..."

RU486 isn't the morning after pill. It causes an abortion while the morning after pill only prevents a pregnancy. I just had to point this out because so many people call the morning after pill abortion when it's really emergency contraception.

"Oh wow, I've been hearing the term "concern troll" bandied all about the interwebs, and I was skeptical about the phenomenon. Thanks, Jeremey F., for providing a real-life example."

I just looked up that term. I am not the Stephen Colbert of feminism! Read some of the other comments I have made and you'll understand. I do present dissenting points of view, but that is something that is actually beneficial as it helps prevent groupthink. You should always welcome someone willing to say something that is reasonable but unpopular for that same reason.

Let's not get hung up on insignificant details. I assume if you're a reader of this blog, you are interested in furthering the cause of feminism. That is what is truly important here.

Moxie Hart, Roymac, Nausicaa, and Sedmunds wrote things like: "It's inappropriate for a man to lead the feminist movement/or to have a leadership role in a feminist organization. That would be like a white person to lead in an African American movement."

What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!

One would hope that people interested in gender issues would hold to the belief that people should be judged on their leadership qualities, not their gender. Especially on a site explicitly designed to promote gender equality! No love for the perspective that people should be judged on the content of their character and capabilities, not their physical characteristics?

I really don't think that political perception is a valid excuse for discriminating against people for any reason. Neither is creating a status hierarchy in any organization based on gender. I thought that's what we all abhorred?

They're just not, right now. And it's wrong to pretend that they are.>>>

Keep extending that logic. Many men and women prefer to work for a male rather than female boss. All things being equal, gender shouldn't matter. But if people respond better to male bosses, then men should be the one's put in charge for the sake of the company.

You can always come up with some sort of excuse for creating a gender hierarchy. I thought the point of feminism was to create gender equality. If you can't even create gender equality within a feminist organization, how can you expect other organizations to do the same? An organization promoting gender equality should lead by example.

Jeremy F - If you weren't a concern troll, you'd have realized that the proposed party is not about banning men but about getting women elected.

UCLAbodyimage - I don't actually think men should be banned being NOW president.

I really don't think that political perception is a valid excuse for discriminating against people for any reason. Neither is creating a status hierarchy in any organization based on gender. I thought that's what we all abhorred?

It seems to me that political perception would be an entirely reasonable criterion in a political organisation. Political organisations have certain goals; that's the point of them. There's nothing wrong with membership in an organisation being open primarily to those who share those goals.

It's not the "physical characteristics" that are at issue here. It's the fact that men generally have little, if any, first-hand idea of what any woman's life or interests are — the only people with first-hand knowledge of that are women. I don't see anything shocking about the idea that women are better representatives of our own interests than anyone else. Women have had to be "represented" by men for millennia; securing the right to speak for ourselves is one of the oldest goals of feminism.

I live in Australia and am a member of another political party, but even I think this is a good idea. You have to understand the Australian political system to recognise this. In particular, in the upper house of the Federal Parliament, the balance of power is generally held by minority representatives, which are usually offensive in their views – one is called Family First, which really translates to conservative pseudo- Christian patriarchal claptrap; previously an independent called Brian Harradine held a crucial vote and used it to squeeze out concessions like the banning of the abortifacient RU486 (which was re-allowed late last year) and the banning of foreign aid moneys being used to ‘promote’ abortion. At the moment, the foul Family First Candidate has wielded the balance of power all on his own on a couple of occasions. I would much rather have a What Women Want candidate, whose policy platform I agree with whole heartedly.

"Moxie Hart, Roymac, Nausicaa, and Sedmunds wrote things like: "It's inappropriate for a man to lead the feminist movement/or to have a leadership role in a feminist organization. That would be like a white person to lead in an African American movement."

What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!"

B.S. One of the basic tenants of the Civil Rights Movement, Feminism, etc. is that those of the marginilized groups, those with the experience living as people of a group, are best equipped to understand and deal with issues presented to that group. Would it make sense to have a Muslim in charge of Christian Right lobbying organizations? Our national government is supposed to represent the country as a whole, hence it should look like the country as a whole. But interest groups are meant to represent groups of people with certain beliefs, and as long as they are a fixture in our govt it makes sense for them to represent the people they're standing for.

"Many men and women prefer to work for a male rather than female boss. All things being equal, gender shouldn't matter. But if people respond better to male bosses, then men should be the one's put in charge for the sake of the company."

And maybe women in feminist organizations prefer to work for female bosses. Are you familiar with the process by which the director of most non-profit organizations is chosen?

Anyway, I think a lot of women's fear is that if men are in charge of women's organizations, then gradually women's organizations would lose their focus and become just like the rest of the world. Arguing that not allowing men to be in charge of women's organizations is sexist is kind of like arguing that not allowing men to weigh in equally on what being a woman is like is sexist (as you seem want to do in certain threads) and pretty soon women are losing their voice all over again. I have known some self-proclaimed male feminists, and while I appreciate their empathy and their dedication to learning more about sexism in our society, but none of them has the innate ability to know what it is like to be a woman. Same thing with Afro-American groups, etc.

Now if you're going to argue there should be organizations founded solely for the pursuit of gender equality, then sure, I would expect those to be founded by both males and females and to have equal representation in their organizations. But so far most of the organizations that exist to deal with gender/sexual inequality were founded by women. There's a reason for that, and for the fact they focus on women in their titles and/or missions.

Elise Wrote: "It's not the "physical characteristics" that are at issue here. It's the fact that men generally have little, if any, first-hand idea of what any woman's life or interests are — the only people with first-hand knowledge of that are women. I don't see anything shocking about the idea that women are better representatives of our own interests than anyone else. "

I sympathise with the view that people who have shared experiences can be strong proponents for others with the same experience.

For example, I really do appreciate that the lead counselor at the CA Office for Disability Services has the same condition that I do. I know that she understands what I go through on a daily basis and has a strong personal stake in being an advocate for disability rights.

That said, however, she's also very scatter brained and often overlooks lots of important details and deadlines. I think that a non-disabled person with a more conscientious personality who is passionate about the issue could do the job as well or better.

Similarly, I think the same is true for a variety of political issue groups. Just because a person hasn't had a certain experience doesn't mean they aren't passionately devoted to the issue or lack an understanding of it. Further, having a representative who DOES NOT have a personal stake in the outcome I think can send a very powerful message as well - that this is an issue that is important to all individuals, whether they stand to personally gain or not.

What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!
No, it's not sexist.
You & Jeremy seem to have an inability to understand the words coming out of the computer, so this is the last time I'll say it.
In the hierarchy of the world, women, gay people, & minorities tend to be at the bottom. For an organization based on the empowerment of these people, such as the NAACP, LAMBDA, or NOW, it is wrong to have a member of the majority empowered group leading it.
I'm NOT saying "LET's put unqualified people in power." Seriously, who would believe that? That's a special, Ann Coulter level of stupid.
Or, conversely, groups like IWF & CWA claim to believe in empowering women but at least one of them has a man in charge of it.
One of the basic premises of feminism is that inequality exists between the genders & that inequality is wrong. If you can't see the difference between not wanting a man to be the leader of NOW but still being able to participate in feminism & not having men participate at all then *bzzz!* you fail feminism 101, you can go now, don't call us we'll call you, & you should recevie your copy of The Second Sex in 2 to 4 weeks.

"Further, having a representative who DOES NOT have a personal stake in the outcome I think can send a very powerful message as well - that this is an issue that is important to all individuals, whether they stand to personally gain or not."

I have known plenty of self-proclaimed male feminists who I appreciated overall, who nevertheless really did not "get" certain things, or it took them a long time to do so. The best male feminists I know continued to grow and learn with age. Not all feminist women would make great leaders for powerful women's non-profits, that is true. However, being the head of a non-profit or a political party is a competitive job. I'm sure there are plenty of well-qualified female candidates. So it's a moot point.

The best male feminists I know continued to grow and learn with age.

Much as one only becomes wise by recognising one is a fool, the best male feminists (the only ones worthy of the name, really) that I know readily admit when they don't "get it" (and aren't offended by the possibility that they may never get some things) and would never presume to be more qualified to recognise and represent women's interests than women themselves.

Moxie Hart wrote "What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!
No, it's not sexist."

Um...
Dictionary.com: Sexism.

2. Discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex.

You and Nina and others are actively promoting the idea that an organization should discriminate on the basis of sex. That's exactly what sexism is.

Now, the point that women, on average, have a better understanding of what women go through is certainly a valid point. But that's quite different from actively excluding people from employment solely on the basis of sex or endorsing a hierarchy based on sex in an organization.

"If you can't see the difference between not wanting a man to be the leader of NOW but still being able to participate in feminism & not having men participate at all then *bzzz!* you fail feminism 101, you can go now, don't call us we'll call you, & you should recevie your copy of The Second Sex in 2 to 4 weeks."

Awwww... how cute! But also irrelevant to the discussion. In my experience personal attacks don't dissuade posters, but rather make a person assume that a person is unable to defend their position in an effective manner and so is forced instead to attempt to distract from the issue.

"In the hierarchy of the world, women, gay people, & minorities tend to be at the bottom. For an organization based on the empowerment of these people, such as the NAACP, LAMBDA, or NOW, it is wrong to have a member of the majority empowered group leading it."

Yes, that is the issue under debate - whether it is right to discriminate against individuals in an effort to end discrimination.

"I'm NOT saying "LET's put unqualified people in power." Seriously, who would believe that? "

I don't know. I don't think anyone has made that claim...

Ok, UCLA, you clearly just don't get it. I don't know how to make it any clearer without opening up your brain & connecting the synapses for you.
My final point, for you concern trolls, is, it's not always about the menz. I'm sorry, but it's not.

I don't know. I don't think anyone has made that claim...

What, then, was the purpose of telling us about your "scatter brained" caseworker?

"But interest groups are meant to represent groups of people with certain beliefs, and as long as they are a fixture in our govt it makes sense for them to represent the people they're standing for."

I completely agree. And what I am saying is that it's wrong to exclude a priori someone from being an employment position because using their sex, race, sexual orientation, etc., as the basis for exclusion. In other words, not prejudging their qualifications or ability to do the job based on those traits. The best candidate would often be someone who has had certain experiences. All I'm saying is that the willingness of many people to simply completely endorse a vision of exclusion based on sex was honestly shocking to me. I just didn't expect that!

" not allowing men to weigh in equally on what being a woman is like is sexist (as you seem want to do in certain threads) "

Where I have I ever claimed that? You have a tendency to make claims about me.

Ok, UCLA, you clearly just don't get it. I don't know how to make it any clearer without opening up your brain & connecting the synapses for you.

Kinda makes our point for us, doesn't he?

UCLA, you're assuming that we live in a vaccuum where we're all equal. I'll say it again--we're not equal. Men hold the dominant position in society. That is why it would be wrong for men to hold a dominant position in an organization purporting to advance a feminist perspective.
That's why there are still women's schools, etc. However, if you wanted to be part of a gender equality group or a group for men supporting feminists, like Men Can Stop Rape, that would be different.

Kinda makes our point for us, doesn't he?
LoL it's like having a walking demonstration. Kind of like, back in my college days, when the inevitable frat boy would say, "But isn't feminism against the MeNz!?!"

"What, then, was the purpose of telling us about your "scatter brained" caseworker?"

That one doesn't need to be disabled to be the most effective advocate for the disabled.

"Kinda makes our point for us, doesn't he?"

No, he doesn't.

"UCLA, you're assuming that we live in a vaccuum where we're all equal. I'll say it again--we're not equal. Men hold the dominant position in society. That is why it would be wrong for men to hold a dominant position in an organization purporting to advance a feminist perspective. "

Don't get me wrong, I'm not oblivious to the point you are making. What I am objecting to is the strong claim that someone who is not of X experience is automatically expected to be incapable of being the best representative for a group of individuals.

I think the point that you, Nina, etc. are making is quite valid: That in most cases people with a given experience and with a personal stake will be the most effective advocates.

No one's saying that a man would be a bad leader of a feminist org. We're saying that a man shouldn't be the leader, until there's gender equality. Even if he doesn't want to, the hypothetical male leader still benefits from his gender in a way that the women he'd be leading don't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not oblivious to the point you are making. What I am objecting to is the strong claim that someone who is not of X experience is automatically expected to be incapable of being the best representative for a group of individuals.

OK, can you further see why there might seem to be something just a little amiss about a movement that is all about women's right to speak for and represent ourselves being spoken for and represented by the very group whose "representation" of women made feminism necessary in the first place?

"Ok, UCLA, you clearly just don't get it. I don't know how to make it any clearer without opening up your brain & connecting the synapses for you."

Well, I think you've been pretty effective. In the space of just 30 minutes I've gone from completely disagreeing with you/nina/elise to pretty much agreeing with you all. So no need for brain surgery tonight :-)!

"LoL it's like having a walking demonstration. Kind of like, back in my college days, when the inevitable frat boy would say, "But isn't feminism against the MeNz!?!"

Really? Is that what I believe? Or do I visit this board daily because I am interested in learning more about feminism and gender issues, hearing other people's views, trying to convince others of my opinions, and testing out how well my opinions hold up given insightful critiques of my ideas?

"OK, can you further see why there might seem to be something just a little amiss about a movement that is all about women's right to speak for and represent ourselves being spoken for and represented by the very group whose "representation" of women made feminism necessary in the first place?"

Yes, you've convinced me.

Really? Is that what I believe? Or do I visit this board daily because I am interested in learning more about feminism and gender issues, hearing other people's views, trying to convince others of my opinions, and testing out how well my opinions hold up given insightful critiques of my ideas?

To be completely honest with you, it's hard (for me at least) to tell sometimes. Often you appear to me just as you say. Other times (at certain points in this thread, for example) I wonder.

Whoa, really?
Damn! I mean, yay!
*Shiftily hides her trepanation tools*

"To be completely honest with you, it's hard (for me at least) to tell sometimes. Often you appear to me just as you say. Other times (at certain points in this thread, for example) I wonder. "

That's fair enough. Since my viewpoint varies from feminist issue to feminist issue, it makes me an uncertain ally. But I definitely feel like I've learned alot on this board, especially on topics relating the degree and severity of sexual harassment many women face, body-related issues, and media/personal bias regarding expected women's role in politics/family, threats to abortion rights, and so on. I might pontificate at times, but I also absorb as well :-).

Damn! I mean, yay!
*Shiftily hides her trepanation tools*>>>

:-).

But I definitely feel like I've learned alot on this board...I might pontificate at times, but I also absorb as well :-).

As far as I'm concerned, learning and absorbing are the two most important contributions a pro-feminist man can make right now, and it's certainly more than many do.

"Or do I visit this board daily because I am interested in learning more about feminism and gender issues, hearing other people's views, trying to convince others of my opinions, and testing out how well my opinions hold up given insightful critiques of my ideas?"

Same reason I come here. I might not always agree with the other posters here, but I am admittedly very new to feminism. I could very well be wrong and end up changing my mind at a later date when I've been exposed to more information. Thankfully I'll have the opportunity to take some women's studies classes next semester, so I'm pretty excited about that opportunity.

arleeshar is right about minority parties often holding the balance of power in Australian politics. They can use their deciding votes to pressure major parties into making adjustments to bills. I'd be happy to vote for this party and direct my preferences to the Greens or a mainstream party.

My only problem is with the name of the party - it makes it sound like they speak for all women, which they obviously can't, and I think it would have been better to choose something else (suggestions?).

arleeshar is right about minority parties often holding the balance of power in Australian politics. They can use their deciding votes to pressure major parties into making adjustments to bills. I'd be happy to vote for this party and direct my preferences to the Greens or a mainstream party.

My only problem is with the name of the party - it makes it sound like they speak for all women, which they obviously can't, and I think it would have been better to choose something else (suggestions?).

I think a lot of these comments are getting caught up in the theory of this, and missing the point behind the party.

Single-issue parties have virtually no chance of election themselves to either house of the Australian federal parliament. However, as we (unlike the US) have a system of preferential voting, they can have a significant influence on who does win seats by directing preferences to parties with policies more in line with their own.

With that in mind, it's not hard to see what WWW are after here. Neither of the major parties are particularly good on issues of childcare and the like, but by forming a single-issue party, WWW holds out the carrot of valuable preferences in marginal seats, and thus provides an incentive to try and get the major parties to improve their policies in these areas.

Jeremy F - I'm sorry I called you a concern troll. I was cranky and overworked yesterday!

Regarding men in leadership positions: I don't think anyone here would argue that there's no role for white people in the NAACP or for men in NOW. But it does seem odd that the highest leader of an identity-based organization would not have that identity, doesn't it? I'm not saying I'm against it, but it does seem a little strange. On the other hand, I agree with UCLAbodyimage that leading an organization is a really hard job, and it's in the best interests of the identity-based organization (and the group it seeks to defend) to pick the best leader, which should be only on the basis of merit.

Another thought: maybe it would help to change the definition of "leadership" of nonprofit identity-based organizations to emphasize *service* over prestige. People who dedicate their lives to these organizations are doing it to help others -- not to (only) gain accolades for themselves or to get power. If you see it that way, becoming the head of NOW or NAACP is actually a way to serve the constituency the best you can. I hope nobody would argue that you can't serve black people without being black, etc.

Overall, of course, the identity-based organization still has to have black people or women or whatever fully represented. But I think it's a mistake to concentrate only on the identity of the top leaders. It takes a very special set of skills and dedication to lead a large organization, and I don't see how it's a good idea to limit leadership by race/class/gender. Leadership is, in a way, an objective skill that doesn't have much to do with your identity. To foster good, strong, effective organizations, we need the best leaders available!

Jeremy, I suspect you are where I was a while ago: you're upset and possibly annoyed because you keep running into people who claim that these things don't exist; that this type of "reversal" doesn't exist.. And yes, I know, that can be frustrating as all hell.

Yes, reversal exists. But no, it doesn't really MATTER, because the reversals are so small, or minor, or completely justified. Realizing that will make you less frustrated.

So: It is, technically, sexist to ask women only to run NOW (candidacy based on sex) just as it is technically discriminatory to practice affirmative action (candidacy based on race)

And in both cases, so what? BOTH of those examples involve something which technically falls into a general category of something that is bad. Sure; we concede. But life's decisions are made based on specifics. And choices almost always are the "best" option rather than the "ideal" option.

The few men who want to be NOW president; the few whites who get hurt by AA.. those are necessary and justified harms which support the larger goal of NOW and AA in general. Ideal? No. Necessary? Yes.

"It takes a very special set of skills and dedication to lead a large organization, and I don't see how it's a good idea to limit leadership by race/class/gender"

Thing is, people who are heads of the major organizations in Washington DC really do help make important philosophical/theoretical decisions, like which direction the movement as a whole should try and take.

I think many "supporting" roles in a social movement are every bit as important and necessary as as leadership roles. I don't think there's any shame in me being relegated to supporting roles in a Civil Rights organization. No matter how much I listen, no matter how capable I am of communicating with and organizing people, I'm not a minority and it would be really ignorant of me to think that I know exactly what it feels like to be one (not that all minorities feel the same, not the point). There are plenty of organizations that are built around the concept of being majority supporters of the minority. (men against violence towards women organizations, etc.) That is the appropriate sort of organization for men to lead.

Yes it takes a very special set of skills, but there are plenty of people with those skills in every group.

You're focusing on the "unfairness" towards a single individual who might otherwords lead an organization. If serving is as great an honor as leading, then I don't see how you can argue it's "unfair" to limit men to supporting roles in a women's organization. In AA, no it's not an ideal solution, but it's the best solution we have found so far I think (I think the fact that since the abolition of AA attendance by Afro-Ams in college has plummited pretty much proves this). Similarly, I think a woman's organization should be led by someone who knows what it's like to be viewed as a woman and treated as a woman by society. Because I think it will be better for the movement as a whole, and maybe also the organization. Young women growing up are lacking in female role models. There are several reasons I think females should be the head of women's organizations.

Nina (can I call you Nina?): I'm not sure what your definition of "supporting role" is. But as a woman, I have to say -- do I want the best damn lawyers and lobbyists working to fight for women's rights, regardless of their gender? HELL yes! If what you're saying is that the public face of an identity-based organization should be a member of that group, I guess that makes sense. But to me, running organizations well is a technical skill that doesn't necessarily have all that much to do with substantive issues, so race/gender/class shouldn't be a qualification. What you DO need is a way for the organization as a whole to make decisions that reflects the desires of its constituency & advances its mission. For that, you do need to make sure the voices of the particular identity group are heard. But that doesn't necessarily equate with having *all* the leadership be a member of that group.

As far as I'm aware, Northern Ireland has a women's party. My understanding is that when nationalism is being discussed there is little room for understanding the gendered dimensions of war and peace and nationalism itself. This party helps to put these issues on the agenda. No it's not ideal, but it is neccessary.

As someone who understands the background of this What Women Want party, let me clarify.

The party was not set up to (a) represent all women, or (b) to represent all feminist issues.

The party was in fact set up in order to give people who are concerned about birth, and in particular the medicalisation of birth, a voice in the upcoming Federal election (and presumably if they actually get any candidates up, which is very unlikely, after that as well). The party has its genesis in the Maternity Coalition group, http://www.maternitycoalition.org.au , which exists essentially as a lobbying group for better birth services.

Thus the name What Women Want - men may want better maternity services for their partners, but it's women who give birth.

Personally, I think the name is misleading, but I understand why they've chosen it. But the party (despite having now developed other social policies) primarily exists to talk about access to maternity services, access to one-to-one midwifery and continuity of care, home birth and access to better, more women-centric models of care in hospitals.

And how women give birth is not a parents' issue, and it's not an children's issue - it's a part of our sexuality and it's shaped by the patriarchy.

As someone who understands the background of this What Women Want party, let me clarify.

The party was not set up to (a) represent all women, or (b) to represent all feminist issues.

The party was in fact set up in order to give people who are concerned about birth, and in particular the medicalisation of birth, a voice in the upcoming Federal election (and presumably if they actually get any candidates up, which is very unlikely, after that as well). The party has its genesis in the Maternity Coalition group, http://www.maternitycoalition.org.au , which exists essentially as a lobbying group for better birth services.

Thus the name What Women Want - men may want better maternity services for their partners, but it's women who give birth.

Personally, I think the name is misleading, but I understand why they've chosen it. But the party (despite having now developed other social policies) primarily exists to talk about access to maternity services, access to one-to-one midwifery and continuity of care, home birth and access to better, more women-centric models of care in hospitals.

And how women give birth is not a parents' issue, and it's not an children's issue - it's a part of our sexuality and it's shaped by the patriarchy.

As someone who understands the background of this What Women Want party, let me clarify.

The party was not set up to (a) represent all women, or (b) to represent all feminist issues.

The party was in fact set up in order to give people who are concerned about birth, and in particular the medicalisation of birth, a voice in the upcoming Federal election (and presumably if they actually get any candidates up, which is very unlikely, after that as well). The party has its genesis in the Maternity Coalition group, http://www.maternitycoalition.org.au , which exists essentially as a lobbying group for better birth services.

Thus the name What Women Want - men may want better maternity services for their partners, but it's women who give birth.

Personally, I think the name is misleading, but I understand why they've chosen it. But the party (despite having now developed other social policies) primarily exists to talk about access to maternity services, access to one-to-one midwifery and continuity of care, home birth and access to better, more women-centric models of care in hospitals.

And how women give birth is not a parents' issue, and it's not an children's issue - it's a part of our sexuality and it's shaped by the patriarchy.

Whoops, I didn't mean for that to come out three times... I was having interweb issues yesterday.