Author
|
Topic: NAC is toast?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474
|
posted 15 March 2004 03:35 PM
quote: My generation, or what scholars call second-wave feminism, made women into actors in history. We turned ourselves from passive observers of the world into active agents of change. In the process, we changed a lot of laws that were holding us back, and we changed workplaces, organizations and movements where women and feminist men are now in the lead.
...Actors in history. Very true, and extremely well-said! Now that we have established that we can have our own actors, it is time to start changing the script. [ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Performance Anxiety ]
From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
terra1st
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4605
|
posted 15 March 2004 03:44 PM
globe and mail article. quote: Canada's most prominent women's lobby group, its hands tied tightly in debt, is pleading for money from Ottawa to host a national conference on renewing the movement.But some onetime supporters say it's too lost to lead the way. Even old trade union allies say the National Action Committee on the Status of Women is too dysfunctional to bring women together. The group's militant line on lesbian and racial issues has pushed away others, according to the Federation of University Women. “Canadians tend to be rather centrist and they managed to alienate the centre. Sometimes you need to do that, I can't say they're a bad thing, but they didn't speak to my issues,” said Susan Russell, the academic group's executive director. She said she attended a meeting of women's groups last September that revealed how out of touch NAC had become. She said NAC held up the agenda, arguing the interests of lesbians were being ignored. “They're preaching to the converted and engaging in a lot of stupid posturing. Strong feminists and social justice activists were pushed into a corner and told they didn't know anything,” Ms. Russell said. “NAC doesn't have a whole lot of friends. I've found that civil behaviour works better than name-calling, which is not particularly productive when not you're not powerful.” The more supportive Canadian Labour Congress says NAC needs to admit that it's in no position to host a national conference on building a strong lobby to represent women. “I think it should be hosted by a number of groups, it should be a joint effort,” said Marie Clarke Walker, the congress's vice-president. “NAC hasn't been doing a whole lot. They aren't active now and it's not their fault, there are funding problems, but to try plan a conference to try get funding with no staff is a very difficult feat.”
[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: terra1st ]
From: saskatoon | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
terra1st
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4605
|
posted 15 March 2004 03:53 PM
also, from the edmonton sun quote: VANCOUVER -- Canada's most influential lobby group for women's rights has been silenced, so crippled by debt and abandoned by women across the country that it's now too broke to answer the phone. Sources tell The Canadian Press that the 30-year-old National Action Committee on the Status of Women is in talks with the federal government, begging it to forgive unpaid taxes. A group of about five women - all that's left after the NAC stopped being able to pay its president and staff in 2001 - is lobbying desperately for support to rebuild. "NAC is in crisis," said Bev Meslo, the group's B.C. wing representative. "It needs financial support. I think now women are starting to fight back, realizing they need this independent voice at a federal level. ... With the national office effectively closed, there has been talk across the country of cutting losses, perhaps even the need for an entirely new approach. Judy Rebick, one of Canada's most prominent feminists, said buzz that a new movement is about to swell up is getting louder. "I've been sad about the demise of NAC and the demise of feminist activism on the national level over last five or six years, but what I see happening this year is a lot of young women and a lot of women my age are talking about what to do," she said.
From: saskatoon | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
terra1st
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4605
|
posted 15 March 2004 03:55 PM
If anyone knows what's happening and how local feminist groups can tap into it, let me know... I've had lots of young feminists aproach me about how to start a feminist collective and what their support structure/networks might consist of...So far I know of a group in Calgary (fuss?) and a group in regina (student group on campus) and that's it. any help would be appreciated Dave
From: saskatoon | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
H Vincent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4721
|
posted 15 March 2004 04:01 PM
It seems like that is the way of things. 1. In the begining they face a lot of resistance and obstacles. 2. They make a lot of positive changes. 3. Eventually they fall out of line with what the younger generation wants/believes. 4. The organization collapses. 5. The whole process begins again with new people. It will be interesting to see what rises out of the ashes. [ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: H Vincent ]
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 March 2004 08:10 AM
I had to laugh at this quote from the one article: quote: The group's militant line on lesbian and racial issues has pushed away others, according to the Federation of University Women. “Canadians tend to be rather centrist and they managed to alienate the centre. Sometimes you need to do that, I can't say they're a bad thing, but they didn't speak to my issues,” said Susan Russell, the academic group's executive director.
Oh no! Lesbian issues and race issues! Heaven forbid! The lavendar (and ebony?) menace! And golly, Ms Russell, they didn't speak to your issues? What, did those mean old nasty lesbians and women of colour forget to pay your privileged, university-educated self the proper homage? Note to self: real feminists put university-educated women's concerns first and foremost. Look at their splash page - and then enter the site and look at the pictures up top. I guess I understand why they don't want to see race issues addressed - in their world, university women appear to be white only! [ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 March 2004 08:59 AM
I knew it!I just looked through my old school assignments for an interview I did for women's studies with an older woman from church who was very "first wave" if anything. She couldn't stand those "Marxist lesbian feminists" who gave feminism a bad name. I was trying to remember whether she had belonged to the FUW - and sure enough, that was the group! She apparently was vice president and president for a while. One thing that stuck in my mind is that she said that since she had young children at the time, the only way she could get so involved was because she had "help", but that young women without "help" shouldn't be getting involved like that until the youngest is 6 (in other words, only women with enough money for servants should lead these kind of organizations!) Furthermore, despite the fact that she was extremely well-off financially, she described herself as "middle-class" and claimed that everyone in Canada is middle-class - even people on welfare. So if this is the typical member of FUW, then I don't doubt that NAC didn't speak to Susan Russell's issues.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loony Bin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4996
|
posted 16 March 2004 10:44 AM
While it would be nice to have a totally cohesive, harmonic women's movement that encompassed and addressed all the issues that all women face, I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect any one particular organization to coordinate it. If we expect the NAC to take up all the torches carried by feminist and activist women everywhere, we're deluding ourselves--and shirking responsibility.So yeah, a lot of what that old church lady had to say is a load of crap, but she was part of only a part of "the" feminist movement. She and her cohorts may have been out to lunch on lesbianism, marxism etc. etc., but they did serve an incredibly important purpose, and their money and privelege are a huge part of why they were heard and respected. I don't think it gets us anywhere to denigrate those folks around us, and those who came before us, just because they're only able to see and take up the issues that relate to themselves. We all, each of us have a responsibility to work for the parts of the greater cause that we have a personal investment in. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to understand and care about every facet of the women's movement--or even to call it the women's movement, as if there's one single objective or trajectory.
From: solitary confinement | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 March 2004 11:27 AM
quote: Oh no! Lesbian issues and race issues! Heaven forbid! The lavendar (and ebony?) menace!
Well, when the NAC claimed its membership was 50% lesbian, they kind of made themselves look like a bit of a special interest group, no? If straight women didn't feel that their interests were being represented by Marxists and lesbians, I don't think they were out of line.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
terra1st
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4605
|
posted 16 March 2004 12:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: If straight women didn't feel that their interests were being represented by Marxists and lesbians, I don't think they were out of line.
God forbid we work with those people. Nothing like a good show of solidarity, eh? [ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: terra1st ]
From: saskatoon | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 16 March 2004 12:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lizard Breath: While it would be nice to have a totally cohesive, harmonic women's movement that encompassed and addressed all the issues that all women face, I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect any one particular organization to coordinate it. If we expect the NAC to take up all the torches carried by feminist and activist women everywhere, we're deluding ourselves--and shirking responsibility.
I have to disagree. Maybe NAC can't do it, but that doesn't make it undoable. The limitations of any organization or movement are defined by the limitations of its vision. Remember that men told women they were being unrealistic when they demanded the vote. What if we'd listened to them?I think Judy's article is dead on. She correctly identifies both the considerable accomplishments, and the shortcomings, of "Second Wave Feminism", and embraces a fresh new approach. I think in many ways so-called Third Wave Feminists - diverse young women with a more multilateral (and perhaps militant) approach to change - have a more difficult task before them than the previous generation of women had. A globalized, pangender approach to equal rights requires so much more work, more education, talent, tolerance and respect. It is so much more difficult to find that balance between militantism and respect for diverse opinions. As a modern women's movement, we very much need to be tolerant of differing approaches to change and democratization. But in the same breath, we need the chutzpah of militant women, the passion and vibrant, sometimes problematic energy of women who are willing to walk the edge to get what women need.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 16 March 2004 12:43 PM
quote: Well, when the NAC claimed its membership was 50% lesbian...
Um, when was this claim made?? NAC's got a lot of problems. I'm sad to see it go, but this isn't really anything new. Over a year ago, I spent a month leaving messages at the national office specifically pointing out I wanted to get an organization to join - no response. They stopped cashing cheques of a long time donator a while back. The last NDP convention included a pass the hat session at POW after an appeal was made, because without $30,000, NAC was going to fold that month. NAC became too reliant on federal funding, was unable to adapt in the neo-liberal period (to a very hostile political opportunity structure), has been struggling with diverity among women and how to represent that (and hasn't dealt with it very well it - it has been fraught with factionalism; but at the same time, "mainstream" women often didn't want to give up control that comes from making room for marginalized voices), faced fund competition in the post-Charter period with the creation of LEAF, has a structure that doesn't assist it in meeting its divergent goals (grassroots activism, representation of feminist interests on the national stage). It needed a major overhaul, and some honest discussion about what it wanted to achieve, and the best way to do that. Likely, it won't get it now, although I'd love to see the BC section of NAC (which is pretty much the only active one in the country) take over - make is a west-coast centred org for a while, rather than Toronto-centred, and run on low until it can do the strategic planning necessary. Of course, that assumes it can get past the back taxes, etc. Sadly, this doesn't bode well for the women's movement, at least according to Vickers et als thesis in "Politics as if Women Mattered," where they argue that because women's equality can't be achieved in a single generation, there is a need to institutionalized structures like NAC, which acts as a "parliament of women." I had lots of issues with it, but I'll be sad to see it pass.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 March 2004 12:48 PM
quote: Um, when was this claim made??
"The absurdity of this matter is beyond comprehension", said Joan Grant-Cummings, President of NAC. "At least 50% of our membership are Lesbians and there are no Lesbian groups appearing before the Committee."
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 16 March 2004 01:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lizard Breath: Solidarity doesn't mean we all have to belong to the same organization.
I don't think anyone has said it did. I certainly didn't. Having a broad-based, diverse group of women represented by one organization doesn't in any way imply that everyone must belong to it. Organizations are merely structures, umbrellas under which people with common objectives come together. Many large progressive organizations form committees to address particular issues and/or diversities, where work unique to more narrow interests is done, and then brought forward to the larger organizational table. Labour organizations function quite well under this model, as do human rights organizations, environmental groups, a variety of social justice orgs, etc. But even this functional model can turn dysfunctional when identity politics get a foothold (by identity politics, I mean the "my issue is bigger/more important than yours" kind of agenda-hijacking shenanigans that piss people off and alienate support). Respecting and embracing diversity and tolerance is hard work. We're kind of hard-wired to be suspicious of what's different from us, as individuals. Being flexible and tolerant can be scary. But you do the work, you get to understand where others come from and why they operate from the position they do, and it becomes easier. Alot easier.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 16 March 2004 05:23 PM
quote: What's hard to understand? If you found out that the NAC was 50% fundamentalist Christian, you wouldn't wonder about how that might affect their agenda and positions? What if they were 50% card-carrying Reformatories?
Yes but what would you say if they were Jews Magoo? I seem to remember a thread where a list of Neo-cons was divided up on the basis of which people in the group were Jews, and how that was essentially a bigoted formulation. The list appeared in Adbusters. I also remember posting a reformulation of the argument made by Adbusters, where I tranposed the word Jew for Lesbians and Neo-cons for Feminist. I had to work the paragraph around a bit but I ended up with this: quote: Drawing attention to the gayness of the feminists is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an mysonginist. But the point is not that Dykes (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Dykes overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Andrea Dworkin's view that "rape is the primary emblem of romantic love (with men.)" The point is simply that the dykes seem to have a special affinity for women that influences their political thinking and consequently the American feminist movement.
I seem to remember you making some pretty strong arguements against the Asbusters 'list,' and the accompanying agrument (which I parodied above.) At that time you condemned the theory and the effect of racial profiling etc. You said the author of the adbusters commentary was using the list to make "powerful insinuations and unspoken allegations." Has something changed in your overall philosphical outlook? Adbusters goes on an anti-semitic witchhunt
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 March 2004 05:39 PM
No, not really. Nobody's blaming anything on lesbians here; I'm just pointing out that many straight women might not feel that a Marxist lesbian feminist represents them well. Nobody's making a list of NAC members and marking the lesbians with pink triangles either. Need I also mention that there's a huge difference between the varied and collective responses of many Canadian women to the NAC, and one man's desire to make a list of those people he considered to be Neo-Cons? If one woman drew up a list and began to target lesbians on the basis of it, I'd say the same thing as I said on the Jew/Neo-con thread. On the other hand, if the right wing in America suddenly realized that a disproportionate number of Jews was pulling the strings of their political organizations and decided to withdraw their support for those organizations, what could I say? They have that right. If they feel that Jewish politicians, businessmen, lobbyists, entertainers, etc., are no longer fighting on their side, they have every right to say "no thanks". Again, very different from one publisher's little vendetta. I'm sure that for some women who grew disenfranchised with the NAC, the lesbians in the ranks presented a simple problem of differentness — in other words, they shrank away from an organization with a strong lesbian influence because they fear/mistrust/don't like lesbians. For others, it may be that the lesbian sexual choices weren't the issue, but rather the militancy and dogma that are associated with Marxist lesbian feminists. Finally, I'm not one of those women who once supported the NAC and now doesn't, so there's no change of heart on my part to discuss. I'm just saying that if a group is supposed to represent you, and you don't feel they do anymore, then it's not hard to imagine that you might withdraw your support. Hopefully it wasn't done out of sheer homophobia, and hopefully nobody's sexual preferences got singled out, but if people don't feel represented then they're going to move on. Kalle Lasn could have moved on without making his list, and it never would have become a thread.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 16 March 2004 07:47 PM
quote: No, not really. Nobody's blaming anything on lesbians here; I'm just pointing out that many straight women might not feel that a Marxist lesbian feminist represents them well. Nobody's making a list of NAC members and marking the lesbians with pink triangles either.
I think the whole idea of seperating out the issues of Lesbian women, as if they have a whole seperate agenda from other women is very problematic. Lesbian women face more or less the same problems that other women face, and in the main their issues are women's issues. I think that Lesbian women, as a fact of their sexual preferences, are more likely to be politicized to those issues due to the other issues that confront them as Lesbians. They have already had to confront society on the issue of homophobia, so it is not suprising that they have taken this political motiviation and applied it to other areas of their lives as women (there may also be simbiotic interelationships.) Also, it is quite natural for people who are of a persecuted minority to seek alliances within larger groups that share common interests. Hence, Lesbians seek support from, and influence through, NAC. But again, the very real day to day issues Lesbians confront are very much the same as those confronted by other women, so I think isolating them and identfying them as a special interest group within the womens movement is playing to the worst homophobic paranioas of the mainstream in order to de-ligitamize NAC. There is a very small hole through which your argument makes sense, however some are using that hole to drive an ideologicaly powered anti-feminist truck. [ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loony Bin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4996
|
posted 17 March 2004 10:54 AM
I don't know thing one about the particular issues my lesbian counterpart might face in her day to day life. As women, we will probably face many similar challenges, and a lot of our greivances with society in general will be the same. Trying to roll all the issues up together, though, and say that they're all the same because we're all women is at once misleading and dismissive of the differences among women.We are not a cohesive, uniform group, we women. We are not all the same and we don't all worry about the same things. I just don't think it's realistic to think that we can all be represented by one organization. That's not antifeminist, and it's not about division. So, while it would be nice to have an overseeing body to coordinate feminist activism in the realms where our various and diverse causes overlap or run parallel, I don't think it's smart for us to expect any one group to do the work for everyone. We should take up the work that's being left undone as a result of the demise of the NAC, but each of us should find the cause(s) that are most important to us in our own lives and work on them. Where we can cooperate with other groups of feminist activists, we should, and we should always try to be open-minded and supportive of our sisters in their endeavours. But we don't all have to belong to the same club to be able to do it.
From: solitary confinement | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|