Conference turris::womannotes-v3

  (I appologize in advance for entering a topic phrased in terms
  of a question addressed to U.S. readers -- I do understand that
  this conference has an international readership.)

                                   Atlant

    So are you asking if women are planning to continue their own
    oppression by stupidly allowing the issues that they feel are important
    to guide their votes? Or perhaps _you_ could suggest how we should vote
    so that we don't have to think too hard about it? 
    
    Intentional or not, your question came across to _me_ as loaded and had
    a lecturing tone. Do you care to rephrase it so that it doesn't come
    across that way? Or did you intend to deliver your message disguised as
    a question?
    
    Liz

Liz:

> Intentional or not, your question came across to _me_ as loaded and had
> a lecturing tone. Do you care to rephrase it so that it doesn't come
> across that way?

  No, I don't care to re-phrase it.


> Or did you intend to deliver your message disguised as a question?
    
  The message was undisguised.

                                   Atlant

    Atlant, I'm not sure I follow you.  I think you are criticising
    feminist for not "voting issues", but I'm not sure what you think they
    *are* voting on?
    
    It's bizarre to hear you encouraging feminists to one-issue voting,
    consider that most criticism I have heard of the way feminists vote is
    that it is *too* one-issue.
    
    I am basically a two-issue voter: abortion rights and gay rights.  If
    more than one candidate supports both (wouldn't that be nice?) then I
    vote on other issues such as domestic and foreign policy (depending on
    the office, of course), how responsive I percieve the politician being,
    the gender of the politician and whether s/he wears nice shoes.  (I
    have never really had to think about the "lesser" issues since usually
    it isn't the case that there are multiple politicians supporting the
    "greater" issues.)  If one candidate is pro-choice/anti-gay, and the
    other is anti-choice/pro-gay, the pro-choice one wins.
    
    So - what's your point?
    
    D!

  >Will you once again say "While I'm sympathetic with all those
  >neat feminist issues, my own narrow self interests will lead me
  >to vote against those interests yet again." 
    
    1.  How do you know how I, or even we, voted before?  Where are you
    coming up with this claim that I or we are voting narrow self interests
    over "neat feminist issues"?
    
    2.  What do you mean by narrow self interests?  Like WHAT???  My most
    deeply held selfish desires (politically speaking) are that I, as a
    woman, can chose what to do with my body, and that I, as a gay person,
    am not discriminated against.  Those are my issues.  What are the "neat
    feminist issues" you refer to??  I consider both of those feminist
    issues.  In fact, it seems to me that most feminists "narrow self
    interests" are the *same* as those "neat feminist issues".
    
    D!

  The following reply is motivated by D!'s comments but isn't in
  direct response to D!.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Liberals have this problem.  They sit there and carefully weigh all
  the issues, trying to balance them, one against the other, and then
  select the candidate who represents the best overall balance.

  Lots of "the enemy" are much more direct:

    o "Candidate X is against abortion so I'm for X!"

    o "Candidate X will stop those uppity <fill_in_the_blank>s so
      I'm for X!"

    o "Candidate X is for prayer in schools and thinks all the
      atheists ought to back to Russia where they belong, so I'm
      for X!"

    o "Candidate X is for my right to carry arms, so I'm for X!"

    o "Candidate X said ``No new taxes'' so I'm for X!"


  $ SET SARCASM ON

  Notice how carefully these voters balance a multitude of issues,
  weighing each so as to assure the best possible outcome overall.
  I call special notice to how they sometimes trade off the issues
  really dear to them because the candidate's overall platform is
  more representative of what they believe in, overall.

  $SET SARCASM OFF

  (Editorial note:  Of course I'm over-simplifying.  I know that.
  But ask yourself whether you've ever heard views like these ex-
  pressed.  I've certainly heard *ALL* of them at one time or another.)
  
  That's the trouble I perceive with liberal voters.  My note is attempt-
  ing to call attention to this.  If even a modest portion of the WOMEN
  voting in any election VOTED FOR WOMENS' ISSUES (and said "the Hell
  with the candidates' positions on everything else"), the election
  would unquestionably go their way.

  It also wouldn't hurt if a significant number of WOMEN ran for office
  at all levels, and were supported by WOMEN in the form of both mone-
  tary contributions and time spent as campaign workers.  AND I DON'T
  MEAN SITTING AROUND IN VAXNOTES AND AT WOMENS' GROUPS AND AT PRIVATE
  LITTLE COFFEES SAYING "Of course I support Evelyn!".  I mean going
  out and pounding signs and ringing doorbells and all that other re-
  tail political stuff that actually wins elections.

  See my note 133.0 for more information on who keeps electing the
  Patriarchy.  Bumper stickers provide another quick data point.

                                   Atlant

    I get the impression that you're preaching to the converted in many
    cases here....
    
    -Jody
    

Jody:

  Based on 133.*, there are plenty of the "un-converted" here as well.

                                   Atlant

	I vote for the candidate who will act to support the issues I
	believe to be important, I write to them on different issues, and 
	attend "surgeries".

	The main problem I see is the economy, if it's going downhill, then it 
	will drag everyone else down with it, whoever they are.
	Next comes investment, and I beleive this should go towards improving
	public transport, and providing more facilities for recreation, 
	education, and sheltered accomodation and help, and issues around
	saving enery and recycling.


	All of these issues are to raise the standard of life for everyone, and
	provide more opportunities and care for everyone.
	I don't see that selecting any one group over another will help. All it 
	will do is antagonise the groups that aren't "chosen".

	Heather

    Atlant,
    
    Even block voting -- and winning -- is no promise for success on
    women's issues.
    
    If every man who had run on a pro-ERA platform, received funds for
    a pro-ERA platform, and was elected on a pro-ERA platform had
    actually *voted* for the ERA, it would be the law of the land
    today.
    
    					Ann B.

Ann:

> If every man who had run on a pro-ERA platform, received funds for
> a pro-ERA platform, and was elected on a pro-ERA platform had
> actually *voted* for the ERA, it would be the law of the land
> today.

  This sounds like speculation rather than hard fact.  But in any
  case, in whose hands would you feel more comfortable putting
  your future:

    a. A politician who runs on a "Dump the ERA" plank (and might
       break the faith afterwards by voting *FOR* the ERA), or

    b. A politician who runs on a "Ratify the ERA" plank (and might
       break the faith afterwards by voting *AGAINST* the ERA)?


  And maybe, just so none of our audience's choices are left out, we
  should break choice "b" into:

    b1. A male politician...

    b2. A female politician...


                                   Atlant

    I'm confused.  When I vote, I vote toward/for issues that are
    important to me.  Just because I am a woman and because I believe
    in equal rights doesn't mean I hold the same values as other
    voting women.  Why should I vote with the majority (if it exists) if
    there is an issue that I disagree with?  It seems like that is what you
    are suggesting, although I may not have understood the question.
    It seems to me like you are addressing all women as feminists, but I would
    guess that there are as many non-feminists and feminists that disagree on
    various voting issues as there are definitions of feminism, so how
    can one suggest that a diverse group of people get together for group
    think strategy towards the power of the vote?
    
    Christine

    
    Atlant
    
    Thanks for the question.  Pehaps this would be a good forum to discuss
    exactly what the issues *are* for feminists, and who is supporting
    what?
    
    To start the ball rolling, my *personal* issues are 
    
    		Children-related issues, including education, daycare,
    			leave from work (W/ or W/o pay)
    		Personal choice for my body
    
    I would find this very helpful, since I don't always know who stands
    for what, and more importantly, because the noters in here make me more
    aware of what the issues are, and why they're important.
    
    Jamd
    

Inasmuch as Atlant suggests that he is cynical, I suspect his views of
politics and issues of getting 1) feminists and 2) women out to vote are
largely due to his frustration over ever managing to change the system to
help the cause of women's equality if women and feminists themselves won't
stand up and initiate some changes with the power of the vote.  Perhaps he
is correct, that this issue should be the foremost, exclusive issue for 
those of us who consider ourselves feminists.  Certainly I have felt the
same frustration.  We white males are really raised to *believe* in this
power structure and in particular the power of the electorate to rule its
own destiny, and it frustrates us no end when people won't use the system
to assert the divine will of the great masses of the people.  I'm not sure
I can be so frustrated for long, though, before I have begun to question
the validity of democracy when the electorate continues to keep itself so
uniformed and uninvolved in their own voice in their own destiny.  And if
I have begun to disbelieve in the wisdom of the people expressed largely
in the realms of politics, perhaps too I should disbelieve that peoples
can wisely rule themselves as independent individuals.  But I refuse to
imagine a world wherein a species' irresponsibility in politics implies
its inability to live responsibly at all.  Far better we give up politics
as a lost cause, and devote ourselves to improving the world in small steps,
every day, than to so abandon ourselves and our causes to cynicism, as our
Atlant suggests.  No thanks, Mr Schmidt; keep acting locally before giving
up the game.

DougO

    Atlant,
    
    I trust that you will not be offended to learn that the claim I
    reported in .10 was not, as you speculated, "speculation rather
    than hard fact".  It was the research of a respected journalist,
    who narrowed down the failure of the ERA to the reneging of eleven
    politicians in two states, where the veto of the motion was
    exceptionally close.
    
    					Ann B.

    I'd like to see right ot privacy issues, i.e. computer data banks
    on the feminist platform.
    
    Bonnie

    re .15 -- well that's a drag.  I didn't know about it, either.  who
    were they?  are they still in office?  Just curious; at this point it's
    moot, more's the pity.

> Note 840.12, ASABET::RAINEY
> Note 840.14, FMNIST::olson "Doug Olson, ISVG West, UCS1-4"

Christine, DougO:

  Bingo!

                                   Atlant

>   <<< Note 840.15 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
>   -< Florida and Illinois >-

  Discussion on Ann Broomhead's tangent continues in Note 844.

                                   Atlant

    I am the primary breadwinner of my 2 little munchkin family. I would
    begrudgingly sacrifice civil rights and vote for the person who could
    best assist me in my struggle to hold a job, pay the mortgage, and keep
    food on the table.
    
    In the years BC (before children) my attitude leaned more toward martyrdom
    but, alas, responsibility reared it's ugly head.
    
    Would I sell out? Yes.
    
    Kate
    

    
    No one's yet mentioned my first-and-foremost criteria/issue
    for voting: protection of the environmenal and *all* that means.
    Second criteria is rights of the individual.
    

    re.22 I think of those two in reverse - I have the _right_ to live,
    I can _not_ live in a destroyed environment. Therefore my concern
    for the environment derives _from_ my right to live (as do all
    other rights.)
    
    dana

    
    
    
    I agree on Environmental issues as a top priority.  There is a "green
    products" company, 'Seventh Generation' that takes its name from a
    philosophy of the (I think I have this right) Iroquois.  The wording is
    simple and elegant but basically it charges us to makes all decisions
    with thought to how they will impact not only  this, but the seventh
    generation from now.   
    
    Jamd

    Tuesday I voted on my principles and the guy I voted for won by
    a narrow margin... (Olver, western Mass).
    
    sometimes it works
    
    BJ

> Liberals have this problem.  They sit there and carefully weigh all
> the issues, trying to balance them, one against the other, and then
> select the candidate who represents the best overall balance.
 
I agree that many people have problems picking candidates and try
to find a "balanced" choice.  For myself, I have come to the
throw-away position to try to offset "balancing."  For me, there
are some issue stances so disgusting that even one can "throw-
away" an otherwise good looking candidate.
 
>  That's the trouble I perceive with liberal voters.  My note is attempt-
>  ing to call attention to this.  If even a modest portion of the WOMEN
>  voting in any election VOTED FOR WOMENS' ISSUES (and said "the Hell
>  with the candidates' positions on everything else"), the election
>  would unquestionably go their way.

*For Me*, this cannot be done when a throw-away appears.  Example:

	Woman runs for office who supports

	1) ERA

	2) Pro choice

	What could be a throw-away?

	Neo-Nazi or White Supremist

Just couldn't do that.

Barb