People Before Profit blog

Thank you, Rosalyn Baxandall: socialist-feminist pioneer

Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:36:00 +0000

In a stunning lifetime of political activism, pioneering socialist-feminist historian and social justice warrior Rosalyn Fraad Baxandall demonstrated consistently that she cared deeply about connections: between teaching and activism, between art and labor, between history and practice, and above all, between people. Baxandall died October 13 at the age of 76, from kidney cancer.

Her political strategies were wide-ranging and adept - as they would have to be to further her sweeping vision. Baxandall was a shaping member of important second-wave feminist organizations (Redstockings and New York Radical Women) and a pioneer of abortion rights in the United States. She was a faculty member in American Studies at the State University of New York-Old Westbury, where she raised students' consciousness about women's history and labor history (and above all the intersections between the two). She wrote and edited books, wore costumes to "zap" demonstrations, marched in antiwar protests, introduced activists to each other, thought seriously about how to raise children.

One of Baxandall's greatest contributions was her ability to identify and convey the many locations of the political. She focused on women's bodies (through her early organizing for abortion rights, for instance). She attended to cultural productions (drawing upon fiction, poetry and songs as evidence in her historical work). She addressed issues related to housing (joining the struggle for integration as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and co-authoring a book about suburbanization, "Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened"). She focused on the domestic (pointing to her mother's growing dismay at having stepped away from her career to stay home with Rosalyn and her two sisters). She identified the political ramifications of child care - not only access to it (which she organized for in Madison), but also the content of the care (playing a significant role in the establishing of Liberation Nursery, New York's first feminist day care center).

Baxandall's 1987 book about pioneering feminist, labor organizer, and Communist Party USA leader Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, "Words on Fire," is a case in point. She convincingly demonstrates that Flynn's experiences as a woman are inseparable from her effectiveness as a socialist organizer - giving Flynn a kind of credit that is all too rare. (Even the Communist writer Mike Gold, who dates his own political awakening to hearing Flynn speak in the park, turns her into a male character at the end of his important 1930 novel "Jews Without Money.") In her attention to Flynn's relationship with Marie Equi, she became one of the first scholars of the U.S. left to bring sexuality into her analysis - an approach that is finally picking up real steam in our moment.

One of Baxandall's political strategies was a kind of brave and moving honesty that is also profoundly useful. For instance, when Baxandall spoke out in support of abortion rights in 1969 - at an event that would turn out to be a touchstone in that movement - she described her own (illegal) procedure. Even now that abortion is legal - though under right-wing assault - the very word remains difficult even to say in public, as evidenced in the dreadful 2007 movie "Knocked Up," in which a character says "smashortion" so as not to have to pronounce the name of the procedure.

In the many areas of Baxandall's activism, she productively insisted on the centrality of labor - and also on the need to expand what "counts" as labor. Along with feminist academics Linda Gordon and Susan Reverby, Baxandall assembled a breathtaking variety of testimony to create a valuable documentary history of working women in the United States, "America's Working Women." The book's approach is appropriately ambitious, taking into its purview factory and office work, farm and housework, service and kin-work. Later in her life, she manifested this focus by teaching at the City University of New York's Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies - and in a prison, where, it is becoming increasingly acknowledged, serious exploitation of labor takes place.

Baxandall's longstanding devotion to social change did not come without a cost. She described the toll on her childhood of the 1950s blacklist in "Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left," which I read avidly, trying to understand my own family background. She writes that her community was "shattered" during the traumas of the witch-hunt (which, of course, gives a layered meaning to the guerrilla-theater organization she worked with, the Women's International Terrorist Organization from Hell, or W.I.T.C.H., which did, fascinatingly, target the House Un-American Activities Committee - HUAC - at one point). Still, Baxandall identifies positive results of her upbringing. Growing up, "communist values were our social and cultural identity," she writes, going on to note, "Even in the 1950s, the age of U.S. dominance and insulation, we learned a version of internationalism."

Indeed, Baxandall's life was an arc of activism, full of bravery, glorious statements, and sophisticated versions of the connections I began by identifying. This is delightfully evident in a youthful gesture she undertook with her sister Harriet. When FBI agents parked outside her home for two days during the witch-hunts, the two girls responded by throwing tampons at their car - a gesture both hilarious and powerful. In short, even as a child - and, it would turn out, for the rest of her life - Baxandall knew that the very things women tend to be mocked for can be used effectively, even gloriously, to fight back. No more nice girls, indeed. On behalf of my own daughter, I thank you, Ros.

Photo: Rosalyn Baxandall in 2012. Facebook

The significance of the socialist candidate

Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:44:00 +0000

Socialist Party of America's leader and perennial candidate for president, Eugene V. Debs, set the record for votes for a socialist candidate in 1920 when 913,693 people pulled the lever for him. However, eight years prior might have been his most successful run when he won nearly the same number of popular votes (901,551), which was nearly six percent of the total. (The 1920 percentage was 3.41, lower than in 1912, due to more Americans voting.)

In his 1912 candidacy, the Socialists leased a train called the "Red Special." While touring the country via the rail lines, Debs spoke to more than a half million people, and the newspaper Appeal to Reason added 50,000 households to its subscription base.

Fast forward to the 2016 presidential elections. Bernie Sanders, independent, democratic socialist senator from Vermont and contender for the Democratic Party nomination, has spoken to audiences numbering in the thousands again and again. I won't be surprised if he far surpasses Debs' half million mark of 1912. (Since Debs was in jail for the 1920 campaign, Sanders smashed that number at his first rally!)

But relatively few people of the entire population attend political rallies. With the help of television, Sanders has spoken to dozens of millions of people already. The first Democratic debate, October 13 on CNN, had 15.3 million viewers. Two days later, on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," he appeared for 15 minutes (though four of those were dedicated to Breast Cancer Research fundraiser questions such as, "If you were [an ice cream flavor], what would you be called?"). The Ellen show averages 3.9 million viewers.

The following night, on "Real Time with Bill Maher" (which averages four million viewers per show), he was interviewed for seven minutes, with more serious questions, as expected from that host. Since both of these shows are on YouTube and who knows what other Internet options, many more people will view them.

All three of these appearances have been preceded, and will followed, by other discussion shows. And news shows. And more rallies. All of which are being repeated many times through the Internet. Indeed, millions of Americans have already heard, and millions more will hear, what a socialist wants from a socialist instead of our country's many anti-socialists.

This, to me, is the most significant feature of the Sanders campaign: For the first time since Debs ran in 1912, masses of people will hear from a candidate from the Left. This is not to belittle other Socialist and Communist candidacies of the past. Clearly, Sanders has reached many, many more people than did those prior attempts. This is also not to ignore differences between the socialism of Bernie Sanders and the socialism of the Communist Party, U.S.A. or the differences between socialism and social democracy-Sanders uses the moniker "democratic socialism," though from what I've heard, I would prefer the term "social democracy."

These differences become very esoteric, given the state of affairs in the country on the very issue of what is socialism and what is capitalism. A perfect illustration of the confused mess was seen on the CNN debate. Anderson Cooper has his own prime time show ("360 ⁰") on CNN five nights a week. He was the host of the first presidential debate. Yet it is clear he is clueless about what a capitalist is, as evidenced by asking Sanders, "You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?"

Capitalists own capital, either in the form of privately owned factories, buildings, mills and mines, or in the form of significant quantities of stock. Sanders, according to Roll Call, is one of the poorest U.S. senators, with a net wealth of slightly above $100,000. But that amount of wealth does imply a "decent" amount of stock ownership, so he hedged his answer by replying, "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't."

Contrast that answer with Secretary Clinton's reply. Clinton's answer obfuscated the role of monopolies and oligopolies and was stuck in the myth of American exceptionalism. She said, "... when I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families." The Fortune 500 was lost in the shuffle, and I suppose we are to infer that Denmark, a social democracy singled out at the debate, does not have opportunities for small capitalists. Nonsense.

Sanders states emphatically that common people must unite and fight the one percent (his "political revolution"), to restore democracy that has been hijacked by billionaires and lobbyists buying politicians, to achieve a single payer health care system, to win paid family leave, and to drastically eliminate the economic inequality of our country. I call this social democracy; Sanders calls it democratic socialism. Either way, it would be an intensely massive advance in the United States.

And certainly, Sanders' answer towers above the definitions that any of the GOP candidates might offer. Millions of Americans, especially working people who define themselves as in the working class (though they might use the term "middle class"), but also including many who call themselves "conservative" and who vote for Republicans, are saying they agree with some or much of Sanders' platform. This represents a huge potential step forward for the entire Left in the U.S.

Photo: Ross D. Franklin/AP

Thieves, crooks and war profiteers avoid jail

Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:03:00 +0000

There is something wrong. Why haven't there been any corporate Wall Street executives, billionaire hedge fund CEO's or big bank executives placed in jail for planning and working to destroy our economy - harming thousands of innocent working people, people of color and the poor. All the while they pocket their millions of dollars as they gain more and more wealth. In other words: We get hard times and the rich get richer.

Why haven't any of the war profiteers who make billions on the military war machine and who continue to push our country to the brink of war been held accountable for their actions? These thieves, crooks and war profiteers created an environment that placed thousands of working people in financial hardship, nearly caused our economy to collapse and then they advocate for sending thousands of young people off to war in order to solve our economic problems.

These same people create war options as an answer to save our economy, to save our country, to save our communities, to save our military reputation around the world. The military and corporate hierarchy has been called "too big to fail." They are not too big, however, to spend time in prison where they belong.

Working people continue to work hard and still many find themselves in debt or trying to recover. Yet these corporate thieves get big payouts, outlandish incentives and continue to flourish. It seems like they are entrenched and constantly rewarded. In my opinion, if you are a thief you should be tried in court and, if convicted, you should serve time.

Now if you are a crook you may find yourself on the TV series America's Most Wanted or on the FBI most wanted list. You may even be on some international police list. In some cases you may get indicted or even serve prison time.

You will never find Wall Street crooks and corporate thieves on any such list, however, and you will never see these crooks and thieves serve any time. If fact, the only list these crooks and thieves will be on are those that list the top most profitable individuals and corporations. In some cases you may find these thieves and crooks listed on some right-wing political donation list.

What do these thieves and crooks want the American people to believe? Using their paid associates, many who are right wing politicians, they seek to turn public opinion against working people.

One major way the corporate elite try to turn public opinion around is to blame unions for many of our problems. In their minds corporate greed is good and worker rights are bad. In their minds war is good and profitable and peace is bad for the economy, bad for the nation and bad for the world.

It's time we set an example and put these crooks and thieves in prison or at least fire them from their well-paid jobs. It is time to stand up and organize around a people's economy, and a peace economy. What do you think?

Photo: Despite his open admission that his megabank Chase engaged in fraudulent mortgage practices on a grand scale. helping to almost collapse the U.S. economy, Chase CEO Jaime Dimon never served a day in jail. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The Silicon Valley ideology: online bias and technology

Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:31:00 +0000

Digging deeper into two of the factors touched on in Amanda Hess' provocative essay, "To Understand Why Hate Thrives Online, You Have to Go Back to the Beginning, " published in Slate.com, may help to reveal the historical evolution of bigoted internet discourse.

On the one hand, Hess points to a philosophical position paper by John Perry Barlow, the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, which celebrated the possibility of a communication space free of what some call "identity politics" - where all could be equal in colorblind/genderblind discourse.

"We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity."

Hess, secondly, points out the predominance of young white males in the internet space in the early days of the web, who embraced the flourishing technology of online communication, and who continue to find incursions of feminist or racial justice points of view to be a violation of their safe space and territory, reacting with negative communications.

Barlow, a white techno-libertarian, envisioned an internet that would be a free market not just of ideas and social intercourse, but a true free market in the economic sense embraced by Adam Smith fundamentalists. In this vision, we also see outlines of the flattened and idealist plane of social existence that comes with this economic philosophy - which posits that all strivers can achieve market success despite race, gender, orientation, or other social status.

"Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us," asserts the Declaration, and Barlow calls for a new "Social Contract" that would reset history and create it's own rules for the new frontiers. This is essentially making an argument that this space would be free of historical encumbrances of identity, and that it should be. However, this assertion comes embedded with an implied stigmatization of anyone who asserts any differences in lived experiences due to real-world identity, and discussion of historical injustice due to identity online lead to being labeled as counter to the new order and a distraction from issues of importance.

This laissez-faire philosophy of speech and bigoted commentary can be encapsulated by this comment on the free market and racism by Keith Burris in the Toledo Blade, "...the antidote to hate speech is civil speech and the answer to ignorant speech is enlightened speech. Let speech answer speech." What happens, however, when your speech is considered illegitimate in the space in which you attempt to assert your identity, because it is a violation of the implied freedom from identity and history?

Barlow, meanwhile, didn't come to his philosophy in a vacuum, and neither did internet technology develop free of social context. The beginning starts in an earlier place than 1996. If we look to this previous historic period, we can dig deeper into this phenomenon and its political and economic roots.

The internet evolved from a network developed by the military, which was then adopted by universities for STEM research. In 1994, under the Clinton Presidency, the internet was released from federal control and privatized. Even then there were concerns that privatizing the internet, which might benefit from private sector innovation, could limit accessibility for underserved communities by becoming a billed service with no cost controls. "The danger," Mr. Becker said, "is that you could have islands of connectivity, with providers who serve particular customers or regions but who don't connect to other providers, because they're not obligated under law to do so," as reported by the New York Times in 1994. (Which is exactly what happened for individual consumers in the United States.)

This accessibility gap would go on to exacerbate an already established historical imbalance and bias. Just as the higher echelons of military command and STEM university programs were (and largely still are) the domain of white males, likewise - even as the personal computer came into American homes, the hobby of tinkering with computers was associated primarily with young white males.

Fast-forward 30 years - with the rise of fabulous wealth expansion, created by the privatization of the internet, blended with this techno-libertarian idealist mythos of an egalitarian social space that would come with internet access, and what do we see today:

"The trope of the successful high-tech entrepreneur is surprisingly similar across twenty-five years of technology development: young, brash, rich, famous, intrinsically risk-taking, innovative, and intelligent. In Silicon Valley specifically, the image of the entrepreneur that has persisted through thirty years of boom-and-bust cycles is almost always young, white, and male." (Alice Marwick, "Silicon Valley Isn't a Meritocracy. And It is Dangerous to Hero-Worship Entrepreneurs" Wired.com, 11/13)

"To some, online discussions about feminism and racism are seen as battles over the soul of the Internet itself." writes Hess, in describing the hostility to users of color, women, LGBT, and other marginalized groups in their late entry to the world of internet and social media when confronting the users who already considered this space their territory. The white male can also safely say that the internet is also his property, given the abysmal employment, CEO, and venture capitalist demographics of Silicon Valley companies for minorities and women.

Hess notes an added complication to an internet already dangerously skewed toward a white male viewpoint: companies that profit from the amount of advertising click-rates they generate are actually incentivizing bigoted commentary by rewarding it with not being censured. "On an Internet built on the assumption that every contribution is equally valid, harassers are just as valuable as their victims. But as the harasser flames his victim into silence, he becomes more valuable than his target. In a recent essay, fantasy author Ferrett Steinmetz argued that, to a social media company's "cold bottom line, a troll calling women names all day gets more advertising hits. He is a devoted user. And so they are loath to ban anyone, because these companies make money off of large user bases, and kicking someone off risks trouble."

Right now, improving the discourse on social media platforms has been left to the individual companies. Which isn't working, as the East Bay Express reported on Nextdoor.com, in that instance Black posters who pointed out racism are often the ones suspended and banned from the website, with a lukewarm response from the company. Meanwhile, while investigations into the lack of minority representation in tech companies have been given national attention, companies are dragging their feet in improving this situation. In addition to the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace of 30 years ago, what seems to be needed is an Internet Bill of Rights and also a Cyber-Civil Rights Act.

Photo: If Twitter is the chirping chatterbox of the Internet, trolls are its dark underground denizens. The collision of the two is driving a debate about the scale of hatred and the limits of free speech online. The furor erupted after women went public about the sexually explicit and luridly violent abuse they receive on Twitter from trolls. There are growing calls for action when their abuse crosses over into threats. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Bernie, Hillary, and me: Can’t we all just get along?

Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:50:00 +0000

It happened late in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate. "It" being the moment when I questioned my own role during the primaries as a socialist and activist.

As a socialist, I support Bernie Sanders. I'm impressed with his ability to stick to the issues and not turn his campaign into Hillary Clinton-bashing as some who identify as left do.

I'm intrigued by Sanders' campaign because I want to see the American people's response to his far-reaching radical solutions to the wealth gap and climate change, to institutional racism and comprehensive immigration reform (nothing warms my heart more seeing Sanders - an older white guy - say, "Black lives matter!").

I figured I would support Bernie and challenge the bashing because once the primary is over, if the expected result becomes a reality and Hillary gets the nomination, the work to win the general election remains. Hillary Clinton would be head and shoulders above any Republican, especially one who could rename the president's residence "Trump House," and she would finally smash through the ultimate political glass ceiling.

However, the rancor I hear about Hillary from my left friends is more than disturbing. Usually couched in the mantra "She's tied to Wall Street" or "She comes with a lot of baggage," such complaints miss essential points.

First and foremost, the policy differences between Hillary and any Republican candidate are stark. It would not be a cakewalk for Hillary to get elected. The sexism is thick and the country is split, with only a few percentage points between Democrats and Republicans.

Second, I think such criticisms represent an underestimation of how a liberally-minded woman president like Hillary (as opposed to the reactionary Carly Fiorina) would impact the structures of gender inequality, often called patriarchy. These cultural, economic, social and political structures have prevented women from being elected president for the entire 239 years of the United States' existence, and denied women the right to vote until 1920. Wouldn't breaking that cycle be an important step in chipping away at such a system?

The election of Barack Obama did not bring elimination of racism or create a post-racial society, but it did provide new avenues to address and struggle against racism, and gave millions of people a deeper understanding of how racism deforms democratic society. I think the movements to save Troy Davis' life, protest Trayvon Martin's murder and to guarantee that Black Lives Matter all had their genesis in Obama's election, giving especially younger activists a whole new model and political space in which to organize. Similar space could open up on struggles for women's rights and freedom.

These thoughts were triggered during the debate when Clinton answered a question on paid family leave so strongly and beautifully:

"...it's always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, 'You can't have paid leave, you can't provide health care.' They don't mind having big government to interfere with a woman's right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They're fine with big government when it comes to that. I'm sick of it. ... we should not be paralyzed by the Republicans and their constant refrain, 'big government this, big government that,' that except for what they want to impose on the American people. I know we can afford it, because we're going to make the wealthy pay for it. That is the way to get it done."

Sanders responded next. And frankly, I was more than a little disheartened. I was shocked when he said:

"Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby. We are the only major country. That is an international embarrassment that we do not provide family - paid family and medical leave."

Did I hear that right? "When a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby...?" No father should be able to as well? No parents should be able to stay home? Just the mother? Granted that is probably the case most of the time but still hearing it like that stopped me in my tracks. For me it was a jarring throwback to a bygone era. Gender matters, I thought.

And that's when I stopped to think that my assumptions may be missing the point of this political moment. I needed to do what mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki said regarding researchers: They need to "deactivate the thought patterns that they have installed in their brains and taken for granted for so many years."

What if the role of a socialist is in fact to support Hillary? The left is not immune from sexism as it is not immune from racism or homophobia or anti-working-class ideas. It takes a struggle to be aware of those influences and to change, including women who may internalize sexism.

Sanders has done a terrific job of sticking to the issues, articulating far-reaching solutions and NOT attacking Hillary. His much-hailed criticism of the media coverage of her emails stopped that issue cold, and both Hillary and Bernie talk about the important differences between Democrats and Republicans in a unifying way. His presence, some say, has strengthened Hillary's campaign. No, Hillary is not a socialist. But Bernie is not a woman. So perhaps the primary is not about "either/or" with Hillary and Bernie but "both/and."

Photo: David Becker/AP

Who has the most to gain by going to war?

Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:12:00 +0000

LOS ANGELES - What does it cost to build a U.S. Navy submarine? The Virginia SSN, a modern submarine, cost taxpayers $2.4 billion.

The aircraft carrier, George H. Bush, cost taxpayers $6.26 billion.

A cruiser/destroyer such as the DDG 1000 Zumualt costs taxpayers $6-billion.

A new Navy aircraft, the E2D advance Hawkeye, costs $253 million (Source: New Wars website).

The F-35 Strike Fighter program is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over a 55-year-life of the program (Source: The Fiscal Times website). One long range Strike Bomber costs taxpayers $550 million each (Source: The Fiscal Times website).

A new high school, on average, costs $20,562,200 dollars for a two-story building (Source: RS Means website). A new elementary school costs $7,393, 000 for a one-story building (Source: RS Means website).

The average salary for K-12 teachers: elementary School teacher - $42,588; high school teacher - $46,989; special education teacher -$43,936. Of course these estimated salaries vary from state-to-state (Source: Pay Scale website).

A new University of California San Francisco Medical Center cost $1.5 billion It is known as the "Next Generation Medical Center" with three new hospitals serving the community (Source: UCSF.edu/news).

Just recently Congress passed a military priorities budget that has no domestic spending increases but continues on the path for a war budget with increased military spending. This money will be used to continue funding thousands of military projects like the one's mentioned above at the expense of our communities.

We must ask the question: Who benefits from a war budget? Is it the one percent which includes corporate elites, Wall Street bankers and CEOs, and billionaires? Is it the war lobby in Washington D.C.? Is it the new military/corporate industrial complex? Is it all the greedy war profiteers? You guessed it. It's all of the above.

Let's be clear that it's all about the money. It is money that I argue should be spent on social programs and in our communities. We should not fear cutting the military budget since strong and healthy communities make for a strong nation.

Working-class communities always get the short end of the stick in a war economy. constant war. Yet some of your local and national politicians and their wealthy backers are pushing for stronger aggressive action in Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, Palestine, Latin American, the Ukraine and Russia. Again who benefits? Who gains from going to war?

It is fear mongering when presidential candidates advocate that the U.S. should have the strongest military on the face of the planet, saying nothing about the peace option. These presidential candidates, funded by corporate elites, are seeking only to collect more wealth without really producing anything of value for the majority of the people.

A classic example of the damage done by war would be the Vietnam war. The war economy constructed then created the initial steps toward destruction of the nation's infrastructure and eventually caused unraveling of much of President Johnson's "Great Society" programs.

It is also well documented that George W. Bush's war with Iraq cost future generation trillions of dollars of debt with no way to finance the debt and at what cost to our communities? Only the capitalist class and their war partners get the benefit by creating more wealth at the expense of working people.

Workers joining with allies and pushing together from the bottom up is a necessary and sure way to combat the war hawks.. All the forces and groups that can benefit from a peace economy must come together and demand it. A war budget doesn't make us safer or more powerful.

Our priorities need to change from a constant war perspective and action to one of making funding of people's needs a priority. A new and powerful peace movement needs to develop. Progressive forces aligned with other like-minded people need to work together, organize and forcefully say "no" to war.

Photo: The Virginia SSN cost taxpayers $2.4 billion. | Wikipedia (CC)

Has feminism become a new four-letter word?

Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:26:00 +0000

Feminism (noun): the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Feminist (noun): a person who supports feminism.

To put it simply, feminism at its core is a theory that deals with the belief that women and men should be on equal footing, and not discriminated against based on gender. The movement came about due to people feeling as though women were treated lesser than men based on gender, and had less than equal rights. It seems straightforward enough that most people who believe in equality for all would support feminism, or identify as a feminist (feminism isn't only for women).

But then you have: Bjork...Lady Gaga...Taylor Swift...Carrie Underwood...Marissa Mayer...Kelly Clarkson...Meryl Streep...Madonna...Sarah Jessica Parker.

And the list goes on, of women in the media spotlight who have gone on record recently, for a variety of reasons, refusing to be associated with the word or the movement.

Has feminism become a four-letter word? Is it now taboo to be considered a feminist?

Is there some sort of confusion on just what feminism is? Has the movement of feminism become so fractured that it's driving away young (and older) women from wanting to openly identify with it? Not to say that celebrities should ever be the only spokespeople for the masses, yet, with these celebrities - who identify as women - being so comfortable with not identifying with a theory that calls for the equality of women to men, it does make one wonder if this is a growing trend.

Of the names given, there have been a variety of reasons why they don't identify as feminists. Lady Gaga explained, "I'm not a feminist - I hail men, I love men. I celebrate American male culture, and beer, and bars, and muscle cars...." It seems she equates feminism with not liking men.

Popular singer Kelly Clarkson had mixed reasoning. She said in a recent interview, "No, I wouldn't say feminist - that's too strong. I think when people hear feminist, it's like, 'Get out of my way, I don't need anyone.' I love that I'm being taken care of and I have a man that's a leader. I'm not a feminist in that sense."

Well-known actress Marion Cotillard feels that it sows too many seeds of separation. She's quoted recently in the Evening Standard: "Filmmaking is not about gender. You cannot ask a president in a festival like Cannes to have, like, five movies directed by women and five by men.... For me it doesn't create equality, it creates separation. I mean I don't qualify myself as a feminist.... Sometimes in the word feminism there's too much separation."

Others, like Madonna, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Meryl Streep apparently feel that the term feminist is too limiting, and would rather be considered humanist instead. Legendary actress Meryl Streep was quoted recently in her interview with TimeOut London (while promoting Suffragette, a film about women fighting for voting rights in the early 1900s), saying, "I am a humanist, I am for nice easy balance."

Another side of this debate is where women of color stand on mainstream feminism. It can be argued that for some time feminism, in the mainstream, has been a movement dominated by the narrative of white women, a movement that has often marginalized or silenced the plight of women of color. The term "intersectionality," first coined by black activist Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, came about due to frustration by women of color in the movement feeling as though the other ways they faced oppression (sexuality, race, socioeconomic status) weren't being taken into consideration when addressing the situation of all women.

This sentiment was exemplified tenfold when a recent photo shoot featuring the actresses from Suffragette showed them with t-shirts quoting Meryl Streep's character, women's rights activist Emmeline Pankhurst. The quote was, "I'd rather be a rebel than a slave." This caused controversy, of course, given the fact that at one time enslaved African American women didn't have a choice on the matter of being a slave or a rebel. One popular tweet about the controversy remarked,"Choosing a tone deaf Pankhurst quote to promote a tone deaf #Suffragette movie. #makessense #whitefeminism."

So has the term feminism become fragmented and outdated? Has the movement become a lost cause, and perhaps we should look for some other term under which to fight for gender equality?

Well, recent happenings, like the House of Representatives successfully passing a bill freezing funding for Planned Parenthood for the following year, would suggest differently. Or the fact that the wage gap between men and women (not to mention women of color) is still an actual thing. A woman's right to choose what happens with her body and her healthcare seems to still be something deemed as "debatable" under our current government.

So the controversy over the term feminism, and who it actually represents, may be ongoing. But it's clear that feminism needs to be discussed because there's plenty of ongoing struggles that it addresses.

Are you a feminist?

Millennials vs. Baby Boomers: Which is the true problem generation?

Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:54:00 +0000

There are memes about it. There are Vine videos discussing it. There are constant debates on Twitter and other forms of social media as well on it. The "it" being the so-called ongoing feud between Baby Boomers, (those born between 1946-1964), and the Millennials (those born between 1981-2000). With unemployment a serious issue, student debt a continuing problem, and the fact that Millennials will be the first generation to be less well off than their parents were before them, these bleak circumstances have spurred a debate of just who is responsible.

Studies have been conducted on both sides. One scathing study in particular on Millennials was highlighted in the now infamous 2013 TIME article titled, "Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation." This article gave facts and figures that painted Millennials as narcissistic, social media obsessed, and undeservingly entitled. Many Millennials struck back against that article, and the study it highlighted, the best way they knew how - through the Internet.

The prevailing thought amongst many Millennials is that it was the decisions and votes cast by the Baby Boomers that have put them in the state of economic limbo that many find themselves in today. Hundreds of memes, tweets, and videos later, and it would seem the debate is still not settled. Is there a true "problem" generation? What has made it so that these two generations are at each others' throats when it comes to looking at the current state of the world? There is most likely a more logical answer than pointing fingers, but one must first address what is framing the debate.

It would seem that the main concern is who is doing better financially. Who has a brighter future and/or present, and lastly, who is the generation footing the bill for it. If you ask some Baby Boomers it would seem that they feel they worked and earned their retirement, and that Millennials are simply too entitled to truly put in the work. If you ask some Millennials they'd answer that Baby Boomers are the real entitled ones, and that even with a college education, many Millennials will be spending the remainder of their lives in debt. One infamous tweet on Twitter replied to an article title of, "Why Are Millennials Still Living With Their Parents?" with "because the Baby Boomers destroyed the economy through deregulation and replaced all labor laws with a pic of Reagan."

Ouch.

But perhaps Baby-Boomers and Millennials shouldn't be as much at odds as the media, and other interested parties, would want everyone to believe. The growing average age of retirement is now 61 years old. Two decades ago it was 57. According to Gallup's Economy and Personal Finance survey the average age in which most workers plan to retire will continue to rise. According to the survey, the average non-retired American now plans to retire at 66, up from 60 in 1995. This is due to the fact that many workers simply can't afford to live off of Social Security alone. This contradicts the myth that some Millennials might believe, that Baby Boomers get to retire and collect their pensions, spending time on golf courses in their late 50s while the rest of us slave away trying to pay off our student debt.

In all reality, Baby Boomers and Millennials will be working side by side with each other for some time to come. This means that working class members of both generations face the same economic hardships and challenges.

That Fight for 15 isn't just for the recent college grad. That attack on health care isn't just aimed at those who might be older and thus fighting more ailments than their younger counterparts. Millennials and Baby Boomers have a lot of common struggles, and there is a need to face it together.

When these generations argue over which one of them is the real "culprit" they miss out on the actual culprit in the situation. In reality we live under a system that works hard to pit workers against each other on a daily basis, based on a number of factors, in order to continue to exploit them as much as possible. Two of the main ways it seeks to divide is through race and gender, but another is age. Getting caught up on which generation is truly "in touch" or "out of touch" distracts from joining together to protect current rights on the job, and gaining further ground for better working conditions for all.

So, sure, we may never truly see eye to eye on the importance of Facebook or the Kardashians. Or whether it should be called tweeting or "Twitter'ing." Or which generation is truly the most narcissistic. But it can be agreed upon that both generations believe in the right to livable wages, and a chance for life that isn't steeped in debt and poverty. The only way to get that is through solidarity. We can discuss the importance of the Kardashians at a later date . . . or . . . you know . . . never.

Photos: QuickMeme.com

2015: Not your usual "off year" election

Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:11:00 +0000

The leaves are turning and cooler temperatures are beginning to prevail - it's election time. The media coverage of the presidential candidates tends to eclipse local elections, and 2015 is no exception.

However, Pennsylvania's "off year" important election on Nov. 3 is for high stakes. The outcome will influence day-to-day life and elections to come. To underscore, it's necessary to know that Pa.'s electorate chose a very able and well-connected liberal governor in 2014. Tom Wolf made the fight to fund public education the centerpiece of his candidacy and defeated one term Republican Tom Corbett by a healthy margin.

Yet another result of the 2014 election was the consolidation of Republican power in the state House and Senate. A key reason for this outcome was the self-serving activity of the Republican legislators using of their favorite tools - gerrymandering. They drew the lines of legislative and senatorial districts to favor a maximum positive outcome for Republicans.

2015 finds three seats on the State Supreme Court up for election. The result of this contest will determine whether Republicans or Democrats are the majority on the seven-member court. With Republicans in firm control of the legislature and Governor Wolf not shy and working to reach out to Pennsylvanians for support of his policies and ready to use his veto power, the new Court is likely to hear more cases. Who wins Nov. 3 and sits on the Supreme Court matters.

Here's a summary of some issues that may get to the state Supreme Court:

* Who should draw the state legislative boundaries and on what basis? Nation wide there is a movement to take these decisions out of the hands of partisan legislators. The reign of Republicans in the House of Representatives is in no small measure the result of the 2010 apportionment. A number of states are taking the initiative to end gerrymandering (also known as a power grab) including California and Ohio.

*Should women be prevented from getting an abortion after 20 weeks? A big push nationally by right wingers who oppose all abortion is reflected in the agenda of Pennsylvania Republicans.

*Should the state be permitted to revisit voter identification laws, recently struck down by the Court. Will labor's job and union rights be protected?

*Will teachers' union contracts be honored? Philadelphia's School Reform Commission is challenging.

*Will Philadelphia and other large cities get education funding from the state moving toward equality before the law?

*Will Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes be apportioned among the state's Congressional delegation? (Clearly favoring a Republican presidential candidate.) This can happen. Pennsylvanians have the possibility of electing a state Supreme Court that can prevent these and other anti-democratic outcomes.

As the Pope's historic visit to Philadelphia ends and with his message of peace, equality, care for one another, the undocumented and our children still fresh in our minds, the election season begins. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has made this election top priority. They have endorsed the Democratic candidates and together with district and local councils are organizing to get out the vote. Through out the state community organizations are partnering in this effort organizing to get out the faithful, the voters, who can deliver a victory for democracy. This is a test, and the test has a real world outcome.

Philadelphia, the largest among municipalities and school boards around the state is getting ready for this contest. Philly's mayor and 17-member city council are to be elected. Most Democratic candidates in this largely Democratic Party stronghold are not breaking a sweat. Still the election could bring changes that will impact in time.

One such change is the nomination of Helen Gym, a well respected activist in the many decade struggle for Philadelphia's public schools. Candidate Gym is a former teacher, expert in school financing, mother and spell binding speaker. The American Federation of Teachers along with its local P.F.T., AFSCME, National Organization for Women are among Gym's endorsers. Along with four others, Gym is seeking her first election to an at-large city council seat. Securing those five council seats could set the stage for progressive change. As important as electing fighters is, it is equally important to elect those who will support the fight and vote like it. Jim Kenney, former councilman, is the Democratic Party candidate for mayor; his support for education funding, local labor and community movements won him the nomination in a contested field of five.

As this is written, Pennsylvania is almost three months without a state budget. The deadlock in Harrisburg between Governor and legislature is forcing school districts and other agencies to borrow to stay open. The right wing legislators in Harrisburg are following their party's mandate: small government that starves public education, mass transit, higher education, infrastructure improvement, and on and on.

With the motto "I got mine, now you get yours" Pennsylvania's Republicans are serving the oil and gas interests who are resisting a modest tax on their very profitable extraction of natural gas. Every other state in the Marcellus shale region that has enacted such a tax.

In the midst of long and difficult fights sometimes it's hard to visualize the end, a break, a victory and a way to move forward. One important way to overcome such a obstacles is to join an organization that works for change, show up at the local activity demonstrating for their needs. Write a letter to your representative - tell her/him what you think. Someone will read it. And yes, register and vote.

Photo: Beth Edelman/PW