As a Black feminist who spent two years organizing as a National Organization for Women (NOW) employee in Kim Gandy’s administration, nothing was going to keep me from attending this past weekend’s election conference. It had been decades since NOW had elected its first African American president, Eileen Hernandez, and I was excited to cast my ballot for the second one. I am proud to say that along with the fact that Latifa Lyles’s team had years of experience and skills needed to run NOW that having a woman of color represented was one of the reasons I cast my ballot for Latifa Lyles. It was clear to me that the diversity of her slate across age, race and socio-economic status stood to change the demographics of NOW’s electorate and perhaps the national feminist constituency. This diversity would be a signal to many women who have been marginalized in some sectors of mainstream feminism that they would be granted a safe space in which to organize. I was also certain that Latifa Lyles’s administration would institute policies that incrementally change NOW’s structure and make it more friendly to over-employed and underemployed women who want to take action in NOW’s ranks.
Now that dream is deferred.
It would be one thing if the reason behind defeat were that we were simply out-organized. But it was more than that. Terry O’Neill’s slate was elected on the basis of division, anger and, most of all, second wave feminist dogma of the worst kind. Furthermore, some of the tactics utilized by some of the supporters of Terry O’Neill’s slate were downright racially biased.
Starting with the latter, while the N-Word wasn’t used (to my hearing) other code words were used in its place and references were made about Lyles to undermine her run for president. Rumors ran rampant in the hours preceding the election that Lyles did not have a self-identified lesbian on her slate because she was homophobic. There was no evidence for this preposterous claim, and Lyles wasn’t even aware of such rumors until a voter approached her. The willingness of O’Neill’s supporters to suggest Lyles is homophobic harbors potential racial implications, when one considers the tendency of today’s media to collapse blackness and homophobia. Further, some supporters of Terry fixated on Lyles’s educational status as a reason for why she should not be elected. They reasoned that O’Neill’s JD degree gave her an edge and made her more qualified to be president. In this way, Lyles’s educational status became a point of discrimination against her, despite the fact that she had significant organizing and leadership experience within NOW.
These offensive claims were accompanied by anger, division and second wave feminist dogma. Now a brief aside on the use of the wave model: I know it can be fraught with problematics. However, I use the term “second wave” to modify the dogma exerted by some feminists because some of them actually self-identify as being “second wave.” Or, in other cases they joined NOW in the early years and occupied a space of white and socio-economic privilege along with a perspective on feminist policy that focused on the needs and concerns of white, middle class women.
Mainly though, at the root of support for O’Neill was the notion that the previous administration did not do all they could to support Hillary Clinton in her historic run for president. This was evidenced in hateful e-mails that were circulated throughout the organization and in the forceful comments of women who interrupted conference plenaries on economic justice with their thoughts on Clinton and Sarah Palin. And all this anti-sentiment was seething in the room more than a year after Clinton, herself, pledged her support to Barack Obama. The zealous preoccupation with Clinton’s run exhibited by her supporters is perhaps the most nocuous hindrance to the growth of today’s feminist movement. While Kim Gandy’s slate supported Clinton, and continue to support her, many of O’Neill’s advocates allege that women who did not support Clinton were (and are) not feminists and, therefore, not fit to lead. I learned this firsthand at a NOW board meeting where I was asked to leave the room because a tape had surfaced where I pledged my support for Barack Obama. My support for Barack Obama’s historic run somehow subverted other self-identified feminists’ ability to trust me as an ally for feminist policy, activism, and change. Feminists like Latifa Lyles and Kim Gandy refuted this dogma at the height of the Democratic primary season, maintaining that women who didn’t support Clinton were still valuable, respected members of NOW and the feminist community.
On the contrary, supporters of Terry O’Neill sought to ostracize women who did not support Clinton. They called their long years of clinic defense and feminist policy work into question and outright disrespected them with personal attacks. This is why the election of Terry O’Neill is such a disappointment to many feminists. It’s not a personal slight against O’Neill and her slate; her election represents the victory of the worst brand of feminist dogma. In these times, we need feminists who are open to having principled debates when they disagree. The feminist-litmus test approach to disagreement is counterproductive and has no place in a movement that hopes to survive and thrive.
The newly elected slate of leadership is a group of people who should be rightly recognized for their contributions to the feminist movement. Also, on the matter of feminist policy: health care, ending violence against women, clinic access the slates had similar priorities. While some have wondered what the fundamental differences policy-wise between the slates are, the general principles and issue focus are mostly mandated by the organization and the current membership. Alas, the major issue at hand was implementation and representation. In any event, I have worked closely with three out of four of them on feminist projects and they have never disrespected me or espoused feminist dogma in disagreements I have had with them. However, they have much work to do if they are to stamp out the intolerance and racism presently in NOW’s midst.
Here are some recommendations:
The new slate must prioritize identifying and addressing discriminatory behaviors within the NOW’s community. This will involve chapter leaders and members coming under thorough investigation for the way some of them have discouraged the involvement of young women, women of color, women of faith and other groups. It should be noted that this occurred in the height of the Democratic primaries, but this kind of behavior has been long standing within NOW. Those who are found to have engaged in discriminatory activity must be removed from their leadership positions, encouraged to enter into sensitivity-training and given a grace period for when they can re-enter positions of leadership.
Secondly, national leadership must examine and change its now archaic organizing system. NOW’s chapter structure involves organizing with little to no monetary compensation for leaders, and often little to no seed money for newly formed chapters. This originates from a time when chapter leaders were mostly white, married women or high net worth individuals who could sustain the life of an organizer with little to no compensation. It is for this reason the most successful chapters within NOW are usually the chapters run by these women of privilege. It is an awful, tragic contradiction to have the grassroots work of women under-monetized or not monetized at all. NOW should run a capitol campaign to garner seed money for its chapters and money to compensate chapter leaders.
I should make one last note about the voting process. There is an inherent bias against low-income women in a system that requires you to spend hundreds of dollars (hotel, flight, local transportation, food etc.) to vote for NOW President. This is because NOW doesn’t allow it’s members to vote online or absentee. This process is justified by an ineffective delegate system that is meant to represent those who cannot afford to attend. The delegate system needs to be reworked, absentee ballots should be implemented and more efforts need to be made to provide scholarships to low-income conference attendees.
As co-chair of NOW’s Young Feminist Taskforce, I have decided to remain at the table because I believe in grassroots feminism. I hope they are open to principled debate about the challenges that face NOW and the policy prescription for the multiple challenges that face women today.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Review on NOW Conference and Recommendations for New NOW Leadership.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14708
Rose, That was so eloquently said and heartfelt. You've hit the nail with this critique. The underlying racism and ageism were disgusting and really turned me off.
I'm glad you've decided to remain. I too will remain active in NOW and try to get these necessary changes implemented.
I find Rose's comments quite divisive and misguided. As a long time NOW leader and participant in many NOW elections both as a candidate and as delegate, the 2009 NOW elections were a clear rebuttal of the Gandy administration. Latifa Lyles was associated with that administration and rightly so. Latifa had the unfortunate situation of having to run on her record, one that clearly showed her inability to grow the membership. In fact, during her tenure, the membership dropped more than 30%. She was, after all, Vice-President of membership.
The leadership and members of NOW who came to vote in Indianapolis were driven by the desire to have the organization survive for generations to come. It was clear that under the Gandy and by extension, the possible Lyles administration could have resulted in the demise of the organization. NOW delegates voted to save it and to imply that this was the old gizzards' way of defeating a young, African American woman is totallly incorrect, out of line, and plainly ignorant of the facts. By associating herself with Gandy, Lyles couldn't come up with a platform which could convince the delegates that she and her team had the talent and the plan to turn the tide.
It may be that the second wave won the day but for sure, the long time NOW members and leaders who want this organization to survive stepped up to the plate with a better plan and a vision that the third (or fourth) wave could not produce.
And Rose - if you stick around you could make the changes you suggest by understanding the system in which this organization operates. It is important that you learn the ropes - otherwise you will be unable to effect the change you promote under the current rules. And even trying to change the rules could be a challenge. Some of us have taken the time to learn how to be effective - you could do the same.
Rose, you have summed up the feelings of the Phila NOW chapter re. the election.
See my June 22 post on the Philly NOW blog at http://www.philanow.blogspot.com
Also, you have made some excellent suggestions for changing the process by which we elect leaders.
I am very happy to hear that you haven’t given up on NOW and will stay involved.