Yoshie's example was the need for subsidized child care. Her argument could be right, but this example could be wrong. The latter question is what I want to raise.
The implication is that identity-based groups are essential to fight for things like child care. My question -- a real one, not a rhetorical one -- is, do they, or do they tend to be more 'middle' class in orientation?
Avoiding any issue of sentiment, it is not in the interests of all women to support subsidized child care. Some -- many -- could end up paying more than they get back. By contrast, low-income men could get back more than they pay.
So the question pertaining to the example, not to the more general thesis, is whether class versus identity-focused organizations exert more effort re: child care. I don't know the answer, off the top of my head, but I suspect that the involvement of feminist groups in child care may be less than it is cracked up to be.
There are different venues for politics. There are probably some womens' groups that fight like hell for child care. More telling, however, is the posture of the large organizations. In Washington, when I go to meetings of advocates for this sort of thing, I do *not* see womens' groups. I see labor, church groups, childens' groups, minority groups, civil liberties people. No NOW, no abortion-rights groups, no womens' political caucus.
This is at least one example supporting the hypothesis (and my prejudice, frankly, if it isn't obvious) that some identity groups have an identity that is narrower than it appears to be.
A counter-example is the minority/civil rights groups, which seem to be fully involved in bread-and-butter class issues, given their resource limitations. But maybe these aren't really identity groups to begin with.
mbs