Press Release November 3, 2000 CONTACT: Jake Lewis or Stacy Malkan, (202) 265-4000
IN OPEN LETTER TO WOMEN, LEADING FEMINIST SUPPORTS NADER Clinton-Gore leveled blow to women by ending welfare
Dear sisters,
As the election grows closer, I am increasingly dismayed by the nasty rhetoric deployed by some feminists against Ralph Nader and his supporters, of whom I am one. Gloria Steinem in particular, a woman I have always admired until now for her graciousness, has chosen to attack not only Nader but his supporters, whom she derides as overly white, male and middle class -- completely ignoring Winona LaDuke and Nader's sizeable contingent of feminist supporters.
Yes, the choice between Nader and Gore was a difficult one, and I retain my respect for those of you have come down on the Gore side of it. The risk to abortion rights, in case of a Bush victory, is a real one, and an understandable reason to choose Gore.
But I wish to remind you:
First, feminism is not and cannot become a single-issue movement. While we retained abortion rights under the Clinton-Gore administration, we lost welfare -- a blow not only to the about 4 million women who depended on it in 1996, but to uncounted others who would have turned to it as an escape from a violent relationship. For this and other reasons, political scientist Gwendolyn Mink has called welfare reform "the most aggressive invasion of women's rights in this century." The extent of the damage -- in increased hunger, homeless, and possibly infant mortality -- is just beginning to emerge. In the meantime, Gore boasts of welfare reform and even claimed, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, to have been the major force behind it. There are, in other words, feminist reasons to reject Gore and to fear a Gore administration.
Second, while some prominent feminists are insisting on loyalty to the Democratic Party as if it were a feminist principle, they forget that only eight years ago, NOW announced a tentative plan to launch a new feminist political party. I was at one of the meetings to discuss the new party, so was Patricia Ireland, and the feeling then was of disgust for the Democrats and weariness with being taken for granted by them. In that year the Republican candidate, Bush Sr., was far more openly aligned with the Christian Right than his son is now. So, even by NOW's standards, rejection of the Democratic Party is hardly treason.
Finally, our movement needs both its pragmatists and its dreamers, its inside-players and its utopian outsiders. We would never have begun without the dreamers, and never have lasted without the pragmatists. I believe our movement derives strength from the creative tension between the two groups, and that for one side to write off the other would be suicidal.
Whoever wins the election, we will need to pull together, both to protect women's reproductive rights and advocate for economic advancement. If you have contributed to the divisive rhetoric about Nader supporters, I ask you to stop. If you are in touch with others who have contributed to it, I ask you to urge them to stop.
Please pass this letter along.
In sisterhood, Barbara Ehrenreich
Barbara Ehrenreich is a leading political essayist, social critic and author of such books as Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class, and Re-making Love: The Feminization of Sex.
-- Stacy Malkan Assistant Press Secretary Nader 2000 Campaign 202.265.4000 ext. 42 202.265.0183 (fax) www.votenader.org
Paid for by the Nader 2000 General Committee, Inc. P.O. Box 18002, Washington, D.C. 20036