plus, not ALL the problems women face have to do with children.

I don't like this idea because it assumes that all women agree on the issues and have the same needs. We're a diverse group.

Do we need an all-women political party?

NO. NO. NO.

This is women-centric feminism at its finest.

it sounds counterproductive, but I'm not Australian. Furthermore, fringe political parties have a fairly different role in government than they do in the states.

it sounds counterproductive, but I'm not Australian. Furthermore, fringe political parties have a fairly different role in government than they do in the states.

I'm a child-free woman and I resent it that women's issues are always linked to children. Why aren't they called parent's or children's issues instead.
Additionally, when we seperate ourselves into a seperate catagory (i.e. "women's issues") I think it makes us sound whiney and therefore like we are asking for special treatment. We are asking for equal treatment, whether that's the right to make our own health care decisions, earn an equitable wage, or receive fair and reasonable compensation and acknowledgements for our contributions. We want equal representation in government and equal opportunities for advancement. We want the right to be safe in our homes and in our streets. And we want a work / life balance that allows us to earn a decent living while growing our families/relationships/ communities. These are not special women's issues, they are equal human rights. Perhaps if the GLBT groups, minorities, immigrant groups, and women's groups all worked together to secure these basic rights for everyone then we might be more effective.

I agree with all the comments so far. Based on the excerpt in the post, it seems that the message is: The only important women's issues are are actually "mothers' issues".

Bousefield's critiques concerning the lack of mother, child, and family friendly policies are certainly applicable to this country, and presumably all countries (except maybe Sweden - you all rock), in spite of all the empty pro-family rhetoric politicians throw around to appear "moral". I definitely believe that supporting these issues a fundamental to the feminist movement, but are women really the only ones who care about these things? Lord, I hope not. And, as Jessica says in the post, do we really need a "women's only" party to achieve these goals?

I'm definitely support of a FEMINIST party, but that doesn't seem to be what this is. Women's issues are the same as Mother's issue, even if they do sometimes intersect. Women's issues also include reproductive freedom, health services, pay equality, rape and other violent crime prevention, etc., etc., etc.

These are not womens' issues, these are parents' issues. I resent that just because I'm a woman then these should be my issues - they are not.

What a way to promote the stereotype that all women are particularly concerned with children (and men aren't for some reason?).

Well, I don't understand the Austrialian political system very well, but if it's a proportional multi-party system (where you vote for a party, which then gets allocated seats, rather than voting for individual candidates), then it seems like a great idea!

I'm definitely support of a FEMINIST party, but that doesn't seem to be what this is.

I think what's needed is not so much a women-only party, but rather a party for which women aren't seen as merely an occasional annoyance that is tolerated as long as they reliably vote the right way, which is about all we've been able to expect from the nominal two-party system over the past few decades.

I don't understand why "womens issues" is synonymous with childcare. As some of you also commented, this sort of thing only emphasizes the sexist idea that childcare is the sole responsibility of women and what all women are concerned about above all else.

Why isn't it a men's issue or a joint issue for people who are concerned about childcare?

Why is a "what women want" political party automatically women only, any more than a "feminist" party would be women-only?

Isn't it just a poorly-named equivalent? I know you're presenting it as a women-only party, but is it, really?

I agree that these are men's issues, or parents' issues as much as they are "women's issues", but as long as a disproportionate number of women are suffering due to inadequate support for parents, it is something (though certainly not the only thing) I am concerned about as a feminist.

I am childless - and plan to remain that way - but I still think that supporting childcare, maternity leave, and other child-oriented policies is feminist because these issues involve a woman's right to choose what to do with her life and her body. If a woman wants to have kids, she should get all the resources and support she needs, and she should sure as hell have access to childcare so that she can choose to continue working. At the same time, if a woman chooses not to have kids, her choice should not be questioned, and it should not be assumed that there is something wrong with her. For me, feminism is about supporting women's unique choices and their right to make those choices, whatever they may be.

This seems like a terrible idea. What about the male feminists? We can't really help the cause of feminism if we're being excluded.

Not to downplay mothers problems, but Im glad to see others (as in actual women) thought there should have a been a gnat winks less focus on that, like I did (even though it was from a blokes perspective).

I don't know, but it did work here in Iceland.

The women's party (Kvennalistinn) was hugely successful in increasing the participation of Icelandic women in politics back in the 80s. They did get quite a few women elected to parliament, and maybe more importantly,the other parties were forced to adress women's issues and put more women on the ballot. Many of the most influential women in Icelandic politics today, ingluding the foreign minister, started their carriers in the women's party. Icelandic parents get nine moths of paid parental leave per child, affordable daycare is widely available and members of Kvennalistinn were instrumental in starting the first shelters for victims of domestic and sexual abuse.

As long as women bear most of the responsibility of childrearing (as is the case in most countries) issues like maternity leave and daycare are very much women's issues.

As I said, I don't know if it would work in Australia or the US, but it did work here.

PS. And "what about the male feminists"? They got to play the traditionally female role of offering support and working behind the scenes.

"PS. And "what about the male feminists"? They got to play the traditionally female role of offering support and working behind the scenes."

I shake my head in disgust. It makes no more sense for a woman's group to exclude men than it would for a civil rights group to exclude Caucasians, or for a LGBT rights group to exclude heterosexuals.

I shake my head in disgust. It makes no more sense for a woman's group to exclude men than it would for a civil rights group to exclude Caucasians, or for a LGBT rights group to exclude heterosexuals.
Jeremy, did you even read the comment? She said that men can play a support role.
It's inappropriate for a man to lead the feminist movement, as it is for a white person to lead in an African American movement. Members of the majority can lend their support, but they shouldn't lead, due to the power differential.

Off-topic but yikes! What's up with the ad on the right with the half-naked woman with ample cleavage in the bikini? I had to scroll past half these comments in order to get her off my screen! I usually read Feministing at work and I'd prefer to have the near naked women confined to MySpace and its ilk, not on my favorite and most-frequented feminist site!

Hilda,
Thanks for the info. It sounds like the party accomplished some great things. Were only women allowed in the party, or was it a party focused on women's issues with male supporters/participants?

"Jeremy, did you even read the comment? She said that men can play a support role."

Yes, but relegating men to a support role is a sure-fire way to alienate them. Why would I want to fight for equality with an organization that promotes inequality in its own structure?

Yes, but relegating men to a support role is a sure-fire way to alienate them. Why would I want to fight for equality with an organization that promotes inequality in its own structure?
B/c if men led a woman's org., say NOW hypothetically, it would be just another man in power telling women what to do.
& if you can't understand why that's wrong, then I really question what you're doing here.

Personally, speaking as a pro-feminist male, I have no problems if a feminist group excludes men. I do have a problem with the whole "support role" thing.

Personally I think for the most part men neccesarily have to engage feminist issues in different ways than women but I don't think movements of social change should be structured along the lines of leaders and followers.

Hi Sedmunds
Men were members of the party, but only women were up for election. At the time (1983), there had only been 12 women MPs in the entire history of Iceland.

Jeremy
I guess you would want to fight for equality if you would be a decent person. I don't know what else to tell you. I don't feel particularly alienated by the LGBT movement or other minorities whose rights I support, even if they fail to create places of honor for my straight, Nordic self.

But then again, Moxie Hart already explained that to you. (Thanks Moxie)

I interned for a pro-choice organization one summer, and the Executive Director was a woman, but the much loved Assistant/Vice ED was a man who had been with the organization for over a decade. He was fantastic, charismatic, and definitely committed to the cause, and he deserved the high position he held. The interns had a bit of a fan club for him.
However, I agree with Moxie Hart on this one - had he been the ED, the dynamic of the organization would have been different. As part of the senior staff, he was a peer who also happened to be some people's supervisor. Had he been the Head Honcho, he would have seemed more like some guy who was in charge to make sure the women didn't get hysterical and screw things up. I think that men should certainly have integral roles in feminist activism, but it is best to let the ladies be in charge of their organizations.

"B/c if men led a woman's org., say NOW hypothetically, it would be just another man in power telling women what to do."

That's a pretty harsh generalization of men. If an individual is best suited to lead an organization, what difference does the gender of that individual make? Isn't the point of feminism to fight against discrimination based on gender? How is this really any better?

Oh wow, I've been hearing the term "concern troll" bandied all about the interwebs, and I was skeptical about the phenomenon. Thanks, Jeremey F., for providing a real-life example.

PS: I'm not sure that the proposed women's party would exclude men from participation anyway.

That's a pretty harsh generalization of men. If an individual is best suited to lead an organization, what difference does the gender of that individual make? Isn't the point of feminism to fight against discrimination based on gender? How is this really any better?

Because you're trying to pretend that the organization exists in a vacuum. All other things being equal, sure, the person with the best skill-set should have a particular job. But, things aren't equal.

They're just not, right now. And it's wrong to pretend that they are.

The reality is that having a man in charge of an organization that is trying to help women acheive equality is going to face problems. It just is. I don't think that it means that men can't have an important and active role in feminist organizations, but I absolutely think it's unreasonable to think that a man should be in charge of a major feminist organization right now- it ignores the entire social circumstances that currently require such organizations to exist in the first place. An organization promoting the advancement of women loses credibility if it's headed by a man.

I think this post and most of the subsequent comments here are over-hasty and people are making statements without adequately informing themselves. Why don’t you begin by looking at the party’s website?: www.whatwomenwant.org.au If you look at their membership form you will see that a new member has to declare only that they are eligible to vote in Australia, not that they are female (which would actually be illegal anyway). Their site also states that their membership includes men. A quick glance down their list of policy positions shows platforms on the environment, advocacy of equal rights for same-sex couples, and a commitment to fair industrial relations practices and a universal minimum wage.

No we don’t need an a women-only political party to get voters to care about women, but we may well need one to get politicians to care about women. For all those who think proportional gender representation won’t influence policy, try this on for size: not long ago there was a bill put to parliament to have regulation of the RU486 (“morning after pill�) controlled by the same medical regulatory authority as all other medications, instead of by the federal government, as it was at the time. In the Australian upper house there are 76 seats, currently 30 held by women and 46 by men. Of those 46 men, 25 voted against the bill. When it came to the women only 3 of the 30 were prepared to vote against it. Do you think that proportion of more than half the men in the senate was thinking about whether their female voters would rather see their reproductive health being regulated by doctors or politicians?

I say, if there’s any way to make the sort of noise that will force these men to look to the influence their actions has on women, then go for it, at least until that glorious time when we don’t need it anymore. And a bit of support from a feminist website shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Eh, why not? If presenting women as a voting bloc gets women's issues on the table and women into power, I don't have a problem with it. It's true that this party seems to focusing on motherhood-related issues, for all the reasons that others have already outlined, but that may be appropriate. I don't know enough about Australian politics; it may be that that's what's being neglected the most right now.

Quite frankly, given the horror show that the US political system has become, I'm open to options.

"For all those who think proportional gender representation won’t influence policy, try this on for size: not long ago there was a bill put to parliament to have regulation of the RU486 (“morning after pill�)..."

RU486 isn't the morning after pill. It causes an abortion while the morning after pill only prevents a pregnancy. I just had to point this out because so many people call the morning after pill abortion when it's really emergency contraception.

"Oh wow, I've been hearing the term "concern troll" bandied all about the interwebs, and I was skeptical about the phenomenon. Thanks, Jeremey F., for providing a real-life example."

I just looked up that term. I am not the Stephen Colbert of feminism! Read some of the other comments I have made and you'll understand. I do present dissenting points of view, but that is something that is actually beneficial as it helps prevent groupthink. You should always welcome someone willing to say something that is reasonable but unpopular for that same reason.

Let's not get hung up on insignificant details. I assume if you're a reader of this blog, you are interested in furthering the cause of feminism. That is what is truly important here.

Moxie Hart, Roymac, Nausicaa, and Sedmunds wrote things like: "It's inappropriate for a man to lead the feminist movement/or to have a leadership role in a feminist organization. That would be like a white person to lead in an African American movement."

What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!

One would hope that people interested in gender issues would hold to the belief that people should be judged on their leadership qualities, not their gender. Especially on a site explicitly designed to promote gender equality! No love for the perspective that people should be judged on the content of their character and capabilities, not their physical characteristics?

I really don't think that political perception is a valid excuse for discriminating against people for any reason. Neither is creating a status hierarchy in any organization based on gender. I thought that's what we all abhorred?

They're just not, right now. And it's wrong to pretend that they are.>>>

Keep extending that logic. Many men and women prefer to work for a male rather than female boss. All things being equal, gender shouldn't matter. But if people respond better to male bosses, then men should be the one's put in charge for the sake of the company.

You can always come up with some sort of excuse for creating a gender hierarchy. I thought the point of feminism was to create gender equality. If you can't even create gender equality within a feminist organization, how can you expect other organizations to do the same? An organization promoting gender equality should lead by example.

Jeremy F - If you weren't a concern troll, you'd have realized that the proposed party is not about banning men but about getting women elected.

UCLAbodyimage - I don't actually think men should be banned being NOW president.

I really don't think that political perception is a valid excuse for discriminating against people for any reason. Neither is creating a status hierarchy in any organization based on gender. I thought that's what we all abhorred?

It seems to me that political perception would be an entirely reasonable criterion in a political organisation. Political organisations have certain goals; that's the point of them. There's nothing wrong with membership in an organisation being open primarily to those who share those goals.

It's not the "physical characteristics" that are at issue here. It's the fact that men generally have little, if any, first-hand idea of what any woman's life or interests are — the only people with first-hand knowledge of that are women. I don't see anything shocking about the idea that women are better representatives of our own interests than anyone else. Women have had to be "represented" by men for millennia; securing the right to speak for ourselves is one of the oldest goals of feminism.

I live in Australia and am a member of another political party, but even I think this is a good idea. You have to understand the Australian political system to recognise this. In particular, in the upper house of the Federal Parliament, the balance of power is generally held by minority representatives, which are usually offensive in their views – one is called Family First, which really translates to conservative pseudo- Christian patriarchal claptrap; previously an independent called Brian Harradine held a crucial vote and used it to squeeze out concessions like the banning of the abortifacient RU486 (which was re-allowed late last year) and the banning of foreign aid moneys being used to ‘promote’ abortion. At the moment, the foul Family First Candidate has wielded the balance of power all on his own on a couple of occasions. I would much rather have a What Women Want candidate, whose policy platform I agree with whole heartedly.

"Moxie Hart, Roymac, Nausicaa, and Sedmunds wrote things like: "It's inappropriate for a man to lead the feminist movement/or to have a leadership role in a feminist organization. That would be like a white person to lead in an African American movement."

What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!"

B.S. One of the basic tenants of the Civil Rights Movement, Feminism, etc. is that those of the marginilized groups, those with the experience living as people of a group, are best equipped to understand and deal with issues presented to that group. Would it make sense to have a Muslim in charge of Christian Right lobbying organizations? Our national government is supposed to represent the country as a whole, hence it should look like the country as a whole. But interest groups are meant to represent groups of people with certain beliefs, and as long as they are a fixture in our govt it makes sense for them to represent the people they're standing for.

"Many men and women prefer to work for a male rather than female boss. All things being equal, gender shouldn't matter. But if people respond better to male bosses, then men should be the one's put in charge for the sake of the company."

And maybe women in feminist organizations prefer to work for female bosses. Are you familiar with the process by which the director of most non-profit organizations is chosen?

Anyway, I think a lot of women's fear is that if men are in charge of women's organizations, then gradually women's organizations would lose their focus and become just like the rest of the world. Arguing that not allowing men to be in charge of women's organizations is sexist is kind of like arguing that not allowing men to weigh in equally on what being a woman is like is sexist (as you seem want to do in certain threads) and pretty soon women are losing their voice all over again. I have known some self-proclaimed male feminists, and while I appreciate their empathy and their dedication to learning more about sexism in our society, but none of them has the innate ability to know what it is like to be a woman. Same thing with Afro-American groups, etc.

Now if you're going to argue there should be organizations founded solely for the pursuit of gender equality, then sure, I would expect those to be founded by both males and females and to have equal representation in their organizations. But so far most of the organizations that exist to deal with gender/sexual inequality were founded by women. There's a reason for that, and for the fact they focus on women in their titles and/or missions.

Elise Wrote: "It's not the "physical characteristics" that are at issue here. It's the fact that men generally have little, if any, first-hand idea of what any woman's life or interests are — the only people with first-hand knowledge of that are women. I don't see anything shocking about the idea that women are better representatives of our own interests than anyone else. "

I sympathise with the view that people who have shared experiences can be strong proponents for others with the same experience.

For example, I really do appreciate that the lead counselor at the CA Office for Disability Services has the same condition that I do. I know that she understands what I go through on a daily basis and has a strong personal stake in being an advocate for disability rights.

That said, however, she's also very scatter brained and often overlooks lots of important details and deadlines. I think that a non-disabled person with a more conscientious personality who is passionate about the issue could do the job as well or better.

Similarly, I think the same is true for a variety of political issue groups. Just because a person hasn't had a certain experience doesn't mean they aren't passionately devoted to the issue or lack an understanding of it. Further, having a representative who DOES NOT have a personal stake in the outcome I think can send a very powerful message as well - that this is an issue that is important to all individuals, whether they stand to personally gain or not.

What a horribly and blatantly sexist belief to hold!
No, it's not sexist.
You & Jeremy seem to have an inability to understand the words coming out of the computer, so this is the last time I'll say it.
In the hierarchy of the world, women, gay people, & minorities tend to be at the bottom. For an organization based on the empowerment of these people, such as the NAACP, LAMBDA, or NOW, it is wrong to have a member of the majority empowered group leading it.
I'm NOT saying "LET's put unqualified people in power." Seriously, who would believe that? That's a special, Ann Coulter level of stupid.
Or, conversely, groups like IWF & CWA claim to believe in empowering women but at least one of them has a man in charge of it.
One of the basic premises of feminism is that inequality exists between the genders & that inequality is wrong. If you can't see the difference between not wanting a man to be the leader of NOW but still being able to participate in feminism & not having men participate at all then *bzzz!* you fail feminism 101, you can go now, don't call us we'll call you, & you should recevie your copy of The Second Sex in 2 to 4 weeks.