Heidi Li's Potpourri

Congratulations, Kirsten Gillibrand

Note to readers: I have been ill - nothing serious but not well enough to write and even now will have to be brief - thank you for your patience during the lull.

In early December, I stated my own preference for Kirsten Gillibrand for appointment to the New York State Senate seat opened by Secretary of State Clinton's decision to move to the Executive branch. As I wrote recently, Gillibrand was neither the only woman suitable for a gubernatorial appointment nor the only suitable person. But kudos to Governor Paterson, who is taking all sorts of heat for the appointment (not surprising in the snakes nest of New York state politics), for sticking to his word and his principles about a) filling the seat with a woman, especially so that the 2010 ticket of state-wide office runners in New York would definitely include a woman incumbent (that's the 51 Percent spirit) and b) using his own judgment and not being jockeyed by New York state dynastic politicians (whether the dynasty be Kennedy or Cuomo).

I cannot know all the reasons Governor Paterson chose Gillibrand, and surely many were "political" - e.g. related to his belief that selecting her would be good for his chances for reelection; or for New York State Democrats in general. Even if one went into 2008 with a less jaded view of politics (which I did not) nobody could come out of it with such a naive one as to think that such factors played no roll in his choice.

Indeed, this is part of why I applaud the choice of Gillibrand. A Democrat who has twice won in a majority Republican congressional district, this is no untested politician (note to those complaining about her "lack of experience" - see e.g. our just-elected President; were you raising that complaint about him, either when he ran for Senate or for President?)

Gillibrand is more conservative than I am on a number of issues: her take on the Second Amendment, in particular, commits her to a view about individual rights to own guns with which I disagree, although on the relevant vote in Congress in which she has participated she voted for improved background checks on gun purchasers with a history of mental illness. But on other issues, including reproductive rights, her voting record makes me smile at the prospect of eliminating the domestic versions of the gag rule that President Obama has eliminated in the international context. On still other issues, I am, as is so often the cases in democratic politics (small "d", please note) in partial agreement or partial disagreement, but can easily comprehend the reasonableness of Gillibrand's view. For example, in the absence of an extension of the precedent of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that recognized the unconstitutionality of laws prohibiting interracial marriage to to same sex couples, Gillibrand is for a federal law permitting same-sex civil union and leaving the issue to states as to what to term this union. What I like about Gillibrand is that she takes her own position seriously: while I might prefer a champion of legislation for same sex-sex marriage, a liberal committed to federalism, can, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision mandating the extension of the institution of marriage, coherently maintain a preference for the a federal law permitting civil unions, while leaving to the states the question of what to call these unions.

Kirsten Gillibrand is a nuanced politician. And she's a young woman by political standards, at 42 the youngest member of the Senate. As we have seen, youth favors rising politicians, especially those who would be President. Kirsten Gillibrand may or may not develop politically in ways that would make enough of her positions strongly appealing to me to get behind her as a rising contender for the Presidency. But the idea is not far-fetched. So, for the first time in many weeks my heart is unequivocally warmed by a development on the national political scene.

Read this news article to get a wellrounded characterization of Kirsten Gillibrand.

For those in pain because today is not the day Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes President of the United States

Today, many men and women of good will toward this country and its new president are, nevertheless, heavy-hearted. These are men and women who looked heartily forward to seeing Hillary Rodham Clinton inaugurated president. In an election cycle when winning the Democratic nomination was tantamount to winning the presidency, these men and women worked and rooted hard for Mrs. Clinton during a hotly contested Democratic primary season, one where she won the popular vote and where we can never know for sure who would have won at the Democratic National Convention had announced and promulgated Party procedures been allowed to run their course.

Some of these men and women supported Mrs. Clinton despite of her gender, some because of her gender. For some, gender truly was not part of the equation of their support. Some, like me, started as a firm Clinton supporter for reasons that had nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton's gender and ended up realizing that in order for this country to ever elect a woman president, we will have to work together at the deepest of social and cultural levels - let alone in politics -to eradicate the misogyny and sexism that reared its head as soon as it became clear that there was high likelihood that a woman would become the next president of the United States. Misogyny and sexism did not just pop up out of nowhere, either. It was used deliberately or willfully ignored by alleged liberals from whom we expected so much better.

The pain felt today by many of Mrs. Clinton's supporters is the pain of frustration: frustration at realizing how deeply and pervasively sexism and misogyny infiltrate our lives and our world. It is the pain of impatience: impatience with others' obliviousness to the infiltration. It is the pain of anticipated toil: the toil ahead to put women into 51 percent of the positions in all spheres of public life so that eventually one woman with even half the qualifications of Mrs. Clinton will indeed be elected President of the United States of America.

We can take that pain and turn it totally inward, to the point where it exhausts us. Or we can take that pain and turn it outward, in the form of energy to fuel the changes we demand. As I have listened to Mrs. Clinton herself spend her time in the build up to being confirmed Secretary of State, I have witnessed a leader showing us how to do the latter. I do not know Mrs. Clinton personally, but from what I know of human nature and what I can glean from her odyssey since Denver, surely she has experienced some of the pain so many of her supporters feel today. I am also sure that, like all of us, she will always carry some measure of the pain within her. What makes Mrs. Clinton's leadership so extraordinary is that she exemplifies the power of pushing through the inner pain or going around it or using it to fuel continuing achievements.

If today you are among the hurt and the angry, remember that tomorrow (or the next day or the day on which you are ready), you will have a chance to take that hurt and anger and put it to use for full social justice for all people, including the 51 percent that are women.

Some pleasing surprises found today:

• a post over at Stray Dogs that Amble in: 51 Percent - "The New Women's Suffrage"
• donations from those who have recognized today with a contribution to 51 Percent
• newly discovered site to see: Madam Secretary

Appointing a successor to Senator Clinton: Governor Paterson's opportunity to distinguish between the end of 51 Percent and the means of affirmative action

(Cross-posted from Founder's Blog, 51 Percent)

Governor Paterson has an instructive opportunity when he appoints a successor to Senator Clinton. If he chooses, he can illustrate beautifully why moving the baseline of representation of women toward 51 percent has nothing to do with affirmative action - at least not affirmative action based on gender. Since affirmative action remains a contentious instrument of social engineering, and because shifting the baseline to 51 percent women in every sphere of public life is a contentious project, it would be useful were Governor Paterson to take the opportunity to make the distinction clear in practice, especially in such a high profile appointment. One contentious matter at a time, please.

In a world where the baseline was proportional representation of women in every sphere of civil, social, and political life, women would occupy just over half the places in public spheres. For the Senate, which has 100 members, the goal would be to have slightly more women than men overall, or consider per state, one woman and one man from each, leading to a 50/50 split. Pause here. Really picture that: a Senate with 50 women and 50 men working alongside one another. Think about how much misogyny and sexism would fall by the wayside simply because of the change in the men's club feel of one our country's most visible political institutions. Think about how strange it is that we are not already at the point where this is not the gender proportion in that institution. Think what it would mean for the women of each state if they could reliably assume that one of their Senators would naturally enough be a woman - even a woman with very different political views than some of her women constituents, a woman whose life experience would almost certainly be more representative of the women citizens in her home state in at least a few significant ways.

Even if this vision appeals to you, there might be a shadow cast over it. There is a tendency to conflate the idea of shifting the baseline of representation in public life to reflect the representation of women in the population with an endorsement of affirmative action, a term with multiple meanings. Many people have strong doubts about affirmative action under any interpretation. Some have qualms about its justness; others worry that it stigmatizes all members of a group who are perceived to have been its object.

In its strongest version, affirmative action accomplishes a particular state of representativeness in some area - a college entering class, a profession, a club, a team - by awarding positions to less qualified or competent candidates when more qualified or competent ones are available because the lesser candidates possess some feature irrelevant to qualifications or competency but because one has reasons unrelated to these considerations for seeking the desired representativeness. Strong affirmative action elicits the most discomfort and criticism even from those who urge the virtues of diversity in settings where it is a necessary means to achieve the desired outcome.

Purely on statistical grounds, strong affirmative action will be most instrumentally necessary when there are very few qualified or competent persons with the extra or additional characteristic desired or when there are simply very few persons with that characteristic. Because 51 percent of the population consists of women there is no sheer shortage of women to fill positions. Indeed because of this fact, a shortage of women will rarely be the obstacle to the baseline shift to 51 percent representation. In New York state at present, with regard to Senator Clinton's soon to be vacant Senate seat, neither is there a lack of qualified, competent women candidates. At least two women on the radar screen seem to have qualifications and competencies that would serve an appointed Senator and her or his constituents well: Carolyn Maloney and Kirsten Gillibrand, for example. For purposes of brevity, I am not going to delve deeply into the questions of which competencies and qualifications matter uniquely when a public servant - in this case the Governor - is appointing somebody to fill a position usually filled by election. Suffice it to say that while an individual voter may, arguably, reasonably cast her or his vote for any candidate on any basis, a public servant who is filling the seat in trust for the electorate must have reasons, and to be satisfactory those reasons should answer to the requirements of getting the job of the office done. Just as Andrew Cuomo or Jerrold Nadler would seem to meet this threshold so too do Maloney and Gillibrand.

So, why does the impending appointment present any question of affirmative action at all? The short answer, it does not.  In these circumstances, there is no question of whether there are available qualified woman for appointment to the seat. If one accepts our starting premise - the good of shifting the baseline toward proportional representation according to gender - that, it would seem, to be that.

But life is rarely so tidy. There is another woman would-be candidate on the horizon, who IS seeking affirmative action to gain the appointment.  Caroline Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy is not seeking affirmative action on grounds of her gender, though. She is seeking a form of affirmative action more usually seen in admission to elite institutions of higher education, where some applicants are favored over others because their forebears went there. In academia, these students are known as "legacies".  I cannot know for sure, but I am comfortable hypothesizing that President George W. Bush was the beneficiary of some form of affirmative action, possibly strong, when he was admitted to Yale University for his undergraduate degree. George W. Bush's great great-grandfather, grandfather, and father all attended Yale, so his chances of admittance regardless of his qualifications and competencies were fairly high. Indeed at the time George W. Bush was admitted to Yale, I doubt if much consideration was given to the question of whether favoring him over a more qualified candidate even counted as any kind of affirmative action. Even now, paying attention to whether other family members have attended a particular college or university is rarely put in terms of affirmative action, even though such attention clearly counts as affirmative action if it advantages a candidate over others more qualified for the spot.

The most common minimally credible justification given for the legacy system in college or university admissions is that gaining a family's loyalty to the institution may pay off in terms of monetary contributions to the college or university. I do not take up the ultimate soundness of this justification here.

When it comes to gubernatorial selection to the U.S. Senate, one rarely hears the precisely equivalent justification offered so bluntly.
Although, this argument might credibly be made if one believes that other Senators or the Obama administration would be more likely to make appropriations to New York at Ms. Kennedy's behest than they would for those Senators whose parent and uncles have not served in high federal office, let alone been victims of horrifying assassinations while in office or seeking election to it. Pundits and commentators have bandied similar justification for Ms. Kennedy's appointment, however, when they discuss "electability." If whoever is appointed to fill Senator Clinton's seat now chooses to run for it in 2010 and wins, that person will have year of seniority over non-incumbents from other states, and seniority secures benefits for a Senator and hence for her or his state. Some think that based on her family history and related ability to raise funds for election in 2010 and then again in 2012, this makes it a good idea to appoint Caroline Kennedy to the Senate now.

These arguments from potential influence or eventual seniority might seem like arguments based on qualification rather than arguments from affirmative action.  The problem is that in this case the advantage of influence and possible future seniority turn on a first step based on affirmative action. If a candidate who is not a legacy is appointed now, and she or he gains influence and wins seniority on the merits of (relatively) non-accidental attributes (the family into which one is born is an accidental attribute), affirmative action plays no role in the benefits that accrue to New York state. But if the Governor appoints a legacy because he believes she or he can bring these benefits but has no other particular qualifications or competencies, especially compared to available alternatives, the Governor is rewarding an accidental attribute of birth - family - and, he is not doing so to secure the baseline of proportional representation for women, but for some of the more traditional rationales used for political exceptionalism.

I cannot take the time here to fully explore the questions surrounding affirmative action for legacy appointments to government in a democracy. Perhaps the simplest way to point out the chief problem is that a populist democracy aspires to assign political office on the basis of election not heredity. In practice, it is not so simple, but that's the ideal and outright relying on a candidate's heredity to gain a leg up for one's state runs straight up against it.

What must be made clear here is the consistency in wanting Governor Paterson to contribute to proportional representation for women while objecting to him appointing Caroline Kennedy. Governor Paterson is in the lucky position of having various qualified, competent women to consider for the appointment. He need not cloud the issue with considerations of affirmative action based either on gender or family background. Thus, he can illustrate the way in which the end of proportional representation for the 51 percent of the population that are women has nothing to do with the means of affirmative action of any kind.

CNN interview: Amy Siskind attempts to educate; Ms. Mag editor uses airtime as commercial

Watch the video here. Listen to The New Agenda's executive director Amy Siskind succeed as she raises pertinent, relatively mild objections, to the Ms. Magazine cover for its special inauguration issue.  Then listen to Ms. Magazine's executive editor Katherine Spillar as she first a) dodges the issue, which is not whether men can be feminists, but whether there is any basis for referring to this man, President-elect Obama, as "what a feminist looks like" and then b) tells people to read the magazine so as to understand the cover (read = buy the magazine) and then c) evidently indicated to the CNN anchors that subscriptions to the magazine are up because of the inauguration cover, and thus the cover was a good idea.

Successful covers do not require a magazine to explain or justify their meaning. For example, most thoughtful criticisms of The New Yorker's satirical cover of the Obamas faulted the cover for being failed satire: for its failure to broadcast its satire and thus its potential to be taken too seriously. In other words, that cover, in many people's opinion, failed on its own terms. Similarly the Ms. Magazine cover fails on it own terms. The intention was not to satirize the claim that Barack Obama, who has not one achievement in public life that can be considered as his own contribution to advancing feminism, is the paradigm of a feminist. No, the intention was tell us just what the cover said: that Barack Obama is a feminist, indeed a heroic - if closeted - one (note it is only his undershirt that reveals the truth of his feminism). If the intention was to say that men can be feminists, they should have put Bill Clinton, who put his career on hold to assist his wife achieve greatness in hers, on the cover. Or they could have put Terry McAuliffe on the cover, for his unwavering devotion to a candidate who happened to be female but who also had a record of standing by the once-core Democratic Party principles that have, in the past, made many of us proud to be Democrats. No way was Ms. Magazine's intent  to suggest that men can be feminists, a point that anybody who has given two thoughts to feminism gets.

Apart from an intent to laud and fuss over President-elect Obama, the intent of the Ms. Magazine cover is the intent of most magazines: to sell the merchandise.  Fair enough, some will say. What's wrong with trying to sell the merch? Generally, in the case of magazines not much. But Ms. Magazine was founded to lead a cause. If it simply wants to bump up subscriptions - assuming there's enough data in yet to support the claim that the current cover does that - then Ms. Magazine should, straightaway, start with centerfolds labeling whoever is trendy at the moment as a stealth feminist. For those with more salable physiques, have them pull the over-clothes apart a little more widely; or maybe pose them with the slogan on the back of their panties, briefs or boxers, and wearing nothing else. They can shyly peek over their shoulder, indicating that they themselves are as surprised as the rest of us that Ms. Magazine has singled them out as archetypical feminists.

In the CNN interview, Ms. Spillar says "some people" have "overreacted" to the cover. This sounds an awful lot like the sexist tropes used by the cover subject's language during the primary season, such as his imagery about Senator Clinton's "claws" and "fangs" coming out. Just who is Ms. Spillar calling "some people"? Women. You know, the people whose claws and fangs come out when they get periodically down.

Ms. Spillar, you are completely correct that a man can be feminist. And in your interview today you demonstrated the corollary, that a woman can be a misogynist, belittling the concerns of those who once depended on publications like Ms. Magazine to give voice - and the front cover - to matters central to equalizing opportunities for 51 percent of this country's population.

Update from 51 Percent: inaugural guest essay published

51 Percent has had the privilege to publish its first invited guest essay, Right is of No Sex. Please check it out.

Also, a public thank you to those who have been sending donations to support 51 Percent. The steady stream of support in the face of difficult economic times is particularly heartening.

Update on 51 Percent; status report on Heidi Li's Potpourri

(Cross posted at 51 Percent under Founder's Blog.)

With 2009 now fully underway, both the ongoing development of 51 Percent, a 501(c)(3) educational organization I founded at the end of last year and the demands of life and job will probably slow the paces of posting here Heidi Li's Potpourri. I will continue to post here and to add to the Founder's Blog at 51 Percent, and as I organize where I post what, I hope those of you who take the time to read this space will stick with me as my online activism takes shape.

This post, published Friday, January 9, drew a wide readership here and at the places it was cross-posted. I still have not had the chance to review all the comments sent to me, but I am grateful for the thoughtful words offered by so many, and by the sense of camaraderie that shines through so much of feedback. I am grateful as well for those who have rallied to the cause of 51 Percent, which is aiming to advertise its formation and purpose offline. Since Friday evening, slightly more than $570 has been raised for 51 Percent, to run ads and to develop the organization's first major initiative (more about this in a post to come), The Museum of Misogynistic Memorabilia. Already, one of people who powers the creative force behind 51 Percent has started to generate ideas about for the type of ad 51 Percent will run. Although it will cost considerably more than what was raised over the weekend to run an effective ad, if this pace of donations continues 51 Percent will be able to an ad sooner rather than later. The hope is to be able to run an ad that combines informing people about 51 Percent and registering an objection to the Ms. Magazine cover/inaugural poster that so many people found ridiculous, disturbing, offensive, engraging, etc. Whether that will make sense depends entirely on the ability to raise money while that cover remains relevant. To donate to the cause, one can either go here or here.

As you can see, this post addresses logistical matters. Substantive posts to follow soon.

This is just incredible

Today was one of those days where the demands of work and life made it seem unlikely I would be posting. Frankly, I spent part of the day thinking about the fact that I know it will take a long time and a lot of patience to develop 51 Percent, to find funding for it, to make its mission clear and broadly known, and asking myself whether I had the stamina to see it through and the guts to take the risk to see whether it could become an educational backbone for a full fledged movement for social justice for women.

Also, I  wondered, whether this week and next, when so much attention will be paid to the political events of each day - and the events that merit critique will receive them from so many talented writers around the blogs and maybe even off - it made sense to post. I prefer not to repeat what others are saying, often better or more knowledgeably then I could.

But then, lo and behold, here, in Washington, DC,  the epicenter of inaugural schlock (T-shirts, onesies, coffee mugs), I received yet another email from another organization trying to make money off the onset of the Obama administration. (I've already been tapped by email solicitations to give to money to fund the inauguration itself!). The latest organization looking for dough: Ms. Magazine. The product they are hawking: a subscription that kicks of with their special inauguration issue. The cover photo they sent, designed, one must assume to make me want to subscribe:

Honestly, I did a double-take. A triple-take. Because if a feminist looks like President-elect Obama then a feminist looks exactly like somebody who has done nothing, and I do mean nothing, to suggest that he will fight for increased social justice for women. This is the person who has retained Jon "The Groper" Favreau as his chief speechwriter; installed Tim "I'm not really for serious guarantees of Roe v. Wade" Kaine as the DNC Chair; appointed far fewer women to his cabinet or to cabinet-level positions than Bill Clinton did and barely the number that George W. Bush has (more on that here and here and best of all here). Between the choice of Rick "Women who exercise their right to abortion are like Nazis" Warren to give the invocation at the Inaugural Ceremony itself and total silence with regard to how the economic stimulus package he is proposing will aid those likely to be hit hardest - yes, women - I have to say that if President-Elect is Ms. Magazine's idea of what a feminist looks like, I  would hate to see their vision of what an anti-feminist looks like.

While I will not be buying a subscription to Ms. Magazine, their solicitation reminded me that now more than ever, I want to stay the course with 51 Percent (even if it means, yes, seeking contributions from folks during these tough times - something I feel uncomfortable about - but eventually we will attract major benefactors and they, combined with the small dollar contributors will fuel the development of the Museum of Misogynistic Memorabilia and help us build up our speaker's bureau). I founded 51 Percent because I realized that most preexisting women's organizations got sidetracked somewhere along the way - sold out, bought off, distracted. I will not let that happen to 51 Percent. Unless we understand the basic injustice of a society where the majority remains vastly under-represented in public life (not just in politics but also in politics), we will get more magazine covers from purported feminist publications that applaud the feminism (!?!) of a incoming President who has ignored even this list of recommendations for moving justice for women to the fore of his administration.

Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about 51 Percent go here. You can find a mailing address for donations to 51 Percent here.

If you have $5.10 or $51.00 or any amount to donate, you can do so at the website or below. Moneys raised will be going to the development of the Museum of Misogynistic Memorabilia and announcing, via ads, the formation of 51 Percent and its Museum in select publications.  Please note that donations directly to 51 Percent are tax-deductible to the extent permissible under law, and donations via Google are direct to 51 Percent

$

If you prefer to support the cause using Paypal, you can use this button. Donations go to support Heidi Li's Potpourri and all such donations will be transferred directly to 51 Percent.

An invitation from 51 Percent

Currently, 51 Percent seeks guest essays for publication on this site. Essays should be between 500 and 2000 words and may relate to any aspect of 51 Percent's mission. 51 Percent reserves the right to publish submitted essays at its sole discretion. For submission, please use the email address at "Contact Us".

Encouraging response to launch of 51 Percent website

Not only have has 51 Percent seen an uptick in financial contributions (more helpful than any contributor can possibly know), correspondents and friends of 51 Percent have been sharing their reactions, including their research and stories. 51 Percent continues to add content to all of its sections, but I would like to encourage people to check out the first two guest essays.

51 Percent website launched

It is fledgling, like 51 Percent itself is, but the organization's site is launched!

Public thank you's to people who devoted hours of time and to contributors who gave dollars they could to defray costs. We're still fundraising to pay for the organizational start-up costs but from now on, I hope people will visit 51 Percent's own home on the web, see if they like it, and give if they can.