Women's Conference In Worcester
Organized by Leftist, Radical Feminists

By Amy Contrada
December 2000

Several problems were immediately apparent to this conservative feminist at the "Women 2000" conference which was held in Worcester last month.

Sponsored by the Worcester Women's History Project, it was billed as a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the first national women's rights convention that took place in that city. The stated goals of "Women 2000" were: "To continue the dialogue begun in 1850, to provide a forum for discussion on the present status of women, and to explore the challenges and opportunities for the future."

First, its stated goals were not met in that "dialogue" and "discussion." The panel discussions, while occasionally neutral (e.g., the women's health panel focusing on exercise, diet, and aging), were mostly intended as affirmation sessions for like-minded, leftist, radical feminists. The weekend was full of head-nodding, knee-jerking and whining, along with a good measure of resentment.

Second, there was an implied equivalency between the noble history of the suffrage and abolitionist movements and today's radical leftist feminism. A vehement self-righteousness infused the conference.  But there is no evidence of any pro-abortion sentiments among the early feminists. Further, the primary sources make very apparent the strength of the religious motivation of the 19th century reformers - a motivation surely not shared by most (if any) of today's radical feminists. 

They're Still Angry
The modern rad/fem utopia still has not arrived. No matter that their earlier demands have been met: contraceptives, sexual freedom, abortion-on-demand with RU-486, equal access to the professions, control of the intellectual and social environments in universities and schools, even women dying in combat. It's still not enough. Their new demands are: "complete equity" (more honestly, equality of outcomes or even dominance); support services for women and working mothers, universal health care, and government or corporate-funded day care (the "nanny state"); lesbian rights; and "gender equity" (really favoritism) in our schools and sports.

Though they constantly come up with new demands, in other ways these women seem stuck in a time warp of 60's feminism. The vitriolic jokes about "mean white males" and the nasty Republicans just did not stop, both from speakers and audience. Cheers at the mention of 80's Boston mayoral candidate Mel King; jokes about Margaret Thatcher being "Ronald Reagan in drag"; complaints about doctors using your post-operative body as a learning tool; battering of women seen as an outgrowth of "patriarchal oppression"; derisive comments about Southern Baptists; etc.

These rants are getting real old. I felt I was reliving Christina Hoff Sommers' experiences in the rad/fem world she describes so well in Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys.

Women who work in post-abortion counseling have suggested that much of the anger present at such radical feminist get-togethers may be the result of post-abortion syndrome among many of the participants. Wouldn't it be interesting to do a survey and find out how many of them have had an abortion?  It is unfortunate that these feminists cannot confront this very real health problem affecting the lives of many women in America.

Highly Politicized
The highly politicized nature of the conference was obvious the minute you registered. Next to the registration desk were piles of "No on 4 & 6" bumper stickers (state ballot questions advocating income tax rollback & turnpike toll elimination). After all, we need this money to pay for universal health care, toddler pre-school, and women's support services (points emphasized by the luncheon speakers).

Planned Parenthood's table was manned by two young women, with butch haircuts and multi-piercings, handing out colorful condoms. The Unitarians were pushing their humanist version of social justice. The Girl Scouts were proudly denying any concern over that unfortunate issue dogging the Boy Scouts. Booksellers were peddling Chip Berlet's book, Eyes Right: Challenging the Right Wing Backlash.

The American Association of University Women, notorious perpetrators of the fatally flawed 1991 girls' self-esteem study (which has so damaged our school environment), was promoting its organization. (If you're a university graduate, you must be liberal.)

Worcester N.O.W. was there with its well-worn signs: "Keep Abortion Legal" and  "ERA Yes," the slightly newer one, "Lesbian Rights," plus bumper stickers for Gore and Ted Kennedy. A supplier was there with every leftist-green-gay bumper sticker imaginable. One that caught my eye was: "God favors no group. Religions do that."

It was with some relief that I spotted the Daughters of the American Revolution. But immediately my thoughts turned to how the rad/fems might even be able to co-opt them. A battered women's shelter, Abby's House of Worcester, was there. Fine. But where were the pro-life tables? The adoption advocates? The post-abortion counselors? The Independent Women's Forum? A conservative Christian women's organization, Concerned Women for America, which is three times larger than NOW, had applied for exhibit space and never received an answer from the conference organizers.

Panels Pillory Males
On to the panel discussions. First, to the violence against women presentation. We are all in agreement that battered women exist and need a place to go for help. Hurray for the shelters which have sprung up to help them. However, the discussion was one-sided in defining causation and future challenges. Male "oppression" of women is the cause. Battering is simply "the logical extension of dominance men have traditionally expected to have over their wives." New marital rape laws in half the states were cheered.  Conspiracy thinking is alive and well:  Men are collectively guilty and are "still keeping us in our place by pitting us against each other through a social construct." We must use our votes to "fight racism, heterosexism, and classism."

It was assumed in this discussion, as in every other I attended, that all in the room were agreed. Is there any thought that possibly women have contributed somewhat to their plight by freely conceding the relaxation of sexual mores, and by denying that they are more vulnerable in their physical beings? Are all men possible abusers?

Sommers mentions a study in Who Stole Feminism? which found that the large majority of batterers are, in fact, criminals. Another showed that "lesbians may be battering each other at the same rate as heterosexuals." And might there be truth to the conservative charge that abortion has coarsened our culture and desensitized us to violence? As Sommers points out, the real need for help for battered women is not served by presenting half truths, or by assigning collective guilt to all men.

One presenter at this discussion seemed a little more open-minded. Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker Margaret Lazarus showed excerpts from her new film about the transformation of strong little girls into teens totally focused on thin and sexy "body image." Eating disorders have become a serious problem for many girls. It was truly painful to watch little nine- and ten-year-old girls aping Britney Spears' pouty puckering, her tightly clothed body writhing as she sings of her lustful yearnings.

And an over-emphasis on the sexuality of females of all ages is seen in the larger culture, in the degrading way women are portrayed in movies, advertising, and pornography. Does this contribute to an atmosphere where batterers think they have a green light? Here, conservative and radical feminists share a concern.

To her credit, Ms. Lazarus did state that the sexual freedom in our country has now gone too far. I asked her privately where and how we draw the line. "That is a very difficult question," she said. I asked if it might be one reason so many Americans are urging a return to traditional religious teachings.

Unfortunately, the radical feminists want to hold on to their sexual freedom, and seem only partly aware that they are now reaping what they have sown. I wished again for a true dialogue. Why didn't they invite someone like Wendy Shalit, author of A Return to Modesty, to give a different view?

Next stop, "Breaking the Glass Ceiling," where I was treated to a slide show featuring the rad/fem heroine, Anita Hill. Despite tremendous advances in professional advancement, these women are still whining that there's a "disparate impact" on women because of child bearing. Perhaps the saddest statement at this discussion was a woman's lament that she hadn't been warned how hard it would be once she had shattered the ceiling, and how she almost wanted to go back to her underling status where her life had been much happier. What do these women want?

On to "Working Women Deserve Equal Pay" with Congressman James P. McGovern of Worcester and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of New Haven. How can anyone be against pay equity? they ask.  Seems like a no-brainer. DeLauro has proudly proposed "paycheck fairness" legislation that has not gotten enough support to come to hearings. Blame was assigned to the Republicans who are, of course, in the pocket of big business. We heard many sob stories, even going back to the old sweatshops of the early 1900s.

While we may agree there still is some wage discrimination, the problem is not so simple as portrayed at this conference. I knew a true debate on this issue was possible, as I had recently read an article on it in the Boston Globe by Jennifer C. Braceras (attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School, 9/14/00). She pointed out that while the Democrats cite "the frequently misused statistic that, on average, women earn about 75 cents to a man's dollar," what they leave out "is the fact that many women with children choose to take time out of the labor market while their kids are young. Others opt for jobs with better benefits and greater flexibility over jobs with higher salaries. And even women without children sometimes select occupations that pay less than other jobs because of quality of life issues."

Braceras cites a study by the National Longitudinal Survey which shows that "women age 27 to 33 who had never had a child earn approximately 98 cents to a man's dollar." She points out that the liberals' goal is not equality of opportunity, but equality of results. The proposed legislation "reduces an employer's ability to rely on prevailing market rates in setting salaries." It would promote "equalizing wages for different occupations. This is not ... 'equal pay for equal work'-it is equal pay for unequal work," called "comparable worth." Kiss the remnants of our free market system goodbye if this legislation is passed. Of course, none of this was heard at the Women 2000 discussion.

Many other panels were offered. There were neutral seminars on "Deaf Women United," or "African American Women: Fashioning Lives of Dignity, Creativity, and Beauty," or "New Hampshire Women's Oral History Project." But the bulk of the topics were along the lines of "Lesbian Families: How the Law Treats Same Sex Relationships," "Gender Justice: Women's Rights ARE Human Rights," or "Equality in Women's Sports."

Luncheon speakers included Margaret H. Marshall (the pro-choice Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts), Dolores Huerta (co-founder with Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers of America), Blenda Wilson (education foundation president), and Meizhu Lui (community organizer and labor union president).

It is curious that there was no discussion of recent developments such as the partial-birth abortion fights, the spread of crisis pregnancy centers, the willing return of many career women to home-centered lives, how both parents working affects children, how our current tax structure forces many mothers to work, etc. In my feminist Utopia, people would be able to discuss all these issues honestly and openly.

The Worcester Women's History Project has done a fine job of putting together historical documents from the 1850 convention and the era.

You can read these online at www.assumption.edu/wwhp. A new play, "Angels and Infidels" by Louisa Burns-Bisogno, dramatized the 1850 convention and had its premiere in Mechanics Hall during the conference. There were concerts By "Sweet Honey in the Rock" and "Sol y Canto," plus a poetry reading by Marge Piercy.

The 1850 event was significant for its national scale, its legacy of organized action and its linkage with the other great human rights struggles of that time, namely, the abolition of slavery. Some very big names were there, most notably Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Abby Kelly Foster, William Lloyd Garrison, Sojourner Truth, Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth Blackwell, and Frederick Douglass.