"And He's Not Even a Marxist!": The Nation's Shabby Coverage of William Cronon's Persecution

In case you haven't heard the story, William Cronon is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has recently become a victim of persecution on the part of the state's Republicans. They are filing a lawsuit demanding access to Cronon's emails that contain words such as “Republican,” “collective bargaining,” “rally,” and “union.” You can find Cronon's blog that explains what happened and why here. 

Of course, any thinking individual who values freedom of speech is appalled at this most recent show of contempt for the Constitution of the United States on the part of the GOP. However, some progressive journalists have taken a very strange approach to defending the right of a scholar to mention the word "union" in his emails. This is an excerpt from an article that The Nation, a magazine that I subscribe to and like, has published on the subject in its blog:

Many faculty members call themselves “Marxists” or “socialists,” and some describe themselves as “anarchists” or “revolutionaries”—but Cronon doesn’t. He’s not Bill Ayres, the education professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago who happily defends his Weatherman past. Cronon describes himself as a “centrist.” He says he’s never belonged to the Democratic (or the Republican) party.

How is it relevant at all whether Cronon is or is not a Marxist, an anarchist, a satan-worshipper or a creature from the Blue Lagoon? Are we to have different standards for people based on how they identify politically? Is a persecution of somebody who is politically centrist more egregious than the persecution of a radical?  I couldn't care less about Cronon's politics in this situation. All that matters to me is that he should be able to say, write and publish whatever he wants freely and without fear of persecution.

Jessica Valenti: Let's Stop Essentializing Gender

Jessica Valenti just wrote a beautiful piece for The Nation on the future of feminism. I agree with Jessica completely that essentializing gender is what brought American feminism to a standstill in which it has been stewing for the past 30 years or so. The second American feminists embraced the idea of some essential, inherent female differences feminism in this country was doomed.

In her article, Valenti discusses just one area where essentialist feminism has hurt women: politics. If there is some mysterious, undefined set of qualities, beliefs and experiences that accompanies the biological fact of being female, then it only makes sense to suggest that any woman is indisputably better off voting for Sarah Palin than for Barack Obama. Which is, in fact, what the religious right in this country has been arguing recently with great success. No matter how anti-woman your policies are, if you are biologically female, you are a feminist and any criticism of you is, consequently, anti-feminist.

There is, of course, a host of other problems caused by gender essentialism. The assumption that women are inherently different from men can be used to promote all kinds of discrimination: in the workplace, at school, at home, etc. As if it weren't enough that we have been bombarded by the mass media marketing of the essential female difference, the so-called third-wave feminists in academia have been teaching female difference to their college audiences as if it were gospel truth.

When I was teaching my course titled "Collective Identities in Contemporary Spanish Literature and Film" at Cornell, I discovered that my students had been brainwashed into believing that women were essentially different from men to the degree where I could barely teach my course. I even had to interrupt our scheduled discussions and dedicate about two weeks of class time to bringing articles by actual scientists who explain that no such differences (except, of course, the obvious physiological ones) have been discovered.

There are many reasons why gender essentialism flourishes in this country. Unless we confront the damage it is causing to the feminist movement, we will never achieve the goals of gender equality.

Here are some excerpts from Valenti's great article, which has already been placed under virulent attack by gender essentialist feminists:

The right once disparaged feminism as man-hating and baby-killing, but now "feminist" is the must-have label for women on the right. Whether or not this rebranding strategy actually succeeds in overcoming the GOP's antiwomen reputation is unclear. After all, Republicans have long supported overturning Roe v. Wade, voted against family and maternity leave, and fought groundbreaking legislation like the Lilly Ledbettter Fair Pay Act. When it comes to wooing women's votes for the GOP, there's a lot of damage control to do. Feminists are understandably horrified—the movement we've fought so hard for is suddenly being appropriated by the very people who are trying to dismantle it. But this co-opting hasn't happened in a vacuum; the mainstream feminist movement's instability and stalled ideology have made stealing it that much easier. The failure of feminists to prop up the next generation of activists, and the focus on gender as the sole requisite for feminism, has led to a crisis of our own making.

If there was ever proof that the feminist movement needs to leave gender essentialism at the door—this is it. If powerful feminists continue to insist that gender matters above all else, the movement will become meaningless. If any woman can be a feminist simply because of her gender, then the right will continue to use this faux feminism to advance conservative values and roll back women's rights. . .

Feminism isn't simply about being a woman in a position of power. It's battling systemic inequities; it's a social justice movement that believes sexism, racism and classism exist and interconnect, and that they should be consistently challenged. What's most important to remember as we fight back against conservative appropriation is that the battle over who "owns" the movement is not just about feminists; feminism's future affects all American women. And if we let the lie of conservative feminism stand—if real feminists don't lay claim to the movement and outline their vision for the future—all of us will suffer.

You can find the full text of the article here.

Leftist Realtors: A New Economic Reality

You know for sure that the economy is deeply in the toilet when The Nation, the most liberal, leftist, progressive magazine in the US starts publishing announcements from realtors who, in their desperation, claim to be commie-pinko followers of this magazine. Here are some choice samples of such adverts:

Santa Fe. Progressive realtor seeks same in clients.

Realtor seeks clients of the same persuasion as a Nation subscriber.

LEFT COAST, US. Work with the Realtor Who's on Your Side.

Realtor seeks progressive clients.

Of course, it's nice to see that many realtors have suddenly got in touch with their progressive beliefs. However, my cynical side tells me (I sincerely hope that I'm being too paranoid and these are actually leftist realtors) that the realtors' bleeding hearts are the result of the disastrous real estate market.

I love The Nation becase it never ceases to surprise me.

What's happening to The Nation?

I used to love The Nation. It was such a well-written, informative journal. I would learn something new from every single issue. I would admire the language that was a lot less cliche-oriented than any other publication currently in print. I would feel happy that there are some people who share at least some of my political beliefs.

And then it all came to an end. An otherwise great event took away my favorite journal. As strange as this may sound, this event was Obama's election. For a couple of months before the election, almost every article listed what Obama should do if he gets elected. Afterward, every single article listed everything that Obama should do now that he is elected. If anybody tried counting the number of times the word "should" was used in The Nation over the last six months, I am sure that the result would be staggering.

Do the otherwise lucid journalists who write for The Nation really fail to see that these endless lists of what the President should do look very silly? Don't they realize that this makes for extremely boring reading, especially when it's done week after week after week? Aren't they forgetting that at least part of their job consists of providing us with information? Enough already with what Obama should do. Tell us what he actually is doing.

Of course, it would be great if Obama fixed the economy, the environment, the international relations, and in the process managed to remove the spots from the sun. And of course, he should learn to turn the water into wine and walk on water (hasn't he already? Were we wrong to elect him?) . But while we are waiting for him to achieve all that, can we get some information about what is happening in the world?