Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Vote.
Rebecca Livengood won the Women's Center PAC endorsement for Ward 1 Alderwoman, and has the support of many other progressive groups on campus. The WCPAC statement is below.
Also see : the YDN's endorsement (from 11/07).
****
For the four years of Ben Healey's term as Ward 1 Alderman, Yale students had a strong progressive leader committed to women's equality. In three weeks, students in this ward will have the chance to choose who is qualified to continue and build on that tradition of leadership. After a survey of both candidates and an overwhelming vote by our membership, the Yale Women's Center PAC is proud to endorse Rebecca Livengood, an exceptionally dedicated leader with the vision, values, and experience to lead our ward and fight for our priorities.
Rebecca recognizes that protecting women's rights demands a willingness to stand up and demand more of powerful institutions. She has done so throughout her time at Yale. And since joining the Board in August, she has been hard at work with allies on campus, in the community, and on the Board ensuring that the Yale - New Haven Hospital crafts a development plan which makes the tremendous benefits of its Cancer Center project accessible to the women and men who are its neighbors. We are heartened by Rebecca's commitment to making healthcare available to low-income women and men and their families. And we are troubled that her opponent would have us push through a major development plan without regard for whether the women and men providing the healthcare at the Center will be able to afford it themselves.
Rebecca recognizes that when everyone's interests are represented, everyone can benefit. She will be a crucial ally over the years to come in continuing the progress of the women's movement and fostering social justice in our community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
"Rebecca recognizes that when everyone's interests are represented, everyone can benefit."
What does this mean? Why would this be a concluding statement? I understand that liberal feminists don't have a unified vision, but Rebecca won't solve the problems of fragmentation by representing EVERYONE's interests. Ok, liberal fems aside, "everyone" includes individuals staunchly opposed to WCPAC's agenda. Wow, Rebecca must be one hell of a politician.
I know it's a small point, but I worry about WCPAC's strategy & levels of competence with a statement like this.
Last night, standing with an enormous group of supporters, I was deeply saddened when they announced Rebecca's loss.
I know this might not be a very feminist post, but it speaks to the heart of the split in our Yale community right now. During this election, I heard a lot of passion for the Cancer Center from the "Friends" of the Center and from Nick, but not much about passion for New Haven and its people. When we allow our campus to be divided on a single issue--which comes down to an abstract point about whether to allow capital to do what it wants, when it wants--we ignore the multitude of concerns we should be addressing as New Haven residents. I heard athletes leaving the polls and being proud of helping to beat the "activists." What does that mean? That you hate the people who work and volunteer in the New Haven community? They spend their time on the field, but many of us spend ours in the community. What's "crazy" or "dangerous" about that?
In the end, I'm sure Nick will bring something new and different to the Board of Alderman--like holding his inaugural meeting on the dance floor of Toads. Bottoms up, ladies, we're in for a fight.
Although I'd like to believe that this blog is a joke, I fear that it's not.
Listen girls, I totally understand and sympathize with your lack of any sense of humor. If I were you, however, I'd keep that quality to myself!!! As it is, all you're doing is propagating the stereotype of the joyless half-informed braburner (see: every fucking post on this blog).
Lighten the fuck up, ladies. Inject a little levity into your writings. Maybe--just maybe--don't take things so seriously. Furthermore, how can anyone take YOU seriously when you portray Yale as this woman-hating shithole that it's not???
According to the YDN article you got "funding" to launch this blog??
What are you spending the money on? Blogger.com is free...does the Women's Center not know this?
I suggest spending your fellowship money on....ehh I dont know.
A couple things that deserve clarification:
The Rossborough fellowship is a work study grant that the Women's Center gives to students who are working on independent projects that have to do with feminism, women's rights, issues of gender, etc. That is, the money is not used to fund the project but rather to allow students who would otherwise have to be working at a job the financial flexiblity to pursue a particular project.
And as far as my sense of humor goes: I'm fairly confident that I have a good sense of humor, thanks. I do think, however, that there are certainly topics that should not be joked about, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that rape is one of them. I don't think this stance makes me "joyless" or "half-informed;" rather, I am aware of what kind of humor is appropriate. So yes, in my book - joking about rape and sexual assault: not okay. Also not okay: providing a specious biological argument to justify rape. Also not okay: failing to see the seriousness and criminality of rape on this campus, especially when those who express such ignorance don't have the courage to identify themselves by name.
1. When did any commenter to this blog make a joke about rape or sexual assault? Point it out, because I tried to find it but couldn't.
Also, you say that you are "aware" of "appropriate" humor. Fine. Everyone obviously has the right to be sensitive to jokes. But publishing your opinion--or merely believing, for that matter--that someone is a "sexist" based solely upon jokes that YOU KNOW were made made without harmful intent is dishonest. Are such jokes distasteful? yes. Disgusting? maybe. Inappropriate? yes. But evil? I don't think so.
2. You say that I fail to see the seriousness and criminality of rape on this campus. Where the fuck does this even come from? What a joke. Like several others who have criticized me in the past, you've let emotion take over and stopped thinking. Yes, I think that this blog's opinions of the Rumpus article (which was about cunnilingus and had nothing to do with rape or assault) and even the Herald article, both of which were written to poke fun and not to condone anything violent or illegal, were overly serious and thus kind of dumb. But accusing me based on this of being "insensitive" to rape as a crime or violent act is utterly ridiculous and completely unfounded.
3. I choose to remain anonymous for good reason. On this very blog a person was stigmatized as a "sexist biology freak" solely because of one controversial opinion that he holds. I'm not saying that you should forgive the guy--indeed I feel like the criticism was warranted (despite the fact that the name-calling was childish). But I certainly don't want to be unjustly lumped into some group of which I'm not part. I ordinarily wouldn't have a problem with disclosing my identity in an argument, but the nature of this topic spurs such heated and often irrational debate (for example, your absurd and groundless accusations in the above comment) that I frankly don't want to be openly associated with this discussion at all. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
Post a Comment