Letters to the Editor

Below are Letters to the Editor relating to comments of the magainze and the Summer 2007 Issue.

Will Donovan says:

I hope that Andrew Scott will refrain from chopping up the Libertarian movement in the future, and refrain from charging head first into semantic issues of political philosophy. Libertarianism is more than theory; it is an overall belief in principals of what is right and what is wrong, both in terms of government and in terms of one's personal security and freedom. Scott's effort to force a theoretical divide into the Libertarian movement through is definitions of "close border" versus "open border" Libertarians are as shaky and unnecessary as his reliance on the Libertarian Party's definition for libertarianism. In addition, it is telling that he points to distinctions between "Libertarians" versus "libertarians”, as if capitalization was particularly telling or definitive.

As Representative Ron Paul demonstrates, by banning together under the flag of freedom and limited government, Libertarians can enjoy meaning beyond the text book and class room. We have not had a gentleman of such pure and principled resolve since Barry Goldwater, running for President. I pray that Scott will remember this in the future - Semantic arguments and definitions will not prove fruitful in determining one side of Libertarianism a threat and another side an ally. Anyways, whether or not the borders are closed will be up to labor unions and fascists. If we are truly to live in a free society where great men like Paul and Goldwater defend our liberties, we cannot afford to further trivialize the definition of Libertarian.

Abbey Marr says:
I want to congratulate Ashley Fleishman on her article Where Do Women Stand in Politics? She addresses an important issue for Feminists and politicians, when she makes the point that an association with ‘feminism’ can be the downfall of women in politics. Ms. Fleishman is willing to stand up and charge that this downfall is because of a misunderstanding of what Feminism is, instead of the fault of the crazy ‘feminists’. It is easy to fall into this misunderstanding, as ‘feminism’ in the mainstream mind is an entirely different creature than the Feminism intended by generations of women fighting for equality.

It is true. ‘Feminism’ can hurt a woman in politics. When a woman such as Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), tries to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment, she is attacked, not on the basis of what Feminism is fighting for, but on the basis of what people see as ‘feminism’. At the 1992 Republican National Committee, Pat Robertson said “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians”. Sadly, this is only an extreme version of the view many people have of ‘feminism’. And as long as this misunderstanding of Feminism is held by so many in America and around the world, anyone professing to be Feminist, is going to be seen as a ‘feminist’ by many.
This needs to be changed. Ms. Fleishman works to bring about this change, but often her understanding of Feminism is a bit flawed. To help her in her efforts, I will begin with reproductive rights and “extremism”. Ms. Fleishman writes about “extremism” in ‘feminism’:

“Feminism involves more extremes, such as controversial legislation. Things like abortion or the right of lesbian women to adopt children. [iv] The idea of feminism does not encompass these things, they are instead just ideas that maybe women who also believe in feminism have. Association with these ideas may make feminism seem like a crazy new radical idea, because of the timeliness of these ideas and the controversy they bring to politics today. We cannot allow these ideas to connect to the definition of feminism.”

I admire Ms. Fleishman for working to prove that Feminism is not an extremist movement. However, Feminism’s support of these ideas exists, and is based on a very moderate, very American idea. One of the main tenets of Feminism is the right to self- determination. For the same reason I, as a Feminist, would not claim that to live a “traditional” life a mother and house-wife is wrong, I have no right to claim that any one else’s choices in life are wrong. This includes choices about whether to raise children, when to raise children, or with whom to raise children. The same way I, as an American would not pass judgment on how any one else votes or worships, or on what any one else reads, believes, etc.

In no way does this make Feminism an extremist movement. While Feminist scholars have always pushed the boundaries of what it means to be free from domination, as a political movement Feminism is about equality between the sexes, and the rights of everyone, regardless of gender, to live life free from oppression. For this reason there is no reason argue the point that Feminism is not about dominance over men, because using the accepted definition of Feminism, dominance over men is as anti-Feminist as dominance over women.
Ms. Fleishman is right; Feminism has had to change slightly. Our society is by no means equal, for proof just turn on the news to hear a special about a marvelous “woman doctor” (will we ever lose the qualifier?), and then flip the channel to watch America’s Next Top Model. But having erased most of the sexism in our laws, and making significant progress in the working world, Feminism’s job is not so clear anymore.
And this is the job for our generation. We need to figure out what Feminism means in 2007, and fight for it instead of letting this important movement die as misunderstood as it is today. Then, both women and men in politics will not be scared to call themselves Feminists.

Elliot Hirshman, Chief Research Officer, The George Washington University states:

It is exciting to see the initiative, passion, and analytical perspectives that are manifest in these articles. While I must admit to having some differences of opinion from a number of the authors, this divergence of opinion is one of the most exciting aspects of being part of an academic community. I wish you and your colleagues the best of luck in this new endeavor.

Lee Huebner, Director, The George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs comments:

 Thanks so much for sending along a copy of the first issue of GW Discourse. It looks great! You and your colleagues are to be congratulated for all of the good work that has gone into this launch--and I wish you the very best as you continue to build this publication. It is something of which GW will be very proud.