Dear all:

There is an Indian woman philosopher Beena Rose who is here this fall as a
fellow at the Five College WOST Research Center in West MA.  She wants to
find a job in the US because of difficult family circumstances back home,
and I would like to help her do so.  Her problem is that although she has a
JD. law degree and a PhD in Philosophy and teaching experience, she doesnt
have many publications so is at a disadvantage to get work here.  She is
currently working on a paper on Gandhi's ethics and how his views on women
relate to that, and would like some editorial help with it to turn it into a
publishable paper.  It is not my area of expertise  so I dont think I would
be much help finding her a place to publish this and getting it ready.  Is
there anyone on the list willing to mentor her?  If so, reply privately to
me ([log in to unmask]) and I will get you in touch with her.

Thanks much
Ann Ferguson

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Bonnie Mann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm just getting back to email after a number of days away on the road, and
> appreciate the discussion that ensued after my prickly email last Friday.
>  Eva is right that there are certain aspects of the rights we wished we had
> that will always be tied to employment in some way. of course...and while we
> have employer-based insurance (the few of us who do), I would of course
> support everyone getting to put someone else who doesn't have insurance on
> their insurance policy, especially if that didn't become a reason for the
> employers who continue to cover their employees to stop doing so.  (Though
> I'd also like to put my siblings and nephews and nieces on my plan in
> addition to my kids and partner--and if we go there, empoyer-based insurance
> comes to a grinding halt--which gets us back to the same point, the whole
> thing is ass-backwards.)
>
> What I'm worried about is that Obama's plan is too tied to the private
> insurance industry, when it seems that the cultural momentum finally exists
> (maybe?) to push through a real national health plan.  If folks would switch
> now from getting Obama elected to organizing with the same enthusiasm to get
> real health policies passed, we'd get it done now I think... but
> "healthcare" doesn't have Obama's pretty smile, and I fear that his charisma
> was too big a part of the mobilization to have that energy now directed at
> giving him a visible and in-the-streets popular mandate to do something.  In
> other words, I think folks won't realize that we have to make demands on
> him, like any other president, not just back him up, and rush up to the TV
> (as my 14 year old does) to kiss him when he comes on stage.  I say this as
> someone who has been convinced over the course of the election that Obama's
> call to basic human decency is actually genuine, but that's nothing without
> an on-going, visible!
> , and demanding popular mandate.
>
> Bonnie
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:14:47 -0800, Gaile Pohlhaus <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > Bonnie (et al),
> >
> > My comment was said with tongue fully in cheek (note smiley
> face)--meaning something like exactly what you say below--I don't think that
> we should care for our citizens by divvying out "benefits" to households,
> the logic leads to all kinds of absurdities.  The retirement worry (which is
> a real worry for folks who choose not to have children even as they/we
> contribute to society and the lives of children in other ways) was meant to
> highlight that point as well.  One should not have to have children (or a
> whole lot of money) in order to make sure that someone is there when one
> becomes vulnerable and/or infirm due to old age.
> >
> > Apologies for other interpretations abounding...
> >
> > GP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 11/7/08, Bonnie Mann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Bonnie Mann <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Kids/Pets
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 6:20 PM
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > The posts suggesting that folks who don't have kids
> > > should get some equal benefit package as folks who do seem
> > > to me to be based on the same logic that is being
> > > criticized.  The history of these "family
> > > benefits" is that the one with the right to the benefit
> > > is the wage earning male (the one who matters to the
> > > society) who can bestow the benefit on his wife and kids by
> > > virtue of their relationship to him, instead of folks
> > > receiving benefits because they are human beings with human
> > > needs. Kids should be insured period, not only if they have
> > > parents with employers who provide benefits, or parents who
> > > can afford insurance...not, that is to say, by virtue of
> > > their relation to a parent at all.  To suggest that
> > > one's children receiving what should be a basic human
> > > right somehow needs to be made up for by bestowing an extra
> > > benefit on those who don't have kids is to continue to
> > > see the right to the benefit as accruing to the
> > > "productive" (i.e. worthwhile) adult, rather than
> > > to the ch!
> > > ild.  Call me species-ist, but to suggest that middle class
> > > pet owners should get their pet's insurance covered
> > > while thousands of poor children are uninsured, that to do
> > > so would be to somehow equalize a fantasized inequality
> > > between employees with kids and employees without kids, is,
> > > well I don't know what to call it....awful. Sorry for
> > > the tone of this, but as someone who came up out of poverty
> > > to my university job and has multiple nieces and nephews,
> > > not to mention sisters and brothers and cousins, without
> > > insurance, and sees everyday what this means in terms of
> > > their health, I am surprised by the suggestion that a parent
> > > receiving health benefits for their children somehow
> > > constitutes a "privilege" over other folks who
> > > have health insurance for themselves already but no
> > > children.  When I was fourteen both of my eardrums burst
> > > from an ear infection because my mother couldn't afford
> > > to take me to the doctor... once my father died and I was no
> > > longer related to a unionized e!
> > > mployee of the Oregon sawmill, I had no separate right to!
> > >   health
> > > care and neither did my mother or siblings. Would it have
> > > seemed like a move toward "fairness" if the
> > > university employees in the next town who were without
> > > children got to insure their pets?
> > >
> > > Bonnie Mann
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Ann Ferguson
Professor emerita of Philosophy and Women's Studies UMass Amherst and
feminist activist