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