Sanders is the real feminist in this race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is great at assigning blame for a lot of things, but he hasn't really done much about them and his proposals are sanctimonious ideals that ignore political feasibility.

If you define feminism as yelling about injustice while criticizing everyone who tries to work out practical remedies, then I guess he is a feminist. I don't think that is the way most feminists would define feminism, though.

Sanders was a leading opponent against welfare reform, NAFTA, and TPP. You really can't say he has not done much. He was unable to stop the Clintons but that does not mean he didn't try. They have had a lot more power than he has had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is great at assigning blame for a lot of things, but he hasn't really done much about them and his proposals are sanctimonious ideals that ignore political feasibility.

If you define feminism as yelling about injustice while criticizing everyone who tries to work out practical remedies, then I guess he is a feminist. I don't think that is the way most feminists would define feminism, though.

I think that most feminists would define feminism as: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Sanders fits that definition. Clinton does not because of the damage she has done to women by advocating for welfare reform, NAFTA and TPP. Global trade agreements have hurt women disproportionately. Welfare reform has had dire effects on women. These are not just "mistakes." The Clintons have done a lot of harm.

By that same logic, what about Sanders' support of guns, which doubtlessly have been used in countless incidents of domestic violence? They hurt women. If we look at secondary effects, then Sanders has much to answer for as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... The Clinton supporters have posted ... comparisons between Sanders and Trump which made no sense whatsoever. The ugliness has been one sided unless you believe it is an insult to say that Clinton is not what I consider a feminist but some people would see that as a compliment.

C'mon now, how are we going to have any constructive discussions if you try to suggest that it's a compliment when Sanders supporters say Clinton is not a feminist. You and I both know that's an insult to Clinton. It's the kind of stuff that should stop.

If you really want to say it's actually a compliment to say Clinton is not a feminist, then I suppose by the same logic it could be considered a compliment by some people to say Sanders is a lot like Trump. Would you consider that a fair comparison?

Let's stop with the unfair attacks please.

- Syd

I stand by my words. Clinton does not fit my definition of a feminist and it is not an unfair "attack." We are talking about policy here. On another thread you called Sanders a "megalomaniac." That is an insult. I have said nothing of the sort about Clinton though if I wanted to get ugly like that, I could. Feminists are allowed to discuss what they believe constitutes a "real" feminist without insulting each other. This happens in academia all the time.

I stand by my words too. Sanders fits my definition of a megalomaniac, so it is not an unfair attack. If you truly want to maintain that you're not intending to insult Hillary Clinton when you say she's not a feminist, I think you are being disingenuous. Are you really going to take that position?

If you can't see the difference between discussing anti-woman policy decisions and posting an insult like "megalomaniac," I see no point in discussing this any further with you. I can see that you don't like my thread and you don't agree that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist but criticism and meaningful discussion are different from unfounded insults. If you want to post a thread about the "megalomania" that you perceive, then go right ahead. I will not attempt to have your thread locked.

Discuss the policy decisions of both candidates all you want. It's when you say Hillary Clinton is not a feminist that you slip into an unfair attack. IMHO, you really ought to apologize and retract it. You do Bernie Sanders more harm than good when you engage in attacks like that.

- Syd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is great at assigning blame for a lot of things, but he hasn't really done much about them and his proposals are sanctimonious ideals that ignore political feasibility.

If you define feminism as yelling about injustice while criticizing everyone who tries to work out practical remedies, then I guess he is a feminist. I don't think that is the way most feminists would define feminism, though.

I think that most feminists would define feminism as: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Sanders fits that definition. Clinton does not because of the damage she has done to women by advocating for welfare reform, NAFTA and TPP. Global trade agreements have hurt women disproportionately. Welfare reform has had dire effects on women. These are not just "mistakes." The Clintons have done a lot of harm.

You have a Twitter-level understanding of public policy - cherry-picking and exaggerating two issues completely out of context.

You are way overstating the effects of welfare reform, absurdly assigning blame for it to Hillary, and ignoring everything else she has done. Even on your ridiculous terms, the 1996 welfare reform was a compromise on one benefit that enabled the Clinton Administration to take the Republicans to the cleaners on a much broader social program agenda. Creating CHIP, expanding Medicaid, expanding WIC, increasing EITC, increasing minimum wage - they got that stuff through a Republican Congress.

Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-why-bernie-sanders-doesnt-say-much-about-welfare-reform
...maybe welfare reform has turned out not to be an especially big deal. After all, by 1996 the old AFDC program accounted for ...a tiny fraction of the total welfare budget—and the difference in spending between AFDC and the TANF program that took its place is even more minuscule. The truth is that it's barely noticeable compared to increases in social welfare spending during the 90s from changes to CHIP, EITC, the minimum wage, and so forth.

...Instead, we need to look at spending per person in poverty. This gives us a better idea of how policy has responded to poverty over the past few decades.

There are two obvious takeaways from this. First, overall spending on social welfare programs has increased by 3x since 1980. That's pretty substantial. Second, if the 1996 welfare reform act had any effect on this steady rise in spending, you'd need a chart the size of my house to make it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is great at assigning blame for a lot of things, but he hasn't really done much about them and his proposals are sanctimonious ideals that ignore political feasibility.

If you define feminism as yelling about injustice while criticizing everyone who tries to work out practical remedies, then I guess he is a feminist. I don't think that is the way most feminists would define feminism, though.

I think that most feminists would define feminism as: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Sanders fits that definition. Clinton does not because of the damage she has done to women by advocating for welfare reform, NAFTA and TPP. Global trade agreements have hurt women disproportionately. Welfare reform has had dire effects on women. These are not just "mistakes." The Clintons have done a lot of harm.

By that same logic, what about Sanders' support of guns, which doubtlessly have been used in countless incidents of domestic violence? They hurt women. If we look at secondary effects, then Sanders has much to answer for as well.

I definitely don't agree with all of his positions on gun control but I think there has been a lot of hype on that issue that is not really accurate. If you want to understand where he stands, here is a link:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

I don't think you can blame gun violence against women on Bernie Sanders though it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with some of his decisions on gun control.

[Anonymous]

"Sanders is great at assigning blame" - yeah well the first step toward solving something is acknowledging it exists.

If you can't get beyond a salacious "rape fantasy" headline to acknowledge that a problem exists, if you can't get beyond acknowledging that the fossil fuel industry has politicians dragging their feet on responsible policy around renewable energy and clean air and water, if you can't acknowledge that wealth inequality is a serious and worsening issue for America then you have NO SOLUTIONS because you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the problem exists in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I really appreciate when you post because you are talking about reality and not just making baseless statements. I respect your opinion even though I disagree on priorities. I am not even going to argue because we mostly just disagree on who would get more done and that is a matter of opinion.

I don't think it's entirely about opinion. My point is that a willingness to compromise is a critical aspect of getting things done, especially in the Executive Branch (but even as a legislator). It concerns me that part of Sanders' appeal to so many people is exactly the fact that he doesn't do that...and I'm asking why that doesn't concern his supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is great at assigning blame for a lot of things, but he hasn't really done much about them and his proposals are sanctimonious ideals that ignore political feasibility.

If you define feminism as yelling about injustice while criticizing everyone who tries to work out practical remedies, then I guess he is a feminist. I don't think that is the way most feminists would define feminism, though.

I think that most feminists would define feminism as: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Sanders fits that definition. Clinton does not because of the damage she has done to women by advocating for welfare reform, NAFTA and TPP. Global trade agreements have hurt women disproportionately. Welfare reform has had dire effects on women. These are not just "mistakes." The Clintons have done a lot of harm.

You have a Twitter-level understanding of public policy - cherry-picking and exaggerating two issues completely out of context.

You are way overstating the effects of welfare reform, absurdly assigning blame for it to Hillary, and ignoring everything else she has done. Even on your ridiculous terms, the 1996 welfare reform was a compromise on one benefit that enabled the Clinton Administration to take the Republicans to the cleaners on a much broader social program agenda. Creating CHIP, expanding Medicaid, expanding WIC, increasing EITC, increasing minimum wage - they got that stuff through a Republican Congress.

Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-why-bernie-sanders-doesnt-say-much-about-welfare-reform
...maybe welfare reform has turned out not to be an especially big deal. After all, by 1996 the old AFDC program accounted for ...a tiny fraction of the total welfare budget—and the difference in spending between AFDC and the TANF program that took its place is even more minuscule. The truth is that it's barely noticeable compared to increases in social welfare spending during the 90s from changes to CHIP, EITC, the minimum wage, and so forth.

...Instead, we need to look at spending per person in poverty. This gives us a better idea of how policy has responded to poverty over the past few decades.

There are two obvious takeaways from this. First, overall spending on social welfare programs has increased by 3x since 1980. That's pretty substantial. Second, if the 1996 welfare reform act had any effect on this steady rise in spending, you'd need a chart the size of my house to make it out.

I have not blamed Hillary Clinton alone for welfare reform. I have said that a true feminist could not and would not have campaigned for it as she did.

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton. The negative effects of welfare reform on women and children (disproportionately black and Latino) have been proven in study after study.


"Indeed, data shows a sharp spike in families living in extreme poverty these days. Sociologists Kathryn Edin and H. Luke Shaefer report that, in 2011, about 20 percent of poor households with children—about 1.46 million households—were surviving on $2 or less per person per day in a given month. The authors report: “The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare reform.” Extreme poverty is most pronounced for black families, who experienced a 183 percent increase during this period, compared with 132 percent for Latinos and 110 percent for whites.

Put simply: In the aftermath of welfare reform, people most in need—disproportionately families of color—fall through the shredded public safety net, making it increasingly difficult to escape poverty."


http://www.thenation.com/article/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-championed-welfare-reform/

[Anonymous]

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I really appreciate when you post because you are talking about reality and not just making baseless statements. I respect your opinion even though I disagree on priorities. I am not even going to argue because we mostly just disagree on who would get more done and that is a matter of opinion.

I don't think it's entirely about opinion. My point is that a willingness to compromise is a critical aspect of getting things done, especially in the Executive Branch (but even as a legislator). It concerns me that part of Sanders' appeal to so many people is exactly the fact that he doesn't do that...and I'm asking why that doesn't concern his supporters.

The problem is that what you see as "compromise" on Clinton's part, I see as the Clintons doing much more harm than good. My biggest concern is Clinton's hawkishness though I don't see that as a specifically feminist issue and I have avoided that conversation on this thread. Same with the environment. I think she has seen that if she does any more harm to poor and working class people in this country there is going to be hell to pay politically and that will serve as a deterrent for the future on that type of policy but who knows?

I have heard different opinions on which candidate would get more done. Yours is valid but the other side is too. I posted a great interview with a former Bush official a while back in which he stated that he suspects that the "shock to the system" of Sanders instead of an "establishment candidate" might very well have a greater impact on government. A lot of Republicans are saying that they worry that he could get a lot more done. It is all speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

What are you talking about? That same PP told me that I have a "Twitter-level understanding of public policy " and I did not even slap her back. I said that if people are okay with welfare reform, then it stands to reason that they might support Clinton. Just WOW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

What are you talking about? That same PP told me that I have a "Twitter-level understanding of public policy " and I did not even slap her back. I said that if people are okay with welfare reform, then it stands to reason that they might support Clinton. Just WOW.

You're the same poster who claims it's not meant as an insult when you say Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, aren't you? I think I understand now how you approach things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

What are you talking about? That same PP told me that I have a "Twitter-level understanding of public policy " and I did not even slap her back. I said that if people are okay with welfare reform, then it stands to reason that they might support Clinton. Just WOW.

You're the same poster who claims it's not meant as an insult when you say Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, aren't you? I think I understand now how you approach things.

It is meant as a criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am surprised to see you defending welfare reform. I guess that explains why some people on this thread are supporters of Clinton.

Again with the snide slaps at Clinton supporters? You're adding to the level of anger.

What are you talking about? That same PP told me that I have a "Twitter-level understanding of public policy " and I did not even slap her back. I said that if people are okay with welfare reform, then it stands to reason that they might support Clinton. Just WOW.

You're the same poster who claims it's not meant as an insult when you say Hillary Clinton is not a feminist, aren't you? I think I understand now how you approach things.

It is meant as a criticism.

Here is a definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

No, I do not think I am speaking with disrespect or scornful abuse.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, okay. It's clear that OP doesn't want to discuss the issues and would rather just respond to everyone who disagrees with the exact same talking points about how "Clinton did XYZ, and it's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever". No real need to further engage.

The one thing I will say, however, is that it's totally disingenuous to ignore gun control as a women's issue when otherwise casting such a broad net as to include NAFTA. There's a reason that one of the biggest advocacy groups for gun control is called the "Million Mom March"...gun violence/accidents both against women and against their children and partners does have significant impact on women's lives. It tears apart the communities where women are the most impoverished and vulnerable. OP, and whomever, can define feminism however they want. But a feminism that insists on viewing the TPP as a major feminist issue but ignores gun control is a bizarre one indeed.