Sanders is the real feminist in this race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the "mansplain" accusation coming from? Isn't the author of the linked article a woman?

Exactly.

It's because people are saying Bernie is a good feminist and Hillary supporters are saying that can't possibly be... they don't want Bernie to mainsplain feminism to them. Or something like that.

No. OP said Bernie is the "real" feminist. Eye rolls to the high heavens.

Agreed-- that's not fair, as a Bernie supporter. They are both good feminists.

My eyerolls are for the default BernieBro posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as people start defaulting to "mansplain" just because there's a man in the conversation, we've gone in the wrong direction.

Exactly. OP is a 47 year old woman with multiple degrees, some of which are in women's studies so those comments are just silly.

Congratulations, I too am an educated adult woman who doesn't need someone to "inform" me who the "real" feminist is, vying to be the Democratic presidential nominee. It's cheap and condescending. If you want to have a real conversation, try starting one.

Me too. OP is wrong and obnoxious and condescending. I don't care what her degrees are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as people start defaulting to "mansplain" just because there's a man in the conversation, we've gone in the wrong direction.

Exactly. OP is a 47 year old woman with multiple degrees, some of which are in women's studies so those comments are just silly.

Congratulations, I too am an educated adult woman who doesn't need someone to "inform" me who the "real" feminist is, vying to be the Democratic presidential nominee. It's cheap and condescending. If you want to have a real conversation, try starting one.

Me too. OP is wrong and obnoxious and condescending. I don't care what her degrees are.

I'm not going to argue with the "obnoxious " part but my point in mentioning my degree was only that I am not "mansplaining." You can call me whatever you like but that's a silly accusation.

[Anonymous]

Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry, his lumping Planned Parenthood into the "Establishment" was the final straw against him for me. They are and have been the stalwart against anti-choice attacks. Economic issues are obviously enormously important, but if I don't have the right to dictate what happens with my body, what do I have? And he just sort of waved away its importance.

He didn't wave away the importance of PP. You are completely ignoring the context of his comment. PP is going to support the Dem Establishment candidate. That's undeniable. He didn't imply PP isn't significant; he implied endorsements aren't really significant because any group that lobbies Congress is going to voice support for the party establishment pick.

If anything, his comment was less about PP specifically and more about the ridiculous game of endorsements. Endorsements aren't usually based on an objective view of which candidate is better. They are made out of political self-interest. No one is going to bet on the underdog -- even if the underdog is the better pick -- because they don't want to be alienated when the establishment pick, as expected, gets the nomination.

There's a reason Warren hasn't endorsed anyone. I think it's because Clinton isn't exactly her preference, but she knows she'd be alienating herself if she came out in support of Sanders. That's the game. I actually respect Warren for just kind of keeping quiet during the primary and not overtly supporting either candidate. She's trying to balance survival as a politician with being true to the principles she originally ran on.

It's why I give little credence to endorsements. I suspect a lot of them are products of backroom negotiations and quid pro quo promises. But no one will ever come out and admit that.

And that's exactly the nonsense I think a lot of people are frustrated with. It's one thing when these kinds of handshakes are made between politicians. It's worse when they are made between lobbyists and politicians.

I think this entire election cycle is evidence that some people are kind of tired of the feeling that a group of political elite run the country in a manner that isn't at all transparent and that often is determined by individual career self interest and less about the needs of the constituents.

+1 Thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry, his lumping Planned Parenthood into the "Establishment" was the final straw against him for me. They are and have been the stalwart against anti-choice attacks. Economic issues are obviously enormously important, but if I don't have the right to dictate what happens with my body, what do I have? And he just sort of waved away its importance.

Ditto. That's when he lost my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry, his lumping Planned Parenthood into the "Establishment" was the final straw against him for me. They are and have been the stalwart against anti-choice attacks. Economic issues are obviously enormously important, but if I don't have the right to dictate what happens with my body, what do I have? And he just sort of waved away its importance.

He didn't wave away the importance of PP. You are completely ignoring the context of his comment. PP is going to support the Dem Establishment candidate. That's undeniable. He didn't imply PP isn't significant; he implied endorsements aren't really significant because any group that lobbies Congress is going to voice support for the party establishment pick.

If anything, his comment was less about PP specifically and more about the ridiculous game of endorsements. Endorsements aren't usually based on an objective view of which candidate is better. They are made out of political self-interest. No one is going to bet on the underdog -- even if the underdog is the better pick -- because they don't want to be alienated when the establishment pick, as expected, gets the nomination.

There's a reason Warren hasn't endorsed anyone. I think it's because Clinton isn't exactly her preference, but she knows she'd be alienating herself if she came out in support of Sanders. That's the game. I actually respect Warren for just kind of keeping quiet during the primary and not overtly supporting either candidate. She's trying to balance survival as a politician with being true to the principles she originally ran on.

It's why I give little credence to endorsements. I suspect a lot of them are products of backroom negotiations and quid pro quo promises. But no one will ever come out and admit that.

And that's exactly the nonsense I think a lot of people are frustrated with. It's one thing when these kinds of handshakes are made between politicians. It's worse when they are made between lobbyists and politicians.

I think this entire election cycle is evidence that some people are kind of tired of the feeling that a group of political elite run the country in a manner that isn't at all transparent and that often is determined by individual career self interest and less about the needs of the constituents.




I heard exactly what he said. I was leaning Bernie before that, I wasn't after. It really is that simple, and there's no need to further explain to me what I didn't understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

But see, you had to lift up your candidate by dissing the other candidate.

You could've said, "I think Bernie is a great feminist because..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crap article. It attempts to redefine feminism as economics. Feminism is about rights and equality. Sometimes that can be economic but often it is not. The minimum wage is not feminism.come on!

That would mean women wage inequality is not a feminist concern.

No, but it would mean you didn't read what I just posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

But see, you had to lift up your candidate by dissing the other candidate.

You could've said, "I think Bernie is a great feminist because..."

I could but that would not express my point which is that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race. I thought I was being pretty polite about it compared to my 76 year-old feminist friend who posted on FB this morning that Clinton "makes a mockery of feminism." I didn't want to make a statement like that because I think Clinton is okay on some women's issues and she is certainly better than the Republican alternatives but it is hard for me to see how any feminist (woman or man) can support her over Sanders unless it is all about her gender and not about equality, social justice, and human rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I could but that would not express my point which is that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race. I thought I was being pretty polite about it compared to my 76 year-old feminist friend who posted on FB this morning that Clinton "makes a mockery of feminism." I didn't want to make a statement like that because I think Clinton is okay on some women's issues and she is certainly better than the Republican alternatives but it is hard for me to see how any feminist (woman or man) can support her over Sanders unless it is all about her gender and not about equality, social justice, and human rights.

I think this is where it becomes criticism instead of just stating your opinion/support for someone else. Do you not see how/why that statement is critical? I've been a feminist probably since I've known the word...and I've had to overcome a lot of overt sexism due to being in an industry with very few women. And I support HRC for a multitude of reasons, including her record on women's rights. Is she perfect, of course not. But to say that no legitimate feminist could support HRC except for wanting to see a woman in the WH (which, to be fair, is a legitimate feminist goal in its own right) is frankly insulting. Some of that is because I vote on more issues than just those relevant to my "feminism" and some of that is because I think her approach to politics is more likely to get things done (or prevent bad things from happening) when it comes to feminist issues. I have no idea exactly what happened that lead to PP's decision to endorse Clinton (they didn't have to endorse anyone during the primary season if they didn't wan to do so), but I suspect that similar logic went into their endorsement as well. Since when is considering the ability of a candidate to be an effective leader and politician not a legitimate and important aspect of choosing whom to vote for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

But see, you had to lift up your candidate by dissing the other candidate.

You could've said, "I think Bernie is a great feminist because..."

I could but that would not express my point which is that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race. I thought I was being pretty polite about it compared to my 76 year-old feminist friend who posted on FB this morning that Clinton "makes a mockery of feminism." I didn't want to make a statement like that because I think Clinton is okay on some women's issues and she is certainly better than the Republican alternatives but it is hard for me to see how any feminist (woman or man) can support her over Sanders unless it is all about her gender and not about equality, social justice, and human rights.

But you saying that he is the "real feminist," implies that our opinion that she is a feminist is invalid. And also that she is a fake feminist. Which is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

But see, you had to lift up your candidate by dissing the other candidate.

You could've said, "I think Bernie is a great feminist because..."

I could but that would not express my point which is that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race. I thought I was being pretty polite about it compared to my 76 year-old feminist friend who posted on FB this morning that Clinton "makes a mockery of feminism." I didn't want to make a statement like that because I think Clinton is okay on some women's issues and she is certainly better than the Republican alternatives but it is hard for me to see how any feminist (woman or man) can support her over Sanders unless it is all about her gender and not about equality, social justice, and human rights.

Well, then you fail to see some really obvious things. I have pretty great feminist bona fides, and definitely think she's the better feminist. Not just because of gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe let this thread die, and start over if you want to have a substantive conversation. Too much bad blood here, on both sides.

- Syd (Hillary supporter)

If there was a way to express an opinion on dcum without starting an argument that eventually results in being insulted, then I might take your advice. But the fact is, my own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is not a feminist and Bernie Sanders is a much better feminist. That statement alone pissed people off but I explained my reasons and posted a good article on the subject. Make of it what you will.

But see, you had to lift up your candidate by dissing the other candidate.

You could've said, "I think Bernie is a great feminist because..."

I could but that would not express my point which is that I believe that Sanders is the real feminist in the race. I thought I was being pretty polite about it compared to my 76 year-old feminist friend who posted on FB this morning that Clinton "makes a mockery of feminism." I didn't want to make a statement like that because I think Clinton is okay on some women's issues and she is certainly better than the Republican alternatives but it is hard for me to see how any feminist (woman or man) can support her over Sanders unless it is all about her gender and not about equality, social justice, and human rights.

But you saying that he is the "real feminist," implies that our opinion that she is a feminist is invalid. And also that she is a fake feminist. Which is not true.

That is what disagreement is about. I respect your right to see Clinton as a real feminist. It's just that I don't see her that way. She does not fit my own definition of feminism. I do, in fact, see her as someone who uses the word "feminist" when it suits her own purposes. It is okay for feminists to disagree on what a "feminist" is. I am not going to detail all of my reasons for saying this because the article already did that pretty well.