What Young Voters Don't Understand About Hillary

[elleblue]

I am one of those "over 65" women who belong to the faceless, aging "demographic" with a Hillary sign on my front lawn. For weeks I've listened, fists clenched, while 19-year-olds and media pundits alike lavish praise on Bernie Sanders for his bold, revolutionary message and scorn Hillary for being "establishment."

He is "heart" and she is "head"--a bitter irony for those of us familiar with the long history of philosophical, religious, and medical diatribes disqualifying women from leadership positions on the basis of our less-disciplined emotions.

He is "authentic" in his progressivism while she has only been pushed to the left by political expediency--as though a lifetime of fighting for universal healthcare, for gender equality, for children's rights don't pass the litmus tests for "progressive" causes. He is the champion of the working class while her long-standing commitments to child care, paid sick leave, the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, and narrowing the wage-gap between working men and women are apparently evaporated by her accepting highly-paid invitations to speak at Goldman-Sachs.

As I witness Sanders become the gatekeeper of progressivism, while in the interests of his own campaign allowing a generation of twitter-educated kids to swallow a sound-bite generated portrait of Hillary, I am amazed at all that has gotten eclipsed by the terms of the current debate. The continuing virulence of racism in all its forms. The assault on reproductive rights. And, oh yes, that still inflammatory little "ism," Sexism. Bring it up nowadays and you will get accused of "playing the woman card." On the other hand, if you suggest that the election of Hillary to the Presidency would be a strike against business-as-usual, you will be reminded that she is not really a woman but one-half of that mythical unity, "The Clintons." She even gets blamed for Bill's infidelity--a tactic cooked up by Trump but taken seriously throughout the media, as pundits actually debated whether she should be held accountable for being "an enabler."

Sexism and Hillary-hating are old comrades. When she was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008, the media coverage of the primaries often seemed like a re-run of the relentless punishment she endured for refusing to stay in her place as first lady. Hillary's early transgressions--requesting a West Wing office, making health care (rather than, say, charity work or refurbishing the White House) her priority, not caring enough about fashion, and seeming to denigrate cooking-baking housewives--had made her "The Lady Macbeth of Arkansas", "The Yuppie Wife From Hell"; a New York Post cartoon pictured Bill Clinton as a marionette, with a ferocious Hillary pulling the strings. For a time during his presidency, her husband's bad behavior won her some sympathy, and her productive but low-key (Carl Bernstein called it "deferential") performance as a senator earned her praise. But then--oops--she started leaning in too much once again, trying for the Presidency, and the "hellish housewife" (as Leon Wieseltier called her) was reincarnated: Hillary was ""satan" (Don Imus): "Mommie Dearest," "the debate dominatrix" and "Mistress Hillary " (Maureen Dowd.) And it wasn't just the right wing. Chris Matthews (who in 2016 has thankfully changed his tune) saw her as a creature from the bowels of hell: "witchy" and a "she-devil." He wasn't the only one. You all remember, don't you? Don't you?

If you are a 19-year-old Bernie supporter, you probably don't; you were 11 years old. But Bernie Sanders remembers, and he remembers, too, that his isn't the first mass-movement of young people filled with anti-establishment fervor. A lot of us were "socialist" (or some version of it) in those days. But some of us, too, were women. Women who were charged with making coffee while the male politicos speechified. Women who were shouted down and humiliated for daring to bring up the issue of gender inequality during rallies and lefty confabs. Women whose protests were seen as trivial, hormonally inspired, and "counter-revolutionary." Women who were told, over and over, that in the interests of progressive change, we had to subordinate our demands to "larger" causes. Some of us could see that those "larger" issues were thoroughly entangled with gender; we would ultimately develop ways of understanding the world that couldn't be reduced to a single "message" but demanded complex analyses (and action) that looked at the intersections of race, gender, and class. In those days, though--before the women's movement--we often found ourselves simmering and stewing as our boyfriends and husbands defined what was revolutionary, what was worthy, what was "progressive."

So it's somewhat déjà vu for me all over again, as a charismatic male politico once again is telling women what issues are and aren't "progressive." I can only assume that those of you who booed Hillary at the Iowa caucus when she described herself as a progressive have no idea of either how the women's movement was born or Clinton's contributions to it. Ironically, the women's movement, along the struggle for racial justice, is one of the true revolutions of the 20th century--a revolution that you benefit from every day of your lives, and that is far from fully accomplished.

The boo-ers have no idea, I can only assume, of the price Hillary has paid for being openly and vigorously feminist, for daring to fight for health care (yes, it was called "Hillarycare" in those days) before there was a movement to clap for her, for speaking her mind about what she accurately described as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" aimed at her husband (and now at Obama.) Instead, through some perverse and unconscious collusion between the decades-old Hillary-hating of the right, the headline-hunger of the media (which never tires of exploiting the latest faux scandal) and now, cruelest cut of all, the Bernie Movement, you have decided that she is simply "the establishment."

I was born in 1947, the very first year of the post-war baby boom. I was a young teenager at the dawn of the sixties, just a few years younger than Bernie and half a year older than Hillary. I know how intoxicating it is--particularly now, for a generation numbed by a culture that has given you snapchat in place of community--to feel yourself on the side of "revolution" and to find yourself, shoulder to shoulder with like-minded others, with a cause to fight for. And I, too, am charmed by Bernie's scruffy white hair and unmodulated passion. I understand, I do. Do not make the mistake of thinking, though, that Hilary's caution is a sign of her "inauthenticity" or conventionality, rather than the price she has paid for attempting to be an effective public servant in world that has allowed men the privilege of political passion and labeled women "strident" and "shrill" when they did the same. Please remember, too, that while a "clear message" may make for a good political campaign, complexity--which doesn't lend itself to sound bites--is what the real is made of. In that complex real world, income inequality is not merely the product of Wall Street greed but survives only through the happy collusion of other inequalities that have been with us long before Goldman Sachs opened its doors.

Susan Bordo is Singletary Chair in the Humanities at University of Kentucky. She is currently writing a book on how facts became obsolete in American culture and politics. link

[derp]

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

[YeahSure]

I was just reading a response to this very article! The author, at 40, is younger than me by over 10 years, but we remember a similar history.

Of Bernie Bros and Famous Blue Dresses: Notes from a Female Sanders Supporter

There have been many sexist moments in the 2016 presidential race so far. Whether you’re talking about Trump assailing Carly Fiorina on the basis of her appearance, or yet another male news commentator calling Hillary Clinton shrill, there are plenty of examples with which one could fill this page and more. But at the moment, I want to address something that I don’t hear enough people talking about, something I see as profoundly sexist. I want to address the constant attempts by the media and the Clinton campaign to erase and discredit Bernie Sanders’ female supporters, of which I am one.

Bernie’s supporters have been ubiquitously discounted as “Bernie Bros:” sexist anti-Hillary bots who harass Hillary’s female supporters online. No doubt, there are trolls: it’s the internet, and the internet largely exists in 2016 as a forum for men to harass women. Find any group that includes men who use the internet, and you will find men who are behaving horridly. The idea that this would be something unique to men drawn to support Bernie Sanders, a candidate with an impeccable record on women’s issues, is of course absurd, but the media and Hillary supporters have latched onto this convenient, if unsupported, narrative and treated it as gospel. But what this generalization of Bernie Sanders supporters does do especially well is this: it erases his millions of female supporters from the narrative. This is sexism at its most devious.

When Bernie’s large number of female supporters — especially among young women — are acknowledged at all, they are invariably condescended to. Most recently, none other than Gloria Steinem herself said one of the most profoundly sexist things I have heard in recent memory: “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.” And thus died Second-Wave Feminism.

Madeleine Albright just a day later said that there’s “a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” No mention, oddly enough, of the special place in hell for women who shame each other for voting their conscience.

Another such moment of condescension I have come across recently is an article titled, “History Lesson for a Young Sanders Supporter.” The article is, essentially, a chastening on why all good little feminists should fall in line and vote for Clinton.

I’m much older than the intended audience for this article (the author, Susan Bordo, mentions 19-year-olds more than once as if that’s somehow the magic Sanders-supporting age). I myself am a grown-assed 40 year old woman who unequivocally supports Bernie Sanders. But as a woman of my generation, that means I actually lived through, even came of age during the history of which this article speaks. This history includes a famous blue dress, a vast right-wing conspiracy, the world’s uncanny obsession with Hillary’s fashion sense (or lack thereof), a lot of sexist name-calling, and on and on. I am not, and would never, belittle these things. They happened; I remember. The vast right-wing conspiracy is (still) real, and I spent plenty of time in my 20s defending the First Lady from sexist nonsense. But I spent even more of that time feeling betrayed by her: again, and again, and again.

You see, Bill Clinton was the first president I was old enough to vote for. And what did that presidency get me? It got me a disavowal of my sexuality with DOMA and DADT. It got my mentally ill mother kicked off of welfare thanks to regressive welfare reform. It got hundreds of thousands of people (overwhelmingly black) imprisoned with draconian drug enforcement laws like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. And Hillary Clinton campaigned in force for every single one of these measures.

Hillary Clinton frequently touts her advocacy for children (as does Ms. Bordo’s aforementioned article) as a touchstone of her progressive politics. True, her first job out of grad school was with the Children’s Defense Fund. But her campaigning for her husband’s welfare reform legislation undid all of the goodwill she had earned on this issue. Marian Wright Edelman, the founder and president of CDF and long-time friend of the Clintons was outspoken against the welfare reform bill. She said that President Clinton’s “signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.” Likewise for Hillary Clinton for campaigning for it on his behalf.

In 2013 Hillary Clinton finally — finally! — came out in support of gay marriage once the vast majority of her party already had. Any dregs of redemption points she gets from that too-little-too-late moment, however, are undone by the convenient lies she came up with for why DOMA was a necessary defense of gay rights at the time. (She earned 4 Pinocchios — the highest score — for this one from the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column.)

Another entry in the category of last-ditch efforts to appear more progressive: Clinton just last October promised to ban private prisons and to stop accepting money from this despicable industry. That’s right: stop taking their money. Up to that point, she had received hundreds of thousands of dollars from that industry for her 2016 campaign alone. But the damage was already done in 1994 with the passage of Bill Clinton’s prison-filling crime bill. When campaigning for it, Hillary Clinton said, “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.” The U.S. prison population rose by more than 60% by the end of the Clinton administration according to the Brennan Center for Justice. And Hillary Clinton has profited mightily as a result. Until a few months ago, that is. Speaking of history lessons, by the way, the reason for that little policy reversal back in October was because Bernie Sanders pressed her on the issue again and again in his campaign, once again leaving little doubt in my mind on where my vote should go.

These are just a few reasons why, as a progressive, as a feminist, and as a woman, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for as long as there is a better alternative. I haven’t even touched upon the fact that she is, as Jeffrey Sachs has called her, “the candidate of the war machine;” that she sold out the First Amendment by voting for the Patriot Act; that she is in favor of the death penalty; or that she is far too cozy with Wall Street to properly regulate it. The differences between Sanders and Clinton are numerous, and they are crucial. Telling me that the fact of her gender should be enough to tip the scale is like telling me the Keystone XL Pipeline is just a bit of plumbing.

All of this being said, however, there are, in fact, issues on which Clinton is a true progressive; I will admit to that. She has a 100% rating from NARAL, for instance. But so does Bernie Sanders. Clinton is great on women’s issues, if you’re not too worried about intersectionality, that is. But my belief is that class and race is far too often left out of the discussion of women’s issues, and to that end, I believe Bernie Sanders is better.

No doubt Hillary has dealt with rampant and vicious sexism: I saw it. I see it. I know my history. But the prize for surviving sexism doesn’t get to be my vote. After all, I do know my history, and women died for my right to cast that vote. And the vote I cast for Bernie Sanders will be the proudest vote I may ever cast.

[heyjude]

Great read. Thank you.

[aurora]

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

[heyjude]

Feb 9, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

This is the knee jerk reaction to any of these pieces by any Berner.

[One Girl In All The World]

Feb 9, 2016 16:23:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Feb 9, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

This is the knee jerk reaction to any of these pieces by any Berner.

it's in the handbook

[aurora]

Feb 9, 2016 16:23:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Feb 9, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

This is the knee jerk reaction to any of these pieces by any Berner.

Right? I read "think about the reasons your subconscious biases may influence your distaste for Hillary," and they read something...completely different.

ETA - and I want to be clear that by "they" I mean the people who support Bernie by putting Hillary down/calling her names/basically are using ad hominem attacks, not those who simply plan to vote for Bernie because they prefer his policies.

[downtoearth]

I agree with a lot of this, but I think it's that Bernie people I know want drastic change and really, idealistically, believe that voting for him will bring it. I talked with several this weekend about this and it's not b/c they don't care about women's rights or Black Lives Matters, it's that they think the first step is getting money equilibrated.

And I do think this part is patronizing in the article...

The boo-ers have no idea, I can only assume, of the price Hillary has paid for being openly and vigorously feminist, for daring to fight for health care (yes, it was called "Hillarycare" in those days) before there was a movement to clap for her, for speaking her mind about what she accurately described as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" aimed at her husband (and now at Obama.) Instead, through some perverse and unconscious collusion between the decades-old Hillary-hating of the right, the headline-hunger of the media (which never tires of exploiting the latest faux scandal) and now, cruelest cut of all, the Bernie Movement, you have decided that she is simply "the establishment."

To just assume that 19 year old Bernie fans aren't prioritizing the head over heart and don't know the history is patronizing.

But the last paragraph of the article does acknowledge that Bernie has draw, but that the author doesn't agree and what I think the author should have focused on the whole time,

I know how intoxicating it is--particularly now, for a generation numbed by a culture that has given you snapchat in place of community--to feel yourself on the side of "revolution" and to find yourself, shoulder to shoulder with like-minded others, with a cause to fight for. And I, too, am charmed by Bernie's scruffy white hair and unmodulated passion. I understand, I do. Do not make the mistake of thinking, though, that Hilary's caution is a sign of her "inauthenticity" or conventionality, rather than the price she has paid for attempting to be an effective public servant in world that has allowed men the privilege of political passion and labeled women "strident" and "shrill" when they did the same. Please remember, too, that while a "clear message" may make for a good political campaign, complexity--which doesn't lend itself to sound bites--is what the real is made of. In that complex real world, income inequality is not merely the product of Wall Street greed but survives only through the happy collusion of other inequalities that have been with us long before Goldman Sachs opened its doors.

I think it's important to show that inequality was around when the (white) middle class was strong and college/houses were affordable. Money was not the all-knowing equilibrium. And things like Frank Dodd and other legislation needs to expand, but that money equality does not fix our social inequalities.

[jeaniebueller]

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

So are you disputing the characterization of HRC in the article?

[blink]

I didn't know pointing out the sexist attitudes toward Hillary Clinton becomes an attack on Bernie Sanders.

[tacosforlife]

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

But it's not saying that anyone who doesn't support Hillary is not a feminist.

It and other pieces like it do, however, offer context for Hillary's supposed "inauthenticity" or her alleged moderation, which Bernie Sanders really uses to mean centrism.

In my opinion, Hillary is far more qualified than Bernie. She has broader experience, more knowledge, and more detailed, realistic plans to accomplish things. I recognize that not everyone will evaluate the candidates the same, though. Some of my friends value Bernie's message regarding economic inequality above all other issues, and that's a valid measure by which to assess the candidates.

It's the "she's too calculating!" and the derision with which Bernie supporters call her part of this supposedly evil establishment that is steeped in sexism. Because context matters. Context of why Hillary, as a woman, has had to do the things she does. And why, as a woman, she's fought to be part of the establishment, only to have these new progressives moving the goal posts. (As heyjude said, women and minorities have fought for decades - nay, centuries - to have a seat at the table, and just as they've carved one out, Bernie's derisiveness about her being the establishment is saying, "No more table. Drum circle.")

If someone is voting for Bernie because she truly believes he will be the best president, then go with god. But if she is voting for Bernie because Clinton is too establishment, then people like this author and many of the women on this board are going to ask them to explore why that is and what the implications of that criticism are.

[derp]

Feb 9, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

I have been reading many condescending comments and pieces (including on here) that fall into one of the two categories I mentioned. The article in this particular thread falls into the latter, but I'm reacting to all of it.

Feb 9, 2016 16:24:45 GMT -5 One Girl In All The World said:

Feb 9, 2016 16:23:52 GMT -5 heyjude said:

This is the knee jerk reaction to any of these pieces by any Berner.

it's in the handbook

I don't have a handbook. This is offensive and dismissive.

Feb 9, 2016 16:32:04 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

So are you disputing the characterization of HRC in the article?

Which part? That she has experienced sexism? Of course I don't dispute that.

[aurora]

This really bears repeating:

Feb 9, 2016 16:39:13 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

It's the "she's too calculating!" and the derision with which Bernie supporters call her part of this supposedly evil establishment that is steeped in sexism. Because context matters. Context of why Hillary, as a woman, has had to do the things she does. And why, as a woman, she's fought to be part of the establishment, only to have these new progressives moving the goal posts. (As heyjude said, women and minorities have fought for decades - nay, centuries - to have a seat at the table, and just as they've carved one out, Bernie's derisiveness about her being the establishment is saying, "No more table. Drum circle.")

[aurora]

Feb 9, 2016 16:49:38 GMT -5 derp said:

Feb 9, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

I have been reading many condescending comments and pieces (including on here) that fall into one of the two categories I mentioned. The article in this particular thread falls into the latter, but I'm reacting to all of it.

OK, so this article doesn't say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary?

[derp]

Feb 9, 2016 16:51:08 GMT -5 aurora said:

This really bears repeating:

Feb 9, 2016 16:39:13 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

It's the "she's too calculating!" and the derision with which Bernie supporters call her part of this supposedly evil establishment that is steeped in sexism. Because context matters. Context of why Hillary, as a woman, has had to do the things she does. And why, as a woman, she's fought to be part of the establishment, only to have these new progressives moving the goal posts. (As heyjude said, women and minorities have fought for decades - nay, centuries - to have a seat at the table, and just as they've carved one out, Bernie's derisiveness about her being the establishment is saying, "No more table. Drum circle.")

Why does it bear repeating? Because some of us are in the cheap seats and don't get it?

[sushi]

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

Again shut up

[derp]

Feb 9, 2016 16:57:14 GMT -5 sushi said:

Feb 8, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5 derp said:

What's really ironic is how patronizing this article is.

The more condescending stuff like this I read - that I'm not a feminist if I don't vote for Hillary, that I don't get it if I vote for Bernie, the more alienated and angry I feel. There are a lot of female Bernie supporters that are getting really upset by these shaming and dismissive tactics.

Again shut up

This doesn't seem feminist to me. We're hushing women if they're not Hillary voters? Offensive.

[downtoearth]

Feb 8, 2016 23:43:19 GMT -5 YeahSure said:

I was just reading a response to this very article! The author, at 40, is younger than me by over 10 years, but we remember a similar history.

Of Bernie Bros and Famous Blue Dresses: Notes from a Female Sanders Supporter

...
All of this being said, however, there are, in fact, issues on which Clinton is a true progressive; I will admit to that. She has a 100% rating from NARAL, for instance. But so does Bernie Sanders. Clinton is great on women’s issues, if you’re not too worried about intersectionality, that is. But my belief is that class and race is far too often left out of the discussion of women’s issues, and to that end, I believe Bernie Sanders is better.

I have more for the rebuttal but to this bolded statement I say, what, huh?  Bernie understands intersectionality better than HRC?  Bernie has ever talked to that or brought up one law or discussion of it that wasn't in defense?  Prove it.

If we're going to bring up the past for Hillary (and mostly her support of Bill's policies), then we should at least realize that Bernie has his limits also.  He is a self-prescribed feminist and has said a lot, but not done much.  His pay equality co-sponsered bills (he has never been primary sponsor on an income equality bill) have rarely gotten out of committee and he wasn't even a cosponsor on the bill that he mentions on his website that he would sign into law for women - Paycheck Fairness Act of 2015 (a version of this has been in the Senate since 2010).  Plus this bill has a 1% chance of passing right now...https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s862

Even after passing the bill, the onerous is still on a women to prove that she was discriminated against for pay.  How easy is it to get transparent pay scales from private companies or know why you were passed up for a promotion/pay raise?  It's hard and even harder if you are make $7-$10/hour and are lowest on the seniority lists.  It's a start, but it's a start with a 1% chance right now and the affected change is not going to instantly change how equal women, especially women of color, are in the work force. 

And I loved what he said on FB about women's bodies and abortion, "When you tell a woman that she cannot control her own body, that’s extremism. Let's say it loud and clear: women control their bodies, not the government." He also said 6+ months ago that he'd increase funding for PP, but no details of that are included in his health care plan.

So why can't he come out and say, "And my healthcare bill will provide funding for abortions b/c women deserve them." or "My healthcare bill will likely not have funding for abortions since it will be hard to pass in Congress, so I will continue to look at providing additional federal funding for women's health care such as full coverage for all types of birth control and reproductive care.  I will hope to continue to help women's clinics thrive under my program to ensure that private locations are available and accessible for women, especially women of color."

And he talks out of both sides... his website calls for 12 weeks of paid paternity leave for all workers.  But then when he was talking at the Iowa town hall, he only said, "Moms" and "Women" and never once said all Americans or reiterated that men and women would get those benefits. 

Plus 12million Americans work in the health industry - that's about 8-10% of our workforce in that industry.  And 80% of those jobs are held by women.  They aren't often the executives and/or doctors (32% doctors women), but the lower level managers, insurance sales/assistance, nurses, etc.  So what is wiping out the private insurance business going to do to 9,600,000 jobs that women currently hold?  I feel like he has to address this issue b/c he is the one who wants to go to a single payer system, so he would be putting some of these people out of work - or would he move those jobs into government positions and equal pay (which would add more $ to his program since women doctors are paid way less than men and same with women in most service positions in the health/insurance industry). 

[tacosforlife]

Feb 9, 2016 16:49:38 GMT -5 derp said:

Feb 9, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Where in this article does it say that you're not a feminist if you don't vote for Hillary? Please show me.

I have been reading many condescending comments and pieces (including on here) that fall into one of the two categories I mentioned. The article in this particular thread falls into the latter, but I'm reacting to all of it.

I don't think this piece is condescending. It doesn't say that you "don't get it" if you vote for Bernie. It's offering context for the criticism that Clinton is "too establishment" or not "progressive" enough through a critical feminist lens.

It's framed the way it is because a lot of young voters - not all, of course, but these election year pieces are ALWAYS written in generalities - genuinely don't have a frame of reference for Hillary Clinton as revolutionary. They don't understand how the Hillary Clinton of the 80s and 90s really was radical.

[derp]

Feb 9, 2016 17:07:04 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Feb 9, 2016 16:49:38 GMT -5 derp said:

I have been reading many condescending comments and pieces (including on here) that fall into one of the two categories I mentioned. The article in this particular thread falls into the latter, but I'm reacting to all of it.

I don't think this piece is condescending. It doesn't say that you "don't get it" if you vote for Bernie. It's offering context for the criticism that Clinton is "too establishment" or not "progressive" enough through a critical feminist lens.

It's framed the way it is because a lot of young voters - not all, of course, but these election year pieces are ALWAYS written in generalities - genuinely don't have a frame of reference for Hillary Clinton as revolutionary. They don't understand how the Hillary Clinton of the 80s and 90s really was radical.

You've directly touched on the subtext, here, in your second paragraph though. The assumption is, in fact, that young women don't get it and need it explained to them, need the context offered to them. It feels a little like - oldsplaining? 

And I'm an old. I'm a little older than the writer of the article posted by YeahSure, so I certainly know the context. I would never presume to know someone else does not, that a woman does not know something or know her own mind.

[laladypoet]

oh for god's sake.

[elleblue]

Feb 9, 2016 17:11:43 GMT -5 derp said:

Feb 9, 2016 17:07:04 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

I don't think this piece is condescending. It doesn't say that you "don't get it" if you vote for Bernie. It's offering context for the criticism that Clinton is "too establishment" or not "progressive" enough through a critical feminist lens.

It's framed the way it is because a lot of young voters - not all, of course, but these election year pieces are ALWAYS written in generalities - genuinely don't have a frame of reference for Hillary Clinton as revolutionary. They don't understand how the Hillary Clinton of the 80s and 90s really was radical.

You've directly touched on the subtext, here, in your second paragraph though. The assumption is, in fact, that young women don't get it and need it explained to them, need the context offered to them. It feels a little like - oldsplaining? 

And I'm an old. I'm a little older than the writer of the article posted by YeahSure , so I certainly know the context. I would never presume to know someone else does not, that a woman does not know something or know her own mind.

So by that reasoning, any time someone speaks about their (first hand) experience, it's going to be ____splaining? I can read all about Vietnam and believe I understand nuances about that war and people's experiences, but I would never presume a Vietnam vet was warsplaining to me when recounting his first hand experience. That's not how it works. 

[tacosforlife]

Feb 9, 2016 17:11:43 GMT -5 derp said:

Feb 9, 2016 17:07:04 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

I don't think this piece is condescending. It doesn't say that you "don't get it" if you vote for Bernie. It's offering context for the criticism that Clinton is "too establishment" or not "progressive" enough through a critical feminist lens.

It's framed the way it is because a lot of young voters - not all, of course, but these election year pieces are ALWAYS written in generalities - genuinely don't have a frame of reference for Hillary Clinton as revolutionary. They don't understand how the Hillary Clinton of the 80s and 90s really was radical.

You've directly touched on the subtext, here, in your second paragraph though. The assumption is, in fact, that young women don't get it and need it explained to them, need the context offered to them. It feels a little like - oldsplaining? 

And I'm an old. I'm a little older than the writer of the article posted by YeahSure , so I certainly know the context. I would never presume to know someone else does not, that a woman does not know something or know her own mind.

I don't think it's ridiculous to assume that most people under the age of 25 don't have a great grasp on what went down in the early to mid 90s with Hillary Clinton and healthcare. It's not like it's on history tests. "Please explain the sexism at play during the 1994 midterm congressional elections" is not an essay question on the AP US History exam. I don't really understand much about the 1984 election and why Reagan was so wildly popular beyond "Great Communicator" because a) I was 2, and b) I haven't really read much about it. A 20-year-old voter profiled in a NY Magazine story (posted here recently) said that her generation needs to stop worrying about social issues because Roe isn't going anywhere. That is the type of voter this piece is referring to. They're real.

Further, even if I were to grant your premise that young voters all across the country have a deep and nuanced understanding of the sexism lobbed at Hillary Clinton*, this is what ALL election year persuasive writing is - trying to explain something to readers in a way that they might not previously have understood. It's argument, not condescension.

*I don't actually grant that premise because it's readily evident from watching news coverage of the race that many people over 25 don't understand the sexism, so there's no reason to think younger voters would have a better understanding.

[derp]

Feb 9, 2016 17:18:51 GMT -5 elleblue said:

So by that reasoning, any time someone speaks about their (first hand) experience, it's going to be ____splaining? I can read all about Vietnam and believe I understand nuances about that war and people's experiences, but I would never presume a Vietnam vet was warsplaining to me when recounting his first hand experience. That's not how it works. 

Well, no. A Vietnam vet would have some very valuable insight into what it was like to have fought in that war. However, I wouldn't assume that any particular adult didn't understand the nuances of the Vietnam war and would need it explained to them.

[jojoandleo]

tacosforlife, you have a lot more patience than I do.

derp-the article is directed at the young women who "don't need feminism." This is a REAL MOVEMENT. It exists mainly among young women who don't understand the history of sexism that people have faced. This isn't oldsplaining, it is a history lesson. Maybe you didn't need the lesson. Then the article is not aimed at you. It is aimed at people who do not understand that Hillary CAN'T be the politician Bernie is. She can't have crazy hair and shout. She has to play the game BECAUSE she is a woman. Of course there are reasons to vote for Bernie over Hillary. This is why there is no candidate than will get 100% of the vote. Different people prioritize different things. BUT, the criticism of Hillary as the establishment ignores the fact that AS A WOMAN, she fought hard to get there, and now is being punished for it. AND, she couldn't win if she WASN'T, as a woman.

[jeaniebueller]

I have heard young women being interviewed on TV, the basically say what @jokoandleo just explained The "women are equal to men now," attitude. Frankly, when I was 21, I probably had some of the same ridiculous thoughts. But, as Gloria Steinem said the other day, women do become more radicalized as they get older. I don't think it's totally crazy that younger woman wouldn't get why the first female president is such an exciting thing.

[derp]

Feb 9, 2016 17:36:07 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

derp -the article is directed at the young women who "don't need feminism." This is a REAL MOVEMENT.

Where in the article does it say that this is the intended audience? And I KNOW that it is a REAL MOVEMENT.

I also think it's unsettling that you think I require patience for not falling in line.

[elleblue]

Feb 9, 2016 17:41:18 GMT -5 derp said:

Feb 9, 2016 17:36:07 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

derp -the article is directed at the young women who "don't need feminism." This is a REAL MOVEMENT.

Where in the article does it say that this is the intended audience? And I KNOW that it is a REAL MOVEMENT.

I also think it's unsettling that you think I require patience for not falling in line.

No. Patience because you dismissed this editorial out of hand because of your biased viewpoint that women who want to vote for Bernie are being condescended to by women who prefer Hillary. You are seeing what you want to or at the least, expect to see. 

[jojoandleo]

Feb 9, 2016 17:41:18 GMT -5 derp said:

Feb 9, 2016 17:36:07 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

derp -the article is directed at the young women who "don't need feminism." This is a REAL MOVEMENT.

Where in the article does it say that this is the intended audience? And I KNOW that it is a REAL MOVEMENT.

I also think it's unsettling that you think I require patience for not falling in line.

Girl, no one thinks you need to fall in line. It is just clear you missed the point of this article and are continuing to argue no matter how it is spelled out to you.  THAT is why you require patience.  There are only so many different ways to try and explain to a person what a triangle looks like before you give up.