Hillary, Bernie, Gender and Race: Hard Truths about Bias Among White Male Progressives

[riversedge]

Very very good article.


Damon Bethea ?@damonbethea1 9h9 hours ago

Great read RT Hillary, Bernie, Gender and Race: Hard Truths about Bias Among White Male Progressives — #HillaryMen - http://bit.ly/1NuC6qt


November 5, 2015
ANALYSIS

By Peter Daou and Tom Watson

In recent weeks, the Democratic nomination battle has veered into sensitive territory: race and gender. Bernie Sanders supporters are falsely accusing Hillary of “playing the gender card” and of unfairly calling out the racially-charged urban/rural distinction on guns.

We are long-time Bernie admirers and certainly do not believe he is sexist or racist. Neither does Hillary Clinton. Contrary to the media’s attempts to stoke Democratic conflict and despite the protestations of some of Bernie’s supporters, Hillary is not accusing him of being sexist or racist. She is doing something much more targeted and much more significant: pointing out unspoken and uncomfortable blind spots among white males on the left.

Emily Crockett explains:

What Clinton was pointing out was a subtler, more pervasive kind of discrimination — and the disbelieving response of both the Sanders campaign and the media shows why she was right to bring it up.

Clinton made a spot-on point about how women are perceived. She didn't say or imply that Bernie intentionally slighted her based on her gender. She did imply that her gender made him see her differently, and that many women have this same experience all the time. That idea should be a lot less controversial than it often turns out to be.

There's a reason so many women instantly identified with her remark. It's because across the board, people tend to mentally turn up the volume when women speak — and research proves it.

......................

[jfern]

1. Enough of the Hillary campaign making up shit about how Bernie supporters are

all racist and sexist white males.

[riversedge]

2. You just made yourself look foolish-You either did not read the article or have a reading

comprehension problem. Try again after you have read it.


jfern
1. Enough of the Hillary campaign making up shit about how Bernie supporters are

View profile
all racist and sexist white males.

[jfern]

7. Hillary made up claims of Bernie being sexist

I don't need to read some garbage article that claims that Bernie must really be sexist. Enough of this fucking bullshit.

[riversedge]

9. Where does this article make " claims that Bernie must really be sexist." ??

[jfern]

12. Well, they say

"Bernie Sanders supporters are falsely accusing Hillary of “playing the gender card”"

Which means either they think Bernie is sexist or that somehow Hillary didn't imply Bernie was sexist. Either way, it's pretty obviously an attack on Bernie supporters.

[riversedge]

51. No, they do NOT believe Bernie is sexist-NOR did Hillary imply that. Please read the entire article

........We are long-time Bernie admirers and certainly do not believe he is sexist or racist. Neither does Hillary Clinton. Contrary to the media’s attempts to stoke Democratic conflict and despite the protestations of some of Bernie’s supporters, Hillary is not accusing him of being sexist or racist. She is doing something much more targeted and much more significant: pointing out unspoken and uncomfortable blind spots among white males on the left............

YOUR comment:

"....Which means either they think Bernie is sexist or that somehow Hillary didn't imply Bernie was sexist. Either way, it's pretty obviously an attack on Bernie supporters. ...."

[jfern]

71. Well, it was generally assumed that was her insiniuating

that Bernie was sexist.

[riversedge]

72. That was/is the problem-assuming.

[pnwmom]

27. This article specifically says BERNIE is NOT sexist. But some of his "progressive" supporters are.

And the fact that you won't even read the first paragraph says something.

[jfern]

28. So they are claiming Hillary never implied Bernie is sexist?

Yeah, no thanks. We don't need more bullshit about how all of Bernie's supporters are sexist and racist white males. That is pure gutter politics. As if Hillary supporters are all perfect.

[pnwmom]

29. And that article doesn't say that either. Are you going to claim that NONE of his supporters

are sexist and/or racist white males? Even the Independents and gun-toting conservatives -- and the students at Liberty University -- that we're supposed to be happy are also being attracted to his campaign?

[jfern]

32. They said "Bernie Sanders supporters are falsely accusing Hillary of “playing the gender card”"

Which implies that either Bernie is sexist or that Hillary never said Bernie is sexist.

Of course some of every candidate's supporters are sexist or racist. But for some reason we never seem to talk about how racist or sexist other candidate's supporters are. I'm sure Hillary has a number.

Nope, it's clear that this just attacks on Bernie's supporters to make Bernie look bad. Total bullshit.

[pnwmom]

34. No, that statement doesn't imply that Bernie is sexist

and it doesn't prove that Hillary said Bernie is sexist.

Hillary has not been "playing the gender card" and anyone who says she has is making a false accusation -- equivalent to saying Obama is playing the race card if he points to how racism can affect him.

Sexism does affect Clinton and racism affects Obama. Anyone who thinks acknowledging this is "playing" a "card" is choosing to minimize the very real existence of sexism and racism in our world.

[jfern]

36. If she made a false accusation (which she did), then she was playing the gender card

And her insinuating that Bernie is sexist is definitely minimizing actual sexism. Really, no need to make up phony charges of sexism. Lets stick to dealing with the actual sexism, racism, other isms.

[zappaman]

61. Why do you hate reading?

[redgreenandblue]

66. The article denies he is being called sexist and then calls him sexist.

"Bernie isn't sexist" he just "treated her different for her gender".

It is the same BS we have seen here on DU.

"No one said Bernie was racist. He just has a problem with black people."

[angrychair]

11. Please consider giving it another look

Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2015, 11:09 AM - Edit history (2)

"She didn't say or imply that Bernie intentionally slighted her based on her gender. She did imply that her gender made him see her differently, and that many women have this same experience all the time."
This is really splitting hairs. She didn't say he was sexist, just implied that, based on gender, he treated her differently.
Not sure if you have ever taught or attended a class in how to recognize and address sexism and bigotry in your workplace but I have not only attended several but taught them. What you describe above is textbook sexism (creating or supporting an environment that puts a person at a disadvantage, real or perceived, based solely on their sex or made to feel others are acting hostile or attempting to intimidate, real or perceived, a person based solely on their sex or race) and potentially enough to create a argument for a hostile work environment.
I find it simultaneously disheartening and insulting that we have drifted down these dangerous and emotionally-charged waters, creating very negative and hurtful language. Where you have happily painted not only Bernie Sanders, a person who has worked his entire life for fair and equal treatment of women in the workplace and women's health (100% lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood) and people like me, a white male progressive, as someone who has advocated for fair and equal treatment of women in the workplace and women's health, is somehow "sexist" lite, treating them different or not as fairly or not the same as you would a man, is seriously, egregiously, wrong.

You want to push people like me away, make people like me feel as if I am looked on as an enemy, in a camp of people that are supposed to be allies? Keep going down this path and you will do more to harm our Party and our cause, than any teapublican could hope to do.

[dsc]

54. yes we poor, poor men never catch a break in the workplace

the problem is those evil b words playing the gender card, and God forbid someone imply you might be trading in sexist tropes.

[angrychair]

56. No offense

But saying "those evil b words playing the gender card" means you lose this argument. You are not doing yourself any favors by using loaded language like that. Since you choose to reply to my post using it means you tainted my attempt to build bridges to a common understanding.
Please strongly consider your approach to gender issues in the future.

[roguevalley]

17. hillary got a save from bernie. she's already on the record with racism with Obama and Bernie is the

bad guy. Several more reasons i will never vote for her.

[bravenak]

18. All? No. Not all.

But sexism is VERY COMMON. Many have no idea they hold sexist viewpoints. Often people will use quotes of women saying sexist things about other women to tear them down when we NEVER do that to men.
We never see ads saying 'I'm a man, and I want a male President. But not just any male, the right male!" With a photo of a man in a doo rag holding a power saw juxtaposed next to it. We see this from Bernie's grassroots in reverse. I actually commented on one earlier.

[murielm99]

37. I don't know how much political activism

you have had time for in your life. I have been active with local and state Democratic Party groups for a long time. The sexism is very real. Men with the most progressive viewpoints are often the most guilty. Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes not. And age makes no difference. I am talking about mostly white men, because that is where I have had the most interactions. Any woman who has had a leadership position in party politics has experienced the same thing.

I have seen it in schools, too. Female principals and superintendents get a whole lot more opposition than males. It is harder for them to advance in the first place, because many principals come up through the system after doing a lot of coaching. A new type of old boys club is being created through school sports. When other teachers, administrators, or school board members are called on it, they are furious. And they are mostly educated men, too.

We have a long way to go before we stop this. I think Hillary may just be strong enough to help us down this tough path.

[bravenak]

38. I see it everywhere too.

Most see nothing wrong with they way they behave.

[jfern]

39. We can talk about sexism, but not when it's just being used to bash a particular

candidate's supporters because that's part of a divisive strategy that another candidate is running. I think Peter Daou tried similar attacks against Obama.

[bravenak]

40. We can talk about sexism at anytime. Because it always exists.

We don't have to pretend not to notice stuff just because some think it's not fair. Life is not fair, especially for women.

[Skidmore]

43. We will talk about sexism regardless of

who is running because it is an important issue in our nation and in the world. Along with racism, it serves to perpetuate the already deeply entrenched injustices, economic and social, which so many complain about but cannot seem to find ways to address. Refusing to recognize what is in front of you is a surefire way to ensure protest from that those who continue to suffer because of these attitudes.

[Major Hogwash]

33. Peter Daou is an apologist for Hillary, he wrote similar tripe in 2008 about Hillary.

He even bashed Obama as much as he could get away, without getting too racist, but it is a fine line.
A very fine line.
I don't believe Daou any more than I do Rubio.

[jfern]

35. Yeah, I thought the name was familiar

But it's always the other side who are the racists, not the ones who tried to use Obama's race against him.

[riversedge]

73. Try really reading the words of the article. The post above you is trying to

distract you. Don't fall for it without slowing reading and taking in the words of the article. thanks.

[NCTraveler]

58. Check out the article. It's clear you didn't read it before commenting on it. nt.

[Scootaloo]

3. "Despite the media's attempts to stoke Democratic conflict..."

Are you part of "the media," Riversedge? 'Cause that seems to fit you well, too.

[Cha]

4. thank you, rivers!

[MADem]

5. I have to agree with the analysis here.

There is nuance in the article, and I would hope that people read it and appreciate/understand that nuance, and not go for a knee-jerk "Waaah-nooooo--you're being MEAN to Bernie" auto-response.

Race and gender ARE issues. People who "look different" are treated differently. Women are still a minority in the upper reaches of political life. If you have a "different" ethnicity than the white male paradigm, or if you are female, you get that extra-special scrutiny. Clinton pointing this out may certainly be "uncomfortable" but we're never going to get past it without talking about it.

http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/hard-truths-about-hillary-bernie-gender-and-race?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Our forceful and unabashed advocacy for Hillary, as well as the gender lens we’re applying to the election, has placed us on the receiving end of angry criticism from a segment of Bernie supporters. Without exaggeration, they are virtually all white men, many of them dedicated progressive activists. There is a large degree of resentment among this cohort in the big tent Democratic Party who insist that their candidate has checked the right feminist boxes, that they themselves support women’s issues, and that an eventual first woman President of the United States must wait for a female candidate as "perfect" as their man.

This attitude has created a palpable rift among progressives, driven by an obvious gender gap. Our friend Rebecca Traister, a progressive who is admittedly ambivalent about Hillary’s public policy history, captured this chasm perfectly in her incisive Elle essay last month:

And oh, those guys—my friends, my colleagues, my professional sparring partners—make me mad. Not just because they'd never in a million years admit that their preference for a white guy has anything to do with gender, or because they suggest that I'm the regressive one for caring that Hillary's a woman. I mean, obviously those things make me mad too. But the real bitch is when I hear her attacked by men who claim to be feminists but actually despise her with inexplicable intensity, when I hear her supporters belittled for their cute investment in a non-male presidential power. It makes me spittingly angry. It transforms me into a knee-jerk defender of a candidate about whom I actually feel very torn. I'm allowed to criticize Hillary all I want, but damn if another round of sniping from liberal white boys isn't going to radicalize me in her defense all over again.

We understand where Traister is coming from. While Bernie Sanders himself has steered clear of negative campaigning to date – though he’s now hinting at a cataclysmically bad choice urged on him by his campaign consultants – the attacks on Hillary from white male liberals have reached our front door from the very start of #HillaryMen. Having each traveled a long journey to this point in our political activism, we have endeavored to see the incoming fire through the lens of experience and with a mindset of tolerance, not defensiveness.

[angrychair]

15. How can you be so blind

As to not see that the very tone of this article implies that any serious criticism of not only HRC but the article itself, implies you are acting sexist.
The audacious arrogance of this statement:
"...and that an eventual first woman President of the United States must wait for a female candidate as "perfect" as their man."
That statement is staggering. Really. It is a preemptive attack on a male voter that, because he prefers the policies and record of one candidate, a male, over a different candidate, a female, he is being sexist by discounting the female candidate's ability and worth because she is a female. The "...first women president..." is the kicker. Arguably, she is not the first viable female candidate or anymore deserving than previous female candidates.
HRC is an exceptional human being, male or female. She has every right to be proud of her accomplishments and is as or more qualified than many current and previous presidential candidates. Doesn't mean I should be made to feel that by voting for Sanders I am somehow propagating and/or condoning some sort of white male paradigm meant to subvert women in politics.

[jfern]

16. It's obviously just another attack on Bernie supporters

I don't think it will be possible to have a honest discussion of race or gender until this primary is over. Exploiting race and gender matters too much to the Hillary campaign for that to happen. Articles like this will make the healing process a lot harder.

[MADem]

30. Your user name suits you.

I am amused how your first instinct is to lash out at me, and call me "blind." I think you're the one with that issue.

You aren't reading the article with either an open mind or appreciating the nuanced observations expressed.

You are looking very hard to find a reason to express an opinion that YOUR feelings are being hurt and that YOU are being "attacked" (Really? I mean, come off it--no one is doing that to YOU). No one is "making you feel" anything. No one is attacking you either.


The article is what it is, and it talks about some uncomfortable realities. If you're feeling uncomfortable, perhaps you might want to introspect.

No one is telling you for whom to vote. If you're a member of the "Bro brigade" taking gender-based potshots at HRC, though (and I'm not saying you are, so don't jump on the horse unnecessarily) this article might get one's back up and make one feel defensive.

[angrychair]

62. Fair enough

MADem (you do see the irony in telling me "Your user name suits you" with a name that starts with "MAD" in all caps No poking at you just the relationship between the words "angry" in my name and "MAD" in your own)

I will humbly concede I could have chosen some of my words more carefully. Was not my intent to come across in an aggressive or angry tone. I was trying to convey my frustration at, from my perspective as a male feminist, who really does care how women are perceived and treated and as a family member of a rape victim that had an abortion, women's healthcare and freedom to choose are very important to me, this article, in a nuanced way, calls out a candidate I have given my support to and calls out "white male progressives" specifically.

From the OP post:
"She didn't say or imply that Bernie intentionally slighted her based on her gender. She did imply that her gender made him see her differently, and that many women have this same experience all the time." (bold emphasis mine)
This is really splitting hairs. She didn't say he was sexist, just implied that, based on gender, he treated or acted differently toward her. You correct, it is about nuance.
Not sure if you have ever taught or attended a class in how to recognize and address sexism and bigotry in your workplace but I have not only attended several but taught them. What you describe above is textbook sexism (creating or supporting an environment that puts a person at a disadvantage, real or perceived, based solely on their sex or made to feel others are acting hostile or attempting to intimidate, real or perceived, a person based solely on their sex or race) and It is potentially enough to create a argument for a hostile work environment.
There is more than enough blatantly sexist and racist assholes, in the teapublican party alone, to confirm we still have a long way to go before things are anyway near "good". That being said, Bernie Sanders has worked his entire life for fair and equal treatment of women in the workplace and women's health (100% lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood) and people like me, do really care and I don't believe or act with the nuanced inflection being put forth my the article.
Are there people and situations relevant to the article and OP's point? I would like to say no but I cannot.
I humbly request to keep perspective when carrying this message is my only concern.

Lastly, I must live a sheltered life, I have no idea what a "Bro brigade" is. In the last couple of weeks, I have seen some versions of it, the term "hippy punching" and been told that liberals and progressives are irrelevant to the Democratic Party. Not sure I understand some of the motives behind such negative language but I am sure there are a lot of negative attacks going back and forth and I really do hate to see it. I am only human so it is hard not to become sensitive to it and always feel like you have to be on the defensive with everyone.

[MADem]

67. My name isn't MAD, as in "angry"--it's MA (Massachusetts) Dem (Democrat)!

No different than VADem or SCDem or CADem or what-have-you. If the post office had assigned my commonwealth a different letter set I'd have a different user name.

I do think it is incumbent upon people running for office to at least TRY to empathize with more than half of the voting public. Women aren't an irritant, or some "special interest group" entity to be kowtowed to, they're the fricken MAJORITY. Words do matter, their interests are not "special" and people had better start not only listening to them but watching their "tone" when they talk to them. They have the numbers to start making a few demands, and they don't even realize it yet. If they ever appreciate their full power, we're going to see a lot more whining and crying from the privileged male class as they adjust to a new reality. I am of the perspective that a new reality is long past due.

I spent decades in the military--we invented those workplace courses. We developed the template when Truman integrated the Services, and as barriers have fallen, we created the training (which is annual, at a minimum) to deal with issues of ethnicity, gender and orientation. The services do have dedicated EO personnel from the unit level all the way up to the E Ring in the Pentagon. Even at that, though, when you have an institution where males remain in the overwhelming majority--like the military, and like political life--you see this kind of thing persist. People will push the envelope, some leaders will on occasion be less than fully responsive, and if/when they're identified, they'll take the heat for it.

HRC pointing this 'tonal difference' out is not "Oh, it's her imagination." Or even "She's being a little TOO sensitive." That shit resonated for a reason--because it happens All. The. Time. It's NOT "splitting hairs." Women who speak up are often mocked as "shouting," or they're "b.tchy" or they're PUSHY, or they're strident, or they're brassy--and these words have been set up in the popular vernacular to be regarded as the opposite of what is the "feminine ideal" (which is a coat hanger figure, pneumatic, augmented bosom and posterior, a large head with enormous, vapid empty eyes, trout-like fish lips, overly styled hair and a soft, agreeable voice). If a confident manner and a refusal to shut up and take crap dished out by pompous blowhards, or even just pointing shouters, is problematic and translated by someone who is used to having his way (and shouting when HE speaks) as "shouting," he needs to re-calibrate. And he needs to watch his language--when he transmits, he needs to understand how he is being PERCEIVED. It's never too late to learn. Andd his supporters need to just stop whining about it--that stink gets on him.

It's not his record, it's his tone. No one can rest on their record, anyway. Americans are all about "What have you done for me lately?" People can evolve--Sanders sure has, he's come a long way from some of his stupid views back in his creative writing days. And evolving is a good thing, so enough with the doggone dog whistles. People will notice--and people did. The ones crying about this are the "bro brigade" (males, often trending towards a younger--under fifty, anyway--demographic, who dismiss the feelings of others as unimportant to their priorities) who don't think it matters. Not all of these progressive "bros" are liberals, either--one does not have to be a liberal to identify as a progressive (the Canadians know all about this, it seems to be a mystery to Americans, though).

Sanders suffers from a lack of senior women advisers in his campaign--it's way too much of a meat-and-two-veg fest when his core staff gets together. He's got his double-duty (black/female) public affairs adviser borrowed from Nader's office, and he's got his wife...but he probably needs more estrogen at the table. I don't think the males advising him have that nuance, and they're not helping him when they don't tell him to cut that "shouting" line OUT of his set of stock phrases (particularly when he's "shouting" the line, himself). It comes off poorly.

One should never count on a group of traditionally loyal voters because "Where are they gonna go?" Some of 'em just might say fuck it and stay home--and that just can't happen this cycle. It's too important.

[angrychair]

74. I have appreciated the exchange

Really have. I hope we come away from this on better terms than when we started.
Interesting to hear how people get their login names. Mine is actually over 20 years old and related to a poem I wrote when I was younger.
I admittedly don't completely agree with your perceptions of Sanders but it's good to have different perspectives, it is how we grow and learn about one another. Different people queue in on different things, so it is helpful to have a canidiate's statements and actions pointed out. Nothing wrong with wanting to hold a politician to higher standards.
I do agree that a deeper bench would be very helpful for Sanders and help give him better insights into how his campaign should approach issues.

Thanks for the "bro brigade" explanation, never heard of it before the last couple of weeks so it's all new to me.

Hope you have a great weekend!

[MADem]

89. I've enjoyed talking to you, too!

I have always maintained that I am voting for the Democratic nominee, whosoever she or he might be, because even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican! I'll show up to vote, and I'll bring close to a hundred people with me (I drive people to the polls on election day).

[Fearless]

6. A very inaccurate article.

[riversedge]

8. What is inaccurate about it.

[Fearless]

10. Seriously?

[riversedge]

49. Seems you can't find anything inaccurate.

[Fearless]

53. False.

[MADem]

90. The one word, non-responsive response, not once, but twice, is a big clue!

[nenagh]

13. Is Hillary Clinton saying that the perceptions of males matters to her? In anything other than votes

As a single parent, woman, who raised a family on her own...the opinion of males re my gender matters not at all..

Ridiculous...

[boston bean]

46. Are you running to be the first female president of the united states?

[ismnotwasm]

69. Right?

Jesus...

[SunSeeker]

14. K & R

[bravenak]

19. Great Article.

We are tired of male centered view points. Time for women to have their say.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. It will be a bad, sad day if the people this article is directed at miss the point.

It seems from reading so many posts here that there is,a kind of deaf and blind hatred of nuance and HRC.

Possibly the poll numbers are pitting us against each other even more than usual.

Did the Hillary haters feel this strongly in 2008? I didn't notice it if so. And surely her stint as SoS should have helped garner her more respect from the male progressives here.

[bravenak]

23. They are completely missing the point.

It has been like this since Summer. Something has made it to where we have various sets of facts.
One side takes any fact that they do not like and they deny it's Existence.
I just hope we can eventually all live in the same fact zone.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

24. agreed.

And it is so refreshing to not have been jumped on for pointing out the obvious. I'm glad this article exists. I'd like to read more like it.

[MADem]

31. Already happening. It's not surprising, though it is a bit sad. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

84. My dislike of Clinton has nothing to do with her gender, but with her policies.

The OP is just another slag against people who don't support Clinton.

"Surely her stint as SoS should have helped her garner more respect from the male progressives here." You mean her disastrously flawed Libya intervention? You mean her support of a rightist coup in Honduras? You've got to be kidding.

And then there's her original sin: Voting to let George Bush get his war on.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

92. what some Clinton detractors forget or ignore

is that she was a Senator from New York and representing voters who were vociferously for revenge. I recall that her comments/speech explaining her vote was largely meant to give the POTUS the authority to use his war power if proven to be needed. She knew they were fixing the intelligence, but in the heat and remains of the downed World Trade Center, no intelligence was needed for most New Yorkers. The NYPD in particular targeted her. She would have lost her seat in 2006 for sure had she not been seen supporting the POTUS and the Pentagon AND SoS Colin Powell!!!

[mhatrw]

20. LOL at HillaryMensplaining nt

[BlueMTexpat]

21. As one woman who did instantly identify with her

remark exactly because of the "subtler, more pervasive kind of discrimination" that indeed exists, I appreciate your posting this.

Some responses to your OP show that even some women still don't "get" it. Perhaps someday they will.

Just for the record, I am hardly a man-hater, having been married >47 years to two different men (obviously at different times ). I remain on good terms with my ex (his daughter calls me "Aunt" and has actually stayed with me) and have 34+ years of marriage to my wonderful second husband. I am the mother of two males, stepmother to two others, grandmother or "step" to five others, and great-grandmom to two others. The older ones also "get" it.

I also have great admiration for Bernie and do not believe that he is a sexist.

But this article nails it.

[redgreenandblue]

65. What is the difference between "Bernie is sexist" and "Bernie treated her different for her gender"?

The later is the very definition of sexism. So, is Bernie a sexist or not?

[billhicks76]

25. Utter Bullcrap

[eridani]

41. How come they forgot to mention--

--that all the Berniebros will be supporting Carly Fiorina if he drops out? That will surely demonstrate that they aren't sexist.

[riversedge]

76. Why would I say such a stupid comment?

[Skidmore]

42. Thank you for that article.

It resonates deeply. These writers have really done the soul searching and have identified the cultural underpinnings of gender and race bias that permeates even the left of this nation. These blind spots and the unwillingness to listen to the feedback given is one reason that those who claim it as a political ideology have made "progressive" a hollow word.

[aikoaiko]

44. How is saying Bernie discriminated against HRC because of her gender different from he is sexist?

I don't get how you can claim one but deny the other?

[redgreenandblue]

64. Accusing him of sexism and denying he is being accused of sexism in the same sentence...

That is some serious double-speak.

[Nonhlanhla]

45. Agree with the article

Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2015, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I just read the article and I think it is excellent. I am a white feminist scholar who grew up in South Africa (and have lived in the US for almost 2 decades) and have been involved and emotionally invested in matters of social justice for many years: resisting apartheid in my youth, doing feminist scholarship, working in inter-religious dialogue with Muslim scholars, etc. One thing I've learned over the years is that even the most well-meaning progressive does not always understand the depths of prejudice.

ALL of us harbor unacknowledged prejudices. As a white person I have to fight the urge to get annoyed at BLM activists who act in ways that I don't understand, and instead challenge myself to LISTEN to them. As a Christian (of liberal persuasion) I have to fight the urge to prejudge aspects of Islam that bother me, especially when it comes to women's issues, and instead learn to LISTEN. On the other side of the coin, as a woman who grew up in a very patriarchal culture, and who has personally experienced the double standard with which men and women are measured, I know that the issues that Hilary raised are REAL.

It would be nice if white male progressives, the very people who (as progressives) are supposed to be on my side, would LISTEN. There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders is as honest and righteous a candidate as I've ever seen. But there is also no doubt in my mind that Hillary is right when she says that women are often perceived as shouting when they share their views. And I personally felt insulted when they joked about her becoming vice president, even though I am not at this time a Hillary (or Bernie) supporter, because I have felt the sting of always being told that women can aim high these days, but not too high, that we can occupy the #2 spot, and that maybe, in some distant future, the right woman might come along to also occupy the #1 spot - but not yet. And I do see among some of my Bernie-supporting friends a real blind spot regarding women. They are almost all younger white males, progressives for whom I have a lot of respect, but men with a real blind spot that makes them see Hillary much like the way some of them apparently see our middle-aged female secretary: an older woman past her prime who should not be taken seriously.

I'm sure I'll be attacked for these views. People get defensive when they feel accused, even though it is not my intention to accuse. That is one of the big problems in inter-group conversations: whites feel accused by blacks; men feel accused by women, etc. But we are ALL blind in our own ways, and we ALL need to learn to listen. When it comes to issues like racism and sexism, things are far more subtle and under-the-surface than we often recognize.

[Koinos]

57. Sanders should have fired Devine and Weaver after their public sexist remarks.

From a strictly strategic standpoint, I believe that Tad Devine should have been fired a long time ago and is still giving Sanders poor advice.

Looks like Devine wants to head another losing campaign.

Sanders should never have hired him in the first place. "Going negative" now that Clinton is moving ahead in the polls, is most likely Devine's latest brainstorm.

Why keep proven sexists on your payroll, if you want to disavow sexism?

[chervilant]

59. Thanks for this post, Nonhlanhla.

In the almost sixty years I've lived on this planet, I've witnessed and survived countless acts of misogyny and sexism. That said, I think we're seeing incremental improvement among those of us who understand that patriarchy damages and demeans both women and men--especially, those of us who listen, and acknowledge our own "isms" without getting defensive or angry.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. The glaring ommission of LGBT persons from your piece here says much about your own blind

spots. But please, continue your sermon about the speck in your brother's eye. Transparent.

[Nonhlanhla]

87. I merely mentioned a few examples

Do you really think ignoring the substance of a post and attacking a mere omission (among many other omissions) is a good approach to dialogue? I merely mentioned a few examples of social justice issues, and the examples I've used are the ones I myself have been most involved in. I have, however, been somewhat involved in fighting for LGBTQ rights. My involvement has been limited to being an ally of LGBTQ friends in the church (including the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa, which only a few weeks ago decided to ordain gays and allow for gay partnerships in the church - a huge step forward for the former church of apartheid - and something I publicly applauded and argued in favor of among friends and colleagues and on discussion boards), and writing on the reasons why the church should accept gays (I'm a religion scholar, and the nature of my work therefore tends to be scholarly). So yes, my involvement has been fairly limited, compared to the other things I'm involved in, but I have been involved.

I omitted many other social justice concerns in my post, and limited myself to a few examples that have been particularly prominent in my life: my anti-apartheid stance in my youth, my own feminism, and my recent work in inter-religious dialogue. That most certainly does not mean that I do not care about LGBTQ rights, or about global inequality, or about class issues, or about disability issues, or any other issue/group/oppression you can think of.

LGBTQ issues, and more importantly, LGBTQ people, are important to me. The fact that I did not list them with my brief list of examples, is not an indication of whatever it is you are trying to accuse me of. I also omitted many other groups that could have been mentioned. No post should be expected to be fully inclusive of every social justice concern just to make a valid point.

[seaglass]

47. Great article and btw Peter used to post on DU before he made a name for himself, don't know if he

still does under another name but I wouldn't be surprised if he still reads here.

This speaks to me:

It transforms me into a knee-jerk defender of a candidate about whom I actually feel very torn. I'm allowed to criticize Hillary all I want, but damn if another round of sniping from liberal white boys isn't going to radicalize me in her defense all over again.

Same thing I felt in 2008 though this time I am trying to stay out of the fray as it is 1000% nastier.

I believe that some men feel that they are strong supporters of women because they are pro-choice, support equal pay, equal rights, and have sisters, mothers, daughters, wives, But it is not so when they continually deny, dismiss and demean women who raise issues about the inequalities within this society that they face on a daily basis.

I hope at the least that people read and understand how Peter's eyes were opened by really seeing his wife's daily experience.

[kelliekat44]

48. Sadly true and never likely to change. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

79. And yet you posted this the morning after the Nov 2014 election:

"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803#post45

So how the fuck can you and your cohort dance about like you are the perfect angels after posting hateful garbage like that?

[Starry Messenger]

50. K&R

[Kind of Blue]

52. A remarkable article that linked

so many salient points at once.
Thanks very much for posting.

[riversedge]

75. yes, I had to read the entire article twice before

it all sank in. I am grateful that he wrote it and I posted it. For some it will have meaning.

[Spazito]

55. Very good article...

Thanks for posting this.

[William769]

60. Kick & highly recommended!

[redgreenandblue]

63. "Hillary didn't call Bernie sexist. She just said he perceived her different because of her gender."

In other words: She called him sexist.

[ismnotwasm]

68. K&R

[Live and Learn]

70. Wonderful idea - more attacking members of your own base.

Let's piss off all the 'White Male Progressives' and accuse them of sexism and bias even though they are the least sexist and biased males in the world.

You guys never quit, do you?

[mcar]

77. K&R

Excellent article. Sad that some are so defensive they completely miss its point.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Jesus the hypocrisy! In this thread is a Hillary supporter snarking away who said this after the Nov

2014 election:
"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."


So a cohort that says shit like that has little room to criticize others. Glass fucking houses. I'll link to it again if you want, and I can like to many, many equally bigoted posts by current 'Hillary supporters' who are flogging this 'Bernie supporters are bigoted' crap. It looks so very, very vile from my point of view.

[Aerows]

80. Sigh. I know, the only people who support Bernie

are white male progressives.

Except that I'm not male.

I talk to people that aren't white.

And many Independents are starting to take a shine to him.

I apologize for interrupting your narrative with a dose of reality. Carry on.

[ieoeja]

82. Republican meme finally wins out.

They have spent decades pushing "Democrats are just using minorities" meme. They haven't had much success. But it appears that Team Hillary will finally drive the wedge between Democrats and minorities that Republicans couldn't.

I suppose congratulations are in order. You will forgive me if I don't toast their success.

[CharlotteVale]

83. How'd she'd like it if Bernie supporters came up with a term for HER supporters

comparable to the BernieBros one that her supporters came up for Bernie supporters like, say, HillaryHers?

How'd she like it if it were implied that no men supported her? Would she find that sexist?

Because I am a woman, I support Bernie and I'm not alone. So where the fuck did "BernieBros" come from and why is it used as a pejorative term for Bernie supporters with the very strong implication that they are all male and how is that not sexist?

[99Forever]

85. Always sleazy.

Always the faux victim.

[frazzled]

86. Let me give you a real-life example of this kind of uncomfortable blind spot

on the part of white male progressives, which happened to me some years ago. Maybe (or maybe not) people will understand.

So ... some years ago, a certain very prominent progressive was running for governor of Massachusetts (I won't give his name, but his initials are RR, he's an economist who is very short, was Secy of Labor in the Clinton administration, and now teaches at Berkeley). Both my husband and I were supporting his candidacy.

So I'm sitting at my desk at home working one Saturday morning and the phone rings. And a man asks to speak to my husband. Since I don't particularly want to say to a stranger that my husband was gone in Europe for 8 days, I said "he's not in right now, may I take a message." "No," the fellow replies, "tell him I'll call him later." "May I tell him what this in regards to?" I asked. "I'm head of the this or that committee and I'm calling to seek his financial support for the RR campaign," he responded. So I told him, "Oh, you can talk to me," I said. He declined, repeating that he would call my husband later. I was surprised, so I said, "I'm a registered voter here and make most of the decisions for political campaign contributions." Still he declined, and hung up.

So I was gobsmacked. It felt like the Sears salesman had just come by but didn't want to talk to the "little lady." It bugged me for a full day or two, and finally I thought, I know this is just some guy, but I think RR should know this is happening so that he can direct his campaign staff and associates to be more savvy on the point of brushing off women.

So I decide to write RR a polite email, and easily find his university email address. And I do get a response. The response was, "I'll have my wife write you to explain my record on women's issues." Your WIFE? I think. You can't even write to me either? So his wife writes and tells me all the pro-abortion, equal pay things RR has supported. And now I'm pissed, because that is not what I was even talking about. So I write her back and say that that's fine, but women are also interested in economic issues, labor issues, the environment, etc. etc. (I'd given up on the real issue--which is that women voters should be treated the same as males by a campaign.)

Yes, I did of course vote for RR. But I've never forgotten that slight--of a campaign wanting to speak to the man of the house, and then failing to "get it" at all when I try to tell them that this is not a good policy.

We women endure these things all the time. And it's time to stop ridiculing it when we complain. #Women Voters Matter.

[TheBlackAdder]

88. Someone needs to spend the night at Rutgers-Eagleton's Center for American Women and Politics!

.


This thread is relatively misleading and inaccurate!


Get the data from the professionals who actually research this topic!

The only college research department that specializes in the area of Women in Politics.



http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/


.

[Control-Z]

91. In what way is this thread misleading?

Two opposing opinions. Is it one of the opinions in the thread or the OP you're referring to?