4 ms·

The entire appeal to women for Clinton by some of her folks is kinda tone-deaf, in my humble observation. It's basically saying "Hey, this person is a woman, yo

The entire appeal to women for Clinton by some of her folks is kinda tone-deaf, in my humble observation. It's basically saying "Hey, this person is a woman, you're a woman, therefore you should vote for her." This is the exact same sort of oversimplification pandering and objectification that a lot of women have fought very hard to separate themselves from. Additionally, the increasingly hardline message of "Fuck men because men" from certain radical feminists, both internet nutjobs and old-guard aging intellectuals, is not something that appeals to Millenials. Sanders doesn't rely on messages of hate, and doesn't rely on playing one population off against another. There's only one person who can do that effectively in the current race, and it's Trump. EDIT: (updated a little wording above on the first paragaph) The article, in my opinion rightly, points out a good point: there really isn't the same sort of systematic bias in the workplace and economy and culturally that there used to be (in the United States). Objectives achieved, one would expect the second-wave feminists to settle into the long haul to mop-up the last holdouts and to make sure that the next generation was vigilant to prevent backslides and to appreciate what they'd gotten. Instead, it seems that third-wave and later feminism failed to consolidate those gains and has instead begun descending into self-parody and besmirching the good name of feminism. This timing happened to coincide with the rise of social media, and as we all know, that makes the problem of isolating a movement's more radical elements even harder and serves to discourage moderate participation.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
Feminism as a social movement doesn't have "equal rights for women" as the goal of individual members. The goal is closer to something like "gain social status and prestige by fighting for the rights of women". In other words, achieving a particular state of the world isn't the central point: rather, it's a particular process of improving things for women. Consolidating things and entrenching a particular position doesn't visibly improve things for women, so there's no signalling benefit for doing it, so of course later prominent feminists don't do that. (Alternative explanation - consolidating the gains of feminism doesn't make any particular feminist prominent, so those who focus on that get marginalized from the movement).
rdancer 11y ago
The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state. Being a woman is her only redeeming quality, and she's not doing a very good job of that either.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state." BOOM! She's doing her job as a politician by trying to get votes from women with fake empathy. All of them will do that. So, for me, I'm pretty much organizing them in order of tyranny from most to least then voting for the least. Clinton and Trump are high up on the tyranny list. Sanders by default maybe. Far as feminism, all I see online in forums I'm on is the anti-male, SJW style. I'd love to see a moderate one that fights real abuse while allowing men to be men w/out tons of self-censorship. Know any articles by feminists pushing that?

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

Feminism as a social movement doesn't have "equal rights for women" as the goal of individual members. The goal is closer to something like "gain social status and prestige by fighting for the rights of women". In other words, achieving a particular state of the world isn't the central point: rather, it's a particular process of improving things for women. Consolidating things and entrenching a particular position doesn't visibly improve things for women, so there's no signalling benefit for doing it, so of course later prominent feminists don't do that. (Alternative explanation - consolidating the gains of feminism doesn't make any particular feminist prominent, so those who focus on that get marginalized from the movement).

rdancer 11y ago

The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state. Being a woman is her only redeeming quality, and she's not doing a very good job of that either.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
"The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never gave two hoots about women's issues abroad when she was the secretary of state." BOOM! She's doing her job as a politician by trying to get votes from women with fake empathy. All of them will do that. So, for me, I'm pretty much organizing them in order of tyranny from most to least then voting for the least. Clinton and Trump are high up on the tyranny list. Sanders by default maybe. Far as feminism, all I see online in forums I'm on is the anti-male, SJW style. I'd love to see a moderate one that fights real abuse while allowing men to be men w/out tons of self-censorship. Know any articles by feminists pushing that?