General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWomens Conference runs into rough seas of their own making
snip
The organizers of the Womens March were smart and they collected hundreds of thousands of emails by having people register for the march. Since that time I have received countless missives from them asking me to do one thing or another in support of the resistance to Trump.
Then I received an email about their organizing a womens conference in Detroit at the end of October. It was an exciting email to get as it reminded me of when I first got involved in the womens movement working for Bella S. Abzug (D-NY). Bella along with Congresswoman Patsy Mink (D-HI) fought for Congressional funding for what was to become the National Womans Conference held November 1821, 1977 in Houston, Texas. Between 17,000 and 22,000 people took part. Some 2,000 delegates and 15-20,000 observers. The goal was to hammer out a Plan of Action to be presented to the Carter Administration and Congress for consideration and/or adoption. Each of the twenty-six Resolutions on Womens Rights in the Plan was proposed to the attendees and voted upon collectively. The Conference was chaired by Bella Abzug. I was lucky enough to join Bella at the White House when she presented the final plan to the President.
What I would have hoped was the planners of this conference in Detroit would have looked at what was the opening ceremony list of speakers at that conference to understand what helped to make the conference so great. Now that list wouldnt be as diverse as we would want it to be today, but it was women and it isnt difficult to think of brilliant and dynamic women today representing the diversity you want. The opening ceremony speakers included: First Ladies Rosalyn Carter, Betty Ford and Lady Bird Johnson, activists Coretta Scott King, Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Barbara Jordan, Liz Carpenter, and Jean Stapleton. Maya Angelou read Declaration of American Women 1977.
I have been an activist fighting for many causes for many years including womens rights, civil rights, disability rights, childrens rights, and the rights of the LGBT community among others. I was on the committee that helped plan the recent Equality March for the LGBTQ+ community. So when I see something like this self-inflicted wound on what should be a conference supported and hailed by all women I feel sad. So much work goes into these things. People are committed and volunteer their time and effort to make a difference. Clearly the invitation to Sanders has shown the conference, or at least the planning committee responsible for inviting speakers, has been hijacked by some who arent there for the purpose of galvanizing all women to come together around an agenda to fight for their future, the future of the country, and future generations. Rather they have their own political agenda and are inserting it to the detriment of this conference.
Maybe it will take Senator Sanders himself to understand his presence on that stage in Detroit is more divisive than helpful and he will withdraw as a speaker. Doing that may be doing more for womens rights than he has ever done before. As men we must recognize the time for women to gather, to speak out, and to lead; is NOW!
More: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/womens-conference-runs-into-rough-seas-of-their-own_us_59e0fa65e4b003f928d5e656?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
.......................................................
For one moment put the politics aside and just let us go out there on our own. We know you men love and support our movement and we can't do that alone, yet the stage should be ours at a very critical time in all our lives as we fight to survive. The planners made a mistake. It needs to be corrected. This is our time, put the politics away.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)What I would expect is the opening speaker to be a well known woman and the feature speaker as well.
While the opening speaker may not be the "featured" speaker, having any man in a highlighted spot is ridiculous.
samnsara
(17,622 posts)questionseverything
(9,654 posts)n/t
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I had not heard this. Thanks.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)In a statement to Vox, organizers with the Womens March defended the decision to give Sanders the opening-night slot. They said that several prominent female Democrats including Clinton, as well as Sens. Kamala Harris (CA), Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) had been unable to attend. (Staffers for Harris and Warren confirmed they were invited to participate at the event.)
We all know how busy women leaders are, and we are grateful for the support of women like Secretary Clinton along with Senators Harris, Warren and Gillibrand. Although their schedules did not allow them to join us in Detroit the weekend of October 27, they will be fighting for our shared values, as they do every day, a statement from the group said. Harris will be in Rhode Island on Oct. 27 helping Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse raise money for his reelection bid, according to the Sacramento Bee.
comradebillyboy
(10,147 posts)It looks to me like that statement is crafted to be deceptive. As far as I have seen only Harris and Warren confirmed they were invited to participate at the event.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)if Hillary has a change of heart and wants to speak..just let us know
there is no doubt in my mind Bernie would be a gentleman and accommodate her
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)You said...
Who is "us" are you a member of the committee?
Accommodate her how? Is he a member of the committee as well. I read he was just an invitee.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)sheshe
the conference would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have Hillary
how do I know this? because the conference is full of people who want to take the house back from the repubs and Hillary coming would be very helpful in firing peops up
accommodate simply means making it as easy and pleasant for her as possible...I don't know Bernie,it isn't like I asked him....but I would bet next months rent on it..i am that sure
please stop acting as if Bernie speaking is a slight to anyone...it looks as if he is just the one that said yes
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)right and left in this nation.
For 40 years insidious right wing organizations have been teaching from coast to coast that our democracy is broken and corrupt, that all politicians are incompetent and corrupt, that our legal system is corrupt and incapable of rendering justice, and that all public policies are so incompetent that they create, not solve, problems. Not everyone's becoming so deluded and demoralized that they are abandoning hope in what we have to look for extreme solutions, of course, but enough are that it's becoming a serious danger to society.
In this context, a growing radicalization of any activist organization should be alarming but not surprising. And it must be opposed.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)that the organization is radical?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We all, including you, should note BIG TIME when he's invited to a national conference of woman's power and the first serious woman candidate for president in 225 years, who received the popular vote, was not. THE single most eminent and admired woman in our nation, and on the planet.
Imo, Sanders should not have accepted under these conditions. But he did.
And add all those to the long list of behaviors you've presumably been questioning.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)bernie accepts lots of invites
i pray du is not representative of the democratic party in general or we are toast
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)misrepresentation of my words, I answered your question honestly and reasonably courteously. But one is all you get. Go bother someone else.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Thank you, Hortensis.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)women around the world to demonstrate would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have her?
Somehow me thinks you protest too much.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)yardwork
(61,608 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Fuck that.
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)"invited to speak"? The Washington Post reported that they were merely "invited to attend".
Organizers said they invited many elected officials to attend the convention, including Hillary Clinton, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), but the event did not work with their schedules
Someone on the organizing committee of the (Some) Women's Convention© should demand a clarification from WaPo stat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/13/womens-convention-faces-backlash-after-prime-speaking-slot-goes-to-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.6dd9065e1ebc
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Please. These eminent women know that every action of theirs is taken as a statement. Sometimes organizations under bad leadership take a wrong turn so that it can become inappropriate to appear to support them.
All women who genuinely support the avowed purpose of this convention should take a good look at the hostile and divisive behavior of the leadership, behavior which denies the avowed purpose.
That hostile behavior is not something this woman cares to be associated with. Of course, not. I'm among the millions of women it's directed at.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)They are all over the place with their statements, and they're damaging their own credibility. They apparently had to be strong armed into inviting Gretchen Whitmer, the woman running for Governor.
The Bernie faction apparently do not like her (smart, well spoken former prosecutor, with 13 years of experience in the State senate, with actual policies) seems to remind them of someone they loathe so much that I find it difficult to believe they invited her.
I mean, they did just say this recently, so it's possible that they called yesterday afternoon to see if she could attend and were told no. I don't think they made any actual attempt to invite these women, that really doesn't seem to be the actual goal here.
RandySF
(58,832 posts)I'm no Bernie Bro, but Gretchen Whitmer is already running a poor campaign.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)lapucelle
(18,258 posts)Is there a link to any statement by the organizers saying that the women mentioned were invited to address the audience on the opening night (or at any other time) during the upcoming fandango?
Was the invitation to give the opening night speech extended to Michelle Obama, Tammy Duckworth, or Sheila Jackson Lee?
And why did the organizers delay the announcement of the opening night speaker until after the period for refunds for tickets purchased had expired?
There are comments on change.org from women who bought tickets who are insisting that they do not feel "hurt and confused", but rather were "duped and deceived".
Perhaps the organizers should hold a press conference to address these questions.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)There are new question that I believe need to be answered.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Two months ago or a week ago? Your name is guestionseverything as do I. Something is a little off here.
WAPO said they were just invited to attend and not speak. Do you have a valid link to where they were invited and declined or do we just have to rely on the word of the organizers, the ones that have been updating their releases to clarify their statements over and over again.
Also...why did they announce Sanders to be the First Speaker 2 weeks before the event that was advertised to be a WOMEN'S CONVENTION and after the cut off date for refunds to the event?
I question everything and something is not right here.
George II
(67,782 posts)Clinton, Harris, Warren, or Gilibrand were invited, just that their schedules did not permit them to join them.
Link to tweet
/photo/1
yardwork
(61,608 posts)And when?
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I tried to google it. Nada.
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)"invited to participate" or "invited to attend". It sounds to me as if they were told that their place was in the audience, rather than at the podium.
The comments at change.org. from angry ticket holders are interesting, to say the least.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Thanks for the heads up.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Where oh where have we ever been told our place? WTF? 2017 and we are being told our place once again. Sit down and shut up and this time it is from women? Really? Tell me I am wrong here. Please tell me I misunderstood.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)She was never invited to the women's march either.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)If I was, I would not attend. Fug em.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Detroit is making a comeback...hubs new job will take him there from time to time also.
George II
(67,782 posts)...whether or not she was even invited to speak.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)She broke a ceiling for women and it is not clear she was even invited to the women's conference? A sad day for all of her supporters, especially the women. Especially the women.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Scheduling constraints may move a speaker to a different day than you expect.
As to 'having a man', what if it was a man who consistently speaks out about Women's issues? Justin Trudeau is a common headliner or featured speaker at various women's conferences.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/11/conservative-party-still-doesnt-get-gender-equality-in-economics-trudeau-says.html
https://etcanada.com/news/216645/justin-trudeau-wows-at-women-of-the-world-summit-talking-feminism-and-donald-trump/
https://globalnews.ca/news/2581600/justin-trudeau-pushes-for-gender-equality-at-un-womens-conference/
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)There would be no controversy.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)That is all it should be about. Women and our right to Our Lives Ourselves. Full Stop.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Gave the opening address, the reaction would be the same.
The controversy has NOTHING to Sanders' gender.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I don't know why you cannot understand the concept of a Women's Conference.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Enough with the poutrage over Sanders.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Sen. Sanders has spoken against identity politics (which include women's rights) and has called planned parenthood establishment. He is the wrong choice for this conference -no matter what his sex...but yes it should be a woman. I expect President Obama would have send Michelle. I would be very interested to know if the leaders of this convention invited her.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And he has done things for women. An argument could be made for him. I still think it's not enough.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Michelle spoke at the PENNSYLVANIA Women's Conference, but that was organized by a totally different group of women with an honorable, inclusive agenda.
Me.
(35,454 posts)As she is a completely divisive figure and is running an agenda that is not especially helpful to women per se.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)TNNurse
(6,926 posts)The keynote speaker at a women's conference....should be..wait for it...a woman.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)the amazing Representative Maxine Waters.
Bernie is there to fire up the crowd for the substance speakers like Maxine and if polls are any indication he will -- except for those still operating under the delusion that Sanders in particular and leftists in general had anything near as much to do with our 2016 defeat as ANY other factor (whether Russia Comey, or our own miscues).
EllieBC
(3,014 posts)Really?
No she doesn't.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)for what is amounting to an Our Revolution rally.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)since Waters is the keynote.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)pro-life...so she is not and advocate for women's rights and shouldn't be the speaker anymore than Sen. Sanders. She has also said she is open to supporting Republicans with our revolution.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)Doesnt get any more transparent than that.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I am in shock. True Progressive? Not.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)murielm99
(30,741 posts)that Nina Turner opened. She is divisive.
Of course it has to do with Sanders' gender. And it has everything to do with his lack of support for women's issues. He considers them a distraction.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)is not just a friend but one of the premier black activists in this country. I don't feel I have standing to say whether she holds a similar position among women, perhaps she does not, but I will tell you that if folks want to drive yet another wedge in this party, go right ahead attacking her judgment.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)& hopefully the senate, right?
if that is correct she has this old woman's full support
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)11/09/17
Year of the woman: the Democrats inspired by Trump to run for office
Those committed to electing Democratic women to office worried Hillary Clintons loss would repel female candidates. But then the sun came up
Election night 2016 was devastating for Democratic women who had hoped to elect the first female president. But it was doubly so for the organizers committed to electing Democratic women to office. They worried Hillary Clintons loss to a man who boasted on tape about grabbing women would repel female candidates from entering politics. But then the sun came up.
It really started immediately, said Andrea Steele, the president and founder of Emerge America, a national organization that recruits and trains Democratic women to run for office. The next day our phone began to ring and it didnt stop. Emails poured in. Women all over the country woke up and decided to take some action.
Since the 8 November election, Emerge America has reported an 87% increase in applications to its training programs.
Emilys List, an organization dedicated to helping elect pro-choice Democratic women, said more than 16,000 women have expressed interest in running for office since the election, while that number was 920 during the entire 2016 election cycle. Similarly She Should Run, a nonpartisan organization that trains female candidates, said 15,000 women inquired about running in an election, compared to about 900 during the same period last year.
Donald Trumps election has led to a surge in political activism among Democratic women, according to a June survey of college-educated voters by Politico, American University and Loyola Marymount. But so far, the survey found, that energy hasnt totally translated yet into more women wanting to run for office.
More:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/democrats-inspired-by-trump-to-run-for-office-hillary-clinton
..............................................
Trump victory spurs women to run for office across US: 'Our time is coming'
She is part of a surge of women across the country who are rushing to run for office in the aftermath of the election women disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost and disgusted with the sexist and racist rhetoric of Trumps campaign and the ultra-conservative credentials of his proposed cabinet.
We are a force to be reckoned with, said Oliver. Our time is coming.
VoteRunLead (VRL), an organization that trains future female politicians, normally receives between 30 and 80 applicants for each of its regular webinars.
In a 48-hour period after the election, we had 1,100 women sign up for our next webinar and we had to close it and start a wait list, said Erin Vilardi, executive director of VoteRunLead.
snip
VRL is a non-partisan organization and women signing up are not asked whether they intend to run as Democrats or Republicans. The main theme of the new influx could be summed up as a rejection of Trump, Vilardi said.
Two-thirds of existing VRL members who state an affiliation are Democrats. Other organizations that specifically aim to put Democratic women in power, such as Emilys List and Emerge America, are also reporting a dramatic spike in interest from women.
More: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/02/women-politics-us-election
.........................................
Women have been doing this all along. We don't always need the stage to show it, though it is nice that we are seen there. The WOMEN ARE RUNNING! Yes They Are. We have a member here whose sister is running for office as well.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)started and participated in the Women's March and The Resistance rather than dishonestly trying to credit one man for it. The dishonesty is absurd beyond words. This is the exact cause of the never ending divisiveness. Diminishing people/Democrats or any group to paint a dishonest picture that they are saviors. Their false realities are completely transparent. Enough is enough. Fight Republicans instead.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)voted for Trump? Seems like there is still work to be done.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)It could have been so much better...but she brought what I consider 2016 politics into it, and that is toxic. The woman's march was great....this not so much.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Where's Michelle Obama, Democrat? She just spoke at the Pennsylvania Women's Conference, organized by different women. Googling her and this event brings up NOTHING.
Where's Elizabeth Warren, Democrat?
Where's Hillary Clinton, Democrat?
Where's Kamala Harris, Democrat?
Where's EVERY OTHER PROMINENT FEMALE DEMOCRATIC LEADER except Maxine Waters, who may be regretting accepting?
Aside from Bernie Sanders and poor Maxine, apparently the most well known speaker will be actress Amber Tamblyn, whoever she is.
Maybe time to go into questioning mode and examine your support of these organizers and their real agenda? Do you really disregard the opinions of every prominent female in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama, so much that there's no need to even wonder if this so-called "women's" event is actually about depowering those Democrats who support women like those above?
Including Maxine Waters, btw, who of course endorsed and campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)so I went to wiki and looked her up...
from wiki...
Political activism and career[edit]
At age 11, Mallory became a member of NAN to learn more about the civil right's movement. By the time Mallory turned 15, she was a staff member at NAN. Mallory went on to become the youngest Executive Director at NAN. She worked at NAN for 14 years.[5] She stepped down from her position as executive director in 2013 to follow her own activism goals. Mallory explains that she still takes part in NANs work, by attending rallies and recruiting members. Mallory has continued her activism, working on various topics such as gun control, womens rights, and police violence. Following the murder of her sons father, Mallory has worked endlessly to create stronger gun restriction laws.[citation needed] Over the past eight years, Mallory worked closely with the Obama administration on gun control legislation.[citation needed] She advised Joe Biden on these issues, and together they worked towards creating bills and helping pass these bills.[citation needed] In 2014, Mallory was selected to serve on the transition committee of the New York City Mayor, Mayor Bill de Blasio. During that time, she helped created the NYC Crisis Management System, an official gun violence prevention program, which awards $20 million annually to gun violence prevention organizations.[6] In 2014 she also served as the co-chair for a new initiative through the Management System, the Gun Violence Awareness Month.[7] Mallory holds many other leadership positions as well. She is the president of her own firm, Mallory Consulting, a strategic planning and event management firm in New York City. She is currently on the board of directors for Gathering for Justice, an organization aimed at ending child incarceration and working to eliminate racist policies that reproduce mass incarceration.[8]
///////////////////////////////
de blasio, biden and Obama didn't seem to feel the need to shun her....if the woman u listed feel something has changed they need to speak out and let us know
until then I am going to assume the purpose of this event is what the organizers state
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)She's only one of many in that, of course.
Seriously, people like this are always part of the problem.
Btw, did you know she got herself kicked off a commercial flight yesterday? Total innocent victim, of course.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)to "not engage" but by all means, feel free.
Btw, I just ask the same thing from another poster who called her divisive and accused her of having an agenda.
It's interesting to know what things we are allowed to say and what we are not.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I do not need to be instructed. It was just a friendly suggestion from someone I trust.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)deadline for a refund has passed.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Organized a; march drawing millions of women around the world out to stand up for their rights that does impress you?
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)I went to it...it was great. I was really looking forward to this convention but I think it is ruined. Tamika and any that were in on this decision brought 2016 politics which are divisive into it. The comments on twitter are appalling also...arrogant and insulting to women who planned to participate in a woman's convention and object to a political rally.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)And yeah, what feminists really need is a man to lead them, amiright?
Dumbest idea ever.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)To say that they have turned over "leadership" by inviting 2 men out of 60 is highly insulting.
From their statement
".@womensmarch is led by women, mainly WOC. We announce one man as a speaker among over 60, and y'all start saying he's our leader?!" she wrote. "When you lash out at WOC leaders, saying we have a man as our headliner/leader, you erase our work. You erase Rep Waters' work. LISTEN TO US. To the folks yelling at @womensmarch & directly at me: Why does your version of advocating for women's rights = bashing Black women leaders?"
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And now they complain people are basically quoting them? Okay then.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)They said no such thing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's reading a bit different today but most of the quote is still there.
You shouldn't accuse members here if lying. It's ugly behavior.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/12/bernie-sanders-speech-womens-convention/756825001/
George II
(67,782 posts)They don't say specifically that they invited Clinton, Warren, Harris, or Gilibrand. I don't know if any of them was invited, but if so they would make sure they could get there. The event is on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
Link to tweet
/photo/1
JHan
(10,173 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)yardwork
(61,608 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But yeah, she said they needed Bernie to tell them what to do. Oy.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)It really doesn't matter what color the person was who made the really, really stupid decision, though you seem to need to make it racial.
Repeatedly.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)because they don't agree w the boneheaded decision to have a man open a women's conference.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Thank you, emulatorloo.
brer cat
(24,565 posts)We women sometimes get so into our hysterics we forget that we don't have permission to express disapproval for what is done in our name.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)'cause ya know...sssssh and all.
It ain't easy to be me.
Loves ya, brer.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)because they believe the organizers made a dumb decision to have a man open a women's convention.
The criticism does not have a damn thing to do with race. This is one of the slimest rhetorical moves I've seen on DU. Stop it.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the Sanders choice.
But when you say the organizers picked Sanders because they needed a white man "to tell them what to do" you take away their agency.
For instance, if someone had a problem with Hillary's choice of Kaine as VP and framed it as they had a problem with his pro-life leanings that would be a legitimate argument. But if the argument became "Hillary picked Kaine because she needs a man to tell her what to do and we all know he will be running the show" there would be a collective grand mal conniption on DU -- and rightfully so.
But no, since a certain Senator is involved all bets are off. They need a man, they need a white man, they need a man to tell them what to do. They are Putin stooges.
Look at some of the arguments and accusations. Some of them are pretty disgusting.
Once again:
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)being posted.
I understand now that the talking point originated w Ms. Turner as a way to deflect criticism and make the women who find the notion of a guy opening a women's conference odd or tone-deaf into women who just want to slam Women of Color.
"They need a man, they need a white man, they need a man to tell them what to do. They are Putin stooges."
I've read a number of threads at DU as well as exchanges on twitter.
I have never seen a post from a person who sees having a guy opening a women's conference is wierd say anything remotely like that. I don't dispute you may have "heard" that as you interpreted some posts.
However People think it was a tone-deaf decision. Has nothing to do with race.
I like your posts a lot even though we don't always agree. Was surprised to see you go all in on Ms Turners dishonest framing.
I'm done posting on this subject. At this point I"m looking forward to hearing Bernie articulate his position clearly on women's issues. Take care and have a good night.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)There are people in this very thread saying "the organizers aren't the organizers"
One of those people stated flat out elsewhere this is a Putin funded operation.
Another poster twisted a quote that said they wanted insight from party leaders into "we need Bernie to tell us what to do"
Dis. Gusting.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 15, 2017, 07:16 PM - Edit history (2)
Ok from the USA Today story:
"Sanders, Mallory said, brings the experience of a long-time Senator who continues to work to bring progressive change to government.
"We believe as women ... that we ought to have more than just women at the Women's Convention," Mallory said. "People want to hear from the leadership from within our government who can give us some insight about what's happening ... so we can know what we need to do to be able organize."
There is indeed an appeal in Ms Mallory's quote to Sanders' authority as someone who can help "know what we need to do to be able to organize".
I don't find the person who posted that making any claim that the organizers do need help. Nor do I see any claim by that poster that they need help because they are WOC. Just that they aren't that good at PR, and they've released a lot of statements that aren't that consistent. Known that poster for a while she is def not an "enemy" of WOC.
----------------------------------------
One poster wrote: "111. I'm starting to wonder if the "organizers" are really the organizers."
Ok maybe I am dumb as a stump but that is such a vague statement. First time I read it I skimmed and thought it meant the organizers weren't organized.
Second time I read it as a comment on the number of Our Revolution staff involved. You read as orgazed by Putin.
Def see what your saying, this opinion is an outlier no matter which of these interps are correct.
However I don't see anything I can interpret in that post as disrespect to organizers because of Race/or are WOC.
I am gonna pm you in a sec for that nonsense Putin post, that needs hard pushback and I can't find it (0n tablet w/o page search.)
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)"This whole thing smells like it was funded by Putin to divide Democrats."
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)back.
Will do so when I find it.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)Im glad to see my point being amplified further.
It is now established for certain that Putin influenced American voters to depress turnout and dissuade Democrats from voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, thus enabling Trump to win the White House.
The tactics continue.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)yardwork
(61,608 posts)I saw how your words were misrepresented.
It happened to me too elsewhere in this thread. I was accused of saying something that I didnt say.
Pretty transparent behavior imo.
George II
(67,782 posts)....my REAL words and your REAL words are still there for others to see.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)Every time we are misrepresented, it kicks the thread. Every time we have the opportunity to clarify, our point is made again and it kicks the thread.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)And yeah, get insight from party leaders "so we know what to do" does not equal "we need Bernie to tell us what to do"
I'm on my way out to dinner so I won't be around for a couple hours.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)You may be right about the opinions of the Bernie Rapid Response Team. I still don't see a racist component though.
Do pm me the link to the Putin one so I can push back
George II
(67,782 posts)....didn't even use the word "aren't". THIS is what I said, completely different from what you're claiming:
"I'm starting to wonder if the "organizers" are really the organizers."
Please don't misrepresent what I said, okay? And you were upset with someone twisting a quote?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)who are saying we can are just racist.
But that's essentially what they are saying.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Why didn't the conference organizers???
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)The thing that bugs me is they knew this would anger women which is why they made it so we can't get refunds by announcing after the refund date...very calculating.
mcar
(42,331 posts)catbyte
(34,386 posts)This is a women's conference, for crying out loud.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Then Kristin Gillibrand, Kamala Haris, Cecile Richards, Amy Klobuchar, the head of Emily's List and so on and so forth
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Harris is fundraising that weekend.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Or even one female leader of note?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)...about who they should and shouldn't invite.
It's clear from the Outrage today that most of the people don't have the slightest idea who actually IS speaking.
All day long: "I'm outraged Hillary, Gillibrand, Harris or Warren weren't invited!1!1!1!1!"
Actually they were invited and declined: *crickets* -- though one person said they were actually glad those Women declined. And to that I say "nicely played"
Or my favorite: "I'm outraged Maxine Waters is not the keynote!1!1!1!1!
From the organizers:
Tamika D. Mallory @TamikaDMallory
·
Oct 12
MAXINE WATERS IS THE #WOMENSCONVENTION HEADLINER! Y'all may not have noticed but we announced that weeks ago...#ReclaimingOurTime
*crickets*
Me.
(35,454 posts)"I would say that (U.S. Rep.) Maxine Waters is also coming to the conference, and we know she has been a very, very powerful voice in terms of all weve seen happening in terms of this administration, particularly, and shell be at the conference as well. And a lot of other people have been invited to the conference and were hoping to hear back from these folks. Thankfully, SenatorSanders has agreed to attend."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/12/bernie-sanders-speech-womens-convention/756825001/
Doesn't sound like she's the headliner to me. But let's wait and see what $295. gets the attendees of the event.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)yardwork
(61,608 posts)The organizers statement implies that they only recently invited women leaders to speak at a conference that is being held next week.
Normally, speakers would be invited months in advance.
Either the organizers are incompetent or they are being deliberately vague to cover up the fact that they only wanted certain speakers.
This whole thing smells like it was funded by Putin to divide Democrats.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)They're US people and are enthusiastic Sanders supporters. They seem genuine to me, just tone deaf and apparently really so naive that they didn't expect a backlash over having a guy open a women's conference. Hence the contradictory statements since the backlash started.
They aren't Putin's agents any way. It is up to you of course but I wish you'd edit that out of yr post.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)I didnt say that any particular person is on Putins payroll. You said that. What I say, and will continue saying, is that Putin is funding a lot of this divisiveness. The organizers might not know it themselves, but the source of this discord is obvious to me. These incidents are funded and influenced by those who want to continue assuring that people like Trump are in power.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)going on. The dishonesty is shameful and typically divisive.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Doesn't matter what skin color of the person who decided it was a "great idea" to have a man open a Women's Congress.
Is this some talking point you heard that you thought might be effective? It is not about racism so knock it off.
George II
(67,782 posts)....doesn't say they were invited, just that "their schedules did not allow them to join us." That's vague and ambiguous.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)state they were invited or when they were invited if in fact they were invited.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)sounds like they were invited to attend and not participate.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)get involved with people who are basically attacking the Democratic party. This is no different than our revolution. I have no interest in this shite.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)From the sounds of it a lot of women are pulling out, fug the convention. We will find another way.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)It will all come out eventually.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)http://www.essence.com/news/womens-convention-theme-reclaiming-our-time
We are honored to have the voice of Congresswoman Waters play such a pivotal role in our convention, said Mallory, co-president of the nonprofit Womens March. It really captures the essence of this convention and why we believe this is such an important moment to convene, make our voices heard, and show that the rise of the woman is the rise of the nation.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Where in the article does it say she is a speaker...only that her words were used in the theme for the women's convention.
"The theme stems from Rep. Maxine Waters now famous reclaiming my time statement, which went viral after the California Congresswoman spoke during a House committee hearing in July. Waters was among the elected officials, celebrities, and activists who addressed crowds at the massive Womens March held in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017."
"Theyre aiming to assemble first-time activists and movement leaders, rising political stars who reflect the countrys shifting demographics, and women whove organized sister marches, huddles, rallies and various resistance actions".
It says nothing about who speaks. And This is a political rally not a Women's convention. The entire thing is another divisive bullshit 'movement' which will be meaningless in the age of Trump...not about electing Democrats. or empowering women. I won't ever trust this group again... they have devolved into an anti-Democratic Party group like our revolution....not a word about electing Democrats in the statement...so done with this.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)the convention...again did you read it?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)else was invited to speak before the announcement of Sen. Sanders.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)They used language, back in September that indicated (to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language) Maxine Waters was lending her voice to the convention?
Then sometime in the interim, they used their Jedi mind tricks or some sort of sorcery to actually get her to speak at the convention? But only after landing Bernie Sanders?
Then they went back in time and planted a story (see below) dated 9/29 that says Maxine Waters is speaking
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/29/detroit-womens-convention/715657001/
Detroit's Women's Convention aims to 'get real about fighting ... oppression'
USA TODAY NETWORKKristen Jordan Shamus, Detroit Free Press
Published 7:53 a.m. ET Sept. 29, 2017
The theme is "Reclaiming Our Time," a spin on the words of U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who will speak at the convention. It is expected to bring as many as 5,000 women and their supporters to the city.
Then they went even further back in time to 9/24 and planted another story with her as a speaker.
http://www.freep.com/story/life/2017/09/24/national-womens-convention-detroit/694142001/
Kristen Jordan Shamus, Detroit Free Press Published 6:00 a.m. ET Sept. 24, 2017
While Bland confirmed that Waters also will be among the speakers at the convention
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)I am not saying they didn't mean to...I have no idea because the article does not address it...there is nothing said about speakers until after Sen. Sanders is announced which is after one can get a refund. I think they were just a little to cute...and given that those were Maxine's words, that named this conference...she would have made a great opening speaker. I am not going now...some have said our revolution is involved...I have not seen that and can not verify it...who knows. But I do know having a man open a woman's conference is a bad idea...what should have been a woman's convention is now a political rally no doubt complete with a stump speech. I know you don't get why this offends me as much as it does...but I have seen women over the years totally screwed over...again and again. I am just sick of it. Not going to have a man tell me what it is to be a woman and the obstacles we face. And Sen Sanders is a particularly bad choice because of the identity politics thing, planned parenthood, and the 'it is not enough to be a woman' comment. I actually voted for Sen. Sanders in Ohio...my kids convinced me...they said he was the candidate that had views like I do...and they were right. but, the social justice thing has made me reconsider. I couldn't support him in a 2020 primary. It goes without saying if he was the Democratic nominee which I doubt will happen, I would vote for him. I always vote Democratic. It is not just about who the speaker is...it should be a woman;this was billed as a woman's convention.
Tammy Duckworth
Wendy Davis
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)statement about schedules after the fact. Who really was invited...both would have been great. I love Tammy particularly for this.
mopinko
(70,103 posts)this is just insulting. plain insulting.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Be sure to keep us informed how your sister's race progresses. I love her dedication.
mopinko
(70,103 posts)imma beat the drum, and du damn well better step up!!
i'm really excited about it. i am in the deep blue, and she is out there in red to purple land. i am working my contacts here, folks that want to see the blue spread. big fun.
just think- a good fundraiser here on du, and a little chunk of red could be wiped off the map. there is not a lot of money out here for a race like this, and we here could tip the balance!!!
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)mopinko
(70,103 posts)build the bench. i dont know how much higher my sister wants to go, but i am right there to huff and puff under her wings.
i am totally unfit to run for jack shit, as my mouth has no governor. but she is diplomatic, but strong.
she is a career photographer, and nearly 30 years of dealing w brides and suburban moms makes her so eminently qualified i cant stand it.
the aca is her biggest issue, as her hubs is a transplant recipient who needs lifetime care. but w the aca, they cut their ties to corporate healthcare, and started their own company. now that is all endangered. she had to take a commission only retail job just to make sure they stay covered. fortunately the office provides healthcare. hopefully she doesnt screw up the retail job just to run and loose. but we feel really strong. hillary won her district by 15%.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Especially to her and her husband.
mopinko
(70,103 posts)brer cat
(24,565 posts)We have a pResident and majority in Congress intent on taking women's issues back to at least the mid-1900s. This is not the time or place for someone divisive.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)and why we desperately need a conference by and for women. These men are making decisions about OUR BODIES. Least we forget, they are keeping all the little goodies for themselves...Viagra while taking away our birth control. Does anyone see the hypocrisy here? Let's see...Viagra gives the man an erection so he can have sex. A woman is denied birth control and abortions. So if the result is a pregnancy, the woman actually gets screwed twice as the man walks away.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)It's as if women and men really are from two different planets. We're always making nice to them, and all they can do is fire deathstars at us.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Luv ya....the GOPers sure don't like us much and sadly just want to continue to man 'splain over and over ad nauseum. We are not pawns, we are human beings and we sure as hell have a voice that needs to be heard!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Oh, gopee, the feeling is mutual, believe me.
If I said what I'd like to do to lord fatass.....
He makes Jabba the Hut look like Albert Schweitzer.
More hugs! ❤️
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)This always calms me.
brer cat
(24,565 posts)because it looks normal. It doesn't matter if they are legislators or rapists, they want control over us and our bodies. Every time I see that picture I want to vomit.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)60 speakers and only 2 men. The organizers are Women of Color.
Yet there is talk of boycotts.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)signature issue was women's rights and was all over those issues every time they came up and was always pushing the envelope, I can see a decision made to invite that guy.
Same thing with other diversity groups. Otherwise you are going to have pissed off people.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Some of us do not do do twitter if that is what it is. Please supply a link as you posted a direct quote. Otherwise it means nothing. No names. No Reference. No Context.
This is your comment. Devoid of a link.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Upthread you said you weren't aware HRC declined.
FYI, Gillibrand, Warren and Harris also declined ( Harris is busy fundraising)
I see a lot of people expressing outrage over this convention they obviously know nothing about.
Maybe people should listen to the Women of Color organizers before dragging their names through the mud. Just a thought.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9708510
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Heck you even copied it.
Why won't you listen to these Women of Color?
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)So again. Explain how I dragged their name through the mud.
PS from your quote we women, all women not just two sponsors that happen to be black have been saying LISTEN TO US! LISTEN TO US! And you do not listen to the +1000's that are saying that We The Women Think This Is Wrong. Why will you only listen to the two and not to the thousands that say this is WRONG?
brer cat
(24,565 posts)listen to the Women of Color on DU who have an opinion on this? Did someone elect YOU to decide which Women of Color are representative or did you develop this "concern" for those particular Women of Color for another agenda? For that matter, why don't you listen to women of any color who have an opinion; after all it is a conference for and about women?
ATL Ebony
(1,097 posts)It's a turn off to me and the suggestion that a man needs to "warm" up a crowd of women speaks volumes to the organizing to the insight of the planners. Glad I didn't spend any money on this event, too controversial and divisive. Perhaps other marches are being better planned that I can either donate to or attend.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)they're WOC. Because just weird.
kcr
(15,317 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....with the ORGANIZERS, regardless of their race. I don't see anyone else zeroing in on that.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Who said it?
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)She needs to go...very divisive.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The Bern can do no wrong and he's always the right answer.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Thanks. We sure have a long history of amazing women. I really love this picture.
efhmc
(14,726 posts)Was hoping to attend but not now. I was so excited at the first conference in Houston for our future but today as we are swamped by bias and the destruction of our rights by 45 and the GOP we get a very divisive male as our speaker. No and no.
George II
(67,782 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)They rocked!
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)also. Great thread, she. Great summary.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Good to see another strong voice for women in this thread.
We are one woman.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)was also an obvious conclusion.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I have no problem if they want to have a Berniefest but they need to come clean about it. Don't call it a conference on women then ask a man to be the opening night speaker.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)for president and all Democrats for house and senate in 18 and 20. This is about one guy Sen. Sanders opening a women's conference which is bad enough; it should be opened by a woman...Maxine in particular... Sen. Sanders has called panned parenthood establishment and talked against identity politics AKA human rights which include women's rights,and they knew. damn well this would not be popular or else they would not have announced his presence after the time you could get a refund...I will never trust this organization again. I am not a Sander's fan...I would not vote for him in the 2020 primary, and this feels like electioneering using what is supposed to be a woman's conference.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)That would be the Democratic Party, since she was our nominee.
That would be most of the voting public, since the won the popular vote.
This is the Democratic Underground. Remember?
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Does not compute for you that some DU women find a man opening a women's conference problematic.
Women don't need a man to tell them how to do feminism, that's what the optics of this boneheaded decision are.
dlk
(11,566 posts)Granted, he's a white male. This isn't the time or the place.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Rhetoric is not a substitute for actual results.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm
That, first and foremost, is why we elect people to office. To vote with us on the issues. Of course valid arguments can be made over whether or not he has done as much as someone else has, fill in the blank with the person of your choice. And obviously people differ over whether he is a good choice for a speaker at this event.
But it simply must be noted that Bernie's voting record on matters important to women is superb.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)And pushed for Democrats to not have a litmus test on abortion. Anti-choice candidates are a-okay with him?
Women don't need that kind of help.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)That was reaffirmed. Every decision is best viewed within its context. A lot of local pro choice activists for example backed Mello for Congress in that Special Election. A Republican much worse on abortion ultimately won. Had Democrats won that Special Election it could have seriously fractured Congressional Republican loyalty to Trump early in his presidency.
I am simply saying that that a lot of Democrats who folks here usually admire, like Pelosi, are not behind a rigid litmus test. It can be argued that Sanders made this or that wrong choice if you wish. But his overall record in congress over decades remains overwhelmingly positive in that regard - as the rankings clearly show.
RandySF
(58,832 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)- A non hearing impaired person who hasn't been a particular advocate for the hearing impaired signed to speak on the first day of a conference for the deaf when it is the first conference for the deaf had in 40 years.
- A non Latino/Hispanic person who hasn't been a particular advocate for the Latino/Hispanic community signed to speak on the first day of a conference for Latinos/Hispanic people when it is the first conference for Latinos in 40 years.
- A non African American man who hasnt done much for African American rights signed to speak on the the first day of a conference for African Americans when it is the first conference for African Americans in 40 years.
we can keep going. It's all pretty obvious.
The decision to have Bernie speak was not about women. That's the problem. This conference is about women.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)to have Bernie speak is not about women, which is a vast and polite understatement.
comradebillyboy
(10,147 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as I said.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I cancelled my plans to go as did many others.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Democrats for the media exposure, so...
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I honestly wouldn't like any man taking an opening speaking spot.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)This is so wrong in so many ways and you stated them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Tia
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)I just don't think you've identified the correct personality.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I am so sick of the mansplaining on this board I could scream.
janx
(24,128 posts)General admission is $295 per personan amount necessary to help us cover the expense of holding a conference. Youth and student registration is $125 per person. If your employer is paying your registration, please register at the institutional level, $365 per person. Single day tickets are available for Friday and Saturday at $125, and Sunday at $75.
http://www.womensconvention.com/faq.html
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)in the speech, he has been saying that forever. And of course he's wrong in that.
Omaha Steve
(99,632 posts)That is a no win scenario! He didn't invite himself.
OS
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I have stated over and over again in various threads that he was an invitee. It is the sponsors that I have said made a judgement error. I have also said I have no problem that he will speak, just the position as first speaker that the sponsors decided that he should have. Never once did I say anything other than that, please do not put words in my mouth that I never uttered.
you said
I think you are very wrong about this. I think he would get a stand ovation for ceding the first slot to a woman. Actually, I know he would. He knows it is not about him, he knows women are fighting for there lives as human beings.
Omaha Steve
(99,632 posts)Just a comment after a couple said he should drop out. I should have made it a direct reply.
IF he does drop out, I'm fine with it. It's his choice (pun intended).
Edit to add my sig is pro female athletes like Creighton U that beat Butler 3-2 tonight.
OS
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I felt it a direct attack on me.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,799 posts)K'n'R
oberliner
(58,724 posts)One of those two men happens to be Bernie Sanders.
Demit
(11,238 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I believe he is running for Governor of Michigan.
Demit
(11,238 posts)I know I could've looked it up myself, but I appreciate it.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Even Bernie Sanders. But NOT first, NOT the Keynote, NOT the introduction. Why does he have to be FIRST, before any woman?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)For what that is worth.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)the M$M doesn't shove a mic down his throat at every opportunity. Everybody knows his "message" by now, we've been hearing it for decades. There are so many more deserving Democratic and progressive women that could've been showcased at an event like this. My only solace, at this point, is that Ms. Mallory is getting her ass handed to her on social media over this. I can't wait to get Joy Reid's take on this whole situation.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Joy's show on tomorrow
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Yet not listening to the thousands of women of all color that this was the wrong decision to make for a women's conference. Go figure.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
-------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that she knowingly made a controversial choice justifies people being upset.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)because it was made by WOC seems bigoted to me.
It has nothing to do with the race of the women who made the decision. It has to do with the gender of the speaker.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Thank you Squinch.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Crazy ass world these day, huh? Up is down, black is white and right is wrong. Go figure.
For a laugh...
Squinch
(50,949 posts)And about that gif? Aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)People are claiming these Women of Color turned over leadership of the convention to a man.
No, it can't be the man is there at their request.
One person is telling bald faced lies that the organizers said they need Bernie "to tell them what to do"
That's bullshit.
I guess mansplaining and whitsplaining is ok when people are grinding their axe.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)From an interview with Mallory...The Detroit Free Press
Sanders, Mallory said, brings the experience of a long-time Senator who continues to work to bring progressive change to government.
"We believe as women ... that we ought to have more than just women at the Women's Convention," Mallory said. "People want to hear from the leadership from within our government who can give us some insight about what's happening so we can know what we need to do to be able organize."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/10/12/bernie-sanders-speech-womens-convention/756532001/
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)a women's conference are racists attacking POC. That's bullshit and you know it
Squinch
(50,949 posts)fall back on.
So they deflect to an obviously ridiculous smear, but one that the insincere can rally around.
It's a page right out of Republicans' playbooks.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)refund too. However, the issue is should they have requested his presence...and the answer is NO. Bad decision and bad judgement.
Link to tweet
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #176)
Demsrule86 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and comments surrounding it that makes this such a problem. There are no equal rights for women without reproductive rights.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)That is a huge point and it festers with most women. Our rights and our bodies, always. There is a little more that I will not bother to delve into.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)our reproductive rights will disappear. You know that!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The good ole days.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)Who benefits when the Democrats are divided?
Who thinks its a good idea to have a man be the headline speaker at a womens conference?
The politics behind this are obvious and theyre funded by the same outside interests that made sure that Trump is in the White House.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)divisive rhetoric at work here, and from which side is it coming? Sanders is certainly not everybody's cup of tea. Neither is Clinton. Both of them are solid on women's rights. What's the point of stirring the shit on this one? You think it isn't divisive for a large contingent of the left to decide who isn't kosher to be on stage at a women's convention, or a couple of weeks ago, to defend the ACA, or weeks from now to talk on some other issue? You think that doesn't divide us? Do you think that doesn't alienate? Do you think Sanders doesn't speak for a large portion of Democratic women and people of color? What purpose does alienating one group of supporters serve by saying that group's favored representatives are personas non-grata? Most Sanders supporters came out and supported Clinton. That was a unifying, not dividing reality. Why shouldn't Sanders and his supporters advocate strongly for equal rights and treatment of women? Why is that a bad thing? Why is showing solidarity a divisive act now? That is fucking baffling.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)The person organizing this Women's Conference insisted that a white male who is a lightning rod for divisiveness be the headliner speaker. THAT is divisive. THAT was designed to ensure that women and allies would be divided in their response.
I am certain that Putin invested in this fiasco. All is going according to plan.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Most of the people squawking here don't even know the lineup or anything else about this convention.
That much is obvious from all the comments.
Omg!! Why didn't they invite Hillary!?!?! -- they did
Omg!1!1! Why didn't they invite Kamala Harris?1?1?1? -- they did (she is busy fundraising)
Omg!1!1!1 why didn't they invite Warren or Gabbard?!?!? -- they did
Omg!1!1!1 Why don't they have a woman keynote?!?!!? -- Maxine Waters is the keynote
60 speakers invited and only 2 men.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Women's conference.
melman
(7,681 posts)Besides never.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)It was a bad choice.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)speak at a woman's convention if I ran it...and as the the leaders say they expected controversy, I think the entire thing was gigantic colossal divisive fuck up.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)warmed over....
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)especially not a person who has complained about identity politics and said planned parenthood was establishment.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)truth...
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and plenty of others. It is not divisive to invite the people who represent huge swaths of people to work together. It is absolutely divisive to say that because some people don't like him that there should be no solidarity when it comes to issues we all care about. How does that shit unite us? I'm all ears. Why would you want to squander common cause?
Personally I find the things people are outraged about somewhat insincere. Sanders has a damn good record on women's rights. He's been ahead of the curve, not behind it. Which is why the worst complaint you can make is that he, along with the democratic party, endorsed some guy who had a shitty vote on women's rights, and also, he said planned parenthood was part of the establishment(of course it is, it has put time and effort into lobbying democratic leaders for its survival and for the very valuable causes it cares about----a very sensible thing to do, but of course when the front-runner is a woman and when she is pretty much anointed by the very establishment planned parenthood has to work with, it isn't going to abstain from that endorsement). Oh, what was the last thing? Yes, his complaint about selling identity over actual policies, like say policies that would benefit people from said identity.
That's just not much of a case.
Hahah, Putin was behind this? Holy shit. For him, its definitely the little things that get him up in the morning.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)She has done more good than ten Tamikas.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I don't want party cheerleaders, and being one makes her part of the establishment. Yes it does. I want thoughtful analysis. Sure, when she was advocating for Obama she was hard on Clinton, but she demonstrates that she isn't interested in nuance, she's interested in supporting her team to the detriment of truthfulness, in my opinion. She comes across to me as more of what is termed a Democratic Strategist, and it is through that lens that she appears to filter her content.
Now granted, I don't listen to her every day, and admittedly, this is a snap judgement from my limited exposure to her. I'm actually just willing to go out on a limb and make that call based on the evidence I've seen. If you can show me that I've got it wrong, I will absolutely be contrite for going off half-cocked. I'm in a gambling mood though.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)fashion. Her sin is suggesting Sen. Sanders shouldn't speak at a Woman's convention. We better get behind the party or the GOP will destroy this country...there is only one party that cans stop them...I thank god for women and men like Joy.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)candidates position, and no matter what it is, defend it, is a party liner. I get that sometimes there is a strategic need for this, and I've been patient. I've made allowances. There are very real questions as to whether those allowances have paid off. Did voting for the Iraq war keep Democratic Senators in power(sorry, in seats, not power)? Maybe, but that ended up being a debacle. Democrats made it less of a party line debacle. One we might have capitalized on.
A party liner is somebody who does't break from the narrative...who doesn't cover stories that are inconvenient to democrats, even if they are just as inconvenient to republicans. If the democrats aren't talking about them, this person isn't talking about them. This person is on message. If that's what you want, then cut out the middle man and just listen to the strategists in the first place.
As to establishment being derogatory...that's entirely a matter of what you value. You could be perfectly supportive of the well established democrats who are trying not to tap into the opinions of the people to change the face of Washington, but instead, have opted to try to work within the current system as it stands, in that bi-partisan wheeling and dealing fashion that supposedly gets things done, cognizant and reverent of "political realities." You could totally mount a case that that is how you get things done. That that is how you move forward. I would disagree, so establishment to me is somebody investing in a losing strategy. To you, establishment might mean something different.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)George Bush was president when Iraq began...I doubt it would have happened under Gore...but Nader took care of that. The fact is there is no 'turn'...you don't get to have your way because you are waiting...you vote in the primary and take your chances. I always vote Democratic...and after watching what happened during the Bush years and now with Trump, I have to wonder at the sanity of the so called protest voters...our progressive agenda is teetering on the abyss...a couple more judge and it won't matter who is elected. All this angst and it's our turn talk and no more 'centrist blah blah is akin to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The house is on fire.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)which include women's right and called planned parenthood...establishment. He champions economic justice not social justice The idea is if economic justice is achieved, social justice will follow but it won't in my opinion. So he is not 'good' on women's rights in my opinion. And he has endorsed a number of pro-life candidates. He was not a good choice...obviously a political choice on the part of the Woman's convention leaders.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)love to see your response to those. I also mentioned how untrue it is that Sanders shies away from all issues in favor of just economic justice. We know he cares about economic justice, and from my perspective, he sees that it is impossible to achieve social justice without economic justice, but you would be being dishonest if you said his voting record and rhetoric don't also champion social justice issues.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)while putting social justice in the backseat...just agree to disagree. In any case...a woman should give the first speech at a woman's convention.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Gothmog
(145,242 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Maybe it will take Senator Sanders himself to understand his presence on that stage in Detroit is more divisive than helpful and he will withdraw as a speaker. Doing that may be doing more for womens rights than he has ever done before. As men we must recognize the time for women to gather, to speak out, and to lead; is NOW!
That will never happen. This is a chance for a Bernie 2020 stump speech and he won't miss that chance. It's definitely NOT for women. It's hard to understand why the organizers don't understand that this is a terrible move.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Do they have money to pay for everything?
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Arguing about who the speakers are, while ignoring
the issues . .
reminds me of the Trotskyites.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)about one Bernard Sanders. Well done, DU.
2018, people. Tick. Tock.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)and not told anyone until after the time for a refund had passed. I suppose we are supposed to just swallow when this sort of thing is shoved down our collective throats...I won't. And if Sen. Sanders and the organizers think this sort of thing will help his candidacy in 2020, I don't think it will.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Well, depends on the man, I suppose. Wouldn't be happy about some tiki-torched man-boy addressing the crowd, but Sanders, Obama, Gore, etc. would be acceptable. No one else cares, either, but for the fact that it was Sanders. This is exactly the sort of poutrage the right-wing latches onto in stereotyping "the left" as snowflakes, whiny SJWs, etc., and it's perpetuated on DU. Curious.
Be sure to post pics. We'll all be curious about your first-hand experience at the conference.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)to second place in favor of his specific economic message that we've heard endlessly. Here he is saying his economic message is more important than identity politics. This is a conference for women, not to elevate one man's image.
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/22/bernie-sanders-it-is-not-good-enough-for-someone-to-say-im-a-woman-vote-for-me/
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)of this conference."
That line from the article sums up the problem in a nutshell.
Shameful. Such a missed opportunity.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)It is not.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If there was anyone who supported anything close to that program today, I'd agree that that woman should be the first day speaker.
Does any such person exist, though?
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)You stand there and judge us as a man saying none of us today are worthy to stand up and speak at an advertised women's conference to be first speaker and replace Bernie?
What?
Me.
(35,454 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I wasn't commenting on the worthiness of your gender at all-it would be absurd to say that no women were worthy of giving the introduction speech at the Women's Conference.
And I've said several times that I think Bernie should have refused the invitation and should still refuse it.
But is it really that out of line to say that it's bogus to reference the spirit of the 1977 conference when nobody in the feminist leadership of today supports anything close to the Call to Action that conference advocated?
I'd like to see women who support things like that being invited to speak-and there are women like that-on the activist level, on the street level. Would you be willing to call for women like that to speak to the Conference in Bernie's place? If you did, I'd join you.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Somebody off the street would be better. Got it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's the street level activists who are the ones who care the most-who live it the most.
I apply that equally to the labor movement, the LGBTQ rights movement, the political left, the black/Latinx/indigenous/immigrant rights movements.
The higher up people get in anything, the more distant they are from the cause and the passion, from the real.
That's why there needs to be as much grassroots accountability, at all times, in any social or economic justice movement.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)An encounter I had yesterday in another place. Same mentality. Check it out when you get a chance. Same mentality. Everything and nothing at known.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)deciding for women collectively and individually who is worthy enough to be our leaders. We couldn't possibly tax our brains to make such choices on our own. Why shouldn't we do the same thing men do and look to women who are learned and accomplished for leadership? Newly arrived to such positions after millennia of being told that we are not constituted to make choices even for our own bodies, I believe you find us unwilling to relinquish choosing who we respect and honor s leaders. Making noise n the street isn't always done by "leaders." Some of our finest have toiled silently in the trenches until they could engage with gravitas and thoughtful deliberation. They have earned their stripes.
I cannot tell you how condescending you have been throughout this thread, and the sad thing is that you don't see it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I got it wrong.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Do you have a clue as to how you've just revealed your true thought/feelings about women?
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)I am in shock to have read that.
Love you, me.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)So much for "liberal" men supporting our cause.
Me.
(35,454 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)We've made huge steps forward since 1977. Massive ones. Yet this person can't even name a one of our current strong female leaders of today? In 2017 of all years (!), this person is suddenly stumped if anyone equals the credentials of the day 1 speakers from 1977?
Wow! I'm utterly gobsmacked.
Me.
(35,454 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)If you're clueless that's ok, so long as you're willing to learn. Ask questions and I'll answer. Just don't ever go making declarative, half assed statements which are obviously going to be offensive to those impacted by your words.
I'm extremely patient and not at all prone to outburst, but this ... damn.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I agree that Bernie should turn down the invite, but c'mon...the people expressing outrage are not, in the vast majority of cases, fighting for anything close to what the Call to Action was about.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Stop digging
betsuni
(25,525 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)are people in the majority in our Democratic Party, expressing displeasure at something that is patently, obviously a nod to a minor leader of a minority wing of the Democratic Party....speaking on issues affecting all women in these days of a molester-in-chief as potus.
Women today are fighting the SAME battle as those in the 'Call to Action' days of late 70's...40 years ago. You're saying there are no women that today can address issues with the same irresolute truth as women then? That's what you're saying?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've posted several times that he shouldn't do the speech.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Bella Abzug, Coretta Scott King, Barbara Jordan, Liz Carpenter, and Jean Stapleton, Maya Angelou Betty Friedan and Betty Ford. All of which were opening day speakers in 1977.
Darn. We're nothing but a rudderless ship adrift these days. If only we weren't bereft of strong women like these to lend their voices to our cause.
Woe is me! Where are our strong, accomplished female leaders of today?
----------------------------
Seriously?! What the fuck? Some of us have been moving forward and paying attention more than others apparently.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My point is about the Call to Action from that conference It was an amazing document.
Little of it is in the program for today, though. Some, but little.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)You're sorely mistaken, sir. The message like the times has evolved, that's true, but we've not lost our focus and we do have leaders more than capable of carrying our message forward. Thank you for your concern on the matter.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It'd never evolution to water down a message.
And there's evidence that doing so has led to any real gains for feminism.
Anytime a movement switches from transformation to incrementalism, that movement goes into decline and reinforces the power of its enemies.
And it's a waste of time to pursue "the center" because the center has vanished.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)I can't in the least understand what you're attempting to convey here. Elucidate for me, please? In context and in detail of our conversations. Currently I'm completely clueless at your seemingly abstract reply.
Wait, are you the person I had one of these disjointed, random and abstract conversations with before? I'm suddenly thinking you are.
You're only talking to me here, not an audience, not the thread. It's just you and me. Focus on my previous words and try replying again.
Topics from your words I'd love to expound on:
Who do you think waters down what? I'm befuddled as to what you're trying to express here.
What evidence do you speak of? I expect examples.
Incrementalism? (I need examples and proof that our current feminisist leader have engaged in such. Of course that's as soon as you figure out who they are. One chore at a time.)
Huh? What are you even talking about here? Whatever it might be I'm positive it's nothing to do with my words to you. I expect an explanation. Preferably an in depth one now considering you're imposed this lunacy on me.
Then we can work on a more in depth answer to my previous post which you attempted to reply to here.
My post:
You're sorely mistaken, sir. The message like the times has evolved, that's true, but we've not lost our focus and we do have leaders more than capable of carrying our message forward. Thank you for your concern on the matter.
Expect me to follow up on this. I'm not easily distracted pretty much ever. Read: never.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)That's kind of strange.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Maybe that's what he meant? We needed more feminist robotic transformers to bring our message forward?
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 15, 2017, 03:35 AM - Edit history (1)
of the 1977 Call to Action. It is my theory that the reason the decision was made to have a 40th anniversary Conference is to re-connect with that spirit of the Call and to challenge that growing centrism.
Ever since 1977, the strategy, from what I can see has been dilution of program, transition from grassroots activism to lobbying and electoral politics for the same of electoral politics, a move away from solidarity with women in poverty, a move away from opposition to greed and war, a move to the absurd idea of seeing corporations as allies.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Who, in "national feminist leadership are now sharply to the right" specifically? Expound on what they've said or done to make you feel this way. No differing or dodging. I want specifics now on your claim.
That's a good first step. You can actually then name at least some of our failing leaders to your eyes.
This is just point A) to be clear. All our other topics are still to be addressed.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've posted nothing you have any reason to be outraged about, or to condescend about.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)You should at the very least be able to to verify your claims here. Really, that's all I'm asking. If not then your whole premise is moot. Is it not?
Response to herding cats (Reply #267)
Ken Burch This message was self-deleted by its author.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)That's pitiful. Really?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about overall trends.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Otherwise, how do you know?
herding cats
(19,564 posts)At this point I'm willing to say our conversation was a massive waste of my time. You have no facts, just pre conceived rhetoric. You're clueless about the topic you chimed in on, but you do have some pre existing issues you may want to work through with regards to our last nominee for president. Really, she's not the omniscient vagina.
I wish you peace and knowledge. Lots and lots of knowledge to be dropped on your head. Maybe not all in one big massive drop like I'm envisioning right now. (I'm a tad upset at the moment still.) You're confused and your priorities are a tad skewed. Ok, more than a tad.
Way more. Damn!
I'm still in shock this was your end game.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)It always is. "Trends" don't make policy, or work for incremental change, or transform a city, a county, a state, a country. People do that. Please stop trying to be a sociologist and talk like a real person.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Grow up for the love of Pete and move the hell on. All this was about one person to you? Really? I'm beyond floored at your response right now. I'm not kidding, you totally caught me off guard. I thought you were going to rip all our feminist leaders apart and all your games were about on woman?!
Jesus Christ. I had no idea that you were playing divisive politics with women's rights! You have no real idea what you're talking about, but you have some ugly feels, so we all must pay for them? Move on, and don't bring your hate of one woman onto us all!! Ick!
Noted. You can't be engaged in adult conversations because you're obsessed with one woman. And your hate makes you have tunnel vision. Wow. I seriously did not see this coming from this conversation.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)I didn't open your email. The title was enough to prove your intentions weren't sincere still. You need an advance class in damage control, STAT. At the very least someone needs to pry the shovel out of your hands so you stop digging a deeper hole.
Just stop if you cannot provide a sincere and polite apology. Do not go all Spicer/Huckabee Sanders on people and think it's going to be acceptable, OK?
Either address my questions to your words here, publicly, or don't. Just don't go off on a tirade which has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing as you did in your now deleted post. I want an actual honest answer to my words, not blather nor deflection. Either that or an honest apology and not some disassembling silliness aimed to remove you from culpability of your words without actually addressing them, or saying you were wrong. Instead I get a DU mail titled, "You got me wrong." Needless to say I stopped reading there.
In case my words baffle you still, emojis as promised for your understanding: 😒 🙄 😱 😡
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Don't care about the poor/working class
Corporatist
Fundraising/elites/out of touch/status quo
Compromise/no convictions
Warmonger
No message besides "Trump is bad"
Needz moar transformative/radical/passion
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Those are way too hard and grown up questions for them to deal with..
Signed, The woman they previously dissed on her real questions.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Just had nothing else to do and this is the biggest waste of time I could think of.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Things I've actually seen.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)as centerpiece? Right?
yardwork
(61,608 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)dodge......
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Walk the walk if your gonna talk the talk. Tell me how we're doing it wrong.
I'm waiting with bated breath for your reply.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Or on anyone as an individual.
All I was saying is that the 1977 Conference and its Call to Action were transformational-there were the seeds of something new in those-a sense that life could be different.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Seriously, I have kids and I could have done this with them. I'm so dissatisfied and disappointed with this outcome.
I will link back to this in the future as a warning to others. From here forward I'll engage you with emojis. That seems like it should satisfy this level of discord we've just engaged in. 😉😂😄😜
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Poor 👶 I know how hard grownup life can be. ☹️
Hey, there's always emojis!
😂🙃🤣😂🙃🤣
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)Be paitient. We're taking baby steps, and this isn't an easy process you know? We have to use our grown up words and thoughts. It's difficult to express what we mean in full adult level conversational verbiage.
These things can take time. (Yes, I'm growing impatient waiting for a fleshed out reply). Come on man... geeze!
sweetloukillbot
(11,023 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)Deeply anti climatic. I'm still in shock they ended it that way rather than actually engaging in a real conversation about the topics they broached.
Wow. I'm still speechless. Maybe talking about real issues is just too tough?!
sweetloukillbot
(11,023 posts)A lot of attacking and refighting disguised as mansplaining. sea lioning and "reasonable discussion" that ultimately goes nowhere.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)They pretended to be cerebral, until they weren't. I will never forgert, and never forgive that last post from them. You can pretend you know an issue, but there's limits when you go totally mean. Lesson learned. That person is not nice, nor are they here in good faith. That was senseless baiting and I didn't catch on until they made it obvious.
I feel so used/stupid.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)We lack effective political and economic power. We have only minor and insignificant roles in making, interpreting and enforcing our laws, in running our political parties, businesses, unions, schools and institutions, in directing the media, in governing our country, in deciding issues of war or peace.
We do not seek special privileges, but we demand as a human right a full voice and role for women in determining the destiny of our world, our national, our families and our individual lives.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029711901
You said.
My point is about the Call to Action from that conference It was an amazing document.
Little of it is in the program for today, though. Some, but little.
Please read what I posted and not just the excerpt. You, Ken have no clue who we are or what we have struggled for. Have you even read the Democratic platform or heard women's voices?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I think that those who planned this Conference and invited the speakers they invited still do.
I wasn't the one who sent out the invitations.
And I would never say that no women should have had the speaking slot Bernie was offered-which he should still turn down and should have turned down in the first place.
If he does, I'd recommend they replace him with a grassroots, radical(perhaps socialist)feminist who speaks instead-someone with the soul of a street fighter. Someone unknown to a national audience.
The only reason to even have an anniversary conference of a heroic, radical event is to reconnect with the original event's spirit. Doesn't mean everything would have to be done exactly the same way as in '77, but it needs to be a break with the blander post-'77 approach. If it isn't that, if it gets turned into nothing but a smug validation of the current approach-why would be the point of having it be a celebration of staying the course?
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's still a message, but it's a fainter, far more accommodating message. And it's not a message that a broad-based movement can be built(or in this case rebuilt)on.
Bernie should turn down the invitation...but there's a point that I think the Conference organizers may have been trying to make: There's a need to get fiery and get radical again, to start challenging the larger structure rather than just trying to work for tiny adjustments at the edges.
They could have made the same point by inviting Nina Turner.
JHan
(10,173 posts).... going over the same territory over and over............
...............................and then you realise you've ended up in a vortex of circular reasoning.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Dems have no message
Dems have moved far to the right
establishment
status quo
transformative
grassroots
Dems have no leadership
centrists don't exist
incrementalism bad
compromise bad
Dems bad
I'm sure I've left something out.
Response to JHan (Reply #246)
Ken Burch This message was self-deleted by its author.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)I agree. '70s fashions were crappy and I won't even go into those long wild hairstyles.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)betsuni
(25,525 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)Is there something wrong with pointing out that most of the speakers the people complaining about the invite to Bernie-an invite I still think he should turn down, simply because a man shouldn't be giving the speech-would rather hear in his place don't stand with much of anything in the 1977 Call to Action, so it's bogus to invoke the spirit of that conference on this question.
The 1977 conference was radical, so, while Bernie shouldn't speak, there should be an obligation to have speakers who hold to what THAT event was about.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)is the meaning of the 1977 meeting?
Seriously, Ken, if it's art I give you credit. But if it's real, it's very disturbing.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)we need to accept that only men are allowed to speak about and determine our rights. How evolved of you.
Your comment is the most reactionary I have seen on this site in a long time. But at least you're honest about your view that women need to remain subservient.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about the expectations of those running this Conference. They were the ones who sent out the speaker invitations.
If they'd asked me, I'd have said they should re-think the invitation of Bernie. And I'll say AGAIN that he should turn it down. As should any other man who might have been asked.
It looks to me as though the intent of the Conference organizers was to shake things up, that THEY were trying to reconnect with the spirit of the 1977 conference.
Perhaps they felt that if they invited someone from the existing feminist leadership that they'd validating the whole process of switching from a transformation to an incremental strategy.
As I understand it, they DID invite Hillary, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. And, of course, all the other speakers at the Conference are women.
I agree with you that inviting a man to be opening speaker, ANY MAN, was a bad choice.
They could have made the same point far better by choosing a young, nationally unknown feminist activist for the opener-someone with a connection to the Occupy sensibility and to the post-2008 revival of transformational organizing. Nikkita Oliver, who ran for mayor in Seattle this year and made a surprisingly strong third-place showing, who is a poet and singer in addition to being a lawyer and an LGBTQ activist, would be a good choice.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)If there was anyone who supported anything close to that program today, I'd agree that that woman should be the first day speaker.
Does any such person exist, though?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the sort of person I listed in the last paragraph of the post you responded to would fit that mold.
I wasn't saying that nobody in the feminist leadership today is doing anything worthwhile, just that that leadership is way to the right of what that document in 1977 was about.
Let me reframe the question(and again, I agree that Bernie should turn down the speaking slot, as any other man invited to give it should have done):
If the purpose of having this event is to reconnect to the heroic, radical spirit of the 1977 Conference-which speakers, in today's national feminist leadership, still back a program that has any real connection to what the 1977 Conference? What purpose would be served by putting someone whose message would be "stay the course, ask for as little as possible"?
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I bet you admire the 1977 feminist leadership because it focused on economic issues. Back then, we thought that if only we got economic equality, the battle would have been won. Griswold and Roe made us think we were winning, if we had not already won, the battle of reproductive freedom, and the idea that racism would also be solved with economic equality was rampant in what was, back then, a very white feminist leadership.
We were wrong. 2016 showed us how wrong we were. Roe is being lost. Griswold is next. Intersectionality is the only way forward, because race and sexual orientation and gender is what is the basis for economic inequality, not the other way around. We don't have economic equality because of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Get rid of the latter, and economic justice will follow.
I am sorry to see men on a democratic message board have your opinions, Ken. You are wrong. Many, many women leaders have the heroic, radical spirit of 1977 and 1848 - but unlike some, they have learned the lessons of the intervening 40 (169) years, and have changed their message, their tactics, and their solutions as a result.
Just because we are not asking for what you want us to ask for - just because we are not focusing on economic issues, but rather on social justice issues, doesn't mean we are "staying the course, asking for as little as possible." Shame on you for saying so.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though the choices are "economic justice" OR "intersectionality"-and if the 1977 leadership wasn't saying enough about race and sexual orientation, they should have said more. But it's not as though the only way to say more about that was to say less about economic issues.
I don't know what I've ever posted here that equates to the belief that economic justice would "solve" racism.
I believe that social justice-including the defeat of grassroots and institutional racism- can't be achieved WITHOUT economic justice-and that social justice can't be solved without a major program to fight poverty. That is a totally different thing than saying that economic justice would solve all problems in life.
What I admire the 1977 conference about was that they were challenging the power structure at a basic level. They were pushing for an egalitarian, democratic way of organizing life. I also admired their challenge to militarism-and believe, to this day, that war and military intervention are intrinsically reactionary, anti-transformation, anti-women, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ and pro-oppression concepts.
Metatron
(1,258 posts)Thanks for spelling out exactly what is happening today.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But that does tend to be the message that leaders of social movements are more likely to give.
Once somebody is leading something, they tend to get fixated on "respectability"-and "respectability" is always about surrender. Once you're hung up on looking "respectable", you care more about what those think than those below.
The way to get around that would be to not have "leadership' figures speak at all at the Conference...give the speaking slots to grassroots activists, to voices from below.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)leading something, they tend to get fixated on "respectability" and "respectability" is always about surrender. The way to get around that would be to not have anyone speak at all at the conference, just in case.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)joke? Right?
Response to BainsBane (Reply #240)
Post removed
greatauntoftriplets
(175,735 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)oh wait, you are.....WTF do you mean????????????
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)HILLARY CLINTON, IN CHINA, DETAILS ABUSE OF WOMEN
By PATRICK E. TYLER
Published: September 6, 1995
BEIJING, Sept. 5 Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women's issues here.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/06/world/hillary-clinton-in-china-details-abuse-of-women.html
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)that faulted her at every turn taking on China (on their own turf) at the very well-publicized United Nations 4th Conference for Women is my idea of a hero.
I will never forget the moment during her confirmation hearings for SOS when Senator Clinton firmly informed her primarily male interlocutors who were worried that her strong views might possibly offend the sensibilities of the less enlightened around the world who still cling to certain "traditions" that "violence against women is not culture; it's not custom; it's criminal."
That is my idea of heroic.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)I was right there with them in my initial excitement. Only to see it wane in response to the poor planning after the rollout was announced.
I know they've issued an apology now, but they've already tainted the event with their foolish planning. They'll never have the event they could have had after that, and no one is to blame but them.
This was such a idiotic, and completely avoidable error on their part.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)And issued clarification again and again for what they truly meant. Why does anyone have to clarify what they said was a clear message?
herding cats
(19,564 posts)The whole thing is a disappointing mess at this point. It could have been a rallying point, and it's turned into a political atrocity. One they keep trying to apologize for and clarify to the point of it becoming painful to witness. Either restructure, or stand by your original premise already. Don't keep telling me what you "meant" while apologizing for what it became. I'm over it.
What should have been an event lead by women of varying political stances, making their voices be heard for all of us, wasn't. I don't know, I think they underestimated how aware we are as individuals? It's all very irritating to me at this point.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and a lot of women let that nonsense slide because they wanted the opportunity to vent with other women.
Now the organizers have decided to push it...
What is also gross disrespect is inviting high profile democratic women at the last minute then saying.. "well you know we understand women are busy" - I mean really? Yes these women are busy, if they really wanted them there they would have respected them and their schedule to touch base with them in an organized way, now it looks as though these women were just an afterthought after significant pushback.
Tsk tsk.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)I saw the real life impact of this fiasco. I'm locally involved with a women's group who originally supported this. They no longer do and we're doing a local rally now in substitution. Previously some of the ladies were attending, but there was a divide, albeit an amicable one.
We all knew of the previous issues, but it helped bring many of us together and we had expressed our concerns after the previous "issues" were brought to our attention. Many were under the false impression this was going to be a whole different beast. These ladies are not stupid, nor naive women. They were just misled. I feel deeply for them all and the potential impact this might have for our group.
I realize here we see everything through a proper veil of political cynicism, but some of these ladies didn't understand that until it was smacked upside their heads with the full on stench of a 5 day old dead fish. It was a difficult lesson to learn for them. It was equally difficult to witness. I won't lie, it broke my heart. Which is why you will not see me being flippant in any of these threads.
Yes, it was handled abysmally. Yes, woman who are respected leaders were disregarded and disrespected by the organizers. In my local world that's a non refundable fact. Whatever other outtake people have is their own, but my people are not happy and we're working to deal with the fallout.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)attempt to railroad us into a political rally and a unifying movement to fight for our rights which are under attack...What we have is a cheap political stunt instead.
betsuni
(25,525 posts)LisaM
(27,811 posts)Why would Hillary go? Nina Turner and Linda Sansour, known Hillary haters, were organizers.
JI7
(89,249 posts)to me it's like having an african american event after 2004 and Obama along with just about all other black congress members not being there.
we have some great and many new female senators and none of them are going to be there. no Gilibrand, no Harris, no Duckworth, No Warren ????????????
but this was the plan all along for some . they didn't think emily's list and some others would call them out.
LisaM
(27,811 posts)Ex-governor of Michigan, passionate, a great speaker??
JI7
(89,249 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)It is a political rally disguised as a Woman's convention...tickets sold under false pretenses I doubt this will help him in the 2020 primary.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)now I get it...this has her politics all over it...from shoving it down our throats...to her worship of one man.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Bernie is NOT EVEN THE HEADLINE SPEAKER! The "he's divisive" excuse is a flimsy and crap excuse just to bash him some more.
Response to sheshe2 (Original post)
RandySF This message was self-deleted by its author.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Great OP sheshe2!
heaven05
(18,124 posts)put's perspective into the choices chosen in this era to speak to and about serious issues affecting women in these days of a molester-in-chief as potus....
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)Gothmog
(145,242 posts)sheshe2
(83,770 posts)We can always catch a video of what Waters said another time, Gothmog.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This is the key part of the post, many in this thread would be wise to follow that advice.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)What was key to this Women's Conference? It was about women, empowering women. The committee would have been wise to follow the true intent.
Last minute they did a bait and switch and that was after the refund cut off date. They announced that,,,not a woman but a man would be the opening speaker. They have issued update after update on what they actually meant and their intentions, then a feeble apology that sank like a rock after attacking Emily's list and Planned Parenthood and women themselves. The donations and sign ups dropped to a thin trickle overnight. The conference is in jeopardy. They have raised 500K of the 2Mil they need to finance the conference. They now have nine days to do it.
Perhaps they should have put the politics aside.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)He's giving one speech, so you burn down the whole movement.
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)You do not understand what a WOMAN'S CONFERENCE is, it is about women and we were not the ones that tried to burn it down that would be the organizers and the last minute switch that they pulled. THEY made it political. Women build movements, we never burn them down, our voices were heard, thousands of us were heard.
You must have missed the update.... It is on and it is all about women.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029722277