Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Absurd Identity Politics of Establishment Pundits Critiquing Bernie Sanders
This says it all and it seems quite a few around here try the same thing.
This article is NOT pretty and goes head on against the whole gender and sexism argument we are having now and hits it in the face. With a chair.
I am only posting a very small snippet but the counter argument is in the article.
More at link!
The Absurd Identity Politics of Establishment Pundits Critiquing Bernie Sanders
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/07/absurd-identity-politics-establishment-pundits-critiquing-bernie-sanders
..........If Hillary Clinton was anything like Sanders, they probably would not support her. In fact, one wonders if they share Madeleine Albrights view that theres a special place in hell for women, who do not support Clinton.
Sterns core argument is a prevalent one among those who have diffident attitudes toward Sanders. It is a slightly more sophisticated variation of the argument around Bernie Bros. It attempts to challenge Sanderistas, who claim they are not sexist and would vote for a female presidential candidate. But not Clinton.
I have no doubt that some Sanders supporters legitimately favor his policies over Clintons, and that they might vote for a woman with Sanders ideology, Stern argues. But my strong suspicion is that, in any nominating race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a Bernie Sandersa male alternative whose gender allows him to do everything his female opponent cannot.
Stern is not the only one making this claim. In a syndicated column published by the Washington Post, titled The sexist double standard behind why millennials love Bernie Sanders, Catherine Rampell argues young Americans like the authenticity of Sanders. She suggests this authenticity is off-limits to any female politician, not just one with Clintons baggage.
Female politiciansat least if they want to be taken seriously on a national stagecannot be unkempt and unfiltered, hair mussed and voice raised, Rampell asserts. They have to be carefully coifed and scripted at all times, because they have to hew as closely as possible to the bounds of propriety available to both their sex and their occupation. They cant be too quiet or too loud, too emotional or too cold, too meek or too aggressive, and so on.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/07/absurd-identity-politics-establishment-pundits-critiquing-bernie-sanders
..........If Hillary Clinton was anything like Sanders, they probably would not support her. In fact, one wonders if they share Madeleine Albrights view that theres a special place in hell for women, who do not support Clinton.
Sterns core argument is a prevalent one among those who have diffident attitudes toward Sanders. It is a slightly more sophisticated variation of the argument around Bernie Bros. It attempts to challenge Sanderistas, who claim they are not sexist and would vote for a female presidential candidate. But not Clinton.
I have no doubt that some Sanders supporters legitimately favor his policies over Clintons, and that they might vote for a woman with Sanders ideology, Stern argues. But my strong suspicion is that, in any nominating race featuring a female candidate, there will always be a Bernie Sandersa male alternative whose gender allows him to do everything his female opponent cannot.
Stern is not the only one making this claim. In a syndicated column published by the Washington Post, titled The sexist double standard behind why millennials love Bernie Sanders, Catherine Rampell argues young Americans like the authenticity of Sanders. She suggests this authenticity is off-limits to any female politician, not just one with Clintons baggage.
Female politiciansat least if they want to be taken seriously on a national stagecannot be unkempt and unfiltered, hair mussed and voice raised, Rampell asserts. They have to be carefully coifed and scripted at all times, because they have to hew as closely as possible to the bounds of propriety available to both their sex and their occupation. They cant be too quiet or too loud, too emotional or too cold, too meek or too aggressive, and so on.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 821 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Absurd Identity Politics of Establishment Pundits Critiquing Bernie Sanders (Original Post)
pinebox
Feb 2016
OP
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)1. This is getting disgusting.
And let me tell you, there are a lot of young women who are being turned off by these kinds of remarks.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)3. I am unsure what the fallout will be...
This primary election could be the start of some major ground shifting. A lot of old political institutions are crumbling and things are shifting rapidly.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)2. I would say to Stern, "Run Liz Warren and lets test your theory." /nt
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)5. EXACTLY. nt
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)4. CHISHOLM '72 - Unbought & Unbossed
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)6. Yeah-right.....
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)7. Yuck! nt