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 forumWhy This Socialist Feminist Is Not Voting for Hillary
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-this-socialist-feminist-is-not-voting-for-hillary/Socialism, it turns out, can be a form of identity politics. Some feminists, including Suzanna Danuta Walters, brandish a red-diaper baby heritage or some other cultural or sentimental affinity to hint that supporting Hillary Clintons candidacy doesnt just represent some corporate gloss on feminism; its a genuinely radical position.
But no one who makes this argument can articulate what, beyond her identity as a woman, qualifies Clinton as a passable candidate for socialist feminists. Thats understandable because, in a primary against an independent socialist who has been attracting an astonishing level of grassroots support, there are no socialist-feminist reasons to support Hillary Clinton.
Socialist feminism assumes that redistribution is the best way to begin improving life for the vast majority of women, both materially and socially. To take a none-too-radical example, in countries like Denmark and Swedenwhich offer a broad range of social benefits provided through the state rather than acquired in desperation, as they so often are here, through marriage or a jobwomen can live more comfortably; raise healthier, more secure children; and sleep with whomever they please. Throughout her long career, Clinton has demonstrated contempt for turning this project into policy.
As first lady of Arkansas, she led the efforts by her husbands administration to weaken teachers unions and scapegoat teachersmost of them women, large numbers of them blackfor problems in the education system, implementing performance measures and firings that set a punitive tone for education reform nationwide. Rather than trying to walk this back, Clinton recently said that as president, she would close any public school that wasnt doing a better than average job. Fuzzy math aside, this suggests a regime of pressure on Americas mostly female teaching force81 percent of elementary- and middle-school teachers are womenthat would make her predecessors look like presidents of a giant homeschooling hippie collective. Hillarys socialist-feminist boosters might want to ask themselves: What kind of socialist feminism supports undermining black women on the job while imposing austerity on the public sector? And lest you think Clintons financial hawkishness is reserved for K12, she also opposes free college tuition, though the United States is the only country where students57 percent of them womenare saddled with decades of debt as the price of attaining higher education. Defending this position, Clinton recently said that it was important for people seeking a college degree to have skin in this game.
But no one who makes this argument can articulate what, beyond her identity as a woman, qualifies Clinton as a passable candidate for socialist feminists. Thats understandable because, in a primary against an independent socialist who has been attracting an astonishing level of grassroots support, there are no socialist-feminist reasons to support Hillary Clinton.
Socialist feminism assumes that redistribution is the best way to begin improving life for the vast majority of women, both materially and socially. To take a none-too-radical example, in countries like Denmark and Swedenwhich offer a broad range of social benefits provided through the state rather than acquired in desperation, as they so often are here, through marriage or a jobwomen can live more comfortably; raise healthier, more secure children; and sleep with whomever they please. Throughout her long career, Clinton has demonstrated contempt for turning this project into policy.
As first lady of Arkansas, she led the efforts by her husbands administration to weaken teachers unions and scapegoat teachersmost of them women, large numbers of them blackfor problems in the education system, implementing performance measures and firings that set a punitive tone for education reform nationwide. Rather than trying to walk this back, Clinton recently said that as president, she would close any public school that wasnt doing a better than average job. Fuzzy math aside, this suggests a regime of pressure on Americas mostly female teaching force81 percent of elementary- and middle-school teachers are womenthat would make her predecessors look like presidents of a giant homeschooling hippie collective. Hillarys socialist-feminist boosters might want to ask themselves: What kind of socialist feminism supports undermining black women on the job while imposing austerity on the public sector? And lest you think Clintons financial hawkishness is reserved for K12, she also opposes free college tuition, though the United States is the only country where students57 percent of them womenare saddled with decades of debt as the price of attaining higher education. Defending this position, Clinton recently said that it was important for people seeking a college degree to have skin in this game.
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)
2 replies, 696 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 (16)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why This Socialist Feminist Is Not Voting for Hillary (Original Post)
Ken Burch
Jan 2016
OP
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)1. Excellent article! Read it as it came out.
HRC really doesn't have the interests of working people at the forefront of her mind or policies.
Protecting the status quo and her numerous friends in the banking business is on the front burner.
Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)2. She didn't say anything wrong.
This should be mandatory reading.
Piecemeal policies with a GOP congress won't get things done.