• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

The Nation: Bernie Could Be America’s First Feminist President

BADMAN

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,887
The Sanders campaign's feminism understands that individual success stories and piecemeal reforms are no match for the interlocking systems of oppression.


It's a bit of an inflammatory title, but the article is an interesting read. I've pulled some of the top article but please read the whole thing as it goes into a lot more detail.


Feminist supporters of Bernie Sanders are often told their politics are oxymoronic because of the stubborn narrative that Sanders is powered by sexist "Bernie bros." This story is not only insidious because it is untrue. It also distracts from the fact that a Sanders presidency would be the first feminist presidency: one willing to champion a feminism that knows our value systems must be overhauled if collective liberation is our goal.

The campaign itself is remarkably clear about this. On a Hear the Bern episode, Sanders's press secretary Briahna Joy Gray interviewed Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor on the relationship between "identity politics" and solidarity. Taylor pointed to the 1977 statement of the Combahee River Collective, a black socialist feminist group, as a key moment in the rise of identity politics. The statement was an analysis of oppression rooted in the experience of black women living in the United States (identity politics) that called for upending this oppression by finding common cause across difference (solidarity).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The episode unequivocally tied Sanders's campaign to a black socialist feminist legacy that treats the liberation of the multiply marginalized as the only path to freedom for us all. For a presidential campaign, this is an astounding statement—and one that has not gotten the attention it deserves. This is not "lean-in" feminism, which tells women to elbow their way into the 1 percent. This is not the feminism favored by the Democratic establishment, where representation of a few women is offered up as sufficient for progress for all women. And this is not the feminism that twists past anti-capitalist labor activists into enemies of corruption that they understood to be fundamental—rather than exceptional—to capitalism.

Instead, this feminism understands that individual success stories and piecemeal reforms are no match for the interlocking systems of oppression responsible for so much misery, violence, and death in our country. It is a feminism that sees rampant inequalities across overlapping categories—of race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, national origin, and indigeneity—not as glitches in an otherwise functioning system, but as logical outcomes of a society hell-bent on maximizing profit, and practiced at exploiting difference to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
mugurumakensei

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,328
BADMAN said:
I trust you read the article in 3 minutes that it took you to post correct?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

yes. It's not an incredibly long article. It basically tried to say socialism is a necessary prerequisite to ending racism and sexism. It ignores the reality that sexism and racism are not solved by rising tides. Otherwise, the least racist time period would have been the 1930s.
 
Wackamole

Wackamole

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,935
Great. I think Bernie seems like a great guy and one of the few who can actually make the USA a more humane country.
Feminism is not a not a word you're going to win the presidency with though. Unfortunately. It's a dirty word for a lot of people. Like socialist.
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,173
mugurumakensei said:
It basically tried to say socialism is a necessary prerequisite to ending racism and sexism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is basically a core argument from a socialist standpoint, yes. If you are a socialist, generally speaking you believe that you cannot abolish class stratification without abolishing capitalism, because capitalism requires class stratification, and any attempts to reform it will be undone. Marginalized gender and racial identities would fall under that.

I don't think many socialists would argue it would singlehandedly abolish class stratification (some would I'm sure), but the core belief is that it is a necessary component of the liberation of marginalized groups.
 
Tracygill

Tracygill

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
1,853
The Left








Bernie Sanders ✔​
@BernieSanders​
​
You should be able to leave a job or a marriage without fear of losing your health insurance. Medicare for All means safety and security.​

Natalie Shure ✔
@nataliesurely

Nice to see him mention marriage in this context!

People talk so much about employer-sponsored insurance causing "job lock," but less about how being insured as a dependent locks people, disproportionately women, into relationships. Medicare for All is a feminist issue! https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1207383379018170374 …


Natalie Shure ✔
@nataliesurely

Some 25% of non-elderly women are insured as dependents. Money is one of main reasons that women stay w/ abusers, and healthcare costs are among top financial stresses in U.S. Our healthcare system absolutely traps vulnerable women in bad partnerships; only question is how many


Natalie Shure ✔
@nataliesurely

Not to mention: healthy nonelderly women use more healthcare than men, and have higher out-of-pocket costs. Cost-sharing is, by definition, sexist! The ACA made it illegal to charge women higher premiums than men, but women still pay more because of deductibles and copays.
 
Last edited:
Prototype Viktor

Prototype Viktor

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,953
Houston
Veelk said:
Is there a reason Obama doesn't qualify?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
was going to make a part joke part answer but I am reminded of some wise words.

If you just want someone banned just reply to whatever they say no matter the topic "Like Elizabeth Warren? Many here seem to feel making an issue of her political past is inappropriate. I've certainly never seen someone banned for defending her by pointing out she has a long history of supporting leftward causes since she parted ways with the Republican Party." and then they'll get banned 5 days for trolling
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

so I hold back
 
Veelk

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
Prototype Viktor said:
was going to make a part joke part answer but I am reminded of some wise words.



so I hold back
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean....I honestly was just confused because Obama literally espoused and promoted feminism. I don't know how much of that reached his policies, but it's because I know he did this that I was honestly asking why he wouldn't be considered a feminist.
 
Prototype Viktor

Prototype Viktor

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,953
Houston
Veelk said:
I mean....I honestly was just confused because Obama literally espoused and promoted feminism. I don't know how much of that reached his policies, but it's because I know he did this that I was honestly asking why he wouldn't be considered a feminist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
as far as this article is concern you just come up with the premise then figure out a way to make it work
like sports stats when they want to something sound fascinating by adding caveats to it needing to reach x, in y since 1991 when z
 
Pekola

Pekola

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,507
Anecdotally, it seems to me as though feminism devoid of economic justice just gives a lot of prominence to white/able bodied feminism, cosmetic feminism and tokenism.

So we get representation as a proxy for liberation and call it a day.

But I'd go on to say that feminism extends way, way beyond that. And a part of that is economic liberation. A woman that's economically liberated does not have to stay in a relationship she doesn't want to out of fear.

An economically liberated woman doesn't have to run the dangers many trans women face and does not have to rely on others to find her "acceptable" to be worthy of charity.

Capitalism as it is, provides a very individualistic solution to fixing your circumstances—money. You have to play the game, hustle, suffer and earn your place. Great, you're one of the few that made it. But if you look back you'll see thousands behind you that didn't. The neurodiverse woman. The disabled woman. The black trans woman. What about them?

I see lots of people who can't or shouldn't work, having to toil eight hours doing things that chip away at their lives, just to be able to eat. I've seen enough of it. I want it gone.

If Bernie is going to build the foundation that provides minorities liberation, then yes, I'd say that's feminist.
 
Last edited:
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Mekanos said:
This is basically a core argument from a socialist standpoint, yes. If you are a socialist, generally speaking you believe that you cannot abolish class stratification without abolishing capitalism, because capitalism requires class stratification, and any attempts to reform it will be undone. Marginalized gender and racial identities would fall under that.

I don't think many socialists would argue it would singlehandedly abolish class stratification (some would I'm sure), but the core belief is that it is a necessary component of the liberation of marginalized groups.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And this is the problem. Those identities do not fall under capitalism. Those identities intersects with class issue in many ways, but they are not subservient to it, and that concept that they are Is incredibly destructive and toxic because it leads to the horrible "rising tides" arguments that ignore why those marginalized groups have always had to go fight for things independently.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
Love this topic.

Capitalism has disproportionately harmed women, and in particular women of color. I love that there's starting to be a movement, started by Sanders but now carried forward by AOC and Ilhan Omar and others, which is serious about tackling the issue on all levels, and doesn't just limit itself to the liberal take on gender equality, which is largely white, largely cis, and barely intersectional if at all.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
20,440
So, uhhh, by this definition, why would Bernie be more feminist than LBJ or FDR.

(Neither of whom was actually feminist of course).

Bernie as president would obviously do far less to improve the living conditions of the poor than LBJ or FDR.
 

Deleted member 4461

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,010
Meh, I think socialism is seen as an "end all be all" solution by progressives, but both systems (it and capitalism) are consistently failed by the greed of people.

While I actually really don't hate capitalism (at all), I think many socialist principles will be good (ubi, universal healthcare, etc.).

My thing is that history has taught us that oppression adapts. See: the right to vote, and how they still oppress black voters to this date.

Idk, maybe I just need to see the implementation, but I think progressives are hopelessly idealistic about how socialism can be the only feminist economic policy and how it will solve everything ever.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
20,440
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
So, uhhh, by this definition, why would Bernie be more feminist than LBJ or FDR.

(Neither of whom was actually feminist of course).

Bernie as president would obviously do far less to improve the living conditions of the poor than LBJ or FDR.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm just going to say that this article is a good sign of how the long primary cycle rots brains.

All the good takes have already been taken so we're scrapping the bottom of the barrel here.

So at the bottom of the barrel is "only mass redistribution is feminist" and then you dig deeper by ignoring LBJ and FDR (who were infinitely more re-distributive than Bernie could ever be) to claim that Bernie would be the first feminist president and to ignore all the bad things FDR and LBJ did because they contradict your thesis.

We need a primary cycle that is four months long so we can be spared from all these awful takes.
 
y2dvd

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
So, uhhh, by this definition, why would Bernie be more feminist than LBJ or FDR.

(Neither of whom was actually feminist of course).

Bernie as president would obviously do far less to improve the living conditions of the poor than LBJ or FDR.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is it obvious he will do less when he wants to do a few of the following: M4A, free college, raise the minimum wage, GND...all of these alone having the greatest impact on the poor.
 
lmcfigs

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
y2dvd said:
How is it obvious he will do less when he wants to do a few of the following: M4A, free college, raise the minimum wage, GND...all of these alone having the greatest impact on the poor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
People who don't see this aren't serious. If a person doesn't see how universal healthcare and free college would greatly benefit the black community, or poor communities, marginalized communities, etc, then they have zero critical thinking skills.
 
Bronx-Man

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
As someone with a framed portrait of Margaret Thatcher in my bedroom, this article makes me furious.
 
plagiarize

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,555
Cape Cod, MA
lmcfigs said:
People who don't see this aren't serious. If a person doesn't see how universal healthcare and free college would greatly benefit the black community, or poor communities, marginalized communities, etc, then they have zero critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a bit of a push.

There's good reason why black people don't look at income inequality or access to education and healthcare as the number one issue facing them. Black women with college degrees aren't suddenly immune to racism. Do you think they earn the same as white men with the same qualifications? Do you think they have as easy a time getting a job? You can't earn or learn your way out of being discriminated against because of your skin color.

Do you think they are suddenly immune to discrimination from the police? From mortgage lenders?

I can't trust anyone painting socialism as a one size fits all solution to the problems faced by various minorities. Like, I can see how easier access to gender confirmation surgery would be good for trans people, but it would fall far short of solving the wide raging issues facing trans people that have little to do with increased minimum wage, and access to education, or healthcare.
 
y2dvd

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
plagiarize said:
That's a bit of a push.

There's good reason why black people don't look at income inequality or access to education and healthcare as the number one issue facing them. Black women with college degrees aren't suddenly immune to racism. Do you think they earn the same as white men with the same qualifications? Do you think they have as easy a time getting a job? You can't earn or learn your way out of being discriminated against because of your skin color.

Do you think they are suddenly immune to discrimination from the police? From mortgage lenders?

I can't trust anyone painting socialism as a one size fits all solution to the problems faced by various minorities. Like, I can see how easier access to gender confirmation surgery would be good for trans people, but it would fall far short of solving the wide raging issues facing trans people that have little to do with increased minimum wage, and access to education, or healthcare.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Is anyone claiming socialism would be the determining factor to solve racism? I'd love to see receipts on it. What several are saying though is that it would go a long ways improving economic injustice and is part of a chasm to combat for those most affected.
 
Joni

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
Sure, if you ignore the income inequality and sexual harrassement in his own campaign of last election. Sure, his policies can do good, but he missed those problems in his own campaign until the media tackled him on it this year. That isn't the man that is going to champion women's rights more than half of the other candidates.
 
plagiarize

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,555
Cape Cod, MA
y2dvd said:
Is anyone claiming socialism would be the determining factor to solve racism? I'd love to see receipts on it. What several are saying though is that it would go a long ways improving economic injustice and is part of a chasm to combat for those most affected.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does nothing for racial inequality and gender inequality. Poor people all do better off, sure, but which groups amongst them will continue to do the worst and why?
 
ascii42

ascii42

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,798
y2dvd said:
How is it obvious he will do less when he wants to do a few of the following: M4A, free college, raise the minimum wage, GND...all of these alone having the greatest impact on the poor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What he wants to do and what he would be able to accomplish are two different things.
 
TheHunter

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
Mekanos said:
This is basically a core argument from a socialist standpoint, yes. If you are a socialist, generally speaking you believe that you cannot abolish class stratification without abolishing capitalism, because capitalism requires class stratification, and any attempts to reform it will be undone. Marginalized gender and racial identities would fall under that.

I don't think many socialists would argue it would singlehandedly abolish class stratification (some would I'm sure), but the core belief is that it is a necessary component of the liberation of marginalized groups.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It will help, but people will still be hateful shitheads.

Racism isn't going anywhere if we really do have our revolution.
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,173
TheHunter said:
It will help, but people will still be hateful shitheads.

Racism isn't going anywhere if we really do have our revolution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

People are "hateful shitheads" largely because of the history behind hierarchies. I don't know what you're arguing against I literally just said it will not singlehandedly abolish racism. You can research the works of POC socialists, Marxists, etc. and I can guarantee they will all frame their argument in that true liberation cannot happen without the abolishment of hierarchies.
 
TheHunter

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
Mekanos said:
People are "hateful shitheads" largely because of the history behind hierarchies. I don't know what you're arguing against I literally just said it will not singlehandedly abolish racism. You can research the works of POC socialists, Marxists, etc. and I can guarantee they will all frame their argument in that true liberation cannot happen without the abolishment of hierarchies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The racism is learned from their family and their own attitudes.

Not everything in life is a hierarchical or institutional issue.
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,173
TheHunter said:
The racism is learned from their family and their own attitudes.

Not everything in life is a hierarchical or institutional issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why do you think we kidnapped black people and brought them overseas? Why do you think we created a culture so black people are afraid of speaking up? Why do you think the school-to-prison pipeline exists? Why do you think we attempted genocide against the Native Americans? All of these are functions of an economic system where the few benefit from the suffering of the many. White people didn't just wake up and decided to hate people of color. They systematically dehumanized them and robbed them of their agency and created a society where people would benefit from encouraging that behavior.

There is a long history of revolutionary minorities all over the world aligning themselves with Marxism and socialism. This isn't a coincidence. Martin Luther King Jr. read Marx. Malcolm X talked about how capitalism cannot function without racism. These "learned behaviors" are reinforced by the society and economic system we live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.