2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumChamseddine: The Problem With The Bourgeois Feminist Defense Of Hillary Clinton
https://shadowproof.com/2016/02/18/problem-bourgeois-feminist-defense-hillary-clinton/
Hillary Clintons reaction to developing apprehension with her Wall Street associations has been unashamedly contemptuous. To a crowd of enthusiastic supporters, she recently asked, If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism? Would that end sexism? The crowd yelled no! in response.
Marcotte, who foolishly labeled Wall Street too narrow a target, has called the Clinton campaigns response to Sanders economic populism encouragingcontending that Clintons best option in this case is to divert attention to other issues, thereby misleading the public in terms of how anti-capitalism converges with race, gender, and class.
She joins an expanding number of white, bourgeois feminists, satisfied with existing conditions, who either refuse to see this convergence, or are willing to ignore it. POLITICOs Hillarys Woman Problem feature, which managed to cite an astonishingly few number of women of color, quotes author Gail Sheehy, who calls Clinton a long distance runner in this race whose mission, in all of its remarkable breadth, is being misunderstood by young women. Sheehy echoes Clintons rebuttalthat Wall Street does have too much influence, but opposition wont solve everything. And so, it is clear dispossession of intersectionality is not purely Clintonian. Divorcing the racialized element of capitalist exploitation has become a hallmark of white liberal feminism.
There are those who can simply afford to be lackadaisical when confronted with the depth of Wall Street influence. They can afford a shrugged approach, which paints economic imperialism as an imaginative spook, posing little to no concern. After all, how distressing can the financial establishment be to those unaffected by its destruction?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...Sarandon has said several times since then that she has no intention of voting for Trump and can't imagine why anyone would do so. Most recently on Stephen Colbert's show.
She was talking about how some people were thinking ... not how she herself was thinking. Now you may disagree with her assessment of that, but please refrain from twisting things beyond any relationship to the truth. It is obnoxious to misrepresent what someone else said just to score a cheap political point.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)people of all races and ethnicities.
They have the attitude that we have solved our economic problems, and the only problems left to solve are social.
I agree that social problems are extremely important. The police brutality toward African-Americans and people of color, and voter registration problems are the first priority.
But the fraud that nearly broke our country in 2008 in both the mortgage and banking sectors as well as other sectors needs to be dealt with just as much as the social problems. The oppression of unions and especially public sector unions also needs to be a top priority as do universal non-profit healthcare and so many economic issues that Hillary is very weak on.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Who can easily wait out a GOP disaster or move to Europe.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It would be hard to be as removed from reality as Hillary showed herself to be in the past couple of years.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Her step-dad had some money, but she was not rich. I see Susan as some preachy person...who has the where with all to survive the 'shit storm' the GOP would unleash if they won the presidency. Many of us would not. And the sooner we leave this primary behind and admit Hillary won...and start working to defeat the GOP the better.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Her father (not step father), had a successful textile business.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)Are you serious? And Susan Sarandon may be wealthy, but she clearly understands that Wall Street is fucking over average Americans and she - unlike HRC & her supporters - is not cool with that.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)The Party Elite just don't give a shit about the middle-class, Poor, or unions and haven't since the DLC sold the Party to the Koch Bros in the 80's.
Listen Liberal or What ever happened to the Party of the People?
http://www.listenliberal.com/
From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?
It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.
But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.
With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.
snot
(10,530 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts).
http://www.thefeministwire.com/2013/10/17973/
Although Sandberg revised her perspective on feminism, she did not turn towards primary sources (the work of feminist theorists) to broaden her understanding. In her book, she offers a simplistic description of the feminist movement based on women gaining equal rights with men. This construction of simple categories (women and men) was long ago challenged by visionary feminist thinkers, particularly individual black women/women of color. These thinkers insisted that everyone acknowledge and understand the myriad ways race, class, sexuality, and many other aspects of identity and difference made explicit that there was never and is no simple homogenous gendered identity that we could call women struggling to be equal with men. In fact, the reality was and is that privileged white women often experience a greater sense of solidarity with men of their same class than with poor white women or women of color.
Sandbergs definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that its all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged. And she makes it seem that privileged white men will eagerly choose to extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to white women who have the courage to lean in. It almost seems as if Sandberg sees womens lack of perseverance as more the problem than systemic inequality. Sandberg effectively uses her race and class power and privilege to promote a narrow definition of feminism that obscures and undermines visionary feminist concerns.
...
.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)oh, Roqayah Chamseddine, another non-Democrat wagging a finger at the Democratic party.