Despite Historic Achievement, Feminists Grapple with Clinton's Deeply Troubling Record

[avaistheone1]

There is no doubt that history was made Tuesday night after Hillary Clinton swept California, all but sealing her fate as the first woman to become a major party nominee for president.

Even before polls closed in the Golden State, the former secretary of state celebrated the moment at a Brooklyn rally, telling her supporters, "Thanks to you we’ve reached a milestone: the first time in our nation’s history that a woman will be a major party’s nominee."

"Yes, there are still ceilings to break for women, men, for all of us, but don’t let anyone tell you that great things can’t happen in America," she said after premiering a stirring video that highlighted some of the women who fought for equality and liberation.

"This campaign is about making sure there are no ceilings, no limits on any of us, and this is our moment to come together," she added.

The moment was heralded widely—by older women who never thought they'd live to see this day, by feminist organizations, politicians, the press, and beyond, while social media lit up with celebrations of female triumph.

Terry O'Neil, the president of the National Organization for Women, described the moment as "momentous" and "inspiring." The New York Times editorial board declared: "This achievement is worth cheering by all, regardless of party, because it further opens the door to female leadership in every sphere."

However, for many progressive critics—particularly women—the symbolic victory was dulled by the reality of a female candidate whose brand of feminism encompasses problematic policies and undeniable privilege.

Author, activist, and renowned progressive Naomi Klein's view, which she shared on social media, captured the sentiments of many on the left. Responding to Clinton's tweet, which said, "Tonight, we can say with pride that, in America, there is no barrier too great and no ceiling too high to break," Klein wrote:

Bull. Not under the plutocracy u represent. As a feminist, I should feel a thrill right now. I grieve that I don't. https://t.co/uz0y08mbbi

— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) June 8, 2016

"We are asked to celebrate the breaking of glass ceilings this week, as the possibility of a female president is hailed as long-overdue feminist triumph? But just what kind of a feminist is Hillary Clinton?" asked author Liza Featherstone on Tuesday during a panel discussion on her recent book False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While some pointed to Clinton's hawkish foreign policy and lackluster environmental record, others, like Klein, noted that the win was only possible because of her elite status, particularly taking issue with her promise of "trickle-down feminism," as some put it.

Clinton's likely nomination being a victory for feminism doesn't mean her agenda is feminist. Alice Paul is probably turning in her grave.

— Kate Aronoff (@KateAronoff) June 8, 2016

Clinton's achievement heralded as victory against glass ceiling but her victory is really a win for white feminism https://t.co/mpu86OoeNh

— JessieNYC (@JessieNYC) June 8, 2016

Can't wait until Hillary Clinton invades a country so white feminists can say she was the first female head of state to do that !!!!

— feminism & burritos (@nashwakay) June 8, 2016

woc/anti-imperialist feminism just rolled in its grave #Clinton

— Sana Saeed (@SanaSaeed) June 8, 2016

Clinton Corporate Feminism does not trickle down. The same Austerity measures we decry under Ryan were supported under Bill. Wake up.

— Anoa J. Changa, Esq. (@MsNonoESQ) June 8, 2016

Changa, an African American attorney, mother, and volunteer with Women for Bernie Sanders, recently explained to the Guardian, "Some women I encounter act as if I’ve betrayed some kind of secret society. I reject this brand of feminism. I’m not only voting for my gender, I’m voting for other issues."

"There are a lot of issues that affect low-income women, immigrant women and women of color that her brand of doing things is not going to address," she added.

While this critique is not new, it had a particular resonance last night as progressive women grappled with mixed emotions over Clinton's landmark achievement.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/08/despite-historic-achievement-feminists-grapple-clintons-deeply-troubling-record

[geek tragedy]

1. "all but sealing her fate as the first woman to become ..."

LOL.

"the Golden State Warriors took a 2-0 series lead, all but sealing their fate as NBA champions."

[Avalux]

2. I want nothing more than to vote for a woman president.

But that woman must also be the best person to lead the American people. So yeah - maybe it's a historical achievement, but it rings hollow with this fiercely independent woman.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

8. So, you *don't* want nothing more!

I agree totally! I want more. We have far too many elected females in this country. But, truly, it's not enough to vote for just any woman. I would be thrilled, for instance, to vote for Elizabeth Warren.

[Cal33]

9. Yes, so would I, and I'm a male.

[Exilednight]

3. I think Naomi is channeling the women in my family.

[The Blue Flower]

4. Palin, Bachmann, Fiorina, and Thatcher are all women, too

To paraphrase MLK: it's the content of their character, not their brand of DNA, that counts.

[avaistheone1]

5. Amen.

[avaistheone1]

12. Well we can be sure they certainly don't know you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I voted for a woman to be president in 2012.

Not because she's a woman but because she's a progressive whose principles and policies were much more aligned with my own than the candidates running against her.

I'll probably vote for her again.

[TwilightZone]

10. Jill Stein, the idiot who says that Hillary's first act as president could be to get us in a nuclear

war with Russia?

She's a grandstanding attention-seeker. Nothing more.

[Doctor_J]

11. given that her fans say that sixty year old liberals like me are "not really liberals " since we

won't support her agenda of war and privatization, I suppose now we'll read that naomi klein is not a real feminist. I salute those who value principle over gender

[obamanut2012]

13. lolz you guys!

[uponit7771]

14. sigh, 12 feminist don't care for Clinton... ok

[Tarc]

15. Good ol Common Dreams

[farleftlib]

16. HRC's record is far worse than troubling

It's rife with self-serving, unethical and likely illegal behavior. It's a sad, sad day for women.
HRC serves white, primarily male plutocrats to exclusion of everybody else.

K & R

[Blue_Tires]

17. Five random tweets do not an argument make...

And Klein, although I love her, was never voting for Hillary anyway...

[Florencenj2point0]

18. OMG I was so wrong....THIS IS THE REAL FEMINIST I SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR

BERNIE SANDERS

…What do you think it really means when 3 doctors, after intense study, write that 'of the 26 patients (under 51) that developed breast cancer, one was sexually adjusted.' It means, very bluntly, that the way you bring up your daughter with regards to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will get breast cancer, among other things…How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard to sex? If she is 16, 3 years beyond puberty, the age at which nature set forth for child bearing, and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychologist because she is 'maladjusted,' or a 'prostitute,' or are you happy she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happiness, or about your 'reputation' in the community?
The reference to 13 years being at the age when nature prescribed childbirth is gross. His concern, that teenage women "share" or "accept" love from men, for their own good (cancer!), is some pretty amazing trolling. If the revolution includes this much patriarchy, count me out, Bernie.

Sanders voices concern over men getting cancer as well, but apparently they don't have to blame their sexual attitudes. Rather, it's female authority figures who are to blame:

A child has an old bitch of a teacher (and there are many of them), or perhaps he is simply not interested in school and would rather be doing other thing. [sic] He complains and rebels against the situation, which is the healthy reaction. When a person is hurt, no matter what age, he SHOULD rebel…. Outwardly, he becomes the "good boy", [sic] conforming to the rules and regulations of the system. Inwardly, his spirit is broken, and his soul seethes with anger and hatred, which is unable to be expressed. He has learned to hold back his emotions and put on the phony façade of pleasantness. Thirty years later, a doctor tells him he has cancer.
So, men's anger is suppressed by old women, who represent the oppressive power system that gives men cancer. Considering that anger is one of the few emotions (white) men are traditionally allowed to express in a patriarchal society, this doesn't sound so much revolutionary as reactionary. Was he serious that *men* are the ones obliged to bury their anger "under a façade of pleasantness"? I'm sorry, but this is not the fearless feminist I was looking for.

http://www.shakesville.com/2015/07/looking-for-bernie-part-1-sanders-72.html

He knows all about women and girls and what is best for us.

I think these feminists you quote have bought into the male power structure so completely they actually hate powerful women. White women are not their enemies. Shirley Chisholm knew that. What are you all going to do when HE endorses Clinton? Are you going to throw him under the bus too? LOL

[Barack_America]

20. There's something to be said about this.

An argument can certainly be made that the female candidate was the least likely of the primary challengers to improve the lives of women.