Harper's Bazaar: Bernie Sanders' Sexism Problem

[George II]

(long, excellent article with many links to the references....)

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26517395/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-gender-comments-explained/

Is an old white man who overlooks the pressures women are made to deal with because of their gender really the best person to lead the Democratic party forward?

Bernie Sanders is back and, if people were feeling the Bern in 2016, they might find their sentiments a bit more lukewarm in 2019. In political field filled with younger women and people of color, it’s reasonable to ask whether or not an older white man is the best person to lead the Democratic party (which he doesn’t technically belong to) forward.

That’s especially true when Bernie makes statements like, “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.”

The problem with that statement is that factors like race, gender, and sexual orientation actually do influence how seriously people are taken, and how hard they have to work to be able to rise to the same heights as heterosexual white men. What’s taken as commonplace or quirkily charming in white men is seen as objectionable in others. And Bernie has benefited from that standard.

-------------------------

When Bernie Sanders eats, he's met with applause. When Kristin Gillibrand does it, it’s proof that she’s “contrived and opportunistic.”

Bernie Sander’s love life is seen as a wonderful part of what defined his beliefs, whereas Kamala Harris' dating history—and seemingly the fact that she dated at all—is seen as proof that she’s a gold digger. If you think for a second that a female candidate or a person of color who has been married twice and had a child with another partner—as Bernie has—would not be treated extremely harshly, if not seen as being ineligible to run altogether, well, I have a bridge to sell you.

Bernie Sanders seems to feel those double standards can just be overlooked, even when sexism has clearly manifested in his own campaign. And not just when his surrogates called his opponent a “democratic whore.” According to The New York Times, one of Bernie’s delegates claimed in an email that within his campaign, “There was an entire wave of rotten sexual harassment that seemingly was never dealt with.”

When women who worked for him came forward to discuss how they were paid less and experienced sexual harassment, Bernie initially replied, “I was a little bit busy running around the country” and seemingly couldn’t be expected to know about staff complaints. Bernie now seems to be trying to discuss those issues, but, frankly, after his female staffers came forward to talk to The New York Times, it would be impossible for any candidate not to do so. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to have been his instinct before then.

That’s in keeping with someone who claimed, “women’s issues were a distraction.” And while many male candidates for President might have felt that way, this year is filled with women who don’t. Women who have a lived experience of “women’s issues” are very willing to talk about them proudly.

(more....)

[stonecutter357]

1. WOW !

[Cha]

2. KICK!

[aikoaiko]

3. I remember this opinion piece when it came out in Feb 2019

Do you really think this is long?

[George II]

7. This is less than half of it, I didn't want to overload the OP.

[msongs]

4. didnt know harris was a gold digger. gee, thanks harpers bizzare. nt

[cynatnite]

6. The writer was highlighting the double standards between men and women...

Women candidates are treated very differently than the men. It wasn't meant as a dig towards Kamala Harris.

[George II]

8. They are pointing out that there were many comments to that effect that were made about Harris.

[Blue_true]

19. She married a well connected wealthy attorney and

may have dated successful men before getting married. But why can a successful man date successful women, but the reverse is called gold digging? Double standard if I ever saw one.

[ehrnst]

33. Perhaps you missed the context of that statement.

Context matters.

The fact that you think Harpers "was calling her a gold digger" means you completely missed the point that they were making, which was that she is called names that men would not be called, by people who have different standards for men than women.

[LanternWaste]

46. Pearls before swine.

[dlk]

5. Discounting and Minimizing Women's Challenges Due to Their Gender is Not a Winning Strategy in 2019

Women have had enough!

[betsuni]

9. K&R

[Hortensis]

27. Umhm. I think I just realized why Sanders seems so much older

than Joe Biden, and it's not arthritic joints.

[brer cat]

10. K&R

[sheshe2]

11. thank you.

Bernie may think that you can elect a candidate without considering their gender, but to many of us, it’s clear that men like Bernie overlook the pressures that women are made to deal with because of their gender. These men simply don’t seem to feel that the problems women experience are as real as the problems they and other men who look like them experience.

But they are. They’re not a distraction. They merit the same level of serious consideration.

Up until now, many women have spent all of history downplaying those concerns. This might finally be the year where we don’t have to, and the candidate we vote for doesn’t have to either.

[Blue_true]

20. I worked with a very liberal man once who opined that any woman that had

management jobs were "helped" into those jobs and given leeway to not perform them well. So that corrosive mindset is not just held by conservative men.

[sheshe2]

21. No.

It is surely not just conservative men. Not at all.

[NYMinute]

12. Feel the freeze nt

[mcar]

13. Nothing to argue about in this piece

But I presume some will.

[comradebillyboy]

14. The truth hurts.

[Cha]

15. Kick!

[R B Garr]

16. Great, but I bet we could add quite a few more issues in to this

that we have observed.

[Cha]

17. Yeah, I'm going to keep this kicked.

[Blue_true]

18. Wow.

Bernie is really tone deaf if he really thinks that government can simply stand back and not enforce anti-discrimation laws and make other laws to cover gaps. The fact is there are people who are actively discrimination against people because of their color, sex or sexual orientation every day, to posit that that is not happening is rather clueless.

[Skya Rhen]

30. I find Bernie to be a single issue politician, which is a very worrisome quality for a leader...

He is so focused on economical social issues that he has little concern for behavioral social issues.

[Cha]

51. Ikr?

Not what a want in a President.

[Blue_true]

54. You hit it on the head.

He seem to really think that solving income inequality will also solve the racial, sexist, anti LGBTQ, anti immigrant animus that exists in a lot of people's hearts.

[Cha]

22. BS:'My Opponents' Want Black, White, Gay, Latino or Women Candidates 'Regardless of What They..

Bernie: ‘My Opponents’ Want Black, White, Gay, Latino or Women Candidates ‘Regardless of What They Stand For’

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211722251#top

Link to tweet

Balderdash, BS.. strawman.

[NurseJackie]

24. OMG! Did BS *REALLY* SAY THAT!!??

A: Yep. I guess he did. I've been accused of lying whenever I've mentioned that BS said this particular thing.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211722251

Sanders has a long history of dismissing the concerns of women and minorities, obsessing over white voters, as well as seeming to excuse racism.

After the 2016 election, Sanders hit a similar theme when he told a crowd of supporters “It’s not good enough for somebody to say ‘hey I’m a Latina vote for me’ that is not good enough,” and went on to add “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.'”

[Cha]

40. Good Find, Jackie!

Retweeted! Know him by his own words.

[Hortensis]

25. Well, as an apparently somewhat aggrieved elite white male,

at least he should be able to understand those famously aggrieved white working class males he's trying to draw back from Trump.

Now, maybe he should try developing a similar empathy with all the rest of the working class people, like , uh... 150 million working class "black, gay, Latino or women" people.

[Cha]

42. And, not be so

insulting to the Democratic Party and its Loyal base.. our People?

[Hortensis]

49. :) Oh, that won't happen. He has a blindness about Democrats

that's as longstanding and powerful as anything your trumpster neighbor can muster.

Weird, but for decades by his own words he's seen virtually no difference between the parties, "Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee" as he described the choice.

But we couldn't find a better example than just a couple weeks ago at the She the People conference. When asked what he would do about the Repub-appointed archconservative judges appointed who are actively oppressing PoC and rolling back laws protecting equality, Sanders basically blew the question off as insignificant and had no plan to battle the widespread increase in persecution.

But -- get this!, he finished by telling a conference full of black women Democrats, "...anyway both parties do it." Sanders is so determinedly in denial of the enormous differences that it trapped him into arguing that Democrats also pack the courts with vicious bigots you wouldn't trust on your property to mow your lawn.

The absurdity doesn't matter, and the lack of awareness of this latest multifaceted insult to black Democrats is...jaw-dropping?! But there it is. He is what he is.

[Cha]

50. We're his "opponents"..

holding him back because he insults us with this kind of divisive rhetoric.

[ehrnst]

31. Strawman indeed.

Equating supporting an opponent who is a POC or woman is "reverse racism/sexism." Not a good look.

I once asked a Sanders supporter who claimed that Bernie had more civil rights cred than any opponent why Sanders didn't hire many women or POC on his Senate staff until recently, I got the tried and true RW "reverse racism" talking point, "Should Bernie hire less qualified people because they are women or POC?"

[Cha]

41. It's a horrible look..

wonder who told him that was a good thing to say?

[ehrnst]

44. My understanding is that no one ever corrects him or tells him that he

said or did something unwise.

Bernie always knows best, and there is no dissent whatsoever in his inner circle.

[Cha]

47. Oh right.. no one

tells him anything.. ever. In fact they spend a lot of time defending it.

[Maru Kitteh]

35. Attacking Democrats for not being Bernie seems to be reflexive with Bernie. Race, gender and

orientation being first on the list that day, for sure. I find it quite sickening and wholly unattractive.

[Cha]

43. Exactly, Maru.. attacking simply

because they're different than BS.. is the worst kind of message to send.. but here we are.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. K&R

[Princetonian]

26. Harper's Bazaar would do well to focus on Trump's sexism problems instead

The circular firing squad is aided and abetted by articles like these.

[KayF]

28. when people promote a sexism argument against a candidate

against a candidate they don't support, but reject a sexism argument, by the same author, against a different candidate, whom they do support...

... it makes me think they don't really care about the sexism.

Especially they way they support/reject the arguments. Sometimes the hypocrisy just screams out.

[ehrnst]

34. Can you clarify who you are speaking of, and what 'sexism argument' is being "rejected?"

And who is rejecting it?

Too vague for me to figure out what you mean.

Can you provide links?

[KayF]

36. sure

this is what I'm referring to:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287122225

[ehrnst]

37. Still not clear on what and who you are talking about

when people (#1) promote a sexism argument against a candidate

against a candidate they don't support, but reject a sexism argument(#2) , by the same author, against a different candidate, whom they do support...

... it makes me think they (#3) don't really care about the sexism.

OK:

#1 - Who is the person you are talking about? Melman? Melman isn't even on this thread. Please clarify.

#2 - Can you provide a link to where person #1 "rejected a sexism argument by the same author"

#3 - Is this the same person as #1?

Is that clearer?

[KayF]

38. not melman

mostly George II, but really I was thinking generally, about anyone who might put forth criticisms that are not 100% sincere, whether or not there is smoking gun proof of it.

[ehrnst]

39. So

#1 - is George II

#2 - Can you provide a link to where person #1 "rejected a sexism argument by the same author"

[Cha]

45. ..

Wasn't a very good deflection.

[KayF]

48. I'm talking about the thread I linked to

it sounds from your answers that you disagree with what I"m saying, though if you ask me to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, I could not. But that's what it seems like to me, and I think you know that that's my honest opinion.

[lunamagica]

29. K&R for visibility

[Fresh_Start]

32. This attitude by BS is one of the reasons I don't believe BS is a progressive

To be a progressive doesn't mean progressive on one area and regressive in other areas.

We can and must find a candidate who is progressive on all the important issues.
And not one who hasn't moved beyond simplistic views created in the 1960s.

[NurseJackie]

52. Well said, you!

To be a progressive doesn't mean progressive on one area and regressive in other areas.

Well said, you!

I'm just amazed at those who think that "taking a stand" and declaring "all or nothing" as their philosophy (and ending up with NOTHING) is something to be proud of. I mean, there are those among us who take great pride in coming home with LITERALLY nothing and making NO PROGRESS on vital matters like healthcare. And they still call themselves "progressive" when no progress has actually been made.

Amazing.

[Fresh_Start]

53. Well said, you, back!

you are not progressive if you don't have progress.
you are not 'not establishment' when you have been part of the establishment for 30 years: you are merely part of the establishment with no accomplishments to speak of.