Sanders won't endorse Feinstein

[ehrnst]

187. I think that's what drives some to be radicals but not all.

Susan B. Anthony was a radical, for instance.

Yes there are certain personality types that need to be at the top of a hierarchy or they don't want any part of it that are drawn to "burn it all down" mentalities. One reason that the women's movement separated from the radical left movement of the '60's is that many of the men didn't feel a need to extend to women in the movement the things that they wanted for themselves from society. Women were often expected to serve coffee at meetings they were invited to, and participate in free love when the men wanted it. Women weren't going to be sharing in any of the gains that the men expected to make, so they left and started a movement that would address their goals and obstacles.

I'm seeing some similar things happening in the Left now. Jacobin magazine published a piece by a woman that chastised "modern feminism for selling out" by doing things like working with conservative groups to get legislation passed that benefitted women. According to Jacobin, women "don't understand" that going about getting that progressive goal "in the wrong way, by working with the 'enemy" is worse than living with the inequity. Of course, getting a woman to write that article was clearly a shield against the inevitable analysis of how sexist it was.

I think that many men on the left (and some women who drew their identity from their alliance with the men on the left) saw HRC's abiliy to work with people closely as "suspect" because it didn't follow the traditional "dominate the opposition" male model of asserting power. (Demanding, yelling, refusing to listen, refusing to budge an inch, taking, overpowering, etc) It was very much a feminine way of getting things done, by creating relationships, listening instead of lecturing. In other words "sleeping her way to the top" in terms of using the strategy of honey vs vinegar. Women are given only passive, manipulative power in many instances (seduction, emotional manipulation, crying, witholding sex) so many assume that a woman in power got it that way.

Many women saw a lot of that in the last election, and it was the last straw. Women are going to "burn down" a very different thing than the men were planning to, and a whole lot of them don't understand it - and therefore, it "doesn't make sense" and is 'distracting from the real issue - that men aren't making the money that they should be making." Because any problem that isn't solved by money is "identity politics."

After all, what's often the biggest irritant to men who are up against "the man?" Mom's authority. They sure as hell would rather burn it all down than answer to a woman, which is the only thing worse than answering to a man they don't respect.