Earlier I wrote that HRC's tack to the Right was one reason she lost. And I'm not sad that she lost. She made me furious too many times to regret that she won't be in my face to make me furious regularly any more.
Later I was surfing the web and came across this explanation of why being sad about Clinton's losing could be an affront to women of color.
"You said,'Those of us who care about institutional misogyny (and, again, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive groups) don’t have that consolation, as regards a barrier being broken with regard to misogyny. There was no transcendence; only a loss.'"I feel your loss, I understand why it hurts to see a woman lose, probably (I disagree, but I am willing to see your point) because of sexism."
"But some of us who care about institutional misogyny don’t feel a loss at Clinton not being elected. There would have been no barrier broken if she were elected. I personally don’t look at Clinton and think–geez, look at all she accomplished–now I can do the same thing–I think–geez–she supported the militarization of the Mexican/U.S. border. There are women now being raped, arrested, imprisoned, and ripped from their children because she actively supports increased militarization at the border."
Read the whole post. It is an education.
It isn't OK to tack to the Right. There are consequences.
2 comments:
About 70% of the people in this country are heading left, so it's downright nonsense to try to gain support from the bench-sitters on the right.
The pendulum is swinging.
Thanks for the comment!
From your lips to God's ears.
Pico
Post a Comment