On Requests to Help Trump Supporters Live Happily Ever After

[Content Note: racism, homobigotry, privilege, gaslighting, rape culture, description of sexual assault]

Another day, another white man with a huge platform telling people to get out of their "liberal bubbles" and stop caricaturing Trump supporters as bigots.  In his New York Times piece "The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus," Nicholas Kristof suggested over the weekend that Trump's Electoral College win means that campuses ought to try harder to recruit conservative scholars. He says:

"We champion tolerance, except for conservatives and evangelical Christians. We want to be inclusive of people who don’t look like us — so long as they think like us." 
Then, right after acknowledging the "uptick" in hate crimes since Trump's election, Kristof notes that now is no time to be "illiberal" by not tolerating all viewpoints.

It's like I always paraphrase, when fascism comes to the US it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross, and aided along by a million wagging fingers in your face, scolding you for not being tolerant of it.

I realize it's trendy right now for some media elites to pick on academia and college students (OMG safe spaces, what fun targets! And trigger warnings?!), but I argue that a more urgent task is to push back on this narrative of Trump supporter innocence. We keep being told that Trump supporters aren't bigots, yet I find it remarkably odd that all of these not-bigots have mysteriously found themselves in a position of  political alignment with white nationalists, the KKK, and rabid misogynists while seemingly having zero curiosity about why.

The mass gaslighting, though, is not surprising, is it? Contradictions are weaved into the fabric of our national history. The white male founders of our political system who told us that all men are created equal are lauded, even when they themselves held people as property or condoned a system that did. The narrative that white men can be great, and by extension their supporters, even if they were complicit in human rights travesties is one of many invisible threads running through our discourse. It is no surprise then that the Everyday Americans* we keep hearing about who supported Trump, but who didn't even own slaves ever, will never see themselves as bigoted. 

In an old law review article entitled "The Richmond Narratives," which doesn't seem to be freely-available on Internet, Thomas Ross notes that critics of affirmative action talk a lot about the "innocence" of white "victims" who would be harmed:
"In this vocabulary, the white person is innocent so long as [they have] not committed an act of particular and proven racial discrimination in connection with the job or other interest at stake."
There is no accounting, in this narrative, for the ways that white people benefit from racism in ways that are invisible to white people. Coupled with this narrative, as I've said before, is the liberal plea for civility, "We must tolerate the intolerant and not call them bigots." It is written by privileged people for privileged people, so they can feel good about themselves for being so tolerant. Having no skin in the game themselves, they don't have to reckon with the consequences of what tolerating intolerance might mean for those experiencing systemic injustice and marginalization.

With assists from men like Kristof, we remain squarely in a most-comfortable era for the Everday American bigot: "It's worse to call someone one than to actually be one." On this topic, Slate recently ran a conversation, "I Am Not Your Racial Confessor," among Jamelle Bouie, Gene Demby, Aisha Harris, and Tressie McMillan Cotton. I recommend all of it, but they touch on the theme of managing white people's anxieties about being called racist:
Demby: I think one of the things that both Jamelle and Tressie are pointing to is the starting premise of the ask, right? I want to have a conversation with you, but I need to first be assured that the conclusion of that conversation is broadly, unrealistically optimistic.

Bouie: Exactly. Which means it isn’t a conversation as much as it is a request for emotional validation.
And then, later:
Bouie: What’s more, there’s often an implicit demand that we presume their racial innocence. 
Harris: That “innocence” is really just willful ignorance in about 99 percent of cases, I’d say.
Like I said, we hear a lot of whinging about "liberal safe spaces," but less about the Everyday American's request for them, via these demands that marginalized people tip-toe around their feelings. As a result, many people walk through life holding certain "truths" to be self-evident, and among these are:
Nobody is racist unless they belong to the KKK. Nobody is homophobic unless they belong to the Westboro Baptist Church. Nobody is sexist unless they're feminists, because we all know they secretly hate men and misogyny isn't actually a major issue.
When Fred Phelps died in 2014, I wrote an article sardonically-titled, "Last Homobigot in US Dies."
Back then, I had been engaged in dialogue with prominent opponents of LGBT rights. I quickly learned that an important ground rule was that I must never, no matter how tenderly I said it, suggest that an opponent of LGBT equality held bigoted views. Calling the opposition to same-sex marriage "anti-gay" was likewise deemed an unfair smear (calling them a "bigot" was the ultimate in "uncharitable" "attacks").

I agreed for these words to be stricken from my vocabulary for the sake of managing the comfort of those who thought I was unequal to them. It is an exercise in degradation, but one we sometimes agree to so that conversations can occur at all, because gods forbid we expect anything from the Everyday American.

Since the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton's campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri has noted that, while she's been evaluating lessons from the election, it's also important that Trump and his people, "think long and hard about the voters who rejected them. I haven’t seen much evidence of such introspection from the Trump side. That’s concerning."

Indeed. 

Some Trump supporters, like a college Republican featured in The New York Times, have expressed outrage at Clinton supporters who feel scared and sad. A white supremacist featured in the LA Times, describes being on "an emotional high" since the election and explains that he actually considers terms like "racist" to be "antiwhite hate speech." A KKK-member describes how and why he doesn't care for the term "white supremacist."

And, it's all so grotesque.

The prevailing narrative of innocence asks so very little of Everyday Americans. The bar is so low. All they have to do is literally not commit hate crimes and they're golden, and even those who do commit hate crimes are usually granted more humanity than their victims. No further introspection needed. Let's just let the people live guilt-free lives!

What I find insidious about these narratives of innocence (and just as bad, "tolerate other people's intolerance!") is that, as many have noted, Donald Trump merely says explicitly what many Republicans say in more subtle, coded ways. The bigotry behind the words is the same, but rendered invisible because bigots cannot handle being called bigoted. So we find that if no one is swearing or saying "fag" it's deemed respectable talk. Think of conservatives who were upset that Trump said "pussy" but not that he admitted on tape to grabbing them without consent. Think of anti-gays who think it's wrong to protest funerals, but still want to repeal marriage equality.

Republican posturing against Trump primarily seems motivated by the tenor of his speech, rather than its content. So, I have to roll my eyes at some of the privileged person navel-gazing I've seen, "What is bigotry, even?"  We know this already. Open your fucking eyes. The only acceptable answer to most people is this: NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL IS BIGOTRY.

I think often about the silence that is demanded of marginalized people so that other people don't have to feel bad. I think about how much heavy lifting this silence must do in service of false narratives. Everyday white people aren't racist! No one is a bigot anymore, really! I voted for Trump and my black coworker, of whom I demanded emotional management, said it was okay!

On this basis, it seems we certainly do have a a widespread affirmative action and safe space program in effect. The features that define it, and who benefits from it, just aren't what critics think they are.


*Regarding this phrase, Cameron Esposito puts it pretty well, "'Everyday Americans' is the whitest shit I've ever heard & I'm white & I've been to a Dave Matthews concert."

Open Wide...

Trump Picks Tillerson for Secretary of State

Donald Trump has chosen Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, who has zero government experience, for Secretary of State.

The New York Times opening paragraph reads: "President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday officially selected Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, to be his secretary of state. In saying he will nominate Mr. Tillerson, the president-elect is dismissing bipartisan concerns the globe-trotting leader of an energy giant has a too-cozy relationship with Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia."

Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

Did you think Mitt Romney was going to be Secretary of State? Haha nope! According to longtime Trump pal Roger Stone, "Donald Trump was interviewing Mitt Romney for Secretary of State in order to torture him. To toy with him."

What delightful people are running our country now.

In related news, John Bolton, mustachioed Bush-era monster-under-the-bed, is reportedly being considered for the Number 2 slot at State.


Can't put it any more plainly than that.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Hosted by a turquoise sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What moment of your life do you wish you had on video so you could watch it over and over, show it to people who can't believe such an incredible story, or just have for posterity for some other reason?

Open Wide...

PRINCIPLES!

Open Wide...

Recommended Reading

Evelyn Farkas at Politico: "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia."

Jon Sharman at the Independent: "China flies nuclear bomber over South China Sea as a 'message' to Donald Trump."

Me at Shareblue: "Clinton campaign supports electors' request for intelligence briefing on Russian interference."

Dianna E. Anderson at Shareblue: "Elizabeth Warren calls for the GAO to audit Trump, pushes for investigation."

Me at Shareblue: "Nancy Pelosi singles out Paul Ryan in call for bipartisan investigation into Russian election interference."

Lauren Duca at Teen Vogue: "Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America."

Hannah Jane Parkinson at the Guardian: "Who will take on Donald Trump? Teen Vogue."

Andy Towle at Towleroad: "Walter White Named DEA Chief in Trump's SNL Cabinet."

Alan Taylor at the Atlantic: "Winners of the 2016 National Geographic Nature Photographer of the Year Contest."

Open Wide...

Let's Not Forget: The Left Fell For Russian Propaganda Too

In the flurry of discussions about "fake news" and its effect on the election, a rather important fact seems to be curiously muted in liberal circles: the Russians played us too.

Despite the recent attention to leaks from a CIA report, it's not news that the Russians were behind the Wikileaks hack. As Clinton herself pointed out in a debate, all the major federal intelligence agencies released a statement to that effect in October. What's new, among other things, is the claim that they intervened specifically to support Trump and harm Clinton. This is huge. Bigger than Watergate huge.

NPR has a handy list of 13 times that Russian hacking came up during the election, only to be brushed aside by major media outlets in favor of stories about Clinton's foundation or Trump's "wacky"tweets. As might be expected, Trump and most Republicans were eager to brush this aside, although Mike Pence didn't get the memo, apparently. Understandably, a good deal of attention to the problem of "fake news" (i.e. propaganda) has been focused on Trump's voters, who seem to live in an alternate universe when it comes to separating fact from fiction.

But the skill with which Russian intelligence played voters on the left cannot be ignored in any honest election postmortem. Of particular concern is the sophisticated way they exploited ignorance about how the Democratic Party actually works.

A basic tent of faith for Bernie-or-busters was that an all-powerful Democratic National Committee somehow "rigged" the primary process against Bernie Sanders, and that the the Wikileaks emails "proved" it. This belief was only possible if one ignored that actual dates and content of the emails. AS Kurt Eichenwald (the journalist who produced some impressive deep-dig investigative journalism about Trump during the election) pointed out back in November, this was nonsensical:

Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016. (One was in late April; I’ll address that below.) ...Once only one candidate can win the nomination, of course the DNC gets to work on that person’s behalf. Of course emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the nominee.

...According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative.

(Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

So, the emails showed nothing more scandalous than the DNC doing its job, with at least one jerk taking a nasty crack at atheists, and some trash-talking (including about Obama and Dem donors, in addition to Sanders). Regrettable and highly unprofessional, but not evidence of a rigged election. And if I may: the fact that members of the DNC would be annoyed at Bernie Sanders is hardly surprising, considering he sued the organization (after his own campaign improperly accessed data), a lawsuit only dropped in April. By May, Sanders was making increasingly contradictory claims about why the party's process was unfair. It's always foolish and unprofessional to trash-talk via email, but frankly, I can understand DNC staffers taking an annoyed tone with the Sanders campaign by then.

But if the emails showed no evidence of rigging, why were so many Bernie supporters convinced they did? Well, I suppose this could have something to do with it:

Bernie Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said his team was "disappointed" by the emails from the Democratic National Committee leaked through WikiLeaks, which seemed to reveal staff in the party working to support Hillary Clinton. "Someone does have to be held accountable," Weaver said during an interview with ABC News...Weaver said the emails showed misconduct at the highest level of the staff within the party and that he believed there would be more emails leaked, which would "reinforce" that the party had "its fingers on the scale."

"Everybody is disappointed that much of what we felt was happening at the DNC was in fact happening, that you had in this case a clear example of the DNC taking sides and looking to place negative information into the political process.

Weaver said that he was surprised that no one with the party had reached out to him, "given the conduct that was disclosed" in the emails. Several of the emails showed that DNC staff called Weaver names including "a liar."

A liar? Gee, I wonder where they got that impression. Maybe it has something to do with the Washington Post calling out Jeff Weaver for lying, right about the time of the emails?

So, exploiting the ignorance (whether wilful or genuine) of some of Sanders' supporters, and relying on major media outlets not to examine the emails too critically, the Russians get Jeff Weaver himself to repeat their preferred line. The "DemExit" and class action lawsuit movements of late July, fueled by breathless stories from Salon, the Intercept, and others alleging that the emails said shit they manifestly did not say, all took their toll.

And they're still taking their toll, as the very same actors who peddled these myths now claim the Democratic Party needs to remake itself according to their demands. Some of them are even claiming that the Democratic process failed because Sanders was the more "electable" candidate, against Trump, that the process should be amended to favor a Sanders-style candidate. Eichenwald has some cold water to throw on that as well:

I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK.

...Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick.

(The whole thing is worth a read.)

I point this out not to try to make those backing Sanders feel defensive or foolish, because it was not at all foolish to be excited about a particular candidate and to embrace and feel excited about that candidate. No, my criticism is specifically directed at those who are analyzing the Democratic Party's loss based on wishful thinking. It's the very same mindset that saw many of those same people swallowing the Wikileaks propaganda in the first place. And it's not that nobody challenged the narrative favored by Wikileaks, Russia, and Jeff Weaver. Here's an article form the time that took it apart beautifully. Yet there were, and are, those on the left, who preferred blatant fakery to cold reality. And that's concerning.

Not all of Sanders' supporters were caught up in this frenzy, and they saw the Wikileaks propaganda for what it was. The largest number of them came to support Clinton and voted for her. Some even came to like or admire her. And the Sanders candidacy brings some legitimate challenges to the Democratic party on its platforms and its messaging. There is truth to the idea that the Democrats need to work on reaching out to a new generation. Its bench is not nearly as deep as it needs to be. And it's certainly past time to beef up cybersecurity measures. I don't think that Russian interference alone caused the Democrats to lose, and it's certainly time for some Democratic soul-searching.

But while we're worrying about the effects on fake news on Trump supporters, and wondering how to challenge their insular reality, perhaps it's time to be concerned about those on the left who cling to conspiracy theory in the face of no evidence. It's not just "uneducated" or naive Trump voters. Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager of a major Dem canddiate, apparently could not or would not read the actual content. Instead he swallowed the propaganda whole and regurgitated it. That should be of concern. That some are still peddling the "DNC rigged the election" myth shows just how deeply the problem goes.

We like to think of ourselves as the "reality-based" community, but its' increasingly clear that part of the Left got badly played during this election. Any plan for moving forward must address that, or we'll be right back here again, making President Putin smile.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Zelda the Black and Tan Mutt lying on the floor looking up at me
WHO'S A GOOD GIRL? WHO IS?

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

Still Waiting

I tweeted this nearly a month ago:


I am still waiting for an answer to this question.

Open Wide...

None of This Normal


As you may have heard, a CIA assessment has concluded that Russia intervened in the United States' election in order to help Donald Trump win.

There has been a flurry of related news, as Democrats have continued to demand answers and accountability, and Republicans have continued to stick their heads in the sand, with few exceptions.

Meanwhile, Trump called the intelligence assessment "ridiculous," and Kellyanne Conway just casually admitted on national television that Trump plans to stack the intelligence community with his own people.

We've been covering all of the goings-on over the weekend at Shareblue, if you need to catch up:

Me: "BREAKING: CIA secret assessment concludes Russia intervened to help Trump win."

Me: "Schumer demands bipartisan Senate investigation into Russian election interference."

Katie: "Trump statement on Russia helping him get elected proves he is Putin's puppet."

Alison: "Trump says he does not need intelligence briefings because he is 'a smart person'."

Me: "Kellyanne Conway says Trump is 'going to put his own people' in the intelligence community."

And two other relevant pieces from late Friday, in case you missed them:

Katie: "President Obama orders Intelligence to report to Congress on Russian hacking — before Trump takes office."

Tommy: "Kellyanne Conway alarmingly advocates 'consequences' for criticizing Trump."

At this point, I don't even know what to say other than this:


Something is deeply wrong. And everyone who cares about this country needs to loudly and relentlessly resist the normalization of any of this.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a purple sofa

Hosted by a purple sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open

image of a pub Photoshopped to be named 'The Beloved Community Pub'
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]

Belly up to the bar,
and be in this space together.

Open Wide...

I Don't Even Know

This morning, Donald Trump selected Goldman Sachs President and COO Gary Cohn to be his National Economic Council Director.

This afternoon, Trump went to Louisiana for another Make America Cheer for Me Again rally, at which this happened:


Cohn is not even the first Goldman Sachs alum Trump has chosen. And yet his supporters are still chanting "Drain the Swamp." If that isn't an indication that there is no actual political ideology behind support for him, that he is truly nothing but the Daddy Figure of a deplorable identity movement who are drooling for the hardest, hottest culture war, I don't know what would be.

Open Wide...

Here We Are

[Content Note: Authoritarianism; abuse of power; threats and harassment.]

These are the first three pieces we published at Shareblue today:

1. Katie Paris: "Trump's Inaugural Committee succeeds in barring Women's March from Lincoln Memorial."

First reported by the Guardian: "[T]he National Park Service, on behalf of the Presidential Inauguration Committee, filed documents securing large swaths of the national mall and Pennsylvania Avenue, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial for the inauguration festivities. None of these spots will be open for protesters."
2. Tommy Christopher: "Kellyanne Conway alarmingly advocates 'consequences' for criticizing Trump."
In yet another extraordinary pronouncement which has gone virtually unnoticed, senior adviser Kellyanne Conway lamented the fact that people like labor leader Chuck Jones think they can criticize President-elect Donald Trump without suffering consequences. Yes, she actually said "consequences": "People feel like with Donald Trump, they have license to say whatever the heck they want about this guy, with no consequences, with no blowback. The guy has a right to defend himself. And he rarely draws first blood. It's when he is attacked, he likes to set the record straight."
3. Me: "Defiant union leader is tired of Trump’s lies; will not be silenced."
As a result of Trump's reckless tweeting, prioritizing his own brittle ego over Jones' safety, Jones began receiving threatening phone calls.

...What Jones is facing is the inevitable result of the incoming Trump administration's chilling campaign to intimidate critics and dissenters: Tweeting about private individuals and reporters and groups and TV shows to whose commentary the president-elect objects; threatening selective retribution against companies; quashing protests; and the unconscionable public stance that criticizing the president should have consequences.
Trump is no longer a private citizen. He is the President-elect of the United States of America, which carries with it the enormous power of the office he will soon occupy.

He is no longer just a reality TV show star picking fights with other celebrities (which was bad enough). The personal power imbalance between the President and every other citizen is extreme, and, if not respected for its immense potential to harm when wielded capriciously, the consequence will be a breathtaking and unprecedented abuse of that power.

Against citizens of his own nation.
He hasn't even been inaugurated yet. This is not normal.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Matilda the Fuzzy Sealpoint Cat lying in a chair, next to one of Iain's shirts
"This chair is mine. That shirt is mine. That charger will soon be mine, too."

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

How to Make an Anti-Feminist Piece Great for Once

[Content note: Misogyny, description of sexual assault, gaslighting.]

At The Washington Post*, Christina Hoff Sommers recently proposed a modest suggestion for how to improve feminism in light of the Election 2016 outcomeAs a practice, I no longer link to clickbait so as to not reward the model, so spoiler alert to her article: she concludes that US women have it good, therefore feminists should stop being hysterical harpies who write things in all-caps sometimes.

While we're speaking of typographical choices, it turns out that I, in turn, have a modest suggestion for how to improve her article.

The thing is, I fear that some have lost appropriate perspective about current state of affairs, or they did not have have it to begin with. I thusly support the development of, perhaps, a browser extension that could supply missing context to articles about Trump, as needed. Using Sommers' piece as an example, my proposed additions are italicized:

 "Hillary Clinton’s defeat, by Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent, is wreaking havoc in the sisterhood. Celebrity feminists are especially distraught. 'Girls' star Lena Dunham developed hives and fled to Sedona for spiritual renewal. Katy Perry took to Twitter to declare 'THE REVOLUTION IS COMING.' For feminist icon Robin Morgan, the election of Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent is proof that 'a diseased patriarchy is in a battle to the death with women.'
 But less-excitable analysts are drawing more sober conclusions about the Electoral College win of Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent: Perhaps the women’s movement is too elitist and out of touch with ordinary citizens, especially working-class women. That seems right, but I would go one step further. Today’s feminism is not merely out of touch with everyday Americans, who voted for Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals; it’s out of touch with reality. To survive, it’s going to have to come back to planet Earth, the most powerful leader of which is soon to be Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent.

First of all, it’s time to stop calling the United States, whose President will soon be Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent, a patriarchy. A patriarchy is a system where men hold the power and women do not. In the United States, meanwhile, we will soon be governed by Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent. Women do hold power in the United States — they lead major universities and giant corporations, write influential books, serve as state and federal judges and even manage winning presidential campaigns. American women, especially college-educated women, are the freest and most self-determining in human history. And still, millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without consent, over a qualified, competent woman who has not. Why pretend otherwise?
My inspiration for this piece was The Playlist's recent write-up of a Roman Polanski film, which I first saw highlighted in this tweet (content note: sexual assault), which makes a similar annotation with respect to his mentions.

With Trump specifically, I know Trump has said and done a number of deplorable things, so a multitude of variations could be developed here. More broadly, as we see these sorts of anti-feminist Election 2016 "feminists brought this upon themselves" response pieces circulating, I hereby move that it be accepted in our collective body of common sense that such pieces instantly lack credibility.

Donald Trump is the walking personification of how racism and misogyny often do not have negative consequences for white men. Not only was he not punished for his deplorable views, he has been rewarded for expressing them. Millions of people, at best, are indifferent to these views and, at worst, actively agree.

I cannot stress enough that the problem here is not that feminists care too much about women's bodily autonomy, it's that 60-odd million people care too little. If that's not enough to convince people that patriarchy is a thing in the United States, nothing ever will be, no matter how nicely we say it.


*Sommers' piece is entitled, "How to make feminism great again" (because of course it is).

Open Wide...

Ummmm

[Content Note: White supremacy.]

Perhaps you've heard the good news that white supremacists are boycotting the new Star Wars film, because they are anti-semitic, anti-Black, misogynist garbage heads, who don't like Jewish people making movies with non-white, non-male people and using art to make political statements.

(Like the controversial political statement that people who are non-white and non-male exist.)


This is the best news since misogynists boycotted Ghostbusters.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a pink couch

Hosted by a pink sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker lupinella12: "Which actor/actress makes you immediately change the channel?"

LOL! I love this question.

Mel Gibson. Nope.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"I'm telling you, there is no one, no one, no one better to have in your corner than Harry Reid."—Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, who will be replacing the retiring Harry Reid as Senate Minority Leader, at Reid's portrait unveiling and send-off party today.

Hillary Clinton also made an appearance at the event. I did not, regrettably, have time to watch it. But even hearing and reading about it, thinking about how Reid spent his whole career trying to make things better, only so Trump's collection of dipshits and miscreants can purposefully break it, nearly made me cry.

Every once in awhile, I had a disagreement with Harry Reid. But, even then, I was glad to have Harry Reid in my corner.

Open Wide...