I've been told my equal rights just aren't pragmatic

[BainsBane]

that they have to be abandoned because fighting for them is too "divisive." The GOP controls congress, so we must support politicians who share GOP views on state-control over women's bodies, on relegating us to second-class citizenship. Prioritizing the rights of over half the population just isn't practical.

Never mind the fact that a great majority of the population supports a woman's rights to chose. Never mind the fact that that women, particularly single women with children, already earn significantly less than men. Never mind the fact that without access to reproductive services, women fall into even greater poverty. The MY rights and my life must be sacrificed in pursuit of a version of economic "justice" that excludes the majority of the population.

What really matters is the "white working class," not the people who actually preform the overwhelming share of the low- and middle-wage labor, but white men who already average 2 times the median income and 7 times the median income of African Americans. Their pocket book issues are legitimate. The rest of us just too divisive, impractical.

You want division, follow that path. You want a fissure in the party where one side promotes white privilege and patriarchy while the other fights for economic and social justice for the subaltern, keep it up. Because my rights and those of other historically marginalized groups are not negotiable for me precisely because I believe in equality--not just in terms of rhetoric but in practice, in the lives of women, people of color AND white men. That is not possible without vigorous, unyielding defense of equal rights.

[hrmjustin]

1. Amazing how some "progressives" are saying that we need to be practical about social justice...

...Issues, but if you say be practical on economic issues then you are a DINO third way heretic.

[BainsBane]

3. correction

economic issues for straight, white men. There is no economic justice without equal rights.

[hrmjustin]

4. Very true. I think sometimes some of these purity progressives are just not what they claim to be.

[NastyRiffraff]

24. "There is no economic justice without equal rights."

That one sentence sums up what's wrong with sacrificing rights for economic justice. Like the song says about marriage, you can't have one without the other.

[calimary]

109. TOTALLY.

And I'm sorry, but a woman's right to have the last word over what happens to her body - is HERS AND HERS ALONE.

It is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

It is AN ABSOLUTE.

[uponit7771]

23. +1

[Me.]

28. Sounds Like Krystal Ball Talking On Joy Reid Today

she obviously can't see into the future

[dlk]

2. It's All About the Money

At the end of the day, there has always been money to be made keeping women a permanent second class.

[LexVegas]

5. White dudes have it so bad in America. nt

[MontanaMama]

6. It seems easy

for folks whose human rights aren't threatened to question the practicality of those standing up for those same basic rights.

Their argument is tiresome and faulty. Very eloquently said BainsBane. Thank you.

[delisen]

7. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness-it's for everyone

and not limited to to citizens of the US, it is for everyone world wide.

If the Democratic Party stands for Human Rights, honestly, openly, and unequivocally we will be respected for that stand.

[BigOleDummy]

40. I like the way you said it!

And its very true.

[warmfeet]

85. Damn straight.

We must continually speak up for everyone. Very well said.

[yardwork]

8. Women, people of color, gay folks, immigrants - we're inconvenient.

As a Democrat, I reject that divisive message.

[shenmue]

36. Amen

[delisen]

50. Yes we are the inconvenient truth of Human Rights and Equality

[Hassin Bin Sober]

115. Democrats can always evolve. And that's a good thing!!

Who would have thought that Hillary could go from being a staunch anti-marriage equality politician to such a strong supporter?

https://m.

[wryter2000]

9. Lord, I feel like I'm back in the 70's

Back then women's rights had to take a back seat to revolution and class struggle.

[boston bean]

38. that says something.

[niyad]

56. women's rights have ALWAYS had to take a back seat to everything and everyone else under

patriarchy.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

79. Very true. One would think we could find allies in the Black and GLBTQ communities

After all, women have always fought for other disenfranchised groups.

Will the men in those groups put us on their priorities list?

[BlueMTexpat]

100. Many in AA communities -

both make and female - have indeed done so. Please also remember that AA and Latino communities overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton and she received strong support from the LGBTQ community, although that may not have been as easily measurable demographically!

Minorities generally recognize and identify with our struggles in their own and have always been our natural allies!

I also give a shout-out to while males like my husband of nearly 36 years and our sons who already have women's rights on their priority lists.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

123. Yay!! Thank you!!!!!!

I guess I'm thinking of how the larger culture acts. So much misogyny.

But until verrrry recently, it seemed to me that acts of racism or homophobia got much more publicity and power of the people behind the pushback, while acts of misogyny are only jusssst beginning to gather media attention as being Wrong. Even egregious anti-woman hatred and violence has a long history of being dismissed.

[BlueMTexpat]

124. All too true!

[Laffy Kat]

76. And unfortunately, "progressives" can be the worst.

Especially when it comes to mansplaining why choice has to take a back seat. That's why I only reserve the term "leftists" for those who support equal rights for EVERYONE, even though, obviously, one can't truly be progressive and pro-choice, IMO.

[wryter2000]

112. They can sure be holier than thou

While they're mansplaining to you.

[Silver Gaia]

86. YUP. I remember that, too.

I'm NOT taking the back seat... been told that my whole life, and I'm done with that. I just say NO. That is unacceptable.

[smirkymonkey]

10. Fuck that!

Woman's equal rights are essential. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a misogynistic pig.

[Me.]

29. Women's Rights Are Also An Economic REality

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028961873

[shenmue]

37. Yes

[ananda]

11. Equal rights are always right..

We must keep fighting for them, always!

[Squinch]

12. Can't believe they're still pushing the idea that women and people of color are just incidental.

[sheshe2]

43. 2017

Who knew we would still be considered an 'inconvenient truth'.

[Squinch]

44. It feels like we had climbed the branches and had the apple in our hands, and now we've fallen

back to the ground and have to start all over again.

[sheshe2]

48. Yes.

Hopefully and I believe we will have a lot more hands helping us climb again. Not just women's hands either, there are a lot of good men out there that will help.

[BlueMTexpat]

102. It is the "Myth of Sisyphus"

over and over and over again.

We keep having to push the boulder of women's rights up the mountain, only to see it roll back down for us to repeat the task.

We need to get that boulder up there, shore it up securely and cement it to the top of the mountain once and for all.

But then, as we have seen with Trump, we cannot take ANY group's rights for granted and must do the same for the rights of ALL people.

[sheshe2]

113. Yup...

We all have to work on each groups rights.

Together.

[JudyM]

65. Just trying to understand if your OP was genuine... I may have been mistaken.

[R B Garr]

13. Howard Dean was on Joy Reid's* show this morning discussing this, and the

conversation was in terms of Sanders' demands on the party's platform to incorporate his version of priorities over all others, which we know is economics for a certain segment. Joy was asking the panel if Sanders' was holding the Democratic party "hostage" (her word). She was confused as to what Sander's really wanted (her words). Luckily, Howard Dean was a voice of reason, saying that there has to be some middle ground where social issues are also prioritized. Thank you, Howard Dean for being a reasonable and realistic voice for us all. It's kind of ridiculous that we are having these kinds of contests about basic rights. It's really tiresome.

Great points, Bains.



*These are current news shows, so because of the "unity" tour, these issues are currently being discussed on many TV shows. Bernie's input into *current* state races also puts him in the news.

[BlueMTexpat]

27. This is why I have always

been a supporter of Howard Dean. He "gets" it and has never pretended to be anything but a Democrat.

I join you in this especially:

It's kind of ridiculous that we are having these kinds of contests about basic rights. It's really tiresome.

[Squinch]

46. I wish he'd go back to the DNC.

[BlueMTexpat]

98. I am very sorry that he was

Last edited Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)

EVER forced out. We've ended up paying the price by losing the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the Presidency in 2016.

I doubt that ANY of these results would have happened if the state networks Dean had built up since before 2006 and that worked both in 2006 AND 2008 had continued to be supported and nurtured. Since Dean and until Perez, there have been too many part-time (dare I say "dilettante?&quot DNC Chairs and frankly, that couldn't and didn't work. Those part-time dilettantes seemed to see their roles primarily as fundraising, not as constantly and consistently nurturing and maintaining networks, especially in "red" states or marginal areas in "blue" states.

Most, if not all, "blue" states already have well-functioning state Democratic parties and leadership. "Red" states have too long been left out in the cold and those state parties should have received a LOT more help all along - not just once every Presidential-election cycle - if even then. Throwing in a LOT of out-of-state politicians and money at the last moment to campaign for local Democrats just doesn't cut it. There must be groundwork laid and THAT takes time.

Of course, there were also some Democrats in Congress who shot their own candidacies in the foot by trying to distance themselves from Prez O's policies. What they needed instead was to show some backbone in supporting those policies and to present the facts about those policies succinctly.

In my experience of being born and raised in a so-called "red" state, those voters often respect politicians who show backbone, even when they may not agree with personally with their politics. That respect may win votes. And while there are some local issues, e.g., "guns" and "god" (including all "god-related" issues like gays and abortion), that also skew those voters towards voting for GOP hypocrites, if they like and respect a D politician, some will STILL often vote for that D, even though the D may have to "soft-pedal" such issues more than "purists" among us would like.

We would also NOT be having these stupid conversations about going after votes from "left-behind" white guys. Those who have truly been "left behind" - both male and female - have primarily themselves, their aversion to facts, and their built-in prejudices to blame. But Dean's policies would have retained those who were not seriously logic-challenged as well.

[Squinch]

99. I agree with all of this. On the bright side, I do think that people are getting energized

for local politics at all levels, so with the larger numbers of people involved even in red states, maybe some of that organization will emerge even without the help that they had under Dean. Sad that they have to, but it looks lie they do.

[BlueMTexpat]

101. I see that as a heartening trend

but the DNC STILL needs to create, support and nurture the networks for those candidacies to succeed.

I hope and believe that Perez understands this and Ellison does too. I do not believe that SBS has the same understanding, however. The irony is that his candidacy was very much a bottoms-up candidacy, which definitely appeals to "red" staters. But he did not and so far has not capitalized on that to build an Independent Party as a third-party option.

[Me.]

31. Krystal Ball Also Needs To Get Her Head Together On This

Women's right are so tied to economic rights that there is no daylight between the two

[sheshe2]

45. Thank you to Joy Reid and Howard Dean.

[Kahuna7]

53. You know, when word first came out about Hillary's server, I wished that

Dean would run. But he was already on the Hillary band wagon and stayed there.

[JCanete]

59. Well, it isn't economics for a "certain segment," unless that segment is 99 percent of americans.

As to his and the democratic party's, AND planned parenthood's support of Mello, I agree we need an explanation, a huge change of heart from Mello, and possibly a dropping of support for him. Since I like Bernie and care about the economic message, I care about what he does here. This is as Bainesbane says, potentially divisive rather than galvanizing. That won't get us there.

[BainsBane]

68. Planned Parenthood does NOT support Mello

They issued a statement making clear those claims are false, fraudulent. PP does not support men who sponsor legislation. Restricting reproductive rights. In fact they said they actively opposed him.

And here you are, calling the tights of half the population divisive because or doesn't put Bernie first.

That mantra was of the 99% is proved a lie when women are excluded. The 99% isn't a class anyway. The differences between the bottom ten nerve to and the median income is enormous. Between the Poor and the upper 20% even greater.

Unity around the priorities of the few at the expense of the majority isn' unity; its subjegation and oppression. It's also a hard turn to the right.

[JCanete]

74. what? When talking about economics, women are not being excluded. By increasing

minimum wage, women are not being excluded. If you think that Sanders hasn't done a good enough job of speaking to women's issues, that's an entirely different matter than whether or not higher base wages, more appropriate taxes and stronger safety nets, big money OUT of politics, regulations of industry, etc. would help the 99 percent, male or female.

While the differences between the middle and bottom class are enormous, we are ALL in it together. It is the GOP that has successfully divided us between the middle class and the poor. Sure the 99% mantra would be proven a lie if when speaking to economics, women were excluded. I can absolutely see you making the economic case as well, when it comes to anti-choice legislation, don't get me wrong, and if you think this Mello thing is a problem, I am with you, and that goes for holding Sanders and the party accountable for this decision.

I wasn't speaking to PP at large, but only the state and the limited scope of my research from some info on Mello, that suggested he had 100% support there at home. If that is false, that makes more sense to me.

I don't know how you misread my comment about division. I was suggesting that Sander's support of Mello was divisive.

[BainsBane]

75. PP of Nebraska did not give Mello a 100% rating

PPVN, the political arm of the family-planning organization, pushed back on the claim that it gave Heath Mello a 100 percent rating. The group’s scorecard from 2011 shows Mello “voting against Planned Parenthood’s position on three votes ― all abortion related.”

“Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska has never endorsed Heath Mello for public office nor has Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska given Heath Mello a 100% rating, as some media outlets have erroneously reported,” the group said in a statement.

“Heath Mello has introduced and supported anti-choice legislation during his time at the Nebraska Unicameral, and Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska strongly opposed him when he took such actions,” the statement continues. “Over the course of Heath Mello’s campaign for Omaha Mayor he has said loud and clear he supports Planned Parenthood and wants to protect the work we do. Although he has not started that conversation with us, our door is always open and we welcome the opportunity to start a productive dialogue on how Heath Mello can help us promote and protect access to women’s health care in Nebraska.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84


My apologizes for misreading your comment about division.

You are not understanding that economic justice cannot exist without reproductive rights for women and equal rights more broadly. Women earn less than men. Single women with children experience high rates of poverty, and evidence is conclusive that the absence to reproductive rights and services plunges them deeper into poverty. There can be no economic justice without equal rights. What is left is privilege for white men at the expense of the increased impoverishment of the majority. That should not be difficult to understand, particularly for someone who has been in DC for decades and heard all kinds of testimony on the issue.

[BainsBane]

66. I have it on th DVR

I'll be sure to watch it.

[mcar]

14. K & f'ing R!

[JHan]

15. This is what happens when individuals become more important than the party.

We have great ideas but poor strategies.

Ideas and strategies are being conflated, making the ideas of individuals more important.

Single payer is not a new concept, neither are any of the issues that have made the Democratic party a modern party. I can't believe in 2017 we're entertaining that there needs to be a choice about anything.

It's absurd because resentments towards social justice issues were whipped up by the right.

[Me.]

33. Precisely What Dr. Dean Said

I wish he was the head of the DNC 'cause it seems all kitty wampus right now.

[Lonestarblue]

34. Amen to that!

I was so sorry when Dr. Dean dropped out of the running. He is articulate, he has had experince running a 50-state strategy, and he is a long-time supporter of all Democratic values. Perez seems to be taking his cue from Bernie, whose focus is on one issue only, rather than listening to the grass roots supporters who are the ones out protesting, making phone calls, writing emails, and demanding town halls.

[Me.]

35. When Asked If They'd Be Registering Voters

Perez said something to the effect that they weren't there to carry around clipboards. Cecile Richards will be joining them on this tour but up to now, it's been men only. One of the guests on Joy Reid pointed out that 95% of black women supported HRC and by extension the party. How are they being represented on this tour?

[SunSeeker]

16. Great post.

[retrowire]

17. Here's five dollars betting that

You were told this by a Republican pretending they were a progressive.

[Squinch]

47. Because no one on the left has been pushing this idea? Lol.

[retrowire]

49. Are you sure it's the left or is it people on the internet?

Because no leftist person I know in real life believes this bullshit.

I'm just saying, disinformation agents are abundant and effective in the online world.

[Squinch]

52. Do you read the newspapers? Have you heard about this prominent leader on the left who is pushing

candidates who work against women's reproductive rights, while at the same time he's making tepid statements about candidates who are very supportive of women's reproductive rights?

I'm just saying, your position of "you're probably misinterpreting this" is kind of ridiculous.

[retrowire]

61. What prominent leader of the left?

What newspapers?

[boston bean]

18. I was just told that "money makes the world go around" when I made the same case.

m

[randome]

19. Grow up. Take one for the team. Stop complaining.

You mean like that? I agree. The DNC platform should be the litmus test for every candidate. Sometimes I think swing voters are afraid to vote Democratic because some candidates aren't upfront about their positions. We all 'know' that Democrats are in favor of reproductive rights. But if they're afraid to be upfront about that, what else are they going to try to sneak in?

If candidates were more upfront, I think we'd attract more voters to overcome the number who are simply distrustful of candidates who don't match their issue lists exactly.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[KPN]

20. Who told you that?

Is that what you were "told"? Or is that what you "heard"?

[BainsBane]

70. I read it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8958260

I link to this for purposes of the quote from NPR.

[Martin Eden]

107. I think you provided the wrong link

The DU thread you linked to was a quote from Bernie Sanders in which he clearly stated more than once a pro-choice agenda.

[BainsBane]

119. Read again

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

You can exclude people who don't devote every speech to railing about corporations, however. You can exclude people who follow campaign finance law. You can exclude virtually everyone Bernie deems other than "progressive," but for somehow that judgment doesn't extend to denying half the population equal rights.

[Martin Eden]

128. I don't see that in Bernie's quote at all

I'm referring to what you wrote in your last paragraph.

For that matter, most of what"s written in the OP is more of the same -- not what Bernie actually said but rather an extremely biased extrapolation which taken as a whole is a big fat LIE.

What Bernie said is the absolute truth -- if we don't take back the House and Senate, nothing will be accomplished.

[KPN]

114. Thanks. That sounds like a quote from Bernie without question.

I'm not sure your description of the quote in your OP is an accurate characterization. Well, actually I respectfully disagree with it. This isn't an either or thing in my mind and it bothers me that some people see it that way. To me, that's the divisive view. He very clearly states his strong support for choice.

Re: Mello. In my view, his views don't differ significantly from Tim Kaine's if I compare what each has said.

I really wish we were not having this dispute here at DU. I am every bit as much in favor of woman's choice as anyone else here at DU. Yet, we seem to have strong disagreement. It strikes me that disagreement is really about and revolves around the person -- Bernie; and that no matter what he says or does, some will find major fault with it. I can only surmise why.

[BainsBane]

116. Bernie is pro-choice

Last edited Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And has consistently voted so when presented with legislation. He, however, has made clear it isn't a priority for him and that he will bestow someone like Mello or Capture with the title progressive even though they deny equal rights to half the population of America. Bernie scorns most Democrats, but those anti-choice politicians are singled out by him for favor.

Mello is completely different from Kaine. Mello has sponsored and voted for anti-choice legislation. Kaine is pro-choice. Now we have people like you here making false equivalencies between personal concerns with abortion to legislation denying a woman's right to choose. That would be like saying I am anti-choice. Bernie has convinced you and others to normalize anti-choice in defense of hm, and that is deeply troubling to me.

The dispute is not just at DU. It's in the DNC as well, which is why Perez issued a statement making clear that being pro-choice was a litmus test for Democrats. Abortion rights advocates made clear they were not going to tolerate the party abrogating defense of their rights. Women are the majority of Democrats, and we will use that power.

Bernie is one man, one politician. This issue will persist long after he is gone. The only question that matters is if Democrats, including you and me, stand up for equality or decide to promote the prosperity of men at the expense of increased poverty and denial of rights for women. Women who do not value male privledge and authority more than equality will not tolerate turning the clock back.

[KPN]

122. I understand and appreciate your views.

Let's just leave it at that.

[Hekate]

21. Bain, I am so upset at this. What part of WOMEN'S MARCH did they fail to understand?!

All I can say is I hope for the sweet Goddess' sake our daughters and grandaughters wake the hell up and shout: "This is what the Patriarchy looks like!"

[delisen]

60. Maybe the success of the march was intimidating to some.

We are talking Change in capital letters; they are talking about a few hundred thousand voters who don't like this talk about equality.

We are talking about honesty on core values; they are talking about sleight-of-hand

We talking inclusion; they are talking exploiting the divisions.

[Foamfollower]

22. There is nothing at all "progressive" about abandoning the rights of more than half the country.

[George II]

25. Did you see Krystal Ball (what an egocentric choice of names, BTW) on AM Joy this morning?

She was railing about the criticism that Mello and similar candidates were getting for their less than progressive positions on some issues, pro-choice in particular, all but saying that some "fights" should be abandoned in lieu of others.

She made my blood boil, she was so obnoxious AND kept interrupting the others on the show. Thankfully Howard Dean was on too, and he basically, but diplomatically, put her in her place.

I think Joy Reid was a bit put off by it, too.

[Jolly Sapper]

26. If I may ask the original poster...

What was diary in reference to? Article, news clip, personal conversation?

[Lonestarblue]

30. Trying to prioritize rights seems futile.

I've been hearing a message that we need to focus on economic issues and keep that as our message for the 2018 elections. While I agree that economic issues matter, I disagree that social and personal rights issues can and should be downplayed. I heard a television commenter say this morning that we needed to focus on Bernie's message to get Democrats elected and then when in Congress they will take care of all the social and human rights issues we value. So how many rights do we ignore: civil rights, voting rights, legal justice rights, LGBT rights? Can we win elections if we just ignore all these rights?

Support for abortion rights continues to be a wedge Republicans use against Democrats. So, trying to think this through, we are to run and elect Democrats who are pro-life with the idea that they will vote for abortion rights once in office. Or, is it that we run candidates who refuse to discuss their views on abortion? And we think Republican opponents will let them get away with that? Hardly! As BainsBane says, we need to compete on all the issues that matter. We need to educate voters that if you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should elect a Democrat. Abortions declined under Obama precisely because women had access to affordable or free birth control. This is a right to privacy and a right to make medical decisions about your body, and the majority of people in this country support those rights. If a man wants to get a vasectomy to prevent having children, the government says it's okay for men to make private medical decisions about whether to have children. Then why should the government have the right to tell women that they do not have the same right to decide whether to have children!

I don't think ignoring the rights of more than half the people who vote for Democrats will work. We must indeed stand up for our beliefs--all of them.

[nolabear]

32. Not to back us is unconscionable. We are not chips to be gambled with.

We need to help our younger sisters stand up and be loud.

[Kath2]

39. Excellent post.

My body is my own. Not a political plaything.

[comradebillyboy]

41. Bravo and well said! nt

[QC]

42. LGBT people here were told that for years,

in many cases by the very same people who are now calling for intersectionality.

We were told that we needed to be quiet lest we cause the party to lose elections, and wanting legal equality was like a spoiled little girl demanding a pony. It was all very, very ugly.

So I get your point, and I agree with you that choice isn't negotiable.

I just don't get the assumption that social and economic justice are somehow in opposition, as though we have to do one or the other.

Growing up poor has at times shaped my life more than being gay has. A vision of politics that ignores class doesn't serve anyone well--except for the very wealthy. It's a godsend for them.

[BainsBane]

72. Not by me.

I didn't say social justice and economic justice were in opposition. I said there is not economic justice without equal rights because the result is greater inequality. I was very clear on the subject. You seem intent on arguing what's in your head rather than what I wrote.

I also grew up poor, which is why I am unimpressed by continual demands that the party should focus on those who earn 2x the median income to the exclusion of the subaltern, including the poor. I categorically reject proping up privilege at the expense of greater poverty and oppression.

[Kahuna7]

51. BINGO! I'm having it out on twitter about what saying

Last edited Sat Apr 22, 2017, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

too much emphasis on the WWC. Sounds like a dog whistle to me like what the repukes use. Can we just refer to working class people and leave race out of it?

Don't rail against "identity politics" on one hand while specifically saying Dem concentration should be wooing white people.

[BainsBane]

78. I agree

and I also hear it as a dog whistle.

[niyad]

54. k and r. I have been appalled by that thinking coming out of what are supposedly "progressive"

mouths. in 2017, women and everyone who is not a straight white man are irrelevant and problematic. absolutely sickening and disgusting.

[Kahuna7]

55. I routinely see POC insulted on twitter when they run out of their

talking points. The last refuge as it were.

[niyad]

57. I am not on social media, but absolutely disgusted by some of the stuff that is reported here

from that universe.

[NurseJackie]

58. Anyone who believes such a thing MUST BE DRUMMED OUT of our party!

Our party should never make "accommodations" or "exceptions" for anyone who believes or promotes that. There's no "greater good" or "on-balance" justification for accepting anyone (or any group) who feels that way.

You want division, follow that path. You want a fissure in the party where one side promotes white privilege and patriarchy while the other fights for economic and social justice for the subaltern, keep it up.

I honestly believe that this is EXACTLY what they want. The people who believe such things and who follow that path do indeed WANT division. I believe that any individual who follows that path is trying to WEAKEN (or destroy) the Democratic Party from within.

That type of thinking is a CANCER that will kill our party. It's not who DEMOCRATS are and it's not what DEMOCRATS represent.

I believe that there's NO NEGOTIATING with people like that. I've known people like that all my life. The attitude you're describing is DYED-IN-THE-WOOL ... it's "BAKED-IN" ... these leopards and zebras will never change their spots and stripes. They're not just going to magically see-the-light and suddenly change their ways.

I won't stand for it! Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. People who are willing to sacrifice the rights of women and other marginalized groups NEED TO GO. NOW!!

[Kath2]

62. Right on, as usual!

Our bodies and rights are not up for negotiation. Nor are the rights of minorities. We need to stand up for them now more than ever.

"Fuck them and the horse they rode in on."

[NurseJackie]

67. Thank you! Keep fighting!

[Kath2]

69. I will!

And I know you will, as well!

Love your posts, sister.

[BainsBane]

71. Yes!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

77. AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[BlueMTexpat]

103. + a million or so! eom

[Gothmog]

63. As the father of two daughters, I agree with the OP

Equal rights are so very very important and can not be ignored

[delisen]

64. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Schumer et al have the wrong

analysis on how to win against Trump and Republicans--the 1000+ Democratic seats lost in the last decade is evidence.

We were deliberately left out of the loop on the Russian interference until it was too late to do anything. We can't let this happen again. In our Democratic Republic form of government we need a little less
representative republic and more democracy.

Those in the know about Russian interference were afraid that the people would lose faith in our institutions if we knew. That is like not telling the country we are at war for fear the people will panic.

The Women's March was successful beyond what anyone expected - some had said that calling it the Women's March would keep men away-it didn't. Men knew they were included and they came.

That march was a resolute demonstration in our faith-not in leaders-but in our form of government and our ability to make it work for us.

We need to continue to be outspoken in our defense of our vision. Legislators will attempt to go back to what seemed to have worked to keep them in the game in the past. They tend to see the "team sport" aspect-they don't see the big picture. They need to be told. We need to be bold.

False Unity isn't unity. Human Rights is the banner under which we march.

[Starry Messenger]

73. k&r

[IronLionZion]

80. Run for office

There are groups who help recruit liberal pro-choice pro-women candidates to run for office and organize support for them. We need more of these types of candidates to run everywhere, not just the reliably liberal districts. See what happens

[BainsBane]

84. I'm flattered you would suggest it

but I'm not suited for public life. I could be a speech writer, but never a politician.

[zentrum]

81. Mello words on reproductive rights.

Omaha Mayoral Candidate Under Fire For Anti-Choice Past Vows To Protect Reproductive Rights.

“While my faith guides my personal views, as mayor I would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”

But please ignore this---ignore that women are not really in jeopardy-- and continue to help get a repug elected.

[athena]

87. Would he have made that statement if he weren't "under fire"?

I suggest you listen to women rather than mansplaining to us that our rights "are not really in jeopardy".

And we are are not the ones who helped get Trump elected.

[zentrum]

92. The words ..

....."are not really in jeopardy" are my words. And I'm hardly mansplaining or not listening to women since I am a woman, pro-choice.

He said what he would do as a professional office holder and I extrapolated from that that this is all a straw man issue in the case of Mello.

Not sure who you mean by "we" --but 53% of the women who voted, voted for Trump. White women were immensely helpful to him. We Democrats better figure out a way to speak to and address what really matters to them in their lives because, given Trump's public stance on choice---I think it's clear that was hardly a top issue for them.

[athena]

96. If our rights are not in jeopardy, then why is the head of NARAL so outraged?

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2017/04/20/naral-statement-dnc-chair-perez-senator-sanders-embracing-anti-choice-candidate-nebraska-today/

My point, which you missed, was that Mello only walked back his anti-abortion stance after pro-choice women and NARAL reacted loudly and unfavorably to his anti-abortionism. If we stayed quiet as you advocate, he would not have made the promise he made, which he only made "under fire" according to your own post.

Indeed, you don't seem to have read the article you quoted from, since it makes Mello's anti-abortionism disturbingly clear. This is a guy who has repeatedly voted to severely restrict abortion rights. You can see his record here:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/103098/heath-mello#.WPw5tUe1tTY
This is not someone I would trust to protect my rights.

Finally, I was using the pronoun "we" to refer to the women who object to Mello's anti-abortion stance and a certain politician's support of him. We are not the ones who got Trump elected. And us staying quiet is not going to ensure the protection of women's reproductive rights.

[NurseJackie]

108. I admire your tenacity. Thank you.

[Solly Mack]

82. Women, POC, and the LBGT community have been told that before...repeatedly.

Been told to wait until after an election, then all manner of wonderful things will happen - and seldom do come to pass.

To keep quiet, not make waves....to wait. Progress takes time - which always seems to come from those whose rights are not under attack.

To not alienate voters with loud voices about injustice and inequality.

I stand where I've always stood about those telling others to wait quietly...

Kiss my ass.

[BainsBane]

91. I'm with you.

[Progressive dog]

83. One hundred and fifty years

after the end of the Civil War, almost 100 years after the19th amendment giving women the right to vote, two hundred and twenty plus years since the bill of rights and we still do not have equality of opportunity. Fighting for what is right divides us only from those who don't believe in equality.
That is not a obstacle it's an advantage.

[On the Road]

88. Pragmatism Is Not Really the Issue

The most important issue is when the embryo or fetus becomes a human being. Once it becomes a human being, none of these other issues matter morally.

Now, if you want to talk politics, there's plenty of political capital to be made. Just get angy -- the contents don't matter very much.

[athena]

89. The woman is already a human being.

Somehow, that always gets forgotten. No human being is allowed to take over another human being's body and force him/her to undergo dangerous medical procedures against his/her will. But for some reason, all people can see is the potential humanity of the fetus. No one notices the other party in the picture, the thinking, feeling human being, who probably has multiple loved ones who depend on her for their survival and happiness. It's always all about the (potentially male) fetus.

[Cha]

90. Thank you for this, BainsBane!

[Lithos]

93. Which equal rights are those?

Reading between the lines - you're saying women's rights do not matter because they are not pragmatic enough?!?

Just making sure I read this... For the record, women's rights are my rights (even though I'm a guy).

L-

[BainsBane]

95. More here

Including links to articles discussing recent developments. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8965084

[Orrex]

94. The sooner you wimmin accept your status as chattel...

the happier you'll be in Trump's America.

[Squinch]

104. Just call me Offred.

ETA: For those who don't know what that is GO READ "A HANDMAID'S TALE." GO! DO IT NOW!

[lexington filly]

97. Time for all women to form our own powerful

party? Have the two major parties fall all over themselves trying to gain our favor like they do corporations!
Corporations can give parties money but they need our votes. They've always divided and conquered us between the two parties.

[no_hypocrisy]

105. Neither is democracy. As Shrub would intone, a dictatorship is a lot simpler.

I grew up with authoritarianism. No choices. No votes. My father's choice and that was that.

Yes democracy and equal rights require time, debate, and choices. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[BumRushDaShow]

106. K&R

No justice, no peace!

[calimary]

110. THANK YOU, BainsBane!

THANK YOU for pointing this out.

THANK YOU for putting this on the table.

And THANK YOU for the obviously MUCH-needed reminder. I am NOT willing to settle for a "D" just for the sake of a "D" - who'll vote like an "R" when it comes to the #1 issue of concern to me as a woman. All these years since Roe v Wade have turned me basically into a one-issue voter. A litmus-test voter. My first question to ANY candidate will be about where he or she stands on my right to choose. Whether he or she is okay with shoving the federal (or state) government up inside my vagina or higher - into the most intimate parts of MY body. That body is MINE. NOT THEIRS.

And after that, it really doesn't matter to me what they stand for, even if I agree with most of it. If they're not with me on the choice issue, then that tells me they really can't be counted on to be with me on other issues - especially those involving women. That is the gateway issue to my heart. And if a candidate can't get through that gateway, everything else about him or her is basically a non-starter. Because no matter how good it might look or sound, it's a no-go.

I'd really like to hear the men in power try to explain to me why no one else is EVER allowed to have final jurisdiction over their dicks or their scrotal sacs, but (mostly male-led) government is allowed to get its grubby paws all over my vagina and uterus and ovaries.

We have seen, widely and clearly demonstrated, in real time, in public and in private - that those precious rights we've fought and struggled to win can VERY easily be taken away, and if it's not in one big sweeping move, then it's with a thousand tiny cuts that seek to erode that right around the edges and then working in toward the heart of the matter. The struggle to protect and maintain the rights granted through Roe v Wade has been ongoing FROM THE START. And too many Democrats were NOT militant about it, NOT vigilant about it, as usual, rolled over and went back to sleep thinking it was all okay and this thing is fixed now and no need to worry about it anymore, and no, there aren't any barbarians at the gate.

And look where we are now. The LAST thing we need is to start letting a lot of anti-choice people in. Because they'll do what they always try to do: take over. And do away with that right.

Won't happen as long as I have a vote to cast.

[BainsBane]

111. Or why anger at corporations is a litmus test

But supporting equal rights and economic justice isn't.

[musette_sf]

117. K&R!!

My rights are NOT negotiable and they are NOT a "purity test".

John Lennon had it right 45 years ago:

[Jim Lane]

118. I was told that my concerns for peace and economic equality weren't pragmatic.

I was told that I had to vote for a candidate whom I considered a corporatist war hawk, because I had to be pragmatic and the alternative was even worse.

And you know what? That's a valid argument. I did vote for a candidate with whom I disagreed on fundamental issues. There were only two candidates with a realistic chance to win, so I clenched my teeth and voted for the one who, although far from perfect, was better.

Bernie Sanders did the same. He not only voted that way, he traveled outside his home state to make speeches on behalf of a Democratic nominee who, although not perfect, was better than her opponent.

I assume your post means that you're very upset that Bernie is now doing exactly the same thing in the Omaha race. My personal opinion is that war and peace, reproductive rights, and economic equality are all important issues, but pragmatism means that a sensible person will sometimes support a candidate who's not sound on all the important issues.

[BainsBane]

120. How do you suppose economic justice is achieved

while half the population slips into even greater poverty? That's not economic justice.

Bernie did not simply cast a vote for a Democrat. He chose to anoint Mello as a "progressive," to bestow his time and approval on him, over thousands of other Democrats around the country. It is the second time he has endorsed a pro-life candidate. And here we have "progressives" defending Mello and his anti-choice agenda, dishonestly comparing his sponsorship of legislation restricting a woman's right to chose with personal qualms about abortion. The clear effect is to deprioritize women's rights.

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

Why hold Democrats to a minor issue such as the rights of half the population when the more important measure is railing about corporations?

Obviously your position is not that reproductive rights are on par with other issues you value or you would not being making excuses for undermining them.

It's revealing to see how all this clamoring for economic justice isn't about equality or justice at all but increased wealth for a demographic that already earns more than the rest of the population. That amounts to worsening inequality, not justice.

But guess what? You're shit out of luck. Women are the majority voters in the Democratic Party, and we are using our power to shut down efforts to turn the clock back. Women's rights activists forced the DNC to retreat from its support of Mellow, and Perez issued a statement making clear that abortion rights were central to being a Democrat. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028965101

I'm so sorry you feel oppressed by not voting for Donald Trump. It must be awful to find out other people in this country actually have a vote too. But at least the evil war hawk failed and you don't have to worry about wimenz imposing sanctions or no-fly zones.

[Jim Lane]

127. Your personal attack on me is total bullshit.

You write:

Obviously your position is not that reproductive rights are on par with other issues you value or you would not being making excuses for undermining them.

If you had troubled to read my post, instead of merely noticing that I disagreed with you, you would have seen me making the exact opposite case.

These issues are on a par in the sense that they're all important. Nevertheless, given the almost-universal situation in American elections -- that there are only two candidates with a chance to win -- the pragmatist's approach is that one will sometimes vote for a candidate who's wrong on one or more important issues. In that sense, these various issues are also on a par.

I'm sure there are progressives in Omaha who (a) voted for Clinton although they disagreed with her on some things, and (b) will vote for Mello although they disagree with him on some things.

What you're really saying is that the issues you prioritize must be treated as sacrosanct. Issues that are important to other Democrats, however, can be blithely dismissed as "railing about corporations".

Then you wrap up with more idiocy:

I'm so sorry you feel oppressed by not voting for Donald Trump. It must be awful to find out other people in this country actually have a vote too.

Trump was not the only non-Clinton candidate on my ballot. Stein was closer to my views than Clinton but I voted for Clinton because, duh, pragmatism. The folks on JPR, who called me a Hillbot, would be happy to agree that such a rationale constitutes "making excuses for undermining" progressive issues.

And the statement that I'm only now "find{ing} out other people in this country actually have a vote too" is pure kindergarten.

[KPN]

121. It is a valid argument. No progress can be made on any issue

in a diverse society without some degree of pragmatism. In fact, I have never been able to vote for a Presidential candidate with whom I've been in lock step on every single issue important to me. Despite how much I wish it would, it has never happened -- and, at this point in my life, I doubt it ever will.

It's funny how a "litmus test" can be either a positive or a negative depending on the particular person and the particular test. I generally admire persistent adherence to basic principles as a general trait. At the same time, I can't help but think how much this particular debate reminds me of the the chicken or egg paradox.

[Jamaal510]

125. K&R

[cheapdate]

126. Maybe I heard the message wrong,

but I didn't hear anyone say that the pursuit of civil rights has to be abandoned. What I heard was the suggestion that there can be room in the Party for different outlooks on the issue of abortion.

I'm willing to accept that. Others obviously, firmly, unequivocally, and most emphatically are not.