Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forum
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
"Principled" is the New "Unlikable" for Female Politicians
At some point, men are going to have to cope with the possibility that Elizabeth Warren is exactly who she says she is. The 2020 Democratic primary began with more viable runs by women than ever before in history. Now, with less than two months to go until the Iowa caucus, Warren is the only woman left with any kind of shot. Predictably, her competitors are sharpening their knives, casting Warren as a sell-out, a liar, and an untrustworthy careerist. Now, a woman who is famous for taking principled stands is forced to produce receipts to prove she has principles at allbecause, no matter what we say, we do not want and cannot deal with principled female politicians.
The latest round concerns Warrens past as a corporate lawyer. After releasing her tax returns from that time, in response to pressure from Pete Buttigieg, her income was trumpeted in headlines like CNNs Elizabeth Warren made at least $1.9 million for past private legal work over three decades, which typically failed to explain that this averaged out to about $65K per year. The work itself was cast as shady, nefarious pro-corporatism, not only by conservative outlets like the Washington Times (which labeled her a high-powered corporate vulture) or Tucker Carlson (who recently proclaimed that she is like Mr. Burns on The Simpsons) but by the very leftists who used to embrace her: Progressives, Trust Your Gut, went one Guardian headline, Elizabeth Warren is not one of us. In the article itself, Nathan J. Robinson insists there were good reasons for progressive leftists not to trust that Elizabeth Warren was on their side. His first two such reasons were that Warren worked at Harvard Law School training generations of elite corporate lawyers [and] did legal work for big corporations accused of wrongdoing.
Some of this is classic 1950s sexism, casting Warren as scary and selfish because she dared to have a career of her own. The problem is not her feeswhich, again, hardly left her rolling in filthy lucrebut that she charged for her work at all, rather than doing it out of the goodness of her heart. Theres a distinct get in the kitchen tone heard when someone like Robinson lists, among a womans negative qualities, the fact that she taught at Harvard. But there is also a subtler sexism, which should be familiar to us after two straight presidential campaigns featuring female front-runners: Warren is untrustworthy and unbelievable by default. Any areas of her life that we cant see into are presumed to be repositories of malice and trickery; none of her actions can be taken at face value, but each and every one must be interpreted in terms of the scary, corrupt creature we assume her to secretly be.
................................
We push women to be good and pure and stand on principle, to be selfless, to serve others first, to make the right choices rather than the choices that will get them re-elected. We tell them to be more like Elizabeth Warren, or at least, more like the version of Elizabeth Warren people said theyd vote for in 2016. Yet when women actually do all thatwhen the real Elizabeth Warren actually stands up, and asks to be handed powerwe punish them anyway. We tag them as careerists, elitists, corporate vultures and sell-outs anyway, less on the strength of anything theyve done, and more because of our baseline assumption that women are deceitful. As happens so often, in patriarchy, theres no winning this one: If you are careful and cautious, and proceed only as far as the moment will allow, someone will come along in a few years or decades and claim you were not brave. If you are braveand Warren, who substantially sparked the Democratic Partys swing back to economic populism back in the early aughts, and whose candidacy has inspired cold sweats among Wall Street executives and tech bros since its inception, certainly counts as one of our braver politiciansthen not only will you make plenty of enemies, your own side wont back you up.
Warren is a grown woman, and a tough person, and she can take care of herself. She is still a front-runner in the race, and she is among the few female candidates still standingand the only one among the leading four candidatesin what was once a vibrantly and excitingly female field. Yet her candidacy, which once seemed like such a pure beacon of hope, has left a much more cynical message. When we tell women to be brave and pure, we arent pushing them to be better. Were pushing them off a cliff.
The latest round concerns Warrens past as a corporate lawyer. After releasing her tax returns from that time, in response to pressure from Pete Buttigieg, her income was trumpeted in headlines like CNNs Elizabeth Warren made at least $1.9 million for past private legal work over three decades, which typically failed to explain that this averaged out to about $65K per year. The work itself was cast as shady, nefarious pro-corporatism, not only by conservative outlets like the Washington Times (which labeled her a high-powered corporate vulture) or Tucker Carlson (who recently proclaimed that she is like Mr. Burns on The Simpsons) but by the very leftists who used to embrace her: Progressives, Trust Your Gut, went one Guardian headline, Elizabeth Warren is not one of us. In the article itself, Nathan J. Robinson insists there were good reasons for progressive leftists not to trust that Elizabeth Warren was on their side. His first two such reasons were that Warren worked at Harvard Law School training generations of elite corporate lawyers [and] did legal work for big corporations accused of wrongdoing.
Some of this is classic 1950s sexism, casting Warren as scary and selfish because she dared to have a career of her own. The problem is not her feeswhich, again, hardly left her rolling in filthy lucrebut that she charged for her work at all, rather than doing it out of the goodness of her heart. Theres a distinct get in the kitchen tone heard when someone like Robinson lists, among a womans negative qualities, the fact that she taught at Harvard. But there is also a subtler sexism, which should be familiar to us after two straight presidential campaigns featuring female front-runners: Warren is untrustworthy and unbelievable by default. Any areas of her life that we cant see into are presumed to be repositories of malice and trickery; none of her actions can be taken at face value, but each and every one must be interpreted in terms of the scary, corrupt creature we assume her to secretly be.
................................
We push women to be good and pure and stand on principle, to be selfless, to serve others first, to make the right choices rather than the choices that will get them re-elected. We tell them to be more like Elizabeth Warren, or at least, more like the version of Elizabeth Warren people said theyd vote for in 2016. Yet when women actually do all thatwhen the real Elizabeth Warren actually stands up, and asks to be handed powerwe punish them anyway. We tag them as careerists, elitists, corporate vultures and sell-outs anyway, less on the strength of anything theyve done, and more because of our baseline assumption that women are deceitful. As happens so often, in patriarchy, theres no winning this one: If you are careful and cautious, and proceed only as far as the moment will allow, someone will come along in a few years or decades and claim you were not brave. If you are braveand Warren, who substantially sparked the Democratic Partys swing back to economic populism back in the early aughts, and whose candidacy has inspired cold sweats among Wall Street executives and tech bros since its inception, certainly counts as one of our braver politiciansthen not only will you make plenty of enemies, your own side wont back you up.
Warren is a grown woman, and a tough person, and she can take care of herself. She is still a front-runner in the race, and she is among the few female candidates still standingand the only one among the leading four candidatesin what was once a vibrantly and excitingly female field. Yet her candidacy, which once seemed like such a pure beacon of hope, has left a much more cynical message. When we tell women to be brave and pure, we arent pushing them to be better. Were pushing them off a cliff.
https://www.damemagazine.com/2019/12/19/principled-is-the-new-unlikable-for-female-politicians/
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 368 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post