Editor’s Note: This is a good read. See what we’re up against and stay informed. We talk about so many issues here which are the effects of the feminist movement. This article gives insight into why it is so important for the furtherance of socialism to mask everything as a “Women’s Issue”. It’s completely political and you’re being used.
Hillary is attempting to make a shift back to traditional feminism for political gain. When we think about why we should work on establishing our households and family economies, we need to remember that when we are faithful to these callings we are doing some of the most powerfully influential things a woman can do with her life in our day, for our culture and for the future of our nation. If our presuppositions rest in a correct foundation, when arguments about birth control and abortion, minimum wage and whether a woman should work out side the home, whether the state should educate our kids or if we should maintain the responsibility ourselves, etc., when these discussions come up, it will be easier to avoid emotional entanglement and pragmatic reasoning which feminists use to entrap us in socialistic policy.
As Yglesias notes, the gender gap that gives most female voters to Democrats and most male voters to Republicans is commonly understood as one created by Democratic stances on a host of “women’s issues,” such as their support for equal pay, reproductive rights, and the traditionally strong role they’ve played in pushing anti-violence legislation like the Violence Against Women Act. But in reality, it’s that women have always been more economically liberal and have stayed that way even as men moved to the right. Which isn’t to say that issues traditionally regarded as “feminist” don’t have political value to Democrats, but that value is more in getting out the vote than it is in persuading anyone to switch sides. Once inside the booth, women’s greater support for a social safety net and government regulation of business is what gets them to pull the lever for the Democrats.
But, as Yglesias writes, this distinction between “social” issues and “economic” issues is a false one, always has been. Reproductive rights, for instance, are inseparable from economic considerations. Same goes, perhaps obviously, for pay equality. Clinton’s remarks suggest that the Democrats are moving towards a more holistic understanding of feminism, seeing that it is more than just a handful of “women’s issues” (with a side dose of corporate leaders extolling us to lean in) and instead using a feminist “take” on nearly all issues, like workers’ rights and the minimum wage.
To be clear, Clinton is not re-inventing the definition of feminism. Feminist academics have been on this for a long time, wedding feminism to race and class. But Clinton’s remarks show how Democrats are beginning to move that sort of thinking out of women’s studies seminars and turning it into a potent political strategy, reinforcing the notion that the traditional liberal agenda is particularly important to women.
Read the rest here