Millennial feminists rebel against Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has certainly sold herself as a feminist–or at least she’s tried to. Who can forget her interview with Lena Dunham?

It became inevitable for the two to discuss feminism. The Democratic front-runner told Dunham she’s not only a feminist, but mentioned she is “always a little bit puzzled when any woman of whatever age” are not.

Hillary also has often defined herself by her sex. During one of her few recent Sunday morning programs, Hillary tried to argue she was an outsider simply because she’s a woman.

Some liberal feminists, however, aren’t buying it.

The Daily Beast recently published an extensive piece on “Why Millennial Feminists Don’t Like Hillary.”

As is mentioned:

 Clinton’s brand of feminism (and, some would say, Dunham’s too) doesn’t align with Progressive Millennial Feminism. Her vision of the movement is too outdated and mainstream for most of today’s progressive young liberals, whose feminism prioritizes intersectionality and identity politics.

Basically it comes down to Hillary being a rich white woman and part of the establishment.

The Daily Beast talked to several young feminists, and that’s certainly the tone they reflect. From Erica Brandt, 27:

“It’s fine for middle-class white people, but it completely ignores intersectionality,” Brandt, who grew up in Boston and works in education policy, told The Daily Beast. She worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign, and considers herself a left-leaning Democrat.

“Feminism that doesn’t include rights for the poor, for minorities, the non-cis is just not feminism to me,” she added. “Rich white women don’t get to make the rules for everyone, or at least they shouldn’t.”

Brandt is also one feminist who isn’t being won over by Hillary simply because she’s a woman. “I don’t think we should have to compromise policy for chromosomes,” she later mentioned.

Deva Cats-Baril, 28, made a similar point about Hillary as a white woman:

I think the whole pro-Hillary camp of feminism creepily mirrors the larger problems facing feminism today. It’s all about uplifting and forgiving white women, and entitlement when it comes to positions of power. There’s this sense of, ‘We’ll get a white woman in the White House and we’ll stand up for you,’ but I don’t believe it. White women get their rights first. Hillary’s not going to change anything for me. I don’t see her progressing feminism or equality.

The piece briefly mentions that in “2006, Senator Clinton disappointed many feminists when she took a centrist stance on abortion.”

For the New York Times and the Daily Beast, taking “a centrist stance” means attempting to come together to be “preventing unwanted pregnancies.”

When it comes to Hillary’s overall record on abortion, it’s hard to consider her a centrist. She was one of the few Senators to vote against the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 and her Sunday morning appearances also suggest she supports abortion for all nine months of pregnancy.

Also, despite Hillary’s current stance in favor of same-sex marriage, she’s still begrudged for previously being against it. Not mentioned is how President Barack Obama also was against same-sex marriage until 2012.

But what liberals and conservatives may be able to agree on is that Hillary isn’t very convincing. The Daily Beast also spoke to Alexis Isabel Moncada:

“I feel like she’s trying to appeal to young women and liberals but it doesn’t seem like she genuinely cares about the issues she says she cares about,” Moncada said, noting Clinton’s various flip-flops on gay marriage. “She changes her ideals a lot.”

It is interesting to note that the Daily Beast communicates its own idea of feminism as well.

No mention is made of the other woman running for president, Carly Fiorina, who is running as a Republican.

Related Content