I am so not looking forward to the next 10 months of this bullshit:
Do you notice a difference between young women and women our age in their excitement about Hillary Clinton? Is there a generational divide? Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.
Guys? Which one of you forgot to send Debbie Wasserman Schultz the list of stuff ladies younger than 40 care about? Because she seems to be under the impression that young women aren’t working as clinic escorts, or donating to Planned Parenthood, or supporting pro-choice candidates, all of which is the case. Moreover, she seems to be under the impression that if she doesn’t “see” it, it doesn’t exist, so obviously we need to make sure to do stuff on her timetable if we want any respect as people.
Christ. First of all, most of the serious assaults on Roe have come at the state level, in places like OH I DON’T KNOW WISCONSIN where lots and lots and lots of young people tried to recall the anti-choice governor. Where was the DNC while this personhood-amendment-supporting, 20-week-ban-signing asshole was riding roughshod over a pro-choice man and then a pro-choice woman opponent? I mean it, where were they? Because if they want to talk about complacency, I’d like to hear an explanation for the WAREHOUSES full of dry powder they decided not to waste in that case. I’d like to talk about that before we go full metal jacket on the college kids.
Second of all, if anyone is to blame for the erosion of Roe, it is the anti-choice men in statehouses and Congress and the Supreme Court eroding it. I’d like to hear a little more about THEM, and what Democratic and abortion rights groups intend to do to stop them, and a little less about those ungrateful teenage bitches who just don’t understand real activism or whatever. Something something Twitter.
This is WHAT ANTI-CHOICE MEN WANT. This is what rich old jackwagons who hate women and especially poor women WANT. They want us yelling at each other so we’re not yelling at them. They want the DNC chair talking shit about her own voters instead of saying “I think young women are incredibly energized and excited about the possibility of a female president, and even if there are generational differences in how women approach the issues, in the end any movement that doesn’t welcome the contributions of younger members will dry up and blow away. Look at the Republican party, for example.”
They WANT us to jab about the menopause caucus burning their bras and the girls who care more about the Kardashians and being naked than they do about their rights. And here we are giving them exactly what they want. Look, people will always try to play you, but you don’t have to welcome it. You don’t have to follow the script. You can refuse to dump on other women to make yourself look better. You can refuse the premise of the question.
Schmuck.
A.
Washerman-Schultz was all of six years old when Roe v. Wade was decided. She’s lived pretty much her entire life since then. Maybe she’s talking about her own complacency.
I think Wasserman-Schultz has–by inaction as well as action–helped more Republican politicians than she has Dems, and that’s doubly true if we’re talking younger, more progressive Dems, and this is just more of the “you’re just a bunch of pot-smokin’ hippies” routine that’s currently fashionable among the DLC/DNC/New Democrat types that’s meant to shut down the only movement within the party that isn’t moribund and completely captured by big business.
I’m not sure this is so much about women’s rights as it is about telling younger people to sit down, shut up and mind your elders, such as Hillary Clinton. Whether browbeating your younger constituency results in them voting for Hillary Clinton or in them staying home and letting the clods put a right-wing bully in office, Wasserman-Schultz and her patrons win either way.
DWS is a horrible National Chairperson and wrong on this. I say that as a Clinton supporter as well. DWS is an idiot.