General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie speaking on 1st day at Women's conference is a horrible idea & it's easy to show why...
- A non hearing impaired person who hasn't been a particular advocate for the hearing impaired signed to speak on the first day of a conference for the deaf when it is the first conference for the deaf have had in 40 years.
- A non Latino/Hispanic person who hasn't been a particular advocate for the Latino/Hispanic community signed to speak on the first day of a conference for Latinos/Hispanic people when it is the first conference for Latinos in 40 years.
- A white man who hasn't done much for African American rights signed to speak on the the first day of a conference for African Americans when it is the first conference for African Americans in 40 years.
We can keep going. All of the above would be shockingly bad choices. It's all pretty obvious. Women's rights has not been one of Bernie's signature issues. He's probably on the right side of those rights, but that's not his bailiwick.
The decision to have Bernie speak was not about women. That's the problem. This conference is about women.
msongs
(67,198 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to invite people to speak a conference if not the organizers?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)have to ask the members of the diversity group permission to have the event? I'm pretty sure if a group of people, in this case apparently mostly WOC, organize an event they can choose the speakers. If they are not able to get enough people to come maybe they need to reflect, but it is still there event not yours or even women's in general.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The statement that Bernie wasn't a particular ally of feminism is not an unassailable truth.
It's simply an assertion.
And frankly it sounds as though you feel they were obligated to invite Hillary or a Hillary supporter, because you, and you alone, know what is best for feminism.
radical noodle
(7,990 posts)but I believe they did ask attendees to pay $300 to attend BEFORE they announced Sanders as the speaker. Some people are asking for their money back.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)refrenced in #7 of this thread mentions that and I followed the hashtag #womensmarch and that is the idea I get. If you have information that the women behind #womensmarch aren't organizing this event or aren't mainly WOC I would like to be more rather than less educated about this.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I've not been able to find an official roster the only name I've seen in connection is Tamika Mallory. From what you say it seems four women are involved did they not all sign on to the invitation of Senator Sanders?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)I would've loved if they had invited BOTH Bernie AND Hillary as co-speakers to open the conference, which would've gone a long way to uniting the party.
I'm guessing that maybe, with Hillary's book, ripping on Bernie for her loss, so fresh in people's minds, that has opened old wounds, which made that impossible.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For instance:
http://time.com/4981357/bernie-sanders-womens-march-convention/
Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)that's to be expected. Doesn't necessarily make it a BAD decision. Could they have made a less controversial choice? Of course.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)Maybe that was part of the purpose of the choice as well, it raised more awareness of the event, for free. That's what controversy tends to do, and so it can be a smart strategy, depending on the goal. So whether the choice is "horrible" as you say, or merely "controversial" as they admit, on balance, the decision may well have served them well.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)are being sold out.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Or Sarah Silverman(who campaigned for Bernie), or a woman not associated with either campaign?
Were you going to insist that it not only be a woman, but a woman allied with HRC?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Whether or not I like them.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #37)
Post removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie supports all of the causes people were marching for in that photo and has an essentially 100% voting record in support of anti-oppression politics during his Congressional career.
Acknowledging that the choice is controversial is not the same thing as admitting the choice was wrong.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)announcing this AFTER the refund deadline had passed might wish to have a say. They're being smacked hard by the displeasure of the women they were supposedly organizing for, and the attendees are the people who they should be listening to, but apparently that wasn't the goal for these people are busy behaving stupidly after once again doing dumb things deliberately calculated to irritate people.
They went through this in January and learned nothing. They're being called out for the fraud they attempted, and people are upset that they had to be forced to include actual women running for office in the state they decided to set their conference.
JI7
(89,182 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)speak on social justice issues when he called planned parenthood establishment and said we needed to abandon identity issues is just plain wrong...and a woman should open this convention. I don't know who decided this...I would be interested to know, bu it was a bad decision.
"How much does it cost?
General admission is $295 per personan amount necessary to help us cover the expense of holding a conference. Youth and student registration is $125 per person. If your employer is paying your registration, please register at the institutional level, $365 per person. Single day tickets are available for Friday and Saturday at $125, and Sunday at $75."
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/womens-march-presents-the-inaugural-womens-convention-2017-tickets-36830022589
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)attacking Democrats, WoC (supposedly on behalf of WoC), Hillary, her supporters, Emily's List etc. Winnie Wong was "ready for a fight", so unifying these folks.
From what I'm hearing and seeing, this was a top down F*up. I feel bad for the local women who will be spending their time working their rears off, while people who didn't do much once again hog all the credit and prove just how badly they fail at organizing, unifying or speaking without being insulting, divisive and just plain awful.
Take a look at those comments on the page as well, in response to that "apology".
Please be careful if you're heading down there, and charge your phone. Drama queens about and they're apparently all ready to fight, whatever that means coming from people who happily took selfies with actual Nazis.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)your money back before announcing the opening speaker. Thanks for the update.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)Keep the weekend free if you can, there might be things that local groups are doing in the area. I'm hearing some rumblings.
I'm frankly curious to see how these bombastic personalities comport themselves in person.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)If you only want to go Friday, for the headliner who is or not the headliner, depending on the mood of the organizer at the moment they're asked, it's $125.
I wonder where this money is going and how much Emily's List kicked in, and if they get a refund considering how those Fox stalwarts and GOP backed speakers to this event have been attacking that organization. You know the one that supported Nina and many other women, this is how the "invited guests" of the Women's Convention speak of an organization that support women and sponsored their event.
I feel bad for the local organizers who spent lots of time and effort here just to watch as the national ones basically make a giant mess of everything to cater to their personal biases. I'm thinking they weren't consulted though they're the ones doing all the work.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)The Womens Convention will bring thousands of women, femmes and our allies of all backgrounds to Detroit from October 27-29th, 2017, for a weekend of workshops, strategy sessions, inspiring forums and intersectional movement building to continue the preparation going into the 2018 midterm elections.
Tapping into the power of women in leadership as the fundamental, grassroots force for change, the Womens Convention will bring together first time activists and movement leaders, rising political stars that reflect our nations changing demographics, and thousands of women whove organized sister marches, huddles, rallies and resistance actions, large and small, since January 2017.
Participants will leave inspired and motivated, with new connections, skills and strategies for working towards collective liberation for women of all races, ethnicities, ages, abilities, sexual identities, gender expressions, immigration statuses, religious faiths, and economic statuses.
The Womens Convention is the beginning of a political groundswell, showing that the rise of the woman IS the rise of the nation.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to questionseverything (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's exactly as I wrote in my OP.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)of an opinion. The organizers of this event do not share your opinion and are not obligated to. I do find it interesting that this seems to be something organized by Women most of whom are Black and you a typical white guy feels comfortable explaining why they got it all wrong.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the word sharing in this instance. They may agree that he is a controversial choice, but it does not seem that Ms. Mallory feels that a man, Senator Sanders in particular, does not have a place at a women's convention. Unless I have misread what you are saying I believe your opinion is that a man does not have a place at a womens convention. Their convention their invites you can grouse as you see fit.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)choice.
They also knew Sanders was not known for being an advocate for women, yet they made the choice anyway.
So they acknowledge that these opinions were out there among women and they ignored them. They knew they were having someone speak who wasnt an advocate for women.
So they have acknowledged and legitimized everything I have written on this subject.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)even knowing some would object these women decided that Senator Sanders was someone who they wanted to speak. That does not square with you saying it is a demonstrably horrible decision. It may well be if you start from disliking Senator Sanders, but that is not everybody. What you have written is a legitimate opinion nothing more. In no way are the organizers agreeing with you that this is a horrible idea.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)having Bernie will definitely sell tickets. I hate to sound cynical. It is $300 for the conference and over 100.00 for just a day. There are 'scholarships'. Hubs was out of work and just recently went back so my daughter and I were going up for one day only...I am not going now. I attended the woman's march which was great. But this seems really really divisive and controversial. We don't need this now. It shows an appalling lack of judgement.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Did they invite women from the Republican side of things?
It's not legitimizing your position because you aren't taking the position the organizers are. They are saying that some people believe as you do, which is a far cry from saying that your position is correct.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Whether or not you realize it you just compared the decision to invite Bernie to inviting Republican women.
I actually think that the outrage of inviting any man to open the conference who is not a womens rights advocate is similar to the outrage it would have caused to invite a Republican women.
The point is to invite speakers who are women who fight for women's rights. Or, a man who has been such an exceptional advocate for women's rights that his invitation speaks for himself. This really isn't that complicated.
There are historical examples of such men where an invite might be appropriate. I posted one as an OP. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029708758
mythology
(9,527 posts)You just don't understand the point.
It's absolutely impossible to find 44 different speakers that literally 100% of people would agree on. You can't even get a definition of feminism that 100% of people agree with. So rather obviously some people will disagree with inviting Sanders, just as some would have disagreed with inviting Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or Sarah Palin.
You mistake your own personal opinion for being factual and objective. Simply put it isn't. The fact that you don't realize that, well that's not my fault. This is about your dislike of Sanders in my opinion. That's fine, but it doesn't exactly make you an unbiased opinion. You have your conclusion and work backwards from there. It's shoddy logic.
True Dough
(17,095 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)And let me just say in the era of Trump who is attacking even the right to birth control...a woman's conference makes sense and is in no way simplistic or limited if it about social justice...none of the other stuff matters if you don't have control over your own body. This sounds like an Our Revolution event. Glad I didn't waste my money. I thought it was pricey to begin with...$300.00 which is why I was only going for one day which costs me over $100.00. Now I will not attend. A woman should be speaking at a woman's convention...and the latest excuse that they couldn't get prominent woman is ridiculous when they have Maxine who should speak first. I went to the Woman's march and would think twice about attending anything sponsored by this group again.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)about women" from that statement by the organization?
Nice that Bernie and a couple other men speaking, but organizers clear it is about women changing the world.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)That is as it should be in my opinion. But i also remember when feminists (of both genders) were forced to take the stand that "every issue is a woman's issue", because too many men thought women could be relegated to only getting serious input into matters of health home and family.
I do not hesitate in saying that, in the broadest sense, women speak for me.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They need to grow up, and defend their choices better.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)trying to use them as a shield against criticism of their horrible choice.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)This group touted Sanders and his "Revolution" people way above other people who barely got a mention. Then they try and gaslight women who don't like it. Jeeze it's got nothing to do w anyone's race but I guess if they're trapped in a corner, shit gets vicious.
elleng
(130,156 posts)babylonsister
(170,963 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)babylonsister
(170,963 posts)see if he's either cancelled, well-received, or whatever else might happen.
And FTR, I love Bernie, and I am not alone.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)I do believe it was a tone-deaf decision by the organizers but it is what it is.
He def votes the right way, but I don't recall him vocally getting out there to strongly assert the importance of women's equality or reproductive rights. Seems his recent focus is on Trump voters, wwc, and making contradictory statements about "identity politics" aka civil rights.
I like Bernie too! This is a good challenge for him. Looking forward to seeing how he meets it.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That we all already know has any bearing on this discussion at all
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't see the irony in you, as a man, lecturing a women's organization as to who they should invite to spe
It's possible that they could see this as a way to move past the Clinton-Sanders divide...to move from division to dialog and cooperation.
It's possible that they want to find a way to engage and find common ground rather than to stay with your approach of simply demanding repentance and submission.
As I said, it may not have been the wisest choice to invite Bernie himself...but it was a good idea to reach out to the Sanders movement, and I hope you'd be okay with them inviting a woman associated with that to speak. But it's their call.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)with this decision, they DO NOT WANT HIM, and what's a conference that spits in the face of the women it's supposed to be convening for?
sheshe2
(83,348 posts)It is called a 'Women's Conference.' That means all women inclusive to ALL WOMEN and not for a select few. If they wanted it to include the few they should have just call it 'Their Conference' and others need not attend, and the others are not attending for that very reason.
BigmanPigman
(51,432 posts)on the DU Homepage. It seems to be a poor choice on the organizers part.
Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #3)
GaryCnf This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,475 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 14, 2017, 04:34 AM - Edit history (1)
in the center of divisiveness as it is.
KPN
(15,587 posts)The conference organizers invited him. Maybe we should let the people who have the desire and ability to put together and organize a conference decide who should be invited to speak.
Many women admire Senator Sandersand are thrilled to have him speak at the conference. They should keep everyone else happy even though they seem to think that Bernie is relevant as a principal speaker at the event?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)You mean they shouldn't turn it over to some angry keyboard slacktivists?
That's crazy talk!!
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)thank you!
SixString
(1,057 posts)delisen
(6,039 posts)Can't fathom why conference organizers want to criticize or intimidate, or silence women who disagree strongly with their choice.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)KPN
(15,587 posts)Thank you for that.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)linked article in that OP and this we now have two male viewpoints calling for silencing another male viewpoint (while simultaneously lecturing Tamika Mallory for disagreeing).
Irony
KPN
(15,587 posts)Just like this whole over-reaction ...partly if not largely because it's Bernie. Still fighting the primary.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)You are referring to some individuals' usurpation of the important issues women are now facing to continue their vendetta against Senator Sanders.
KPN
(15,587 posts)but only coincidentally. I misread the irony as sarcasm in your post. Pardon me for misreading it initially. My bad.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)will right this ship (sarcasm). I can't imagine how some women thought a woman's conference should be about well women.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)to attacking the women who invited Senator Sanders.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)They caused division and ruined their convention...and they lost my trust completely.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
-----------------------------------------------------------
So no, not a male opinion, not a shocking opinion, Mallory knew what she was doing was controversial and that many women would object.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)That is a wise move, but transparent.
You did not say her choice was "controversial," you said it was:
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)demonstrated it is a horrible idea only that one guy on a blog thinks it is.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I suspect no one would consider me a member of a diversity group. On the other hand apparently the organizers of this event are and they made the invite.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I outlined in the OP.
Ask an African American how they would feel about:
- A white man who hasn't done much for African American rights signed to speak on the the first day of a conference for African Americans when it is the first conference for African Americans in 40 years.
etc.
You will get 99% all feeling the same way.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that the African American you describe may well not want the white man you describe to be speaker at the conference you describe. If African Americans were putting on the conference and decided they wanted the white man in your description to speak I would believe they understood better than I who is appropriate to speak. I give the same deference to Tamika Mallory and the other women who organized this. At the same time I don't see you having any better claim on who should speak at the Women's Conference than I.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)No doubt they didn't know any African Americans they could ask
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)speakers.
Most AfAms are focused on the Obama Foundation Summit on Oct 31st and Nov 1st.
KPN
(15,587 posts)analogies none of which are legitimate in themselves. In fact, your OP makes a good case against itself using your reasoning.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Your flailing is evidence of that.
KPN
(15,587 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)We don't elaborate on those on Bernie Underground though. Try Twitter.
KPN
(15,587 posts)And obviously the right thing.
Strikes me that some are making a major controversy out of differences of opinion again. Oddly, and ironically, the same quarter that consistently harangues about the other side having a "purity" test. No credibility.
sheshe2
(83,348 posts)You say.
Many women admire Senator Sandersand are thrilled to have him speak at the conference. They should keep everyone else happy even though they seem to think that Bernie is relevant as a principal speaker at the event?
So the few, and I am told two decided that he speak first. They should speak for us all and our 10 fold voices must just be silenced when we say he should not. So all women's voices collectively do not count when we say no.?
Voltaire2
(12,626 posts)this guy who wrote the op knows what women should do.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)are you criticizing their decision? It sounds as if the actual conference organizers feel that having Bernie Sanders speak does have some relevance to the issue.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)for this particular conference, but, it's a perfectly reasonable one.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)elleng
(130,156 posts)and Maxine Waters is a/the headlining speaker which many don't mention.
But oh yes let's fight among ourselves. I wonder why.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)One small additional reason for the loss in 2016.
elleng
(130,156 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)should be criticized in an attempt to improve it can certainly take some themselves? It is inconsistent for any Bernie supporter to claim there should be no criticism of anyone's proceedings.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)You're basically shitting on WOC
WTF?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The folks defending the choice are doing so not because he is an appropriate choice for the conference, they are defending the choice because they are political fans of Sanders.
betsuni
(25,134 posts)Maybe later.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You know we are going to see that eventually.
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
Post removed
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)provided the explanation and it is far from laughable.
As you stated, there is no doubt that Sanders is on the right side of women's rights, even if it is not his top issue. Given that, his equally unquestioned ability to inspire and motivate activists, particularly young activists, makes him a fine choice to get convention attendees fired up for the more substantive speakers who follow.
Of course, you would have known this already if you had LISTENED TO THE WOMEN who invited him.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)http://time.com/4981357/bernie-sanders-womens-march-convention/
Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)WMP sometimes cause a person to take their eye off the ball.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)conference.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Your point was already addressed the first time you tried it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)elevate the image of one man over the efforts of literally millions of women. It's beyond absurd, but glad to see it being exposed and called out.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People who don't want to hear from Bernie would be willing to hear from other men, so it doesn't follow. There are plenty of men who have done a lot more for women's issue. Bernie is one who disparages them as not as important as his issues.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and that phrase is divisive and anathema to many activists.
Anyone who claims that feminists or people concerned with racial justice are practicing identity politics is on the wrong side of the issue, no matter how well intentioned in his own mind.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710
Bernie Sanders said Monday that the path to success for Democrats has to be through more than just identity politics, adding that its simply not enough for the party to base its appeals on diversity.
Its not good enough for someone to say, Im a woman! Vote for me! No, thats not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry, the Vermont independent senator and former Democratic presidential candidate said in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hillary Clinton.
SNIP
And one message I do have for Democrats is that a strategy thats just micro-targeting particular, discrete groups in a Democratic coalition sometimes will win you elections, but its not going to win you the broad mandate that you need, Obama told reporters during a joint news conference in Lima, Peru, on Sunday.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)You're wrong, but you're honest that this is,all about hatred for Bernie
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and that doesn't work for many of us.
And that solution doesn't fit a women's conference either.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)I am here defending a friend. As a man i will not question any woman's position on the substance of issues uniquely affecting them. I get enough of that myself.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)But cool!
Tepid criticism isn't "hatred".
One of the things I admire about Bernie is his thick skin, he can handle criticism without pretending it is "hatred". He's a tough man.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Why couldn't they have had Nina Turner, for example, be the first speaker, if they absolutely couldn't find another prominent woman? Bernie wouldn't come at all if he couldn't have top billing, maybe? It just seems so tone deaf to me.
mcar
(42,210 posts)It really is that simple.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)elleng
(130,156 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)planned parenthood. It is inappropriate and reeks of opportunism...IE sell expensive tickets...bad decision. I am out some money and will not trust this group again.
Takket
(21,425 posts)...and therefor has no place at a conference for issues important to women.
On what issues do you think he was lacking? Equal pay? reproductive rights? Something else?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"Women's rights has not been one of Bernie's signature issues. He's probably on the right side of those rights, but that's not his bailiwick. "
Almost every elected Democrat is on the right side of most diversity issues. But none of them have the time to be particularly vocal advocates for ALL of them. No one has time for that. So, no, most elected Democrats would not be ideal speakers during a conference for the deaf for instance. I can see a man possibly being invited to speak at this conference if women's issues were their most important issue and they were constantly advocating for them and they had cred for being that way.
The conference organizers admitted that they knew this decision was controversial for both of the obvious reasons. They can't now say they are surprised by the controversy.
http://time.com/4981357/bernie-sanders-womens-march-convention/
Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)doesn't make it horrible or even bad.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)How does "acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice" get spun into Tamika [apparrntly disrngenuosly] saying "they are surprised by the controversy," or are you just grasping at any reason you can find to attack Tamika?
As I told another poster who is more interested in attacking Bernie than the goals of the Women's March, this garbage is on the verge of cleaving off yet another core Democratic constituency.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)you can explain how the first paragraph you wrote has any real bearing on the overall issue.
Takket
(21,425 posts)let me say this... what i would like to see...............
i would like to see an open invitation to ALL male politicians (and females for that matter) to a conference like this but not to give speeches, but rather to participate in roundtable sessions on how important it is to do exactly what you said.... not just support womens' rights but bring them to the forefront of their campaigns/legislation.
Equal pay is an example of something that makes a great campaign rallying cry. Gets lots of cheers, has the support of the public.... let me know when you see it before congress. :insert tumbleweed graphic here:
42% of women voted for drumpf. I can't help but feel if they saw more than lip service from Democrats that that number wouldn't be a lot smaller. In other words if you TALK about womens' issues but don't ACT on them, then women are not going to vote for you just because they think you support womens' issues. For the exact reason you said about Bernie........ "He's probably on the right side of those rights, but that's not his bailiwick."
Of course the obvious answer is we need to elect more women, but the wall of misogyny is this country is something I don't know how to scale.
Me.
(35,454 posts)At this point it will be wait and see. They could've put together a righteous gathering and that doesn't seem likely. The backlash has been tremendous. Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. If it is an event aimed at empowering women or an effort to support a 2020 presidential run, it will be evident pdq and if it's the latter they will have betrayed women beyond measure and won't get another bite of the apple.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Men can certainly support women's rights and have. There are surely some who are more involved than Bernie.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)There are other male speakers.
George II
(67,782 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)No matter how people try to spin it, it's still a WOMEN's conference. True, the organizers have the POWER to invite anyone they want, but they also have the OBLIGATION to keep the focus of the conference on women. The issue is not whether or not Bernie (or any man) can speak at the conference; clearly they can. But the KEYNOTE SPEAKER? No, no, no.
It's not like there aren't many strong, articulate women who have a real interest in women's issues. There are plenty of Democratic women who have worked long and hard on them.
SeattlePop
(256 posts)Than anyone else.
He has been fighting for us non rich people his whole life.
Boys and girls.
He always tells the truth, and that my folks is worth an invite every day.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)I don't. Besides no DU'ers are gonna sit home or vote for a Republican over this.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)in the slightest.
It doesn't and that the Lords for this as otherwise we would be on a world of shit...
Smitty63nnn
(59 posts)Bernie was asked to host the event. He accepted. End of story.
Note: I can almost bet you money he's doing this for nothing.
Oh, did anyone say anything about Bernie being the most popular politician for the past several months.
Not that it matters, but do ya think that might have had something to do regarding the invite?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)He wasn't and he isn't -- at least, according to any known poll. The headlines were misleading, once you read the particulars of the polls.
sheshe2
(83,348 posts)He is making a speech.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Senator Sanders does not violate the law.
Philistein
(25 posts)Several men seem eager to tell women why they should not have Sanders at their conference. Thanks, guys. We won't let it happen again.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Mallory acknowledged that inviting Sanders was a controversial choice. "Some people just don't want to hear from Bernie Sanders," says Mallory. "There are some people who dont believe that a man has a place at a womens convention."
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)controversial just means people have differing opinions. Why can't you accept that?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Tamika Mallory knew this would be controversial like you have a smoking gun. I'm just pointing out that controversial doesn't mean bad.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You jumped at a comment of mine that was specifically geared toward that other persons comment and had nothing to do with your response.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)are counting I think your responses 35, 36, 37, 47, and 49 are all examples of you saying the organizers knew they were making a controversial choice and the way I read it you are using controversial as a synonym for bad.
Philistein
(25 posts)His initial premise was shaky, and then he said I was mansplaining. His responses seem defensive at best.
Philistein
(25 posts)I'm not playing any sad songs here. I didn't organize the conference. I'm perfectly satisfied with anybody they want. I'm sorry Hillary can't attend, but maybe she thought Sanders being there made it inauthentic in some way. Maybe it does, judging by the reactions of many people here.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the mansplaining one. Which is pretty invalidated by the fact that the organizers knew full well that they would receive criticism for this choice for a couple of reasons.
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)He just signed an executive order that will cause people's health insurance premiums to go up double digits. People are gonna die in misery because of this.
He is talking about pulling FEMA out of PR because they are costing too much, and people are dying there.
He is threatening nuclear war with North Korea.
Due to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and treason, the GOP now control 33 state legislatures, 32 governorships, the WH and both houses of Congress.
And you're posting this?
WTF. I read all these posts and Steven, I must say you really, really seem to dislike Sanders. But, you know, he talks about kitchen table issues. The stuff people worry about. The stuff that will win us elections. Why do you care so much about this one little thing, Steven? It's just so...unimportant...in the great scheme of things.
Oh, well. Our democracy is nearly a dead duck anyway. So what the heck! They are TOTALLY WRONG for inviting Sanders to speak at their conference! Yep.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)As a matter of fact, sometimes both are the same thing.
FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)No, I'm a night owl and no, I'm not bashing.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I think Bernie will run and I won't vote for him no matter what and there are many democrats like me
hueymahl
(2,415 posts)You feel better now?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do YOU feel better now?
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,867 posts)Your post had nothing to do with throwing shade on Sanders.
Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining. I'm not that stupid.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Play that violin elsewhere, manufactured melodrama doesnt work on me.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)actual women's conference, but rather Sanders' image and how He is treated. Just more proof this is not about the women at the women's conference.
betsuni
(25,134 posts)philly_bob
(2,419 posts)betsuni
(25,134 posts)philly_bob
(2,419 posts)I'm worried about posters who identify with a Democratic strategy that lost big in 2016 trying to build a consensus against progressives on DU by -- what shall I say? -- snarky harping and disingenuous outrage.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)I'm sorry - but these posts on DU just seem frustrating to me. I really don't care who the speakers are at a women's conference in Detroit. I'm freaking out about health care, the dismantling of environmental protections, the Iran deal, North Korea, Puerto Rico etc. What the hell is Trump and the Congress even doing? I can't keep up. I've found myself googling NFL operations manuals only to wonder why? What am I even doing? What are any of us doing? What matters?
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)Bookmarked for later.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)Surprised that people who are so concerned about this convention don't know these facts.
coolsandy
(479 posts)by some for mistakes made in 2016 election.
elleng
(130,156 posts)Folks should get some facts, and get a grip.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's hard to imagine that somebody wouldn't have noticed that this looks really bad.
Glamrock
(11,781 posts)If it bothers you so much, don't go. If it's too late to get a refund, I'm sorry, but no one is forcing you to listen to him speak. There are 59 other speakers there.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We discuss politics including diversity issues.
If that bothers you so much, dont read the posts.
Glamrock
(11,781 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Time to focus on beating the GOP in 2018 and 2020
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)isn't bashing?
You do realize that a lot of women, particularly women under 30 to 35, don't see Bernie as someone who isn't on their side, right?
Whatever you may have intended, this thread reads as a continuation of your endless campaign against everyone to the left of your comfort level, and everyone who challenges the Democratic insider narrative.
To build a sustainable non-Trump majority, there needs to be an engagement with the Sanders movement. This invitation is, in my estimation, about such a process of engagement.
And I'm not sure it's the place of either of us, as men, to lecture a women's organization on who they should invite as speaker-especially since I'm fairly sure that you would not only insist that they invite a woman-which is a reasonable thing to at least suggest-but also that they only invite an ally of HRC, and then only one who would perpetuate the "it's Bernie's fault that Hillary's not president, therefore we have a responsibility to never listen to or engage with any of his supporters" thing.
It's time to let 2016 go, steven. The result was caused by a perfect storm and no one change-including Bernie being barred from the Democratic primaries and the primaries becoming a bland, passionless debate-free dead zone like you'd have preferred-would have made any difference.
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)"identity politics" and many women and people of color have been put off by that.He thinks economic justice will naturally lead to every other kind of justice.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710
Bernie Sanders said Monday that the path to success for Democrats has to be through more than just identity politics, adding that its simply not enough for the party to base its appeals on diversity.
Its not good enough for someone to say, Im a woman! Vote for me! No, thats not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry, the Vermont independent senator and former Democratic presidential candidate said in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hillary Clinton.
SNIP
And one message I do have for Democrats is that a strategy thats just micro-targeting particular, discrete groups in a Democratic coalition sometimes will win you elections, but its not going to win you the broad mandate that you need, Obama told reporters during a joint news conference in Lima, Peru, on Sunday.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #137)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Hillary was extremely well qualified. It was demeaning to suggest she was asking for votes merely on the basis of being a woman.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710
Its not good enough for someone to say, Im a woman! Vote for me! No, thats not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry, the Vermont independent senator and former Democratic presidential candidate said in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hillary Clinton.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #139)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #141)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)of harassment. And yet she only brought that up AFTER the election. The last thing she was, was a damsel in distress.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #143)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #145)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Please Pm me what our posting removed friend had to say!
JI7
(89,182 posts)Response to JI7 (Reply #147)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JI7
(89,182 posts)Response to JI7 (Reply #150)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JI7
(89,182 posts)Response to JI7 (Reply #153)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JI7
(89,182 posts)Response to JI7 (Reply #155)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JI7
(89,182 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)That seems an odd thing to say. But I have seen this comment before, just not here.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)conference. We need a prominent woman to do this. It should be Maxine who is awesome. And Sen. Sanders is a particularly bad choice as he wants to emphasize economic rights while de-emphasizing identity politics which include woman's rights, gay rights and civil right.(remember Heath Mello?). He also called planned parenthood establishment. I was going to this conference for a day even though I shouldn't as my hubs just went back to work. And, I went to the Woman's march; it was great, but this no...I am not going. They ruined it by making it controversial and divisive which is the last thing we need.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #165)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JCanete
(5,272 posts)even most.
I myself do not fall into either group but I entirely agree with the sentiment that it should be about the actual policies that help or hurt women or people of color, not simply about identifying as a bonafide representative of one group or another. I personally was dismayed at how vague Clinton's campaigning actually was. She said little of substance often, because no doubt, that was the strategy they thought was best...to try to be everything to her likely voters, and to alienate none of them. The one thing that she and her surrogates did campaign on though, vigorously, was that she was a woman. They calculated that that would be a winning message at this point in history. "I'm with her." "There's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary." Etc. I understand that approach. I appreciate that her fairly conventional unwllingness to delve deep into specifics that might piss off one institution or another was a tactical choice that may not have reflected on how she governed from the White House at all, but I'm tired of that convention, and I think it has led us to where we are today.
No doubt, as people like to point out here, her platform was well laid out on her website. But actual policy was hardly what she stumped on. Her go-to's of "I will work with people in the industry to find common ground...blah blah..." were completely empty of specific goals. She was going for a feeling. She was selling identity, and not just hers, but party identity. That was all well and good, had there been more details that she was selling...had there been more big ideas, had there been well defined(and lofty enough) goal-posts...
As to economic justice....you cannot move on social justice without it. I would love to see a salient argument that makes that case. As to Sanders trying to move on economic justice without social justice, that characterization hardly reflects his time in congress or the Senate. He just actually recognizes that the failure of moving towards economic justice is stunting our ability to move forward on social justice. Everybody needs to fucking recognize that already.
Response to JCanete (Reply #171)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one ever said vote for Hillary solely because she is a woman. And she does have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, blah, blah, blah.
He was the one being oversimplistic.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)justice over human rights or what he calls identity politics.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #168)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
Post removed
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)don't help to draw attention to these causes? You've got to be kidding. Sanders is 1 of many many many speakers...and there are only two men at the whole damn convention. This outrage is fucking ludicrous.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)You don't like the man, and I have to say, more than anything, I feel like that's what this comes down to. It wasn't that long ago that you were decrying Sanders going into a debate where he was tasked with defending the ACA, remember?
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)the Democratic Party. I won't vote for him in a 2020 primary, but that has nothing to do with this. It is a women's conference. Maxine Waters a champion of human rights including woman's rights should have opened this conference. And as no one can deny Sen. Sanders has said things negative things about identity politics and planned parenthood as well...all of this adds up to Sen. Sanders was a bad choice for this conference, and if they were going to do this, it should have been done during the time, one could get the money back for a ticket... I am out over $100.00 plus the cost of the hotel room. I am not going now. I won't be so trusting next time if this group plans another event. The Women's march was great. This is very divisive and harkens back to the 2016 election in my opinion...we just don't need that. I hate to be cynical...but this looks like an effort to sell expensive tickets.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... and all it has to offer because 1 of something like 50 speakers/programs is a politician with whom you have some disagreements? And it's not even actuall policy disagreements so much as the prioritization of his policy hierarchy?
I don't always like the blunt criticism Sanders sometimes hurls at the democratic leadership (not democratic people, liberals, progressives or even democratic planks - just the leadership as far as I can tell), and sometimes I think his mouth outruns his brain. But some of it's not wrong. And we - Democrats - use to benefit from criticism before Boris and Natasha started fanning the flames of vitriolic division. It's not always bad to remind progressive leaders to lead progressively.
But I wish you would reconsider not attending the conference. What's the downside? You might enjoy 95% of it (a pretty good ROI), you might hear Sanders speak and find a way to reconcile some of your differences with him - or at least mitigate them. Or you can skip his program and hang out at the pool.
I am genuinely starting to be concerned that 2018 and especially 2020 are going to be republican landslides unless we figure out a way to get down to issues and not this overhyped division. It's 3 years until 2020. We're either going to get our shit together, or get flushed. It's up to us.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)we have here...very disappointing.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)but a political rally.
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)KPN
(15,587 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)Who nominated you to make these rules? Face it, you do not like Bernie so you cannot miss an excuse to slam him. Argue against his politics, fine, as long as it is fair, but crap like this is just unnecessary division we do not need.
Bernie has constantly fought for equal rights for everyone. He doesn't have to be a member of each particular class of discriminated individuals to do so, and neither do we! As a matter of fact, we should all be fighting against discrimination in all forms and each group of discriminated people need outsiders to join their cause to fight the hate and prejudice!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And would you have been this strenuous in objecting to any other man being invited?
It sound like this is more about you refusing to let 2016 go and work for unity through respect and engagement than it is any actual concern for who speaks at this conference.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And I wrote an OP recently about one of the more famous men invitees that I think sets the standard. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029708758#post9
This shows how silly Sanders being invited really is
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I get it that you are on an endless vendetta against Bernie(and would probably be outraged that anyone who supports the values of his campaign would be speaking to the Conference) but it's hypocritical to invoke the 1977 event-especially since nobody you would want to see speaking on the first day supports the program outlined in the Call to Action and none have worked to implement any significant part of it.
And you would probably be outraged if the things outlined in the Call to Action were ever proposed as planks for a Democratic platform.
I salute the 1977 conference. Perhaps those who are organizing the 2017 conference are trying to re-connect with the kind of politics that animated it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Either address those or you and I have nothing else to discuss on this issue.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1) You hate Bernie. think he should never have been allowed to run in our primary, and won't stop your vendetta against not only him but his supporters until this party totally anathemizes all of them.
2) For some reason, you think you are a greater authority on who and what the Women's Conference should hear than the Women's Conference themselves.
I would personally advise Bernie to turn down the invitation for the greater good, but I respect the right of the Conference to make its own choices.
KG
(28,749 posts)samnsara
(17,570 posts)KPN
(15,587 posts)BS analogies -- nothing but hyperbole.
Too many people already expressed why your OP is off base above for me to do so at this point -- not going to repeat everything? Just quit with the Bernie hate already. All you are doing is dividing.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So sorry, your argument fails.
KPN
(15,587 posts)Nope ... the organizers knew it would be controversial for some but felt the positives outweighed any controversy so went ahead with it. Your argument fails.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Quixote1818
(28,904 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Were I a woman and a member of the group making the decision, I wouldn't have invited Bernie myself-I'd have invited a women who was either neutral in the '16 primaries, like Elizabeth Warren, OR if not available a woman who backed Bernie, as many women under 35 did, to speak-but I recognize that it's their forum and their decision.
It's too late to reverse it now.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But apparently, they are more of a Bernie organization than a women's organization.
Could be like the "socialist" in the name of the Nazi party.
If he is one of the speakers that is one thing, but as the top speaker, that proves they are more Bernie than they are Women.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)Is Maxine Waters a Berniebro now?
Only 2 men out of 60 invited
This little dust up has reached ludicrous stage now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Bernie was. If Maxine opens it that makes it more a womens organization
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)would be a "keynote." On another day. As of September 19th, however, there still wasn't a confirmation that Maxine was even coming. That happened later.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Great to hear Maxine will be keynoting.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)uncovered or failed to find of that fact after searching that you are using to support your claim that her keynote was an afterthought or damage-control?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)was going to be attending, much less be a keynote -- though they were happy to use her "voice" in naming their convention.
ept. 19:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/09/19/maxine-waters-womens-convention-detroit/682216001/
In its announcement, the Women's March organization said Waters' words: "resonate beyond the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Women everywhere are tired of being interrupted, of being told to sit down, shut up and take less space.
SNIP
The words "reclaiming my time" were used in memes that spread on social media like weeds in an untended garden. DJ Adam Joseph turned it into a dance mix and Broadway performer Mykal Kilgore came up with a gospel version of the words in a nod to the congresswoman.
SNIP
Tamika Mallory, co-president of Women's March, said in a statement that the organization is honored to have Waters' voice "play such a pivotal role in our convention. 'Reclaiming Our Time' really captures the essence of this convention and why we believe this is such an important moment to convene, make our voices heard, and show that the rise of the woman is the rise of the nation.
The Free Press left a message Tuesday with Waters' office in Washington, D.C., trying to confirm whether she would attend the event or serve as a speaker or panelist. She did not respond. A spokeswoman for the Women's Convention could not confirm Tuesday whether Waters would attend the convention or play a role in its events.
Few other details are available about the convention, which is five weeks away.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)that he was the "headliner."
JCanete
(5,272 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)as reported in an article on October 12.
Being one of a "lot of other people" at the conference isn't equivalent to being the opening speaker or the headliner.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/12/bernie-sanders-speech-womens-convention/756825001/
When Women's March co-founder Tamika Mallory was asked: "People are going to say, wait a minute, theres a man as the headliner at the Womens Convention, the first womens convention in 40 years?" she replied:
"I would say that (U.S. Rep.) Maxine Waters is also coming to the conference, and we know she has been a very, very powerful voice in terms of all weve seen happening in terms of this administration, particularly, and shell be at the conference as well. And a lot of other people have been invited to the conference and were hoping to hear back from these folks. Thankfully, SenatorSanders has agreed to attend."
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,867 posts)Do you need someone to explain to you which is the most important position?
I went to a concert. The big name band went last. A band I never heard of went first. Want to guess which band people named when they talked about which concert they went to.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the other poster in this exchange claimed it was Maxine.
And Bernie is just speaking on the first day - presumably the second day is OK as that is when the other male person is speaking.
This organization seems a bit Bernie-related to me rather than being just a women's organization, but I likely have a lot to learn.
Voltaire2
(12,626 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)controversial.
Sorry, they validated my opinion. You need to move on to another superficial accusation.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They simply acknowledged that people might disagree with their decision.
The group could hardly say anything else.
They weren't agreeing with you and revoking the invitation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fact is, a number of proBernie speaking folks have tried to use a number of disengenuous attacks on people critical of the decision to have him as speaker.
Including the hilarious accusations of mansolaining from people who have never been interested in womens issues before or the whole They are WOC line from people who have both never been interested in womens issues or issues regarding people of color.
Both of those attacks are invalidated by the fact that the organizers who made the decision who are WOC acknowledged that they knew the decision was controversial. So as you can see, it cant be mansplaining or against WOC to think so.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They are not agreeing that you, personally, are right and that they were wrong.
They simply said some folks wouldn't like it-they aren't saying they're obligated to defer to those who don't like it-especially those who aren't women.
People who preferred Hillary to Bernie in the primaries are not the ONLY supporters of feminism, they don't OWN feminism as a concept, and you, as a man, are not entitled to women as to who they invite to speak. None of us are.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)of mansplaining
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie didn't invite himself to this thing...he himself isn't the problem...what I'd say he should do is to suggest that instead of him, they should invite a woman who wasn't associated with EITHER 2016 campaign to speak to the group.
You'd be ok with that, right?
The speech should be given by a woman from the next generation of feminist leaders, as our party needs to move on to the next generation of political leaders.
Sienna86
(2,147 posts)Your point?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)but that's a different organization and a different kind of event.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/25/bill-clinton-to-headline-emilys-list-award-gala/?utm_term=.f90ac3b4c4c7
shanny
(6,709 posts)Seems to me working for the empowerment of women needs to include letting them invite whoever they want to speak.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and that he no longer has a prominent speaking role in the main hall on the first day.
As I said in my OP, had this not been changed it would have been wrong no matter which diversity group you were talking about.