God bless the work that the good people at Newsbusters do on a daily basis - watching liberal crap on TV and calling out leftist nonsense so that the rest of America does not have to. This time, Newsbusters' Brad Wilmouth snagged a clip from Friday night of CNN's Don Lemon's panel of liberal hacks (except one) accusing white, pro-Trump women of being racist fools who support white supremacy.
Liberal contributor Kirsten Powers argued that such women must be "racist" because they voted for Trump, while UC Berkeley Professor Stephanie Jones-Rogers argued that women have long benefited from "white supremacy" even while being "oppressed" by white men. Alice Stewart was the exception to the liberal rule.
Kirsten Powers admonished white women for bad behavior. Despite also being "oppressed" under white patriarchy, Powers asserted that white women vote in ways that harm other disadvantaged groups because their "fathers...husbands...and brothers" are benefiting from systemic racism and thus they are as well.
From Powers:
I think we have to recognize that white men are doing it as well, but sometimes I think that we would hope that we would get better behavior from white women because white women are themselves are oppressed and that they would be able to align themselves with other oppressed people.
I think we have to remember that the white patriarchal system actually benefits white women in a lot of ways, and they are attached to white men who are benefiting from the system that was created by them, for them. And their fathers and their husbands and their brothers are benefiting from the system, and so they are also benefiting.
Professor Jones-Rogers agreed with this sentiment, adding that these women have a "deep investment" in white supremacy.
From Jones-Rogers:
We tend to think of white women primarily focusing on gender oppression -- that because they are oppressed as women, that that oppression will allow them to ally and to sympathize with other dispossessed and other disempowered peoples in the nation.
But my research actually shows that they long had deep investment in white supremacy, and not only did they benefit from it, but they participated in its construction and its perpetuation -- not just in the context of slavery, not just in the colonial period, but well after slavery was over.
This is nothing but pure vote-shaming. Townhall contributor and Moms for America Media Director Amy Clark addressed similar claims last week in her column, "Vote-Shaming is the New 'Get Back in the Kitchen'".
From Clark:
Of course, they dishonestly chose only the examples that fit their narrative while ignoring contests with minority Republican candidates. The same pundits who are outraged over Republican women voters in Florida and Georgia conveniently fail to mention the Senate race in Michigan, which obviously didn’t fit the “white women who vote for a white candidate over black candidate amounts to racism” storyline. Identity politics is as exhausting as it is damaging to any sort of productive dialogue in our nation.
...
For conservatives like me, it has everything to do with a candidate’s stance on life, liberty and limited government, and nothing to do with what they happen to look like. It’s really that simple. The dishonesty of their knee-jerk “racism” argument seeks to erase the legitimacy of half of all women voters and completely devalues minority candidates who run as a Republican.
Clark continues, saying, "Vote-shaming is the 2018 equivalent of “get back in the kitchen”... that’s how far back it sets our voice in the civic arena. It’s not just shocking, it’s a shameful parody of what was once a noble struggle for the equal rights of women."
CNN's panel can be seen here:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member