In America I would say no, however I do believe in Canada we have accomplished much of the goals of second wave feminism. I know in Canada woman can struggle to find a place in a domestic violence shelter so I just kind of assume in America it's not going to be any better since we are more socialist in our funding. I could be wrong about that though. Same goes for reproductive rights. I didn't read her platform in depth but I do think she failed to really express how she would help woman. I do think that over her career she has listened and grown as new information and feminist ideas came around but I don't think she did it fast enough.

The thing about third wave feminism is it came about because woman's priorities are a lot more diverse than the previous two waves were. If feminism is supposed to work for all woman than it has to be diverse enough to encompass all their individual concerns. That's why we have terms like "sex positive feminist" because it describes feminism that is inclusive of sex workers. Feminism today is inclusive of everybody while also not being...It's confusing as fuck which is why I don't think campaigning on it works very well. Different groups focus more heavily on different things and to them that is the most important issue. I think speaking more about second wave things would have worked but that's also very socialist. I mean if you think about it most of the countries that achieved a good amount of time for maternity leave are now moving on to paternity leave while America is still on the first. So even if she does talk about better maternity leave she has to skip a step and also talk about paternity leave which is even more socialist than the already socialist countries. If she doesn't then she pisses off the people who realize better paternity leave benefits both woman and men in the workplace so she seems backwards or stuck in the past. It's tricky.

I believe that, morally, it is societies job to pick the answer to our problems that results in universally mutual benefit, not utilitarian benefit. When faced with a choice of having a group lose out so others can win we should NEVER make that choice.

What we see is not people who will benefit trump, but a lashing out after years of neglect. These people aren't voting trump, in my belief, because they believe he will fix their problems. I, instead, believe they vote trump because he is the only option they have had in the past many years, republican or democrat, who has spoken the things they want to hear. Not on the racial side, which I feel largely wins over the south, but on the economic side which won over the rust belt. These people want isolationism, they want protectionism, and they haven't gotten it. Even just a little bit would have been enough, just enough protectionism to keep their lives at least somewhat in place, to at least have a mutually beneficial, slow, transition period where it would have been easy to train them and move them out.

The industries are gone, they aren't coming back. Trump is an idiot. However, this is why you don't pick the option that pushes down one group to build up another. the group you pushed down will spring right the fuck up and destroy all the wealth we created from our "net-beneficial" decision, leaving us worse off than if we hadn't made that choice.

This applies to race, it applies to gender, it applies to all sorts of places. We've got a lot of this "destroying" going on. We've got black people rioting in cities and continually getting angrier and angrier at their treatment. We've got these people voting for Trump. We've got anger and rage and single-sidedness all over the place, because over and over again we are choosing to take these groups that are acting "irrationally" and benefit off of their suffering.

Want to stop these people voting for trump? Invest in them, make them wealthy, make them happy. Until we do, and I understand it's hard as hell to just "make them" happy and wealthy, they are not going to stop tearing things down, and the only people who are to blame are the ones who put them where they are. Be it the wealthy people who abuse and control the south through their lies, or the democrats who appear to ignore their desires and treat them with malice rather than understanding, that is our enemy, not the people doing seemingly irrational things.

Democrats have followed the numbers. Increase GDP. Follow the poll groups that show the turnouts, do everything by the book. The book was wrong. Numbers that should be there are missing. We need to stop following it.

These people, these people saying "it's white feminism, that's at fault!" are going to take the symptoms and exaggerate them. They want to benefit, and they want to do so even if it is at the cost of other groups. No. Do not let them do that. Is it fair? I don't care. What matters is that we should seek to uplift everyone. Not necessarily equally, but we do need to not ignore them. We do need to not say "don't ask me to empathize with them. If you want to benefit, if you want to be better off, stop trying to do it maximally, and start trying to do it universally.

What we need is progressive ideals for all people. What we need is to include all people when we say we want to make this world better. Not just say we are, but act and speak and feel and hold ourselves as if we are. Feel the same rage they do, the same empathy for others that you might for your neighbor.

Until then, this isn't going to stop happening.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/stop-asking-me-to-empathize-with-the-white-working-class/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/5cqu8c/stop_asking_me_to_empathize_with_the_white/

I refuse to take part in the endless privileging of white pain above all others. (Martin Gilens, who has studied this stuff going way back, notes that when the media face of poverty is white, this country suddenly gets a lot more compassionate.) Latinos and African Americans remain worse off than the white working class—which is still the “largest demographic bloc in the workforce”—by pretty much every measurable outcome, from home ownership to life expectancy. Where are these appeals for us when we protest or riot against the systemic inequality we live with? Where are all the calls to recognize and understand our anger?

The people who promote this "non-white" feminism are not the sort of people we want running the democratic party. Now, they aren't saying that X people deserve to be worse off, it's more a "we are more in pain, why aren't we being helped?", I understand that. However, they certainly aren't going to do a U turn and say "yes, we need to focus on helping all these other groups".